Why Bush Won’t Lead
April 23, 2005
“Doctors must care for live fetuses” reads the local headline of a story originating from the Washington Post:
The Bush administration issued guidelines yesterday advising physicians and hospitals that under a 2002 law they are obligated to care for fetuses “born alive” naturally or in the process of an abortion, and medical providers could face penalties for withholding treatment.“Live fetuses.” “Must care for.” Such language viscerally demonstrates a stunningly evil state of social and moral devolution that stuns fewer and fewer people.
Always in need of a siege mentality, the editors of In These Times find the new guidelines “haunting.” “Another brick in the anti-abortion wall.” Not much of a brick, but it is something.
Last month’s issue of First Things featured a must-read article by Hadley Arkes in which Arkes explains the 2002 legislation that is just now receiving “guidelines” to be disseminated in the medical community:
For the first time since Roe v. Wade, Congress had exercised its authority to legislate a limitation on abortion. What Congress had banned was the so-called “live-birth abortion,” as practiced most notoriously at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. In this procedure, the baby would be delivered and then put aside without cover in the refuse room, where it was left to die.
Arkes’ question, which the editors of ITT won’t think of asking, is why it has taken THREE YEARS for the administration to inform hospitals and physicians of the law and to hint they might enforce it? Arkes continues:
Fast-forward two years: [Christ Hospital nurse] Jill Stanek was being interviewed on the radio about her support for a version of this bill offered in Illinois (and opposed by Senator Barack Obama). The interviews elicited calls from nurses all over the country. The nurses testified that these kinds of abortions had been practiced at their hospitals for years. The procedure turned out to be far more common than we had ever imagined. Jill Stanek had one of her aides call the Oak Lawn hospital to find out how they could continue their practice of live-birth abortions in the face of the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act. A spokesman for the hospital professed not to have heard of the Act.
And why the hell not? Because the president has explicitly refused to lead on this issue.
Arkes details this abysmal situation where “the White House [has] taken an account of the simplest, slightest measures that might be taken [for the pro-life cause], and then come to the judgment that it was not in the interest of the President to do the slightest thing.” Arkes, however, offers no answers to the question, “Why won’t the President lead on abortion?” even though he helpfully attributes the president’s reticence to his keen interest in maintaining a reticent stance. This, Mr. Arkes suggests, is a “parsimonious” explanation. To talk about abortion would indicate a willingness to talk about abortion, so if he can help it, the president won’t talk about abortion.
Mr. Arkes powerfully wishes to believe that, at some level, the president really does care about abortion. He remains hopeful, optimistic even. And the questions remain unanswered:
In a pro-life administration, why was it necessary for the impetus to come from outside–from members of the Senate or from private entities? Why did it not come from within the executive branch itself, and from the man charged with the “faithful execution of the laws?” And why has it been taken as a given that a pro-life White House is the chief source of drag, the main barrier that must be overcome before pro-life lawyers are free to enforce pro-life laws?
Hence the paradox that afflicts us now: we have the most pro-life administration that has ever been assembled, and at the head of that administration is a good, sympathetic man, who is deeply reluctant to make the pro-life argument in public or to start the kind of discussion that might bring about real change. It has been suggested that the leadership for pro-life initiatives must emanate from the Congress. And from the Congress, in the next year, the measures I’ve outlined may indeed come forth. But if this President’s second term is anything like his first, we can expect that Congressional Republicans will receive little help from the top of the administration. This state of affairs leads to the following melancholy judgment. For pro-lifers Mr. Bush must be counted as a real friend. But by his example, he is establishing what must surely stand as the most corrosive lesson that could be taught in this country right now–that in the judgment of an accomplished political man, it is either impolitic or unrespectable to make the pro-life argument in public. Whatever else may be accomplished by the Bush administration, this implicit teaching can have only debilitating and destructive effects on the pro-life cause.
Perhaps if millions of dollars were directed toward agitation encouragement of the president rather than in support of his judicial nominees, the results would be better than wishing really, really hard. As for the enigmatic motivations of the President, as a Jesuit I have a hard time exercising skepticism toward conspiracy theories in general, and as a former Jansenist (back before it was fashionable) this one in particular nags at me.
This is Why Bush Won’t Lead in The Japery, a part of The New Pantagruel. Previously: The New Tolerance | Next: Shock Therapy | TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry: