No hypocrisy in pro-life movement

In a Nov. 27 letter, Theodore M. Utchen suggested that the pro-life movement was somehow guilty of hypocrisy, because current health care legislation under consideration would prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or where necessary to protect the life (not health, as incorrectly stated) of the pregnant woman.

He wrote, "Human life is human life and once it is conceived, it does not seem logically consistent to permit its murder simply because of the way it was conceived." Admitting to being pro-choice, he "felt it necessary to point out the irrational position of the pro-life movement."

While legislation passed by Congress may reflect to varying degrees the positions of certain groups, such as those advocating respect for human life, would it not also be true that such legislation reflects what is politically achievable in that place, at that time?

Health care reform legislation recently passed by the U.S. House includes restrictions on federal funding of abortions, also known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. These are the "pro-life protections" cited by Mr. Utchen, and are similar to restrictions originally enacted in 1976, known as the Hyde Amendment. One might reasonably suggest that these restrictions are pragmatically the best available option for those in Congress seeking to limit the availability of abortion. Any more restrictive legislation would likely be politically untenable.

Many in the pro-life movement temporarily settle for "imperfect" law, that is, law that permits abortion under severely limited circumstances, such as in cases of rape or incest. Such legislation is the lesser of evils, and those who support it will continue to work toward legislation prohibiting the killing of any unborn.

Characterizing pursuit of the restrictions contained in the Stupak-Pitts Amendment as hypocrisy on the part of the pro-life movement is both illogical and unfair.

Bill Munch

Lisle