All writers in Op Ed are here to inform and acknowledge issues of importance to our communities, however these writings represent the views and opinions of the authors and not necessarily of The Advertiser.

Blaney Pridgen

I have been thinking about the pro-life movement in light of the Supreme Court’s recent deconstruction of Roe v. Wade.  That “light” of the high court seems to me to be but a musty mote-filled tendril falling through cracks of a broken clerestory window in a moldering cathedral, where a minor congregation hears a requiem for the unborn profanely said by pandering politicians.  And, I have been thinking about the pro-life movement emboldened by recent state legislation which will make “great again” the control of women in restrictions on their rights.  And, I have been thinking about the unborn whose parents have neither the wherewithal, maturity, opportunity, nor will to raise them.  And, I have been thinking about the rights of the unborn destined for swollen foster care programs, grossly underfunded public education, unaffordable healthcare and hopeless prospects of a living wage or childcare for their children born into endless cycles of poverty.  Is this pro-life?

Aside from anti-abortion, there are many pro-life issues to address sensibly and effectively.  Severe restrictions on the continued sale and current ownership of military style and assault type rifles and large magazine automatic pistols are clearly pro-life.  This is a pro-life issue to prevent or at least limit the deaths of little school children, movie and concert goers, religious congregations, the police, and grocery shoppers.  Their lives matter along with the unborn.  I would like for all sorts and conditions of pro-lifers to agree with this.  One might still acquire these weapons, but the licensing should be at least more difficult than getting a passport, a building permit in a historical district, or a liquor license.  The Supreme Court and state legislators would do well to remember that banning abortion means more shooters in the long haul of things.  We all know this on some level.

Life is precious.  Social welfare programs like affordable housing, food assistance, and free daycare allow people in a tough spot a chance at being able to successfully parent a child.  Clear air and water, a living wage, increased funding for mental health care(especially in schools), and affordable higher education are all pro-life.  And then there’s the matter of universal healthcare.  Isn’t that pro-life too?  It is pro-life to liberally fund the police with human resource, first responders and richer training toward significant financial advancement.  On the other hand, cutting funding or even denying funding for these kinds of needs, so that billionaires can get tax cuts and huge corporations pay no taxes, are the direct opposite of pro-life.  And I’m not suggesting pro-choice is the opposite but rather pro-death.  I heartily invite the Supreme Court and Congress to ponder their pro-death actions and inactions and try to limit them for the well-being of the unborn.  

Who wouldn’t be in favor of pro-life and all of its manifestations?  Come to think of it, even pro-choice has its pro-life contribution.  Ponder that.