Pro-Life, Anti-Contraception, or Pro-Whatever is in Their Best Interests?

It would seem to me that anyone with a little bit of common sense and a basic understanding of human reproduction would understand that birth control and abortion both represent alternative means of achieving the same goal: the prevention of unwanted babies. Research performed by respectable organizations like the Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on sexual and reproductive health worldwide, consistently show that the rise of contraceptive use results in the reduced rates of abortion. Why, then, does this proven relationship continue to provoke such heated discussion and challenge?

In a recent editorial in the Baltimore Sun, Cristina Page cautions critical thinking Americans about the “the quiet campaign against birth control” that is creeping around our nation. In fact, she warns the American public about being unaware of this new wave of anti-contraception campaigning by opponents of abortion, which, in turn, makes it much easier for politicians to pacify all of their anti-contraception voters (although, I wonder who these voters are since recent polls do indicate that 91% of Americans strongly favor the use of birth control, including 80% of those who would consider themselves to be pro-life voters).

As responsible and educated voters, it is critical that we pay attention to what politicians and our government is doing – right under our noses. Look at how our own President has devalued the rights of American women during his debauchery of a presidency. As Page points out, President Bush “has delivered some big anti-abortion victories for the religious right” through his nominations for Supreme Court Justices to the so-called partial-birth abortion ban. What’s worse is that he has spent even more energy promoting his anti-contraception agenda. Yep...he attempted to take away contraceptive coverage for federal employees while also appointing anti-birth control leader David Hager to the FDA panel that approves and expands access to birth control methods. Additionally, our President has managed to take away funding from international family-planning programs and has wasted many a tax payer’s money by investing a record high amount of it into abstinence-only education programs that are not allowed to discuss contraception (and, I might add, have also been proven to be completely ineffective).

A key politician that Christina Page warns against is Mitt Romney, who is after the endorsement of the National Right to Life; Mr. Romney has quite an “admirable” record: he hopes to overturn Roe v. Wade, supports teaching abstinence-only to teens and claims he already has practice "redefining contraception”, by vetoing an emergency contraception bill that gave young girls access to Plan B without prescription or parental consent. As Page explains, it doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines here; Mr. Romney should have just professed his opposition to the birth control pill and eagerness to join in efforts to scale back access to birth control. His message, vote for me, so we can “reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions” – I’m running to the polls. Anyone care to join me?

Another person worthly of caution is Arizona Republican, Sen. John McCain. Page advises us to be aware that his campaign officials boast that McCain has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." And lucky for us, Mr. McCain relies on Sen. Tom Coburn as his adviser on sexual-health matters - who, by the way, heads campaigns asserting that condoms are unsafe (huh? Did I miss something here? ) and opposes emergency contraception. Does it seem odd to any of you that Sen. McCain has missed 43 straight Senate votes…yet I guess he had no problem showing up when it was time to cast his vote against funding birth control programs.

Other candidates on the “contraception-is-abortion" band-wagon include: Fred Thompson, Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo. So, my fellow citizens, it appears that this upcoming election year, “the unspoken rule for candidates seeking the support of anti-abortion groups is that they must offer proof they're anti-contraception too.” The lesson, be mindful of the PERSON you cast your vote for. I will leave you with the following quotes to ponder:

• Fred Thompson: "I am pro-life. I have 100% voting record on the pro-life issues. … Intellectually, and politically, and from a policy standpoint, I've always voted that way."
• Sam Brownback: “ I am pro-life and I'm whole life.”
• Tom Tancredo (when asked, would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?): “After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that, in fact, is overturned.”
• Mitt Romney: “I am firmly pro-life.”
• John McCain: “I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it. As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn.”

It just seems strangely ironic and completely nonsensical to me that these politicians could take such stances given this final bit of information that I will impart. How can the same person make the comments listed above, and then do or say the following:

John McCain has openly defended and supported the war in Iraq, to the point of stating that withdrawing from the war would be a historic mistake. Fred Thompson faulted those calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq, saying it would hurt the overall fight against terrorism. In addition to McCain and Thompson, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo voted yes on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. And finally, Mitt Romney said, "Voting against our troops during a time of war shows the American people that the leaders of the Democrat Party will abandon principle in favor of political positioning…Their votes render them undependable in the eyes of the men and women of the United States military and the American people." I think that Mr. Romney should stop judging his opponents and take a deep, hard look at himself and his dependability.

Why is it okay for him to “abandon principle in favor of political positioning?” How could 5 men who so firmly profess their belief in the value of human life and be so disgusted by the “death” of unborn children, have no problem authorizing the US military to go kill other people in a war? They have no issues about voting to allow American civilians to fight and protect the US. Why is it okay to allow our fellow citizens to partake in a venture where they run a huge risk of losing their lives? These politicians are not pro-life; they are pro-convenience, pro-telling their potential voters what they want to hear in order to obtain votes, pro-themselves and pro-their careers. I am sorry, but so far, 3,774 Americans have lost their lives in a war that these politicians voted YES to authorize and/or have openly expressed their agreement in.

3,774 Dead – Doesn’t sound like pro-life to me.

Photo Courtesy of Spencer Platt/Getty Images