Au contraire. Support for abortion in our culture has tanked in 35 years. Three decades ago, public figures advertised their support for abortion as a positive good—a liberation for women. That eroded by the Clinton years, when Planned Parenthood started using the expression "pro-choice," in order not to name the "love" that could no longer be named.
Today, actual abortions are down from 1.6 million in 1990 to about 1.1 million annually. Popular support for abortion is at such a low ebb that, to protect Obama, the MSM debate moderators avoid the subject entirely. They remember the damage to Obama caused by Rick Warren, who, simply by asking each candidate when life begins, knocked about 8 points off Obama's support.
Part of what influences a culture, especially in terms of whether a certain crime is tolerated, is whether public figures support it or denounce it. In short, simply by running as pro-life candidates, politicians restore respect for life.
I'm leaving out the easy part of my argument: If you think pro-life politicians don't get anything done, look at George W. Bush's record on life, and his public witness in words and deeds. That's why Pope Benedict has always had such immense respect for him. Both men know that life is the ultimate issue that grounds all the others, because it is about justice and charity.
Very well said.
I tend to think politicians follow culture in the long run, and events in the short run, rather than propelling either to any great extent. To their everlasting credit, Americans don’t let politicians make up their mind for them on questions of importance.
Given that I don’t set much store on the pro-life (or, for that matter, pro-choice) politician’s bully pulpit.
When we assess concrete pro-life contribution of politicians, it’s hard to see anything beyond the symbolic. Springing post-Roe laws? Symbolic. Partial birth abortion bans? Symbolic — has even one child been brought to term who would have been aborted otherwise due to this law? Public funds bans? As a restraint on abortion, symbolic — poor women are by far the most prolific consumers of abortion, and get them deeply (if privately) subsidized. Women so poor and disorganized as not to get an abortion due to lack of funds probably would have failed to fill out the paperwork to qualify for public funds anyway.
In terms of President Bush — I suppose we’ll see about Alito and Roberts. But note, even with Republican majorities in the Senate, neither was able to say anything about Roe v. Wade. Do you think an Obama nominee (perish the thought) will have to be so coy? They’ll advertise it on their lapels that they will vote to affirm Roe.
That needs to be run again a few times before the election.