you're reading...
Politics, Social Justice

Pro-life vs. Pro-birth: A Case of Republican Hypocrisy

“One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living.” -Ayn Rand

The fact is, the GOP needs to stop identifying themselves as pro-life when what they really are is pro-birth. At first, the terms may seem synonymous, as well as a controversial aspect of the Republican rhetoric, but a closer look at the Republican party platform demonstrates that the two terms are vastly different.

A pro-birther is someone who wants to outlaw birth control and sex education, someone who does not support abortion even in the case of rape, someone who believes life starts the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, but once the baby is born, well, that’s where the compassion ends. Upon reading ‘The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life’ section in the 2012 Republican Party Platform which seeks to redefine human life in the Constitution, you’ll soon realize there is no mention of exemptions for cases of rape or incest, nor anything protecting the health and safety of the mother. Within the lack of acknowledgement for the potential endangerment of the mother during pregnancy or childbirth, the first hypocrisy arises — what about the mother’s life? If promoting the sanctity of every human life is truly a Republican priority, the protection of the mother’s life should not be ignored either.

The “Human Life Amendment” or HR 212, proposed by the Republican party, essentially gives a fertilized egg the same rights as a human outside the womb, and effectively overturns Roe v. Wade. But what about after life inside the womb? How can the GOP claim to be pro-life when they want to stop funding that benefits the life of a child? The GOP knows that being pro-life is an essential aspect of their portrayal of conservative Christian values, but they also know being genuinely pro-life would cost them. Their elitist philosophy, disguised as advocation for pro-lifers, supports a budget that cuts funding for:

  • Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
  • Support for at-risk children and babies
  • Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
  • Daycares and early childhood education
  • Medicaid for low-income moms seeking healthcare for their children
  • Education programs and Pell Grants
  • Child protection workers dealing with child abuse and neglect
  • Planned Parenthood (which provides numerous services after birth not just safe abortion and affordable prenatal care)

Basically any program in place to support at-risk children is a target for the GOP. So it’s pretty obvious that pro-life as defined by Republicans, isn’t really pro-life at all. They’re so hard pressed on protecting the sanctity of human life for a whole nine months*, but after that, all you’re left with is a big fat ‘screw you’.

Republicans want to eliminate all the programs that would help low-income single moms raise the children that they would be forced to have under Republican legislation. Their agenda does not support life — it supports forced birth, it supports child development budget cuts and it supports the government’s right to control a woman’s body. So for clarity’s sake, just because you don’t agree with abortion that doesn’t make you pro-life. If you don’t want your tax dollars to help support children that were born into low-income families, then you aren’t pro-life — you’re pro-birth, all talk and no walk.

The GOP wants to seem caring and compassionate; they want you to think they have humanity’s best interest in mind. The thing is, that’s total bullshit. They don’t even want people to have the option of preventing pregnancy. So I have to wonder, when a Republican looks at a woman, do they see a woman or baby-making machine, designed for the sole purpose of procreating?Because there’s nothing compassionate about forcing a woman to give birth and then taking away all her resources to raise the child in a  healthy home.

Now don’t get me wrong, pro-lifers do exist, just not in the way the GOP has defined them. A true pro-life advocate is first and foremost pro-choice because he/she doesn’t believe the government should control a woman’s reproductive rights. A true pro-lifer does not want birth control to be taken away and while he/she does not support abortion, he/she believes a woman should be able to have one if she is met with the unfortunate circumstance of pregnancy from rape or incest. A true pro-lifer understands that responsibility for a life does not end at birth, and therefore likes the idea of his/her tax dollars helping underprivileged children receive the medical and social care they need. A true pro-lifer knows that everybody’s situation is different, and one federal law that does not take into account all these personal circumstances is not reasonable, and not viable for a society predicated on social growth, which is why he/she would support the pro-choice movement, because it is exactly that — a choice.

*There’s no room for prenatal care in their budget, so they wouldn’t be doing much for those nine months either.



No comments yet.

What Are Your Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: