Category archives: Life & Bioethics

Dignity as a Litmus Test:
Why Im a Single Issue Voter

by Family Research Council

February 1, 2007

The primaries are still months away, yet conservative Congressman Jim Nussle of Iowa is already coming out in support of Rudy Giuliani. In a note to Rich Lowry at National Review, Nussle wrote:

Perfect has become the enemy of the good, and we saw that borne out during this past Novembers elections. I am hopeful that our Party will avoid needless debates over a non-existent perfect candidate.

It is true that Mayor Giuliani and I dont agree on every issue. My support for a person who doesnt see eye to eye with me on all issues doesnt mean that I am turning my back on those beliefs. But our country is at a crossroads and we cannot forsake progress for perfection.

In examining the letter, Rick Moore makes the connection that Nussle leaves unstated:

Nussle does make the argument that there will never be a perfect candidate, and I fear that too many conservatives have become such single-issue voters (abortion) that they will eagerly back a weaker candidate just because of his views on that one issue alone. In doing so, they not only risk helping elect a Democrat whos not only pro-abortion, but pro-a lot of other stuff that conservatives find abhorrent.

Yes abortion is important, but the president really doesnt have that much control over an issue that has been decided by the courts. President Bush is anti-abortion, but has abortion stopped because hes president? No, and it probably wont until theres a change in the hearts of the people, and while the president may have some effect on that, in reality the president has little to no ability to change abortion in terms of its legal standing.

I am sympathetic to the pragmatism expressed both by Rep. Nussle and my friend Rick. In fact, I agree that the President has little or no control over the issue of abortion. And certain pro-choice candidates, if elected, might even appoint a judge that would help overturn Roe. Even so, I could not endorse anyone who fails on this key litmus test. Why would I hold a candidate responsible for an issue that isn’t under their control? Because I am an unabashed single-issue voter — and that issue is justice.

The justice Im referring to is that which recognizes human dignity as the foundational principle of freedom and human flourishing. Although the terms are not interchangeable, I believe that the term sanctity of life, as defined by philosopher David Gushee, could serve as the standard definition for human dignity within liberal democracies:

The concept of the sanctity of life is the belief that all human beings, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., of any and every particular quality of relationship to the viewing subject, are to be perceived as persons of equal and immeasurable worth and of inviolable dignity and therefore must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status.

Gushee notes that this is first and foremost a moral conviction that carries implications for how human beings are to be perceived and treated. This moral conviction is, I believe, a part of what Christians refer to as common grace and is therefore accessible by natural reason (even though it can be illuminated by supernatural revelation). While we may disagree on how these perceptions shape out moral obligations, I believe we can and should agree to accept this as a standard moral conviction and agree that the best way to recognize their dignity is by being just.

Because the State plays such a significant role in meting justice, we have a duty to elect politicians who have both a robust view of human dignity and the temerity to govern accordingly. Recognizing such characteristics in a politician is certainly an inexact science, which is why we often rely on heuristics like litmus tests. Such tests, of course, are not without problems. Indeed, when applied singularly, the tests may produce false positives. For example, a candidate may oppose abortion and embryo destructive research yet may fail to fully appreciate human dignity in later stages of development. Before we can consider her to be solidly pro-life we would need to know how she would treat children in poverty and our neighbors in the Sudan.

On the other hand, failing on a particular litmus test can signal that the candidate has an inadequate view of human dignity, and would therefore be less than just as a President. For instance, knowing that Giuliani favors partial-birth abortion can be a clue to how he would act on foreign policy issues. If he has no qualms with infanticide in America, why should I believe he cares about the plight of infants in Darfur?

As Nussle writes, the Perfect has become the enemy of the good. Indeed this has often been all too true. Politics is the art of the possible, which sometimes requires the sacrifice of the ideal. But we must not compromise too easily or too willingly, lest we forget that the good can become the enemy of the just.

(Cross-posted at

What a Difference a Day Makes…

by Family Research Council

January 24, 2007

Here is what President Bush said yesterday, to the people at March for Life, about human dignity and protecting life:

Everyone there believes, as I do, that every life is valuable; that our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and weak, the imperfect and even the unwanted; and that our nation should set a great goal that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law.


A merciful society seeks to expand legal protection to every life, including early life. And a compassionate society will defend a simple, moral proposition, life should never be used as a tool, or a means to an end.

These are bedrock principles. and that is why my administration opposes partial-birth abortion and public funding for abortion; — (applause) — why we support teen abstinence and crisis pregnancy programs; adoption and parental notification laws; and why we are against all forms of human cloning.

Here is what President Bush said tonight, to the American people, about human dignity and protecting life:

(Begin speech)







(End speech)

What changed since yesterday, Mr. President?

Blogs for Life Conference

by Jared Bridges

January 22, 2007

The Blogs for Life Conference is underway, and we’ve already heard from some challenging speakers. There’s more to come when the conference resumes at 2:30 PM ET, following the March for Life.

The live webcast will resume at 2:30 as well.

Also, live liveblogging the event are Tim from, Katie Favazza from’s Elocutio blog, as well as Ivy Sellers from Human Events so be sure to check out their coverage.

The Case for Pro-Life Incrementalism

by Family Research Council

January 20, 2007

In preparation for the upcoming Blogs for Life conference, FRC Blog and held a joint symposium on the merits of incrementalism (approaching pro-life issues on an incremental basis, gradually achieving our goals by compromise and exceptions) versus absolutism (settling for nothing less than full legal recognition of the sanctity for life).

One of the most intriguing entries we received comes from Michael New, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama. Because Professor New doesnt have a blog weve decided to post his essay here.


I really appreciate Family Research Councils willingness to allow me to post a comment on the ongoing debate in the pro-life movement between absolutism and incrementalism. Many young pro-lifers do not realize the extent to which this debate divided the pro-life movement in the years immediately following the Roe vs Wade decision. After all, in recent years, this debate has become somewhat less polarizing. Starting in the mid 1980s absolutists and incrementalists quit fighting over how to design a human life amendment and turned their attention toward changing the composition of the Supreme Court. These efforts enjoyed fairly broad support among various factions of the pro-life movement and tensions cooled somewhat.

The best argument in support of an incremental strategy is that incremental laws have consistently demonstrated their effectiveness at protecting the unborn. I want to begin by

discussing national trends in the incidence of abortion. In 1974, the first full year after Roe vs. Wade, there were 763,476 abortions. These numbers increased consistently until 1990 when there were 1,429,427 abortions according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). However, starting in 1990 something interesting happened. The numbers started to fall. In fact the number of reported abortions has fallen almost every year from 1990 to 2003, the last year for which the CDC has released data.

Now these declines have not occurred due to demographic shifts or reductions in the number of childbearing age women. For the 47 states reporting data in both 1990 and 2003, the abortion ratio (abortions per thousand births) has declined from 305 to 241 and the abortion rate (abortions per thousand women of childbearing age) has fallen from 21 to 16. This means that women today are less likely to have abortions, and pregnancies today are less likely to result in abortions. Good News.

But what happened in the early 1990s that started this trend?

One factor might be the economy. There is some evidence that a strong economy slightly reduces the incidence of abortion. As such, the fact that the economy grew stronger during the 1990s might be a factor in the abortion decline. However, historical evidence tells us that the booming economy does not tell us the whole story. For instance, the strong economy during the 1980s did not result in such a dramatic abortion decline.

Indeed, the main reason for this reduction in the incidence of abortion during the 1990s was the success of the pro-life movement at passing incremental legislation at the state level. Here are some statistics.

-In 1992, 20 states had parental involvement laws (either parental notification or parental consent) on the books. In 2000, 32 states had enacted some sort of parental involvement law.

-In 1992, no states had an informed consent law on the books. In 2000 27 states had enacted some form of informed consent law.

-In 1992 no states had waiting periods. In 2000 11 states had waiting periods.

-In 1992 no states had partial birth abortion bans in 2000 12 states enacted partial birth abortion bans.

There were two factors that led to this sharp increase in state level pro-life legislation during the 1990s. The first was the Supreme Courts 1992 Casey vs. Planned Parenthood decision. Many in the pro-life movement thought that the Supreme Court would use this case as an opportunity to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The fact that the Supreme Court did not do this was a disappointment for many in the pro-life movement.

However, in the Casey decision, the Supreme Court did find many of the provisions included in Pennsylvanias Abortion Control Act to be constitutional. This gave incremental pro-life laws at the state level greater constitutional protection. Prior to Casey, the only types of pro-life legislation that consistently withstood constitutional scrutiny were parental involvement laws and Medicaid funding restrictions. After Casey pro-lifers had more options at the state level. Pro-lifers could pass informed consent laws. These are laws that require abortion providers to give women seeking abortions information about 1) the development of their unborn child, 2) public and private sources of support if the woman decides to keep their baby, and 3) health risks involved with abortion. After Casey, Pro-lifers also had the ability to enact waiting periods and in some states partial birth abortion bans received constitutional protection.

The second reason for this increase in the passage of pro-life legislation is because pro-lifers enjoyed greater electoral success in state legislative races. It is well known that in the 1994 election Republicans won majority control of the U.S. Senate for the first time since 1986 and won majority control of the U.S. House for the first time since 1954. However, it is less well known that Republicans made some very impressive gains in the state legislatures as well.

Prior to the 1994 election Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature in only 8 states. After the 1994 election Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature in 19 states. These legislative gains were long lasting as by 2000, Republican still controlled both chambers of the state legislature in 18 states Since Republicans tend to be more sympathetic to pro-life legislation than Democrats at the federal level and in most states, these Republican legislative gains made it easier to pass pro-life legislation in many statehouses.

So what impact has all of this legislation had? My research and the research of other social scientists all indicate that these laws have been effective at reducing the incidence for abortion. In 2004, The Heritage Foundation released the first of my three comprehensive studies on this topic. I obtained data on both the abortion rate and the abortion ratio from the both the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). The dataset I examined included abortion data from every state from every year from 1985 to 1999. Holding constant a variety of demographic and economic variables, I found the passage of public funding restrictions, informed consent laws, parental involvement laws, and partial birth abortion bans were all correlated with reductions in the incidence of abortion.

In subsequent studies, I have been able to document the effectiveness of pro-life legislation in a number of ways.

-Separate regressions run on datasets obtained from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) both consistently indicate that the passage of pro-life legislation is correlated with reductions in the abortion rate and abortion ratio.

-Pro-life laws that are passed by a legislature but later nullified by a judge have a negligible impact on the incidence of abortion. Conversely pro-life laws that are passed and take effect are correlated with statistically significant reductions in the incidence of abortion. This shows that the legislation is having an impact and not changes in local mores and values that might be correlated with the passage of pro-life legislation.

-Consistent with my expectations, different types of pro-life laws have a greater effect on different subgroups of the population. This is consistent with the idea that laws are having an impact and not other factors that happen to be correlated with the passage of legislation. For instance, parental involvement laws have a much larger effect on the minor abortion rate than the overall abortion rate. This is unsurprising since minors are the only group directly affected by parental involvement laws.

-Similarly, my findings indicate that informed consent laws have a larger impact on adults than on minors. This is because most minors are likely seeking abortions because they wish to hide either their pregnancy or their sexual activity from their parents. Information about fetal development or public and private sources of support would be unlikely to change the mind of a minor in this situation. However, such information would have a larger impact on an adult who might be seeking an abortion due to financial pressures.

-Finally, my findings are consistent with those of other social scientists who have examined the issue. Every academic study has shown that public funding restrictions are correlated with substantial declines in both the abortion rate and abortion ratio. Furthermore, nearly every policy and academic study shows that parental involvement laws reduce the number of abortions performed on minors within the boundaries of a given states. However, social scientists are split about the extent to which in-state declines are offset by increases in neighboring states.

Overall it seems that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that incremental legislation has been effective at protecting the unborn. Furthermore, the evidence also indicates that and that the decline in the incidence of abortion since the early 1990s is in large part due to the fact that more and more states were enacting incremental pro-life legislation. One can safely say that unborn children are alive today due to the passage of these laws.

Now, the best reason for pursuing incremental legislation is its demonstrated ability to protect the unborn. However, incremental legislation serves an important educational purpose as well. Many people pay little attention to politics and are unaware of the permissive nature of abortion laws in this country. For instance, many are unaware the abortion is legal through all 9 months of pregnancy and that in some states minors do not even need to notify their parents before having an abortion. Campaigns to enact incremental pro-life legislation highlight the permissive nature of these laws and cause many people who consider themselves pro-choice to rethink their beliefs. Indeed, the campaign to ban partial birth abortions during the mid to late 1990s was effective in shifting public opinion toward a more pro-life position.

Furthermore, the pursuit of incremental legislation gives pro-life activists the real prospect of short term victories which are important for sustaining and building a large scale social movement. Indeed, a noble cause by itself is often insufficient to keep people interested and motivated. If people are going to remain active, they need to be convinced that their continued support has a good chance of making a tangible difference in the future. As such, pro-lifers would do well to highlight the success that we have had in passing incremental legislation. It clearly demonstrates how our movement has enjoyed success in the past and how progress is certainly attainable in the future.

Indeed, when I present my research at pro-life gatherings, the most important point I try to make is that the time and treasure of pro-lifers has not been wasted during the past 34 years. Superficially some people think that the pro-life movement has not been successful because we have not succeeded in overturning Roe vs. Wade. And it is true that progress has not come as fast as we would like. However, the votes cast for pro-life candidates at both the federal level and state level has led to the passage of legislation which has been effective at protecting the unborn. Overall, incremental legislation has saved lives in the past and will continue to save lives in the future if we stay the course.

Brownback, Hunter to Join Blogs For Life Conference

by Family Research Council

January 20, 2007

On Monday, January 22nd at 9:00 am, Family Research Council will host Blogs for Life, the second annual conference of pro-life bloggers. The event will be streamed live via webcast from (Visit the FRC homepage on the day of the conference for more details.)

Blogs for Life is scheduled to take place the day of the 34th annual March for Life, during which thousands of pro-life advocates gather in the Nation’s capitol to celebrate life and demand the reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

The conference will feature Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA). Other featured speakers include Bobby Schindler, the brother of Terri Schindler Schiavo and Ramesh Ponnuru, noted author of The Party of Death and senior editor at National Review.

A panel on new media will also be held with David All (David All Group), LaShawn Barber (LaShawn Barber’s Corner), Mary Katherine Ham (, Rob Bluey (Heritage Foundation), Tim Ruchti (, and Peter Shinn (

Blogs for Life is an excellent opportunity for individuals and organizations to network with pro-life bloggers and develop an understanding of how weblog technology can be used to strategically promote life and transform ideas into action as we move toward a post-Roe America.

Who: Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS)

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

Bobby Schindler

Ramesh Ponnuru

What: The second annual conference dedicated to advancing the pro-life message via weblog technology.

When: Monday, January 22, 2007

9:00 AM - 11:00 AM

2:00 PM - 5:00 PM

Where: Family Research Council

801 G. Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

RSVP: online at

Is China becoming the boys club?

by Jared Bridges

January 12, 2007

In the past, communist states were known for periodic shortages of things like eggs, milk, and toilet paper. However, the People’s Republic of China may have an even bigger problem on their hands — a shortage of girls. If officials’ predictions are correct, within 15 years there will be 30 million less women of marriageable age than men in the country.

The gender imbalance doesn’t appear to be due to growth of the “He-Man Woman Haters Club,” but to a rise in sex-selective abortions. The government’s encouragement of one-child per family has prompted a society with a traditional preference for sons to illegally abort girls.

As China has about a third of the world’s population, a gender imbalance like this will give rise to major problems not only for China, but the world. From the AP story:

The report predicted that by 2020 the imbalance would mean men of marriageable age especially those with low income or little education would find it difficult to find wives, resulting in possible social problems.

The problem is not just a rural issue, with the newborn gender imbalance also widening in cities. In the first 11 months of 2006, there were 109 boys born in Beijing for every 100 girls.

China Daily said one way to solve the problem would be to create a proper social security system so rural couples would not feel they needed a son to depend on when they get old.

Somehow a social security system doesn’t seem quite adequate an answer. Perhaps it’s time China revisits its population control polices before they lose their feminine side altogether!

The Great Stem Cell Error”

by David Christensen

December 22, 2006

I highly recommend reading “The Great Stem Cell Error,” an oped by Tom Bethell in The American Spectator. He makes some excellent points about the hype over embryonic stem cell research. I could summarize a few of the key points, but wont. Instead, read it!

Treating babies and teaching Iraqi doctors….

by David Christensen

December 21, 2006

This story about a Mumbai toddler treated by stem cell therapy provides some good news about a baby girl treated for a heart condition with her father’s blood stem cells.

I don’t know how accurate this story is, but it is consistent with the use of adult stem cells to treat patients for heart damage. The hospital mentioned, Frontier Lifeline Hospital, is focusing on cardiac care. In fact, according to this recent story, An invaluable exposure, Frontier Lifeline Hospital is working with Iraqi doctors and surgeons to help them get up to speed on newer techniques for treating heart damage. Iraqi doctors are struggling to treat heart trauma resulting from the war in Iraq, so some of them have gone for more training in India.

Sex-selection in India Increases

by David Christensen

December 19, 2006

The Associated Press reports that 7,000 fewer girls are born in India every day. The increased use of ultrasound in India has made sex-selection that much easier. The number of abortions of girls is staggering. Indian officials aren’t pleased:

Female feticide should be treated as a crime and not just a social evil, therefore stringent punishment and punitive action is required,” said Renuka Choudhury, India’s women and child development minister.

She’s correct. But why isn’t abortion of any child regardless of sex viewed as a form of feticide?