Several local candidates, including Jo-Ann Chase and Eugene Delgaudio, proudly tout themselves as “100% pro-life.” As is typically the case with the extremes at either end of the political spectrum, hyperbole like this is fertile ground for contradiction. For example, does that statement mean the candidate believes abortion should be illegal at any stage of the pregnancy and for any reason including cases of rape, incest or grave danger to the life of the mother? If the candidate is willing to make those exceptions, then just how is he “100%?” Even more hypocritical (and frightening), though, is the alternative: a “less-government” candidate not willing to recognize even those limited exceptions.
After I posted this, I came across a web page defining “100% pro-life." Here are a few items from that defintion which I think a candidate must address if he claims to be 100% pro-life.
“100% Pro-life indicates supporting the dignity of each human person, regardless of race, sex, age, religion, origin, or wealth, from womb to grave, and strongly opposing all abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty.”
“What about in cases where the woman will die if the pregnancy is not ended? Abortion is not the answer. Rather deliver the child and provide the best prenatal care available. Delivering the child is healthier for the mother than any abortion would be.”