Scott Brown’s victory is being hailed by those who have worried about the massive expansion of the federal government, both real and proposed, by those who have worried about the enormous growth in government (i.e. taxpayer-funded) spending real and proposed and by those worried the proposed health care reforms will actually increase the cost of health care, require blatant and expensive special interest pay-offs to get passed, reduce the quality of health care and give citizens less control of their own health care options.
They, and I join with them, are right to enjoy his victory. However, I am not as ecstatic as some seem to be about it. And this less-than-fanatic joy in his win hinges on the life issue.
From his campaign Web site:
Abortion
While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.
This is not much different from a whole lot of other politicians who claim pro-life or pro-choice status. It’s just short of pabulum and awfully close to “safe, legal and rare.” It’s politically correct but intellectually void.
Even National Review made this stunning statement after Brown’s election:
Scott Brown didn’t just defeat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race. He also defeated a hardy band of political clichés. … That the Republican party has become hostage to extremists who would rather lose than support a pro-choice candidate.
You see, as we mark the anniversary of Roe and, once again, tote the ever-growing number of those lost to abortion, it’s as if nothing has changed.
Now, I happily and gratefully acknowledge that more Americans are counting themselves in the pro-life column. It’s wonderful that the number of abortions appears to be declining. And abortion has been a key factor in slowing the health care reform bulldozer of the last year.
However, as it almost always does, in the Brown election and others it’s the emphasis on “jobs, jobs, jobs,” and/or defense, and/or dislike of Washington politicians that gets the credit for a win.
Certainly, health care reform and all the other issues are extremely important (I’m looking for a job myself and the fight against terrorism is as deadly as it is real).
But isn’t sanctioning the abortion of the unborn– estimated at 50 million lives lost to date – reason enough to temper one’s enthusiasm for someone who apparently believes that, if not altogether OK, it’s right to allow it to continue?
