Joe Giganti
Five minutes and counting
By Joe Giganti
It's hard to believe it was just three weeks ago that President George W. Bush was sworn into his second term. Making the event even more poignant for many among the gathered masses was that the inauguration coincided with the 32nd annual March for Life. Since 1972, millions have made the pilgrimage to Washington, D.C., to denounce the Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton decisions and to protest the resulting loss of almost 50 million children.
Pro-lifers voted Bush into office because they wanted a leader willing to actively confront this national crisis. One would assume that, given the importance that this voting block played in his elections, the president would be interested in delivering.
Whether you love him, hate him or merely tolerate him, it cannot be denied that President Bush has demonstrated the ability to lead — when he has the desire to do just that.
Obvious examples include Bush's campaign from the bully pulpit to justify the war in Iraq, and the administration's latest pet project, privatizing social security. In blitzkrieg-like fashion, the latter initiative was launched during the president's State of the Union speech. Since then, Bush has been on a multi-state tour touting the plan.
Obviously, the president and his administration understand the power of the bully pulpit. For example, the insta-polls following the State of the Union showed a dramatic increase in public support for personal retirement accounts (PRAs), which the president had just plugged in his speech.
Yet less than three months after winning re-election, the administration is already sending strong signals that they are not willing to use the same platform to aid the pro-life agenda.
Since January 20, President Bush has had five major speaking opportunities to address the need to end abortion. Sadly, a review of his inauguration speech, weekly radio address, March for Life comments, State of the Union address, and National Prayer Breakfast speech reveals that Bush has spent a grand total of about five minutes championing the sanctity of human life.
This is not an exaggeration. Literally, it's been barely five minutes. Total. About four minutes of that time comprised Bush's telephone remarks to the March for Life. The remaining minute is culled from bits, pieces and rhetorical lines uttered in the other four major addresses made in the past two weeks.
That the president phoned the March from Camp David is itself a sign of the administration's ambivalence toward pro-lifers. At least in years past, the administration made the excuse that the president had pressing national business in another state. According to the White House, the president was at Camp David — a 30-minute helicopter ride from Washington — because he needed a three-day weekend. I guess all of those inauguration parties can be quite draining.
But let's cut to the quick. When asked directly in January 2005 by the New York Times what "specific steps he will take to promote...the 'culture of life' and whether the ultimate goal should be to overturn Roe v. Wade," Bush responded: "...I fully understand our society is divided on the issue and that there will be abortions. That's reality. ...to me my job is to try to convince people to make right choices in life, to understand there are alternatives to abortion, like adoption, and I will continue to do so."
At this year's March, Bush said, "A true culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws," a reiteration of his 2003 Rose Garden press conference remark that the time was not right to overturn Roe — "I don't think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or Congress would totally ban abortions." This line of thinking should have pro-lifers worried. As pro-life activist Stephen Peroutka pointed out in a recent Washington Times article, "That's a tough thing to say to the 4,000 babies who will be aborted tomorrow — that this is not the right time to outlaw abortion."
News flash Mr. Bush: The goal of the pro-life movement has always been to end abortion by overturning the Roe and Doe decisions, and the passage of a paramount human life amendment.
Unfortunately, it appears the president does not share this goal. Even more disappointing is his failure to disclose this fact to the millions of pro-lifers who put him into office specifically because they want Roe and Doe overturned.
Fearing that cynicism has consumed me, many well-intentioned pro-lifers attempt to explain this away by claiming that the president is waging a "covert" pro-life war. They believe that the administration is waiting until just the right moment to strike in a blaze of glory, thereby restoring "balance to the force" and making all things right in the cosmos. Move over George Lucas.
Surprisingly, few pro-lifers question the whole "clandestine approach" theory. Pro-lifers need to stop fooling themselves with this notion. There is no approach, clandestine or otherwise. Even if there were, polls show Americans are becoming more pro-life, so why all the purported sneaking around?
Ronald Reagan did not have the benefit of an American public so favorably disposed to a pro-life viewpoint, yet he was unequivocal in his support for the right-to-life. On January 22, 1983, President Reagan appeared on national television to pledge his support for the March for Life and urged congressional approval of legislation that would end abortion-on-demand. That same year, Reagan became the only U.S. president to publish a book, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation," that openly stated the need to repeal Roe and Doe.
President Bush's promised inaction is clearly a regression from Reagan's approach. So why is the pro-life movement so comfortable accepting what appears to be a "three steps back, one step forward" mentality — especially when it appears that the president has no intention of taking concrete steps to move the pro-life agenda closer to victory?
But, there is still hope for the movement. Just because pro-lifers aren't on the president's agenda today, doesn't mean it can't happen tomorrow. In actuality, the pro-life movement has more opportunity at this point in history to advance than at virtually any other time, but we must have the will to win.
Pro-lifers must have the will to go toe-to-toe with the pro-abort mentality, a mindset that never allows for exceptions or compromise. Pro-lifers should not feel guilt or the need to apologize for being 100 percent pro-life without exception.
This also means having the will to take a good, hard look at the groups, individuals and politicians we support. It's time to employ the same "take no prisoners" approach with supposedly pro-life politicians, think tanks, lobbying groups and non-profits as the pro-aborts do with their people.
The time has come to call in all the "markers" pro-lifers have given the Republican party. The GOP holds majorities in the House, Senate, governorships, many state legislatures and controls the White House. If the Republican Party wants the pro-life vote, then it must be willing to support the pro-life movement — from the top down.
We must have the will to tell President Bush to show the same commitment to unborn Americans as he does for such issues as the social security crisis.
If the people we elect as pro-lifers do not have the courage to defend the innocent unborn, then we need to have the courage to stop supporting them.
© Joe Giganti
It's hard to believe it was just three weeks ago that President George W. Bush was sworn into his second term. Making the event even more poignant for many among the gathered masses was that the inauguration coincided with the 32nd annual March for Life. Since 1972, millions have made the pilgrimage to Washington, D.C., to denounce the Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton decisions and to protest the resulting loss of almost 50 million children.
Pro-lifers voted Bush into office because they wanted a leader willing to actively confront this national crisis. One would assume that, given the importance that this voting block played in his elections, the president would be interested in delivering.
Whether you love him, hate him or merely tolerate him, it cannot be denied that President Bush has demonstrated the ability to lead — when he has the desire to do just that.
Obvious examples include Bush's campaign from the bully pulpit to justify the war in Iraq, and the administration's latest pet project, privatizing social security. In blitzkrieg-like fashion, the latter initiative was launched during the president's State of the Union speech. Since then, Bush has been on a multi-state tour touting the plan.
Obviously, the president and his administration understand the power of the bully pulpit. For example, the insta-polls following the State of the Union showed a dramatic increase in public support for personal retirement accounts (PRAs), which the president had just plugged in his speech.
Yet less than three months after winning re-election, the administration is already sending strong signals that they are not willing to use the same platform to aid the pro-life agenda.
Since January 20, President Bush has had five major speaking opportunities to address the need to end abortion. Sadly, a review of his inauguration speech, weekly radio address, March for Life comments, State of the Union address, and National Prayer Breakfast speech reveals that Bush has spent a grand total of about five minutes championing the sanctity of human life.
This is not an exaggeration. Literally, it's been barely five minutes. Total. About four minutes of that time comprised Bush's telephone remarks to the March for Life. The remaining minute is culled from bits, pieces and rhetorical lines uttered in the other four major addresses made in the past two weeks.
That the president phoned the March from Camp David is itself a sign of the administration's ambivalence toward pro-lifers. At least in years past, the administration made the excuse that the president had pressing national business in another state. According to the White House, the president was at Camp David — a 30-minute helicopter ride from Washington — because he needed a three-day weekend. I guess all of those inauguration parties can be quite draining.
But let's cut to the quick. When asked directly in January 2005 by the New York Times what "specific steps he will take to promote...the 'culture of life' and whether the ultimate goal should be to overturn Roe v. Wade," Bush responded: "...I fully understand our society is divided on the issue and that there will be abortions. That's reality. ...to me my job is to try to convince people to make right choices in life, to understand there are alternatives to abortion, like adoption, and I will continue to do so."
At this year's March, Bush said, "A true culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws," a reiteration of his 2003 Rose Garden press conference remark that the time was not right to overturn Roe — "I don't think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or Congress would totally ban abortions." This line of thinking should have pro-lifers worried. As pro-life activist Stephen Peroutka pointed out in a recent Washington Times article, "That's a tough thing to say to the 4,000 babies who will be aborted tomorrow — that this is not the right time to outlaw abortion."
News flash Mr. Bush: The goal of the pro-life movement has always been to end abortion by overturning the Roe and Doe decisions, and the passage of a paramount human life amendment.
Unfortunately, it appears the president does not share this goal. Even more disappointing is his failure to disclose this fact to the millions of pro-lifers who put him into office specifically because they want Roe and Doe overturned.
Fearing that cynicism has consumed me, many well-intentioned pro-lifers attempt to explain this away by claiming that the president is waging a "covert" pro-life war. They believe that the administration is waiting until just the right moment to strike in a blaze of glory, thereby restoring "balance to the force" and making all things right in the cosmos. Move over George Lucas.
Surprisingly, few pro-lifers question the whole "clandestine approach" theory. Pro-lifers need to stop fooling themselves with this notion. There is no approach, clandestine or otherwise. Even if there were, polls show Americans are becoming more pro-life, so why all the purported sneaking around?
Ronald Reagan did not have the benefit of an American public so favorably disposed to a pro-life viewpoint, yet he was unequivocal in his support for the right-to-life. On January 22, 1983, President Reagan appeared on national television to pledge his support for the March for Life and urged congressional approval of legislation that would end abortion-on-demand. That same year, Reagan became the only U.S. president to publish a book, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation," that openly stated the need to repeal Roe and Doe.
President Bush's promised inaction is clearly a regression from Reagan's approach. So why is the pro-life movement so comfortable accepting what appears to be a "three steps back, one step forward" mentality — especially when it appears that the president has no intention of taking concrete steps to move the pro-life agenda closer to victory?
But, there is still hope for the movement. Just because pro-lifers aren't on the president's agenda today, doesn't mean it can't happen tomorrow. In actuality, the pro-life movement has more opportunity at this point in history to advance than at virtually any other time, but we must have the will to win.
Pro-lifers must have the will to go toe-to-toe with the pro-abort mentality, a mindset that never allows for exceptions or compromise. Pro-lifers should not feel guilt or the need to apologize for being 100 percent pro-life without exception.
This also means having the will to take a good, hard look at the groups, individuals and politicians we support. It's time to employ the same "take no prisoners" approach with supposedly pro-life politicians, think tanks, lobbying groups and non-profits as the pro-aborts do with their people.
The time has come to call in all the "markers" pro-lifers have given the Republican party. The GOP holds majorities in the House, Senate, governorships, many state legislatures and controls the White House. If the Republican Party wants the pro-life vote, then it must be willing to support the pro-life movement — from the top down.
We must have the will to tell President Bush to show the same commitment to unborn Americans as he does for such issues as the social security crisis.
If the people we elect as pro-lifers do not have the courage to defend the innocent unborn, then we need to have the courage to stop supporting them.
© Joe Giganti
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
