For Catholics who hold views contrary to the teachings of their Church (in this case vote for candidates who publicly support intrinsic evils, especially abortion, despite what the Bishops say), I would ask they refrain from trying to persuade others to agree with their position.
Let see… trying to justify voting for a party that by their own self-admission claims to be the “pro-choice” party. A party that is in bed with PP. A party that has a hardcore record of opposing even the most inhumane practices such as abortion after 20 weeks and partial birth abortion.
A Catholic is not required to vote for someone just because they are pro-life-they just cant vote for them if they are not. As far as no compelling readon not to vote for a pro-abortion Democrat on a national level if one wishes to ignore Church teaching there is not
‘Or they feared the political backlash it would generate’: that hits the nail on the head. Republicans are about power first, morals second. They know full well that they would lose power were they to tackle the abortion issue nationally. They would keep the ‘social conservative’ votes, but lose a lot of others. They only tackle abortion on the state level in states where they have nothing to fear power-wise.
To vote for Republicans nationally just because of abortion is gullible. But that is precisely the vote that Republicans cynically count on. They desperately need the ‘social conservative’ vote, that’s why they always talk about wanting to do something about abortion on the national level. But they will never actually do anything about it for the reason stated above, because they don’t want to lose the other votes.
Nothing in Church teaching says that I am morally obliged to vote in false hope for a party that in my judgment only pays lip service to an issue, morally grave as that issue may be.
As I said before:
In some states Republicans do work on the state level on restricting abortion. Were I to live in such a state, I might in my conscience feel bound to vote for the Republican state candidates, gubernatorial, state senate etc. (depending on judging things the way I could only do if I lived there). On the national level I do not see any compelling reason not to vote Democrat – and I myself do see compelling reasons to do just that.
When considering supply and demand, all of the bills you list above appear to tackle this issue from the supply side. What about the demand side?
OK, so far 100% of those who have commented have said that the right thing to do is to act. So let’s hold on to that thought for a bit.
Enabling is doing something, perhaps unintentionally, but still knowingly, that makes it more possible and likely for there to be abortions. As you no doubt see, I am setting up a comparison between the kind of enabling one does when he votes for a pro-choice candidate, and the kind of enabling that was done in my scenario. I have tried to make the comparison as valid as possible. But let me be the first to admit the comparison is not perfect. In the story, the actions of helping John get to work on time enable only one vote on one bill, whereas voting for a pro-choice candidate puts him in office where he can cast a lifetime of votes. But to balance that, note that my scenario saves only one little girl, whereas I might believe with my prudential judgement that the foreign aid vaccination program favored by the pro-choice candidate could thousands of lives. So that is a difference in degree only.
How is this different from saying that there is no absolute prohibition against voting for a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate, particularly in light of the insight from the scenario?
At the national level, the President does direct how foreign aid gets spent. Reagan instituted the Mexico City doctrine which prohibits non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding from promoting or performing abortions. Subsequent Republican presidents continued that policy, while Democratic presidents ended the policy.
When it comes to the biggie, Roe v. Wade, there is no will to overturn it by the Supreme Court. Just look at what Chief Justice Roberts said in his Senate confirmation hearing: he would not seek to overturn it because “it’s the law of the land”. So you think more Republican-appointed judges would make a difference and the Supreme Court would actually want to take on the issue? Dream on, ain’t gonna happen.
You must have missed my remarks about voting Republican on the state level, where they actually do something about abortion.
The only thing that matters is that voting for a political candidate who does not believe the following should be illegal is a grave sin:
It’s not as black-and-white, see the remarks by the Pope Emeritus that were discussed here, and also the USCCB voting guide.
washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/02/the-rapid-surge-of-state-abortion-restrictions-in-one-chart
Read my comments regarding the USCCB voting guide on post 381
I wish people understood it so clearly.
None would have passed if it wasn’t for republicans. NONE
Once more, you must have missed my remarks about voting Republican on the state level, where they actually do something about abortion.
What matters is the position of the Church. It obviously conflicts with your politics but that is no reason to get mad at those who have been patiently explaining those positions to you. If you have a quote ftom any member of the magestrium that supports your view please post it.
But voting for Republicans on the state level can be all for naught if you vote for a Democrat president who appoints pro-abortion rights judges to the federal and supreme courts.
No. Roberts said it was “settled law”. It is…until a subsequent court overturns it. If a person wanted to know the truth, one could look at the partial birth abortion ban passed by the (I think it was) Nebraska legislature. It went to the Supreme Court. The Justices who upheld the ban were Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, joined (perhaps surprisingly) by Kennedy. Every one was a Repub appointee. Those who voted to allow unrestricted partial birth abortions were the four Democrat appointees.
Wonderful post, Al. Thank you.
‘Or they feared the political backlash it would generate’: that hits the nail on the head. Republicans are about power first, morals second. They know full well that they would lose power were they to tackle the abortion issue nationally. They would keep the ‘social conservative’ votes, but lose a lot of others. They only tackle abortion on the state level in states where they have nothing to fear power-wise.
To vote for Republicans nationally just because of abortion is gullible. But that is precisely the vote that Republicans cynically count on. They desperately need the ‘social conservative’ vote, that’s why they always talk about wanting to do something about abortion on the national level. But they will never actually do anything about it for the reason stated above, because they don’t want to lose the other votes.
Nothing in Church teaching says that I am morally obliged to vote in false hope for a party that in my judgment only pays lip service to an issue, morally grave as that issue may be.
As I said before:
In some states Republicans do work on the state level on restricting abortion. Were I to live in such a state, I might in my conscience feel bound to vote for the Republican state candidates, gubernatorial, state senate etc. (depending on judging things the way I could only do if I lived there). On the national level I do not see any compelling reason not to vote Democrat – and I myself do see compelling reasons to do just that.
On that note weren’t the only two Justices who voted against Roe V. Wade the only two Catholic Justices?
The case I think you’re looking for is Gonzales vs Carhart (2007). The 5 seem to be in favor of allowing restrictions on abortions. I think that they’ll only allow restrictions so far, but restrictions are better than nothing.