Former President George W. Bush received a pro-life award
this weekend from Legatus, an organization of Catholic business
professionals. The group cites his administration’s opposition to
embryonic stem-cell research, an executive order barring federal funds
from international family planning groups that offer, counsel about or refer for abortions, and the
appointment of “pro-life” Supreme Court justices. The honor raises an
essential question that should challenge both political parties and
underscores the limits of labels: What does it mean to be pro-life?  

For some, that question is answered simply by evoking opposition to
the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. This landmark ruling
has defined a generation of political polarization and fueled bitter
culture wars that reward the shrillest voices. A singular focus on
abortion as the only pro-life issue has also severely narrowed our
national discourse about moral values in the public square.

While the former president spoke eloquently about the sacred dignity of life, as governor of Texas his state led the nation in executions.
His presidency is remembered for a legacy that often undermined lofty
rhetorical appeals to human dignity. Preemptive war, torture, a
reckless disregard for the environment and economic policies that left
the poor farther behind even as the wealthy grew more prosperous is not
a proud record in defense of life. It also fails to honor the broad
spectrum of Catholic social teaching, which stresses a consistent ethic
of life often referred to as a “seamless garment”
because one life issue can’t be easily separated from another. Catholic
teaching has a rich and expansive vision that recognizes seeking peace,
caring for the poor, the unborn, the immigrant and our environment —
“promoting the common good in all its forms” in the words of Pope
Benedict XVI — are all integral. Catholicism is not a single-issue
faith, and no political party has a monopoly on moral values.

When considering efforts to reduce abortions, pro-life and
pro-choice labels often obscure more than enlighten. Americans want
bipartisan efforts to help end the abortion stalemate. A 2008 poll from
Public Religion Research found that 81 percent of Catholics and 83
percent of all voters want elected officials to back policies that help
reduce abortions by working together to prevent unintended pregnancies,
expand adoption opportunities and increase social supports for
vulnerable women. In Congress, this holistic agenda is reflected in the
Pregnant Women Support Act,
sponsored by Sen. Robert Casey, Jr., as well as the Preventing
Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting
Parents Act, a bill co-sponsored by pro-life Rep. Tim Ryan and pro-choice Rep. Rosa DeLauro.

Neither political party can truly claim the “pro-life” mantle. In
general, Democrats perform better when it comes to anti-poverty
initiatives and protecting vital social safety nets, but often don’t
grapple seriously enough with the reality of over one million abortions
performed a year. Many Republicans trumpet their pro-life bona fides,
yet fail to back up their rhetoric by fighting for robust social
policies that help pregnant women and vulnerable families. Despite
intense lobbying from the Catholic Health Association and other
faith-based organizations, Bush twice vetoed
legislative efforts to reauthorize the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP), which helps states provide health insurance
to children from low-income and working families. Sr. Carol Keehan, CEO
of the Catholic Health Association and a respected lobbyist on Capitol
Hill, recently described SCHIP as “clearly a pro-life program.”
President Obama reauthorized the program last year, and it’s now on
track to provide more than 14 million children quality health care.

The current debate over health care reform demonstrates the false
choice between “pro-life” or “social justice” advocacy. Ensuring that
women and families have access to quality health care can help make
abortions less likely and save thousands of lives. The Senate health
care bill, for example, includes significant supports for pregnant
women endorsed by pro-life and pro-choice lawmakers. The abortion rate
for women living in poverty is more than four times higher than for
those earning 300 percent above the poverty line. At a time of economic
crisis, any serious effort to prevent abortions must find comprehensive solutions to broader socioeconomic challenges.

A new generation must decide. We can stay mired in stale battles of
the past and cling to easy labels or chart a course that honors human
life at every stage. I would be the first to applaud an award given to
anyone who helps us achieve that elusive victory.