Jan. 18: “Sanctity of Human Life Day”
It took Bush a while, but he has finally given Christian and other social conservatives something they have been longing for for decades: As one of his final acts in office, President George W. Bush declared January 18 to be “National Sanctity of Human Life Day.”
“All human life is a gift from our creator that is sacred, unique and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world,” reads the presidential proclamation.
“The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence and funding crisis pregnancy programs,” the proclamation continues.
“The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.”
Bush will give a speech Thursday night about the subject. This speech will, according to White House counselor Ed Gillespie, not be judgmental and negative but, rather, “positive and future-oriented.”
The move will undoubtedly be ignored by most liberals, for they consider Bush irrelevant now, or ridiculed at best, but I have to say that not only Christian conservatives will applaud Bush for creating this day. Others will as well, including myself… partially. This is not because I am a strong opponent of abortion – I’m pro-life, but not overly passionately so, fiscal and foreign policy issues matter more to me – but because it may serve as a counterbalance to today’s culture of popular culture, in which human life is not considered more useful and holy than, say, that of an elephant.
Having said that, one does hope that Bush will not use the day to ignite a major war against abortion; it should be a positive day. It should be a day on which Americans – and others – are reminded that their lives and those of others matter. Citizens can connect the dods from there themselves. The presidential proclamation gives me the impression that the day will indeed be an anti-abortion day, which is a bit a strange day to proclaim for a president of a country that legalized abortion decades ago.
Furthermore, Americans want an end to divisiveness; Bush does not seem to understand this, for one of his lasts acts in office may very well divide the country along ideological, religious and cultural lines once again.
Lastly, presidents often enact laws during their last days in office that they normally feared would have caused outrage, negative press, etc. Bill Clinton signed some highly progressive laws / acts, for instance, during his last month as president. George W. Bush simply does what other presidents do as well in their proverbial dying minutes: he is following his conscience.
Christian conservatives and other strong opponents of abortion may very well be encouraged by the proclamation issued by the White House on Thursday; they often felt that Bush had not given them anything back for their support. In the end, they were even often ridiculed by their fellow Republicans and blamed for the party’s demise. Bush now gives them something to cheer up, which will undoubtedly be welcomed by most of them.
Unfortunately, there is no way to assert a positive right to life position without others interpreting it as a divisive and provocative (ie, anti-abortion.) And, I am quite sure this is an anti-abortion proclamation; the issue is whether or not that is permissible without being criticized for divisiveness, even though people on the prochoice side feel perfectly comfortable advocating for their position without (in their minds) deserving the same criticism. In other words, it’s rather unfair to say that anyone who asserts the prolife, anti-abortion (or restrictive of abortion ‘rights’) is divisive while the status quo allows the other side of the debate to have the upper hand.
At any rate, this along with the recent legislation to protect freedom of conscience for healthcare workers are surely an attempt to claim and hold a little bit of the gains made by the prolife movement before the Obama administration reverses them. And yes, in that sense it is provocative, like a line in the sand. Should Obama choose to keep his promise to enact FOCA, he won’t be able to do it under the radar so he’ll at least have to answer to the large part of our society that doesn’t accept abortion on demand.
“It took Bush a while, but he has finally given Christian and other social conservatives something they have been longing for for decades”
Though I’m a Christian and on some issues a social conservative, can we stop equating Christians with social conservatives. There are many Christians who would not necessarily consider themselves social conservatives. In fact a fair number are pro-choice.
If my fellow Americans wanted an end to divisiveness they would use reason to examine their positions as well as those of the opposition and decide for themselves where they can compromise. Not many people do that and the debate continues.
Furthermore, as Christine alludes to, the “divisiveness” of the abortion issue has existed since mankind learned to kill the baby while sparing the mother. Does Roe v. Wade obligate me to repudiate the moral standard of all recorded history just so radical women’s groups won’t have to acknowledge that many people reject their agenda?
Personally I am willing to compromise. Draw a line in the sand at 12 weeks and that’s it. Will NOW agree to end the divisiveness? Hardly.
C: “Christian and other social conservatives” not Christiansssss. In other words: Christian conservatives and social conservatism. You can be a Christian and a conservative without being a Christian conservative (which is a conservatism deeply rooted in Christianity – the religion).
Marc – I had some trouble wording this post. I was afraid that some would interpret it as if I meant that all debate about abortion is “divisive” and should therefore not be held. That’s not what I meant. There’s nothing wrong with the debate, perhaps with the way in which both extremes debate it, but the debate itself is good; healthy even.
BTW: my views on abortion have changed uh I mean evolved. I’m against it now – the calm approach worked with me, especially the one used often by Christine Stanley. The emotional one did not.
Glad that I’ve had some influence, Michael. Now if I can just convince a few million more people…
I’ve had my differences with some people on this site regarding this issue, but I take no issue with the proclamation of this holiday. After all, the environmentalists have their Earth Days, so why can’t the pro-lifers have their days celebrating life?
Though, even I have my limits. I do not have any compromise date as of yet, but even 12 weeks might be pushing it too late.