Griffin Internet logo

by Thomas A. Droleskey

March 26, 2002     

     Myths die hard. So many pro-life Americans want to 
believe that they have a true champion of the babies in 
the White House. Regardless of President George W. Bush's 
support for the slaughter of the innocent unborn in cases 
of rape, incest, and alleged threats to the life of 
mothers, regardless of his support for the evil of 
federally funded stem cell research, regardless of his 
support for the funding of chemical abortions by means of 
"family planning programs" both here and abroad, 
regardless of his appointment of one pro-abort after 
another to the highest quarters of his administration, he 
is pro-life because he calls himself pro-life. Well, a 
gratuitous assertion by Bush that he is pro-life does not 
make him authentically pro-life any more than his 
gratuitous assertion that Islam "is a religion of peace 
and tolerance" undoes the history of the attempt by 
Mohammedans to overrun and destroy Christian civilization 
in the past 1500 years. It is well past time for pro-
lifers to stop suspending the use of rational thought and 
to begin to examine quite critically the words and 
actions of those who profess themselves to be our 
friends, but who, in reality, are only concerned with 
their own electoral survival.

     As Raymond Burr was wont to say while portraying the 
fictional Chief Robert T. Ironside, "Query." I have a 
query for you. Would a man who said he was opposed to 
racism and anti-Semitism help to raise funds for David 
Duke? Would the leaders of so-called civil rights groups 
and the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai Brith sit back 
while an alleged friend of theirs raised, say, $2 million 
for Duke or some other white supremacist? I don't think 
so. Then, my friends, why is it the case that pro-lifers 
cover their ears and shut their eyes to the harsh reality 
presented to them when they learn that the "pro-life" 
president raised $2 million for the reelection campaign 
of the Catholic Republican pro-abortion governor of the 
State of New York, George Pataki? Would pro-aborts have 
been silent if former President William Jefferson Blyth 
Clinton helped to raise funds, say, for the late governor 
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey? Why, 
then, do pro-lifers keep their mouths shut when a man who 
is simply less pro-abortion than other politicians works 
quite hard to elect total pro-aborts to public office? As 
if the fact of Bush's raising funds for Pataki was not 
bad enough, it is important to note that he did so in the 
apartment of the reprehensibly pro-abortion mayor of the 
City of New York, Michael Bloomberg, who is so pro-
abortion that he wants all medical residents who work in 
the City's public hospitals to be trained in baby-

     President Bush says over and over again that he 
"shares" an important goal with pro-lifers, namely, 
working for the day when "every child will be welcomed in 
life and protected by law," the mantra of the National 
Right to Life Committee (which supports the destruction 
of innocent life under cover of law as a matter of 
principle in cases where it is alleged that a mother's 
life is at risk). As I have noted repeatedly, Bush 
himself does not believe this line that has been given 
him to read by some in the pro-life establishment. He 
supports legalized baby-killing in certain instances, 
thereby contradicting the statement that "every" child 
should be "welcomed in life" and "protected by law." As 
he supports the right of mothers to kill children in 
certain instances, the word "every" is meaningless. Note 
also how Bush does not say that he favors the reversal of 
Roe v. Wade. The language which has been crafted for his 
use is almost Clintonian in its artfulness. The president 
has said in a number of interviews that the country is 
"not ready" for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Several 
members of his Cabinet, including Attorney General John 
Ashcroft, have said that Roe v. Wade is settled law, 
which, as I noted a few months ago, is a line that will 
be used quite a bit by alleged pro-life politicians 
fearful of alienating pro-abort voters ("I am pro-life, 
but there is nothing I can do to reverse abortion, since 
Roe v. Wade is settled law"). How is this country ever 
going to be ready for to reverse a heinous Supreme Court 
decision if its leaders do not believe that is either 
possible or desirable to take political risks to do so?

     More to the point, however, how is President Bush 
going to help to create a climate where "every child will 
be welcomed in life and protected in law" when he works 
so very hard to raise funds for the election of people 
who are committed to the maintenance of legalized baby-
killing on demand? There are no fewer than seven fully 
pro-abortion Republicans in the U.S. Senate (Susan 
Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of 
Rhode Island, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Warner 
of Virginia, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Ben 
Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado). Would the president 
refuse to raise funds for any one of these supporters of 
unrestricted baby-killing? Of course not. As evidenced by 
his willingness to raise funds for George Pataki, who has 
used his governorship to promote abortion just as much as 
his predecessor, Mario Matthew Cuomo, the bond created by 
partisan political ties means more than the blood of the 
innocent unborn. Abortion, as bad as it is, simply cannot 
interfere with the election of one's fellow partisans.

     "Well, what about Health and Human Services 
Secretary Tommy Thompson's announcement before a 
conservative gathering in Washington recently that the 
Bush administration is going to define a "fetus" as an 
"unborn child" as a means of providing medical coverage 
for pregnant women? Isn't that a victory for pro-life?" 
Think again. The announcement was made as an applause 
line at a friendly forum to keep pro-life Indians on the 
Bush reservation. As Judie Brown of the American Life 
League noted in a special Communique she issued on 
February 18, 2002, "HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson created 
a stir earlier this month by announcing plans to expand a 
federal health program to cover the preborn children of 
eligible mothers. The announcement drew a pained response 
from abortion advocates who claimed it would undermine 
Roe v. Wade by assigning personhood to preborn children. 
Since then, however, it is reported that the Bush 
administration has taken no formal action on the 
proposal. In recent days, Thompson is said to have told 
members of Congress that he would seek a compromise to 
'mitigate the harshness of the rhetoric.' The 'harsh 
rhetoric' in question involves the use of the term 
'unborn child.' Colleen Parro of the Republication 
National Coalition for Life reports, 'It is our 
understanding that government regulations are typically 
announced and published in the Federal Register, 
whereupon public comment is sought for a period of 30 to 
60 days. Thereafter, the regulation is either adopted or 
rejected. This regulation appears to be unusual, in that 
the announcement was made on January 31, 2002, but the 
regulation has yet to appear in the Federal Register and 
public comment has not been sought.' COMMENT: Why not? 
Has the supposedly pro-life Bush administration 
capitulated to the abortion industry and pro-abortion 
members of their own party?" No, the Bush administration 
is concerned only about political tokenism, as I noted in 
last month's issue of CHRIST OR CHAOS..

     Pro-lifers in New York cannot let the rush of 
patriotic sentiment unleashed as a result of the 
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks persuade them to 
follow George W. Bush like lemmings. They have the moral 
imperative to vote only for whoever is the candidate of 
the New York State Right to Life Party. The only language 
career politicians understand is votes. We have to remind 
these shallow, cynical careerists that the blood of the 
innocent cries out to God for vengeance, and that we will 
remember the blood of the innocent first and foremost 
when we vote. We do not exist to enable career 
politicians to gain our votes cheaply by the incantation 
of slogans and the offering of small tokens now and then. 
We have been created to give voice to the King of Kings, 
who is in solidarity with every child in every womb as He 
Himself was enfleshed in our Lady's virginal and 
immaculate womb as a helpless embryo. Would our Lord and 
Savior Jesus Christ hold a fundraiser for a pro-abort 
politician? Then why do we look the other way as a man 
who professes to "follow Jesus" does so?

     May the coming Feast of the Annunciation, which will 
be celebrated this year on Monday, April 8, 2002 (the 
feast day, March 25, falls on Monday of Holy Week, and 
cannot be celebrated until after the conclusion of the 
Easter Octave on Divine Mercy Sunday, April 7), remind us 
that every abortion is a crime against the Incarnation. 
Every abortion is a crime against the Mother of God, the 
Mother of Life, the Mother of us all. Is the woman who 
made possible our salvation by her perfect Fiat to the 
will of the Father at the Annunciation pleased when those 
who support baby-killing are enabled by those who claim 
to be against such killing? If our Blessed Mother is not 
pleased, then why should we?

     Our Lady, Mother of the Word Incarnate, pray for us 
to be courageous in our efforts to pray and to work for 
the Triumph of your Immaculate Heart, the ultimate 
expression of which in this vale of tears is the Social 
Kingship of your Son, our King, and your own Queenship 
over us men and our civil societies.

Dr. Thomas Droleskey, speaker and lecturer, is a 
professor of political science, the author of CHRIST IN 
(, and editor of the CHRIST OR 
CHAOS newsletter.

This column is distributed and archived by Griffin 
Internet Syndicate, All rights 

You may forward this column if you use this disclaimer:

Subscribe to Dr. Droleskey's column. 
See "Subscribe" at 
or call 800-513-5053.