Plan B is most certainly abortifacient and so Bush's approval of its distribution has everyone scratching their heads. He opposed the hugely popular embryonic stem cell research bills and yet caved-in on this proposal. What gives?!

Why are you scratching your head? When you consider the relatively small number of people who have a direct personal interest in stem cell research (scientists along with people with serious illnesses and their families who have bought the hype) and compare it to the enormous number of people who have a direct personal interest in the pill (a gazillion women and their husbands/boyfriends), it's not at all mysterious. Going against Plan B on moral grounds means going against the pill and going against the pill is political suicide. Yes, Bush doesn't have to run for re-election, but I'm sure he wants a congress that won't impeach him and a successor who won't work at ruining his legacy.
Publius | Homepage | 08.24.06 - 6:39 pm | #

So he'll ruin it himself.
Dean Steinlage | 08.24.06 - 9:16 pm | #

My point is that he who expects a politician to cease to be one in his second presidential term is bound to be bitterly disappointed. I've been scratching my head at the shock and feelings of ultimate betrayal being expressed across St. Blog's, having myself expected this unfortunate occurrence since 2004.
Publius | Homepage | 08.24.06 - 10:36 pm | #

Publius,

I too have been baffled at the reaction of St. Blogs, if only because this has be touted in the press and, I suspect, in the President's briefings on the matter as "emergency contraception".

Most of the evangies I know, including ones who worshiped with Mr. Bush while he was Governor of Texas, have no moral objection to contraception. They really don't understand why we're so hung up about it.

So I think this has less to do with political calculus than it does with the reality of what it means to be pro-Life in the US today. There are Catholic pro-lifers, and there is the rest of the movement. And the fault line is found (take your pick) at Lambeth 1930 or Griswold v Connecticut (1965).

In his mind, and based on the advice he's received from his inner circle, Bush is still consistently pro-life.
Flambeaux | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 10:49 am | #

Bush is not pro-life. He is a sham when it comes to life issues, and he used it only for votes. Nothing more. From his first presidential election saying it is ok to kill children if they are the product of rape, to his second where the party bragged on the fact he was the FIRST president to give federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, he has always held a non-life view.

You do NOT reward murderers just because they say their murders can be of scientific use.
Henry Karlson | Homepage | 08.25.06 - 2:35 pm | #

Henry,

Bush is as pro-life as most of his, mainly evangelical, constituency in Texas.

Catholic pro-lifers just don't get it. I didn't, until I got to know a few of the Texas non-Catholic pro-lifers.
Flambeaux | Homepage | 08.26.06 - 7:53 pm | #