The Population Research Institute offers a very good critique (not online as I write this, but will be there eventually) of the “Catholics for Kerry” claim that it is really pro-abortion Kerry who will do a better job of bringing down the number of abortions, not Bush. Interestingly, it is very similar to the “Catholics for Dean” argument.
Here it is in a nutshell: Whether a president appoints pro-lifee judges or supportsabortionm-limiting legislation is unimportant as to whether woman get abortions, but whether the president offers pregnant women “health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage.” As PRI puts it:
The implication is that voters who want to reduce the number of abortions should vote for a presidential candidate who will provide the most government programs and the strongest economy, to wit, John Kerry.
They claim that you don’t stop abortion by passing laws against it, but by regulating it and providing people with enough government programs that they won’t need it (which sounds an awful lot like neo-conservative arguments for legalization of narcotics.) The problem is that experience doesn’t bear that out.
