Rob's cynicism

After noting that President Bush said that "of his recollection, he had never discussed abortion with [Miers]," my friend Rob writes, "apparently President Bush doesn't believe that abortion rights are one of the 'crucial issues' of the day."  He also expresses regret that "President Bush's admission that the subject never even came up in his countless conversations with Miers." 

As Rob knows, though, the political reality is that a (pro-life) President is required to say that he or she has no litmus tests, and that a nominee must be able to say that the President appointing him or her did not ask directly about the nominees views on abortion.  (In the same press conference, by the way, where Bush stated that he had not discussed abortion with Miers, he said, "I made it very clear where I stand during the campaign; I'm a pro-life President.")  It does not follow -- at all -- that "apparently President Bush does not believe that abortion rights are one of the 'crucial issues' of the day."  It could just as easily be -- in fact, I am fairly confident that it is the case -- that Bush's frequent invocations of "strict construction" and "no legislating from the bench" are intended to serve, and are understood by all involved as serving, the function of (a) finding out (in a clumsy, coded way) the nominee's views on Roe v. Wade and its reversal, and (b) communicating the President's views on Roe v. Wade and its reversal.

It might also be useful to recall, in response to Rob's cynicism toward the GOP's use of abortion as election issue, the facts about Bush's pro-life record since his election in 2000 (the linked-to list is far too long to reproduce here).  I would urge everyone -- particularly those inclined to think that, on the abortion issue, the Bush administration has not performed markedly different than the alternative administration would have -- to review the list.  It is quite striking.

Now, I do not intend to revisit, in my blogging, the debate we had here in the Fall of 2004 about the election, about how Catholics may or should vote, about how we should weigh and balance all the competing issues.  Nor do I intend, in my blogging, to defend or criticize the Miers nomination.  I believe now, and I believed then, that reasonable people could and can disagree about this.  I'm not telling people how to vote or whom to support.  That said, I do not believe -- and I believe the linked-to list supports my view -- that it can plausibly be denied that the Bush Administration has, within the restraints imposed by the Court, done a great deal, and achieved a great deal of good, on the pro-life front.  The "cynicism" charge is not, I think -- with all due respect to Rob -- supported by the weight of the evidence.

Rick