Bush's Abortion Related Policies

January 22, the anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision (reputably delayed until after Nixon's inauguration), is a yearly reminder at the passions felt and raised by the issue of abortion. Each side uses the time to promote their point of view, and it often is used as a symbolic moment to pass various regulations and laws on this subject. After the Casey decision, it is clear that the Supreme Court will continue to uphold the right to choose an abortion, but this still leaves any number of issues of varying importance that can be repeatedly debated and used to keep the issue alive and on edge. One popular measure, which is usually used to voice opposition to abortion, is the question of governmental funding. Current federal law bars funding of abortion except in the case of rape, incest, and when the life (and perhaps a serious threat to life) of the mother, though obviously childbirth is funded via Medicaid for those who need it. Another side issue is funding to international organizations (like Planned Parenthood) that promote (including counseling patients that abortion is an option) or perform abortions as part of their mission. Clinton signed an executive order allowing such funding, but President Bush's first executive order overturned it.

This is wrong on many levels. First, for Bush to start his administration with a measure related to such a controversial issue sends the message (again) he will not make it his mission to unite the narrowly split electorate by going out of his way to make controversial actions. Second, I fail to see how the executive can constitutionally have so much discretion to make a policy judgment like this, which I would think is the job of Congress. Congress makes law and decides major policy measures for taxing and spending. It surely has the right and responsibility, for instance, to o

Next, there is the basic equality question on why those who oppose the right to choose an abortion should have their beliefs respected, while those who believe in the opposite are ignored. I personally do not like paying for some women to have children that they either rather not or perhaps should not have. This is ultimately part of my moral beliefs, which apparently do not matter. A comparable issue is the burden on women who are not as able to carry out their right to have an abortion. Finally, the promotion component of the order is a First Amendment violation. It is unclear how much money this executive order actually affects, but if it symbolizes anything, it symbolizes unsound and unconstitutional policy decisions.

Though a spy plane crash in China was his first big crisis, President Bush put a lot of more time deciding the (federally funded) stem cell research controversy. The President is concerned with this research, since it uses human embryonic cells in the attempt to find the causes and treatment/cures for various serious human diseases, These cells often come from extras left over from in vitro (test tube) fertilization for those who can not get pregnant by ordinary means, but have been at times created especially for this purpose. This really upsets some people, who feel we are playing God with human cells, though usually the cells would be otherwise disposed of. This fact has led even many "anti- abortion" people in Congress and elsewhere to support their use, especially if the cells aren't just made for the purpose of research. It should be noted that "adult stem cells," which need not come from embryos, also has at least some (though not the same in various ways) value in research.

A possible compromise therefore exists, especially since research from embryonic cells created from scratch can still be privately funded. Though some see the controversy as much ado about nothing from anti-abortion zealots, research using human cells (even in such a primitive form) is a serious matter. Just think of the whole cloning controversy. The ability of those who generally oppose allowing the choice of abortion to look have a somewhat nuanced view of the whole thing is also refreshing. Just as few view "morning after pills" to be illegitimate because they at times stop fertilized eggs (to some, human life that should be protected) from being implanted, few are willing to cut off research on human cells that very well might bring forth exciting new health discoveries. Does not mean matters of human life are trivial, just a bit more complicated and less crystal clear as some (on both sides of the issue) sometimes think.

President Bush decided to compromise on the issue. Federal money cannot be used to obtain new stem cells, but current stem cells could be used to create up to sixty lines (these lines are only available in a few different labs in the world, and the Bush administration later admitted less than half can currently be used). This is a somewhat reasonable middle way, though true believers on both sides have cause for alarm (like all good compromises, no?). Nonetheless, those who believe stem cell research have a lot of potential while often using cells that would be destroyed anyway can say: "hey, just funding cells already being used is not much of a compromise." Furthermore, a minority view, one opposed by a majority of members of Congress (including some on the pro-life side) is being used to block important research. I would agree, so the compromise ... ultimately to satisfy the desires of one guy ... is troubling to me.

Personal philosophy and concern for a vital conservative base was involved in Bush's contemplation of the stem cell issue, though it is also an example on how selective morality is ruling the day once again. A majority of the people feel one should be able to personally choose whether or not to have a child, and a majority of the others probably would be torn if they had to make such a decision. It is troubling therefore when laws interfere with this personal moral choice. Stem cell research also involves a moral choice, one a majority of people feel is justified (even many on the pro-life side), so how can one man interfere like this? Power over funding that is a result of unfortunate delegation of congressional power and responsibility.

The issue is surely not cut and dried. For instance, cloning is currently a big issue. A good argument can be made that deciding to clone oneself is a matter of personal reproductive freedom, and homosexuals and couples with certain gene disorders that makes regular conception risky or impossible (as well as other groups) it is a logical choice. Nonetheless, current cloning technology is very imperfect and would likely result in many deformed or dead failures (as was the case for cloned mice and sheep). So it is clearly unethical to try at the moment. Likewise, we have quite a few safeguards when we do medical trials on humans, and many are upset when in a few cases families have another child just to provide a sick relative with bone marrow. Finally, breeding fetuses for research would shock us. Nonetheless, willingly donated stem cells, especially from extra embryos resulting from attempts at artificial insemination that will be destroyed anyway is a not quite comparable.

These are the two major reproductive choice issues thus far addressed by the Bush administration. Many others will be raised or affected over the next four years. For instance, one major issue is contraception funding, not only in international programs, but for national health plans. Also, many Bush executive officials and soon to be appointed judges will make many decisions interpreted vague or broad laws and guidelines that will affect reproductive choice. I will try to address new issues as they develop, but suffice to say, our electorally elected president will have a big role in the years to come. For instance, he would likely sign into law a bill currently being discussed that protects embryos and fetuses themselves from violence (abortion excepted). This signature will add a bit more controversy to the issue, while a law that just adds to the penalty for harming the mother would be much more acceptable (and as effective). Furthermore, as noted here, the law is flawed on due process (specifically penalty without knowledge of harm) grounds.

President Bush's abortion policy is but part of his religiously selective policies. His administration's move to use federal power to oppose Oregon's euthansia laws is another example of the current administration's violation of the First Amendment via making certain moral and religious doctrine national policy. Both cases shows how one religious theory of the sanctity of life is being supported over over others that also have wide support. Finally, since the current Surgeon General put forth the results of a sex study with results they oppose as well as other philosophical disagreements, a logical person to inform and sooth the public during the anthrax scare is ignored by the Bush and company.

A controversy has arisen in the emotional abortion issues in response to President Bush's move to declare the unborn "children" so that they can get additional federal health coverage. The use of such terminology is controversial, since it is seen as a code word in the fight to end abortion. This plus the additional funds such a move would require shows the problems with letting executives make basic legislative policy choices like these. Emotional spending choices like these should not be the job of one person, but Congress (with its multitude of views and need for compromise) as a whole.

Let's put that aside. As a totally neutral matter, of course, expanding health benefits to the unborn is a good thing. Nonetheless, it is not just alarmist for pro-choice activists to distrust Bush using a controversial means that makes him look good to the other side. The adminstration probably could have done the same thing in a more neutral way, and it's anti-abortion mindset is well known. They even could of introduced it as a general refinement of how health care is supplied, so that it is not seen as a cynical political move. A bit too much to ask, perhaps?