Many pro-lifers often cite New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as a reliable advocate for the unborn.
Yet, various statements and actions from Gov. Christie over the past two years cast his alleged pro-life credentials into serious doubt.
In September of 2010, FPN’s Policy Blog criticized the governor’s actions toward Planned Parenthood. Many pro-lifers believed Christie’s much-touted veto of Planned Parenthood funding actually hurt the abortion giant. But in reality, the clinic that closed was the only one that didn’t perform surgical abortions. The governor’s office was quick to assure the public that the state would continue to fund abortions at the other Planned Parenthood clinics in the state.
Sadly, the governor doesn’t seem to be too concerned about the plight of the unborn in New Jersey, where the abortion statistics are much higher than the national average. Listen to the audio from an interview then-candidate Christie did with NPR in 2009:
Here are the takeaway quotes from Mr. Christie’s interview:
“I am pro-life although I believe in exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother.”
Let’s be clear: It is not ‘pro-life’ to believe it’s O.K. to allow the destruction of innocent children. The men who commit rape and incest should be fully prosecuted for their despicable crimes, but it’s horribly unjust to put unborn children to death for the sins of their fathers. After all, why should blameless babies be executed for the circumstances of their conception?
The “life of the mother” exception is a gateway category of justified homicide, created by pro-death liberals for the purpose of drawing sensible people into acceptance of the larger category of “health of the mother” exceptions for infanticide. Doctors never have to purposefully destroy the life of an unborn child in order to save a mother’s life — they are duty-bound to make an effort to save BOTH. Not every situation will end in both lives being saved, but elective abortions should never be used to “save” the mother. Advocating for such an exception only creates a dilemma that doesn’t really exist.
“Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land and you have to enforce the law.”
Many pro-choice politicians have learned to use this manipulative claim in order to appeal to pro-life voters. By making this assertion, Mr. Christie either expects pro-lifers to be ignorant (or he expects them to believe he is) regarding the difference between a court opinion and an act of Congress. Roe vs. Wade was a Supreme Court opinion, not law. As such, it is regularly challenged by various state regulations and proposed constitutional amendments.
Does Governor Christie really believe Roe is the “law of the land,” or is he just evading his responsibility to ensure justice for all citizens of New Jersey, both born and pre-born? Gov. Christie’s statement indicates he believes “laws of the land” hold great authority. So why has he spent so much time attacking the health care law duly passed by the US Congress? Wouldn’t Obamacare be considered to be “the law of the land” by that definition, too?
This example is not offered in order to defend Obamacare, but rather to expose Gov. Christie’s double-standard on life. He vigorously opposes the health care law precisely because he believes it to be an unjust imposition on his state. Of course, if Gov. Christie really believed abortion to be an similarly unjust imposition on the state he governs, he would not hide behind its so-called “legality.”
“On a personal level, I am pro-life.”
This is another popular refrain from politicians who play both sides of the fence on abortion. Such politicians can declare Roe vs. Wade as the “law of the land,” and then backpedal by adding they “personally” believe abortion is wrong. In the ears of any discerning pro-lifer, such a position sounds both hollow and dishonest. Just because a politician says he or she is personally pro-life doesn’t mean much. For example, Nancy Pelosi has described herself as “personally” pro-life, and yet is one of the abortion industry’s most celebrated and revered defenders.
What good are the pro-life convictions of a politician if they only stay personal? They certainly do nothing to help the unborn child about to be murdered by the abortionist’s knife. If an elected leader truly believes abortion is the taking of an innocent life, such a belief necessarily affects his or her actions. If the belief is genuine, it doesn’t just stay “personal.”
In other words, the personal convictions of a politician will always affect their public policy. When a politician’s public policy doesn’t match his stated beliefs, it should be clear just how shallow those “beliefs” actually are.
“The only restrictions that I feel in favor of […] are common sense things. Parental notification is a common sense restriction.”
When something is so inherently evil as abortion, every effort should be made to ensure its demise. It is not pro-life to indirectly validate abortion by allowing it after certain requirements are met. In other words, it’s not pro-life to say, “Do [fill in the blank] and then you can kill the baby.”
Mr. Christie’s characterization of such “…and then you can kill the baby” measures as “common sense” is indicative of his priorities.
In fact, the only “common sense” thing to do is to stop the widespread murder of millions of American citizens.
Advocating for anything less than the total end of abortion will only ensure its continuation.
Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward.