My Point of View by Jennifer Vogt-Erickson

I don’t have much of an argument against the Catholic Church’s position on abortion, even though I don’t agree with it, because the Catholic Church is remarkably consistent across the human lifespan when it comes to promoting an agenda of life with dignity.

What I take issue with is how many political leaders present themselves as “pro-life” when they are, at best, “pro-birth.” Once people are aware of it, the difference is an easy chasm to spot.

Pro-life and pro-birth agendas start on similar ground and swiftly diverge once a baby is born.

A true pro-life agenda supports the dignity of all people, from the unborn to centenarians. On the other hand, the pro-birth camp supports the dignity of the fetus, sometimes to the point of trampling on a woman’s dignity, sometimes even jeopardizing her life. Concern for the fetus largely dispels once he exits the uterus.

Taking proper care of babies and young children who have constant needs for years on end is much harder and more expensive than gestating a fetus. Based on the concerns of the pro-birth agenda, though, one might assume that a newborn can pull himself up by his bootstraps and march out of the delivery room.

Genuine pro-life advocates push for child welfare funding, child care subsidies, health care spending, living wages, education spending and environmental protection. If a proposal promotes justice and opportunity for all, they back it. The Nuns on the Bus have energetically promoted this agenda in the United States, and Pope Francis has championed it worldwide.

Pro-birth advocates recommend cuts in many of these areas of discretionary spending and sometimes question the need for a minimum wage at all, much less boosting the federal floor out of the swamp bottom it’s been stuck in since 2009.

According to their agenda, once a baby is born, government should avoid helping parents meet the basic needs of a child, because though people should be forced to continue pregnancies they can’t afford, they should only have children if they can afford to raise them. The position is a trap.

According to the pro-birth agenda, if parents need help (and they often do) they should turn to religious-based organizations and do whatever is required to receive aid, including being proselytized to. Parents still sometimes fall far short, and pro-birth politicians have voted for reductions in child protection and foster care funding. Spending on prisons, though, remains a priority.

The Democratic Party is by far the most pro-life party once people look beyond the narrow pro-birth agenda of the Republican Party. Rather than restricting access to legal abortions — the primary focus of Republicans — Democrats aim to reduce abortions by making contraception and other reproductive care widely accessible and giving women and men more opportunities and any boosts they need to successfully raise children.

Every abortion represents a failure of some kind. Democrats tend to see them from an economic or medical angle, and Republicans tend to see them as a moral deficiency, the result of women making bad choices.

It’s appropriate to favor reducing abortions, and the rate has decreased gradually but steadily — it is nearly down to half its peak from about 35 years ago. Trying to control women’s sex lives and punishing them for unintended pregnancies, even if they’re married and already have children, shouldn’t be a motivation for achieving further reductions. But if a politician votes to restrict abortions and also favors cuts to programs which help fetuses who have unwittingly reached the still-defenseless baby or child stage, what are they really interested in?

Six out of 10 women who get an abortion are already mothers. Three in 10 already have two or more children. They’ve dropped any illusions about what it takes to raise a baby. I hope voters will also drop their illusions about Republicans’ almost exclusively pro-birth agenda and recognize it as a distortion of a genuine pro-life position. It expects a triumph of morals and “choosing life” while ignoring economic realities.

For the most part, I endorse the true pro-life position, not the politically branded one. A politician who claims to be pro-life but then votes against programs that help vulnerable children is showing their pro-birth colors. While they may express concern that some kids end up going without, they insist parents should be responsible for providing for their children because of a draconian belief that handouts breed dependency and weaken families.

Even something as small as a free, reliable breakfast at school makes a difference for many kids. A full stomach dignifies a child and helps her learn. That is pro-life.

 

Albert Lea resident Jennifer Vogt-Erickson is a member of the Freeborn County Democratic Party.