First, Frist should consider divesting from this investment if he is pro-life. Profiting from abortions because they are legal is far different from profiting from some piece of legislation that makes one economic policy decision trump another. For instance, one might be for tort reform, but might still practice law as a plaintiff's tort attorney. Why, becuase people don't die from that decision. Thus, pursuing a livelihood that is legal, but whose relative benefits to society are questioned as poilicy on the margins, is acceptable -- even if it is not laudable.
Abortion, however, kills people. And one cannot wrap one's self in the banner of a Conservative pro-lifer as the leader of the party, while accepting money from that practice IMHO. In addition, Frist may describe himself as Pro-life, but like virtually all Americans, he seems to either ignore the hypocracy of the exceptions he endorses, or he endorses them for political gain.
If one believes that life begins at conception, thus creating the a human at its earliest form, together with all the DNA necessary to be a human, than exceptions for rape and incest make no sense. We do not punish the children of criminals with the death penalty, because of the act of their parents. (e.g. One would not recommend that we kill the 5 year-old child of a man convicted of rape.) Why then, would we so easily caste aside his child in the mother? The answers, of course are hard. But they always lead to a pro-choice conclusion. That is, we do so because it is unfair to the mother, because of stigma and trauma for the mother, because the baby is unwanted by the mother, etc. And make no mistake, those circumstances are grave and understandable, but do not warrant killing a child if one believes in a true pro-life position.
Frankly, the only legitimate and difficult question is the exception for the life of the mother. In that circumstance, one life is truly pitted against another. (The occurences of these true risks are very small, but noteworthy on the discussion). In my opinion, the law cannot force a mother to give her life for another, though the law should not be that one could not choose to accept that risk if the mother so desired. Thus, the question is, does the life of the mother trump the life of the child within, if the end result is death for at least one. Regrettfully, I find as a matter of legality that a mother must be afforded that choice if a doctor determines, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the mother will dies if the pregnancy continues.
Personally, I do not think my wife and I could make that decision, though no one knows until that time. But as a legal policy consistent with principles of liberty, self-determination, and the common law, the best interest of the mother outweighs the child in that very rare circumstance.
Abortion, under any other circumstance, knows no legal, moral, or logical reasoning that can wither logical examination. Thus, those who purport to be pro-life and for exceptions on rape and incest, either have not rigorously examined the issue, or they have made a political calculation based upon society's mis-informed view in that area.
Frist is a doctor, and he should have an understanding of the issue greater than others. That he waivers on the exceptions, and that he profits from abortion practice should, if nothing else, give conservatives genuine pause as to his ability to lead this party. I for one, have that concern. And, though unity serves the party well in the short-term, principle will determine our success going forward. Accordingly, I am loathe to get excited by this Candidate until I see him step up to the plate and defend those innocently executed by abortion.
A great summation.
Thank you.