Matt Blunt's touching "concern" for women who have abortions.

And it is really interesting how Matt Blunt is cutting and running from this issue. The Republicans talk all the time about how we are supposedly the party of cut and run. But when it comes time to actually show some guts on this issue, he runs and hides from this issue, appointing the task force with as little fanfare as possible, scared that it will tank his popularity even more than it already is; he has dropped from 48% to 42% in recent weeks.

Morality requires great personal courage to be out in front on issues and not back down. Lech Walesa was an example of great personal courage when he took a stand against Poland's Communist regime. Russ Feingold did not back down from his single vote against the Patriot Act, even though he was under a lot of pressure to vote for it. Martin Luther King did not hide in the shadows when he called for civil rights in this country back in the 1960's.

The difference between Matt Blunt and these three people is that he lacked the courage to get into the forefront and actually come out and say that he was trying to lay the groundwork to take away the right of women to choose. When people like Matt Blunt do not have the courage to step forward and admit that they are against all abortions, then that means that they do not have much of a case for overthrowing Roe in the first place.

One of the people who helped with the appointment of the task force was Cindy Province of the Center for Bioethics and Culture Missouri. This organization turns out to be a wingnut think tank:

The Center for Bioethics and Culture Missouri seeks to train and equip people to face the challenges of 21st Century bioethics from within a Judeo-Christian worldview. We work to promote human wellbeing by advocating for the responsible, ethical use of biotechnology.

And there is plenty more:

The Center for Bioethics and Culture Missouri, in partnership with Covenant Seminary, offeres Graduate courses in Bioethics. Designed for individuals who wrestle with the issues created by advances in medicine and technology, courses will equip participants with the necessary tools to understand and evaluate current and emerging bioethics issues within a Biblical framework.

So, it turns out that Matt Blunt is really trying to contravene the Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by propagating religion and elephant dung disguised as science. This is a typical tactic of the Bush administration and the Republican Party as a whole, to pass off right-wing propaganda and religious fundamentalism as objective news or science. This organization is not to be confused with the Kansas City-based Center for Practical Bioethics, an excellent organization that wrestles with bioethics issues.

Another person who is involved in this racket is John McCastle, the president of Alliance for Life of Missouri. And it is really ironic that this organization uses this scripture as its guide:

"This is the ministry which God in His mercy has given us and nothing  can  daunt us.  We have set our faces against all shameful, secret practices;  we use no clever tricks, no dishonest manipulation of the Word of God.  We speak the plain truth and so commend ourselves to every person's conscience in the sight of God...  For it is Christ Jesus as  Lord whom we preach, not ourselves;  we are your servants for Jesus' sake."

But if there is nothing secretive about this, then why did Governor not give this any publicity or promotion, which, as the AP article notes, is standard operating proceedure for the Governor's office? And if McCastle is really against crass manipulation, then why is his partner in crime, Ms. Province, part of an organization that tries to manipulate people by trying to get them to confuse their organization with a well-respected bioethical center in Kansas City?

And among the other junk science theories that McCastle promotes by faith, one is the supposition that women who have abortions are much more likely to commit crimes. But that flies in the face of reason and the facts. First of all, it would seem that unwanted children would have much more difficulty fitting in and adjusting than children who are wanted. Next, violent crime actually went down since the 1970's, and experienced a sharp drop in the 1990's, which means that it could be argued that giving women the right to choose means that there are fewer unwanted children and thus fewer violent crimes.

And, from the AP article, Koop's own study found otherwise:

Later, a U.S. House committee made public a draft of a report that Koop had opted not to submit to the president. That draft said valid scientific studies had documented that abortion is medically safe and does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of infertility, miscarriage or premature births. It also said that the frequency of long-term psychological effects is uncertain.

Also involved in this racket is Connie Eller, of Missouri Blacks for Life:

--Respect for Life, starting from before conception
--Alternatives to Abortion
--Damage done by abortion
--How you can find forgiveness from God through Jesus Christ, and the new life He gives!
--Upcoming pro-life events
--What you can do to be pro-life
--Statistics and resources to educate yourself and others how not to fall into the trap of abortion.
--True sexual abstinence
--Empowering men and women, family, relatives, friends and co-workers to empower others to choose LIFE and improve the quality of LIFE for all.
--Resources and information regarding services and support for pregnant women and girls who choose LIFE.
--Resources and information for females and males who chose abortion, regret it, and are now seeking forgiveness from God and new life in His Son, Jesus Christ.
--Information regarding how you can make a difference by influencing laws and legislation to SAVE LIVES

She talks on an anecdotal basis on how abortion creates self-esteem problems. However, for every person that Blunt can produce that has had these problems, we can produce people who had abortions and who have no regrets about having them. Just because some people show remorse for ending their pregnancies, that does not mean that we should therefore force their remorse and regrets on others. It is simply not the business of government to dictate how people are supposed to feel about the personal medical choices that they make.

Contribute:
Jay Nixon for Governor