Steve Lynch:  Neither ‘Informed By … Faith’ Nor Pro-Life

Printed from:

U.S. Representative Stephen Lynch has long had a reputation for being the least crazy of Massachusetts’s nine Democratic congressmen. He initially opposed Obamacare, for instance, when he correctly discerned that union members in his base were going to get shafted by it when they lost their private Cadillac health insurance plans.

Another example:  Long after it became fashionable for Democratic pols (including Irish Catholics like Lynch) to ditch the pro-life label, he hung onto it, however tenuously.

The label is off, though, as of earlier today, when Lynch took to the pages of The Boston Globe to castigate new anti-abortion laws in pro-life states.

One of the classic signs of the shuffle from pro-life to pro-abortion is when a politician suggests that opposition to abortion stems from religion. Lynch gets that part out of the way in the first sentence, when he tells us he has “always used the term pro-life” to describe himself – “no doubt a position partly informed by my faith.”

The superfluous “no doubt” in the clause is a sign of prevarication to come. So is the unnecessary reference to faith. It’s not necessary to lean on Scripture, revelation, or doctrine to oppose abortion. All that’s needed is a respect for human life and the ability to discern that human life begins at conception. These are simple qualities that aren’t hard to arrive at for any 8-year-old, and do not require the subtle analysis of a defender of the faith – whatever faith it may be.

In short order Lynch expresses horror at new laws in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and Ohio that … make abortion illegal.

One of them bans abortion at six weeks, he informs us – “which is often before many women may even know they are pregnant.”

What does that have to do with anything?

If you believe that unborn products of conception (to use a Planned Parenthood term) are human beings who deserve the right to continue living, then it follows that killing them should be illegal, at any stage.

If you don’t … well, you’re not against abortion. And thus, you’re not pro-life.

But Lynch wants it both ways, implicitly touting his support of medical services and practical assistance for low-income pregnant women and new mothers.

“Simply opposing abortion does not make you pro-life,” he tells us.

Maybe so. But without opposing abortion, you can’t be pro-life. Lynch doesn’t oppose abortion. He makes that plain by opposing laws that make abortion illegal.

Maybe more telling, though, is that Lynch, a Democrat from South Boston, goes out of his way to criticize abortion policies in far-off places without commenting on a prominent conflict over abortion here at home in Massachusetts. Lynch never mentions the ROE Act abortion bill in the Massachusetts Legislature, which would expand access to third-trimester abortions that Lynch once opposed. It would also remove existing state protections for babies who are born following an attempted abortion.

When Lynch uses the word “shameful” in his column, it isn’t about a current attempt to make it legal in his home state to allow a doctor to allow a living, recently born baby to die – it’s about making abortion illegal in places a thousand miles away.

All, apparently, because Lynch fears a farther-Left opponent likely to challenge him in the 2020 Democratic primary.

Hey Steve:  When did you become Ed Markey?

The descent continues when Lynch informs us that the numbers of abortions in America is dropping (true) and that it’s “largely due to the impact of effective and widely available contraception, family planning services, and education” (false).

Contraception in America isn’t more available than it used to be. The Pill isn’t even as effective as it used to be. (And it remains the most popular form of contraception.)

To explain why abortions are dropping in America you must include one explanation that the formerly pro-life Lynch fails to mention:  More women are uncomfortable enough with abortion that they don’t get one.

According to a 2018 study by pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, only 36 percent of unintended pregnancies in North America between 2010 and 2014 ended in abortion.

In other words:  Nearly two-thirds of women in North America who got pregnant when they didn’t want to be pregnant did not abort the baby.

This suggests that education is working – not education about contraception, but education about what a fetus really is. When it comes to understanding the ramifications of abortion, the ultrasound is the great equalizer.

Lynch uses the word “faith” three times in a 470-word column. He never mentions which faith, but he’s presumably referring to the Roman Catholic Church, which famously condemns not just abortion but also contraception. The Church claims that divorcing sexual intercourse from procreation perverts the act by separating it from its most important purposes, which are unity and the potential for creating new life. The Church calls the practice an intrinsic evil that harms people who participate in it whether they are Catholics or not.

It’s a controversial teaching, to put it mildly. Nobody is forced to believe it. Lynch obviously doesn’t.

But so much for “faith.” It’s clear from his column in the Globe that Lynch isn’t “informed” by his faith about contraception. He apparently isn’t “informed” by his faith about abortion enough to actually oppose it.

Yet on this most basic of issues, he doesn’t really need his faith to arrive at the right answer. It’s staring him in the face.

Here’s an idea:  Why not leave faith out of it altogether, and do the right thing just because it’s the right thing to do?

Mr. Lynch:

Why not stand with the babies?