Vote anti-life to save lives?
This is the argument recently put forth by some who claim, first, that a politician's stand on abortion should not be the defining issue for those pro-life and, second, that abortions go down under presidents who are pro-abortion. These claims are based on some rather injudicious massaging of available data and demonstrate the veracity of Samuel Clemmons' assertion that there are "liars, damn liars and statisticians". If you're one of those who believes that in voting for anti-life candidates you're actually forwarding the pro-life cause, think again. This argument has been dismantled by a number of folks, most recently by Michael New over at the National Review Online. Please read the whole column, in which he concludes:
During the past 31 years, the right-to-life movement has worked tirelessly to protect the unborn. Progress has not come as quickly as many of us would like. However, political victories at the federal level in the 1980s and at the state level in the 1990s have made it easier to pass pro-life legislation. This legislation has been effective at protecting the unborn and has paid some real dividends. Furthermore, considering the fact that the next president may have the opportunity to nominate as many as four justices to the Supreme Court, the right-to-life movement would be well advised to stay the course in 2004.I couldn't agree more. You may disagree with the way the war on terrorism is being conducted. You may think the war in Iraq is a huge mistake. You may believe the economy is going in the wrong direction. (I think you're wrong on all counts...) But, there can be no doubt that only one candidate will appoint federal judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, who will be restrained and who will be more likely to uphold the right to life. Consider wisely!