Lower taxes. Cut spending. Pro-life. These have all become policy positions composing the litmus test that Republican politicians must pass to prove themselves as viable nominees for the party. Economic principles aside, pro-life is a moniker proudly touted by the GOP. Who wants to be thought of as representing the converse, either anti-life or pro-death? This makes pro-life a title to embrace. But in politics, it's used as a lofty term that commands adherence to a set of guidelines beyond just opposition to abortion. Anti-abortion and pro-life are not interchangeable. The former is merely a subset of the latter and pro-life politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, must either accept and embrace that or drop the title altogether.
I, myself, am anti-abortion despite being liberal on most other things. I know, I know, blasphemous, right? But beyond abortion, I try to maintain values that inhabit the realm of the pro-life mantra as well. Right now, "pro-life" is just a hollow phrase meant to woo a lot of Moral Majority, one-issue voters. But those voters, their candidates and the GOP pro-life platform are lacking something important: consistency. Taking a moment to examine the current field of Republican presidential nominees provides a glimpse at the inconsistencies. Rick Santorum is staunchly anti-abortion, yet when asked about potential U.S. ties to the murders of several Iranian nuclear scientists, he said that their deaths were "a wonderful thing." Does that sound pro-life? How about former candidate Rick Perry's death penalty record? He presided over the execution of 234 prisoners — more than any governor in modern history.
GOP front-runner Mitt Romney wants to escalate President Barack Obama's secret drone program in the Middle East, which is responsible for the death of hundreds of innocent civilians throughout Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. His chief competition for the nomination is Newt Gingrich. While the former speaker falsely warns of the so-called death panels in Obama's healthcare reform bill, he stands by the use of extrajudicial and unconstitutional executive panels to determine which suspected terrorists to assassinate, among them American citizens. And that's not a death panel?
These are the views of people we are labeling as pro-life. No pacifism. No call to end capital punishment. No desire to end a drug war that is killing thousands. And most of these positions have become a part of the mainstream ideology in both parties, particularly the one which has adopted pro-life as a part of its template.
The Declaration of Independence lists "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as inalienable rights. Those on the left may label anti-abortion as anti-woman, but they are missing the point. I'm not anti-woman at all. This issue falls under the right to life for all. It is not an issue of liberty, which should be maximized, not reduced.
So enough of the double standard. We can't laud the sanctity of all human life but then place limits on it. Where's the value then? To say death is OK for "bad guys" or "terrorists," or any other class of people does not show moral superiority, it shows moral hypocrisy. What makes an American life so much more valuable that we deserve life and liberty, but a defenseless Arab child does not? And if the right to life is so inalienable, the decision to end one is not for any other individual to make.
We need to rethink how we use the term "pro-life" in our political climate. Views must be re-branded or the word "life" itself loses meaning. If we only mean unborn babies, but not defenseless children in another country or convicted felons in our own, then how sacred is the right to life? By continuing the hypocrisy, we not only diminish the meaning of the word "life" today, we endanger the life-dependent policies of the future.
