President Bush’s Contradictory Stance on Abortion

by | Jan 27, 2001

President Bush’s stance on abortion is and will remain a concern to the advocates of individual rights. He holds a convoluted position that straddles the intellectual fence between the pro- and anti-abortion groups. He believes abortion is wrong–except when it isn’t: in the cases of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the […]

President Bush’s stance on abortion is and will remain a concern to the advocates of individual rights.

He holds a convoluted position that straddles the intellectual fence between the pro- and anti-abortion groups. He believes abortion is wrong–except when it isn’t: in the cases of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother. Further, he has said that the abortion issue should be handled outside the realm of politics, while simultaneously declaring his intent to ban the late term abortion procedure known as “partial birth abortion,” keeping abortion on the political front burner. [As abortion is an issue of rights, it cannot be anything but a political issue, as well as a moral one.] In other words, Bush’s abortion views are mired in contradictions.

In one of his first acts as President, he reinstated restrictions on the use of federal money for overseas groups that advocate abortion–a restriction from the Reagan and Bush (Senior) administrations that Clinton had lifted in one of his first acts as President.

In his executive memorandum to the Agency for International Development (the agency responsible for these funds), Mr. Bush wrote, “It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion either here or abroad.”1 On this he his correct, but his statement would be more reassuring were it not for two problems with his memorandum. Firstly, he leaves in place the $425 million in aid for overseas family planning. Secondly, the restriction applies only to groups based in the United States; foreign governments that receive this money are not bound by the restriction and can use those taxpayer funds to advocate any kind of family planning they wish, which will inevitably involve advocating some kind of morality.

The implicit premise behind Bush’s statement is a proper respect for the separation of government from morality. Taxpayer money should not support any particular morality in any place. A consistent respect for this principle would require that Bush intended to abolish all federal funds for family planning–here and abroad–not to mention every other area in which the government improperly intrudes into private lives, but this is too much to expect of Bush. Bush is a pragmatic Christian, not a principled capitalist.

It may be premature to judge his final goal on abortion–if, indeed, he has one. Is this merely a first step to begin reversing Clinton’s many wrongs, or is it the first step to abolishing the right to abortion?

We shall be watching.

1 “Bush Acts to Deny Money Overseas Tied to Abortion,” New York Times, 1/23/01

Andrew Lewis is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

The Assault on the Right to Abortion

The Assault on the Right to Abortion

It bears noting that although the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling correctly asserted that abortion was a right, the ruling was nonetheless doubly botched. Justices based the ruling on a right to privacy and alleged that non-enumerated rights are based on tradition.

Dismantling Roe

Dismantling Roe

Important lecture by Objectivist philosopher Onkar Ghate examining the reasoning and implications of SCOTUS overturning Roe vs Wade.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest