After the 2004 elections many pro-life voters expected state lawmakers would make pro-life legislation a top priority. But the legislature came up short with lawmakers failing to pass any restrictions on abortion or banning human cloning.

House Speaker Rod Jetton (R-Marble Hill) refused to assign the cloning ban to committee for consideration, and in the Senate, several senators originally elected to office on “pro-life” platforms blocked all debate on the proposed ban.

Lawmakers crafted sweeping legislation to restrict abortion and provide alternatives for women in crisis pregnancies. But at the request of Governor Blunt legislative leaders narrowed the focus to address only strengthening parental consent laws and regulating abortion clinics. Governor Blunt now states he will call a special session limited to action on parental consent and regulation of abortion clinics.

Many Catholics may be perplexed that lawmakers failed to enact stronger pro-life laws. Isn’t that why we elected them? But lawmakers interpret election mandates in different ways. Some may have viewed the election results as a mandate to cut Medicaid. Others may have seen the election returns as signaling the voter’s support for new “tort reform” or worker’s compensation laws, although one must wonder how many voters actually consider such arcane subject matter.

Further complicating matters, the term “pro-life” now encompasses much more than it did twenty years ago. The fast developing area of life sciences research presents our society with new technologies but also new moral dilemmas. When research entails killing human life at its earliest stage – the human embryo – the Catholic Church unequivocally opposes it. But the Church encourages research when it respects the sanctity and dignity of human life at all stages of development.

Realizing Missouri voters are overwhelmingly pro-life, most political candidates will say they are pro-life. But that statement of being pro-life can mean many different things. It could mean the candidate supports some limited restrictions on abortion, but opposes funding programs that provide alternatives for women in crisis pregnancies.

A candidate may claim to be pro-life but support so-called therapeutic human cloning that destroys human life at its earliest stage – the human embryo. A number of candidates claimed to be “pro-life” during the 2004 election season but opposed a ban on human cloning. Most won their elections anyway.

As in advertising so in politics: Let the buyer beware. Pro-life claims made by candidates should be double-checked. Endorsements by organizations should be carefully checked against statements by the candidates themselves. And party affiliation should not absolve any candidate from scrutiny regarding their positions on pro-life concerns.

For Catholics the label “pro-life” should always be examined to determine if the candidate comes anywhere close to representing the full range of concerns for upholding the sanctity and dignity of human life. In addition to abortion and human cloning those concerns should also include euthanasia, genocide and other attacks on innocent human life.

First and foremost, Catholic voters should become familiar with the range of issues that the Church defines as “pro-life”. Although lengthy, Catholic voters are well served by reading Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae (1995), which can be found and read on-line at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html. It condemns all acts “opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons.” The encyclical boldly affirms issues considered “pro-life” in the mind of the Church (p. 3). The right to human life itself is basic and should always be protected, but the encyclical explains that society’s obligation does not end there.

Pro-life voters need a practical, scientific and moral understanding of pro-life issues faced by government officials. Issues surrounding abortion and the death penalty are relatively simple, but questions surrounding life sciences are much more complex and require study and understanding. Supporters of unethical life sciences practices including embryonic stem cell research, fetal tissue research and human cloning use terminology often designed to cloak the true nature of their activities: the devaluation and destruction of human life. The 2005 MCC Annual Assembly on October 1 will focus on these issues, and presents an opportunity for Catholic voters to inform themselves regarding these issues.

In an era when public officials are elected claiming pro-life credentials voters should ask candidates what they mean when they claim to be “pro-life”. Some state legislators claiming to be “pro-life” were on the front lines blocking debate on banning human cloning and regulating abortion during the 2005 session of the General Assembly.

Armed with an understanding of the full range of issues the Catholic Church considers to be pro-life and with an understanding of the practical, scientific and moral natures of these issues, Missouri Catholic voters can ensure that our state’s elected officials represent the people’s will to protect all human life from conception or inception onward.