Specifying this principle will not dispel all confusion about what the principle entails. Someone may wish to argue that national health insurance saves human lives and therefore support for it follows from the principle, which a) would be true only if we granted some additional premises about the effects of this policy and b) would not mean that opposing national health insurance is equivalent to opposing legal sanctions against the deliberate taking of human lives. But calling ourselves “anti-abortion” does not prevent all such confusion: Someone might just as easily argue that doubling the minimum wage will reduce abortion and thus is truly anti-abortion. (In fact, the same people who are inclined to make the first case are typically inclined to make the second.) There is no label that can do our analytical work for us.
“During the Civil Rights Movement, Mississippi sharecropper Fannie Lou Hammer helped change the nation’s attitudes on democracy and the right to vote.***
The word of Hamer and other men and women who pioneered the voting rights of minorities eventually resulted in the seating of an integrated delegation from Mississippi at the Democratic National Convention. Hamer went on to work with the National Council of Negro Women helping organize relief and aid for the poor and furthering the political processes in her community.”(Inspiring others goal of Outreach Committee, online)