Following the passing of Justice Ginsburg, there was a cacophony of complaints about the hypocrisy of Senate Republicans, due to their apparent flipping on their 2016 stance on appointing a Supreme Court justice in an election year. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) sought to explain the difference between 2016 and now. He pointed out that today both the White House and the Senate are controlled by the same party, which was not true in 2016. His point is well taken except that not a single Republican used that to justify their denial of President Obama’s attempt to appoint a replacement for Justice Scalia.

We cannot stop with Republican hypocrisy since the positons of Democratic Senators has also been reversed from 2016. Is it surprising to find politicians being hypocritical? The question must be asked, “Why the rush or delay in appointing a replacement for RBG?”

The answer is concern about abortion since a conservative Court might overturn Roe v Wade. Most Americans would agree that Democrats tend to favor abortion and Republicans want to see abortions decreased if not eliminated. A set of data released by the CDC reveals a surprising truth. While abortions decreased during Republican administrations since 1981, with a four percent reduction during the 12 years of the Reagan and Bush 41 presidencies and a 3% reduction for Bush 43, abortions decreased 30% during Clinton’s eight years and decreased 26% when Obama was president.

A clue to these seemingly unexpected numbers is that birth control methods were pushed by Democratic administrations. It seems the problem is not abortions but unwanted pregnancies, thus, rather than making abortions illegal, simply promote serious efforts at contraception.

Unfortunately, many of those who oppose abortion also oppose contraception, probably due to a Biblical command to not waste one’s seed. If these folks are serious about following Old Testament commands, they must refrain from eating cheeseburgers and pepperoni pizza since eating dairy and meat together is forbidden in that book.

No discussion of abortion should conclude without mention of a classic scenario, A young man has life-threatening kidney disease and will die within six months without a replacement. Only one acceptable kidney can be found and that belongs to the man’s father, who has no use for his son, and refuses to donate a kidney despite that both of his are healthy.

Pro-life politicians must demand that the government order the father to make the donation to preserve life. Meanwhile pro-choice politicians must allow the father to control his own body, despite a life will be cut short by this choice. I would love to hear somebody passionate about abortion rights (either side) discuss the solution to this dilemma.

0
0
0
0
0

E-Edition Newsletters