According to some exit polls and conventional wisdom, something like 22% of Bush voters in 2004 listed "moral values" as the number 1 issue that led them to pull the lever (connect the arrow in Oklahoma) for Bush. It is likely that these "moral values" are narrowly defined as being against same-sex marriage and against reproductive freedom for women. Interestingly, despite all the rhetoric, both campaigns opposed same sex marriage and supported civil unions being left to the states.
On the issue of reproductive choice, it is likely that those whom consider themselves "pro-life" is terms of abortion, voted for Bush. However, the implication of an article by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen from the Fuller Theological Seminary is that these "pro-life" voters might have voted for the wrong candidate.
Abortion was decreasing. When President George W. Bush took office, the nation’s abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (The data come from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute’s studies.)
Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.
I found sixteen states that have posted statistics for 2001 and 2002. The number of abortions in those states increased in that one year by a total of 6,207. The ten states for which I have data for 2000 and 2001 had an increase of 4,067 in 2001, and the five states for which I have data in 2003 had an increase of 5,651 by comparison with 2000. Since these are actual reports and not merely polls of states with about thirty million women, The Z-test of statistical significance shows these increases were significant beyond 99.99% as representative of the U.S. It extrapolates to an increase of about 20,000 per year in the fifty states, instead of the expected decline of 28,000. That means 48,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.
Stassen goes on to explain why this might be the case:
First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life website). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current Administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.
Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the sixteen states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the sixteen states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 6,207 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.
Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency – with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million – abortion increases.
The U.S. Catholic bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know – as does my son David – that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons, and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, every father, and every child needs public and family support.
What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without healthcare, health insurance, jobs, childcare, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.
If indeed the goal of "pro-life" voters is to reduce (or even eliminate) the number of abortions, then perhaps they should consider widening their understanding of "moral values."
For context, here is a graph representing the number of abortions from 1973-2000. (click on image to make larger)
