Is Father Newman correct?

[Teflon93]

Given that Mr Obama will be President for the next four years, and possibly for the next eight, it would surely be better to look at what is the best way forward in the situation we actually have, rather than the situation you would like to have.

Mr Obama is “pro-choice”; he wants women to have a choice for themselves. Hence you could think of ways to help women chose not to have an abortion rather than to have one. Arranging more places for adoptions, easing the economic cost of raising a child for the poorest and similar ideas will all probably be acceptable to an Obama administration and will help to reduce the number of abortions in future. Don’t spend your energy shouting at each other or wishing that things were different from what they actually are. You cannot change the past, you can change the future. Spend your energies helping to expand an adoption agency or easing the costs of raising a child so fewer women will feel the need to chose to have an abortion .

rossum

Obama wants to be reelected. The surest curb on his proabortion radicalism is for the Catholic vote to once again be solicited by Presidential candidates.

Keep in mind that Democrats well know that it was the loss of the religious vote—especially the Catholic vote—over abortion which cost them power beginning in 1980. Obama put a lot of effort into fudging the abortion issue in the minds of Catholics in the past cycle for this very reason.

Laying down and taking it is not a viable strategy.

If the Freedom of Choice Act goes through, Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors will be forced to perform abortions. How persuasive will we be when we’re abortion providers too?

 

[TMC]

The case for McCain is quite simple. I made it above using the 2007 Senate legislative record alone.

In addition to that, Obama promised that the 1st thing he’d do would be to push for the Freedom of Choice Act, which would force Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions against their consciences and Church Teaching.

Obama has also promised an abortion litmus test for judges, including Supreme Court appointees.

McCain, having done neither, would move into the “lesser evil” category for this reason if no other.

The real here is that pro-Obama Catholics are by and large open neither to Church teaching nor reason on this point. Neither will they admit, by and large, to being opposed to either.

You will note in my posts that I have quoted the Catechism extensively, Catholic bishops, studies, statistical data, the legislative record of the candidates, and the candidates’ own pronouncements.

What precisely have you seen in the posts of AgingCatholic and other pro-Obama Catholics which displays a comparable interest in the truth of this issue or the Church teaching on it?

Remember, as Archbishop Chaput has noted, we will have to justify ourselves to the victims of abortion for our decisions.

I can justify myself easily for my McCain vote:

1. McCain has a strong pro-life record (0% from NARAL); Obama has the strongest possible pro-abortion record.
2. Obama has stated on the record that he doesn’t want his daughter “punished with a baby”.
3. Obama promised that the 1st thing he would do as President would be to get the Freedom of Choice Act passed, which would remove all state abortion restrictions in place today (parental notification, etc) as well as force Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions.
4. The Catechism states that human life MUST be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception; yet Obama opposed even the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which would have saved from death by neglect babies fortunate enough to survive abortion.
5. McCain sadly supported in 2000 embryonic stem cell research. I however was justified in voting for him as a) the numbers of embryos does not approach the 1.3 MM abortions per year (a number which will climb under Obama as abortion restrictions are removed); b) adult stem cell research has already accomplished far more than embryonic stem cell research was promised to do, meaning embryonic stem cell research is likely the scientifically less promising path and will be abandoned in the future regardless; c) Obama supports embryonic stem cell research as well, therefore having no advantage over McCain on this issue.
6. McCain as President indicated he would select pro-life judges who interpret the Constitution strictly; this offers the single best opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and allow states the opportunity once again to protect the unborn.
7. A number of bishops and priests came out prior to the election and argued persuasively that I could not vote for Obama because of his radical pro-abortion agenda.

Let it not be said that the case has not been made.

You admit that McCain supports one of the issues the Church has said is non-negotiable. If voting for Obama is wrong because he takes the wrong stance on abortion, isn’t voting for McCain wrong because he takes the wrong stance on embryonic stem cell research? If your answer is that, in your judgment, McCain will do less harm with his wrong stance then Obama will on his own bad stance, why couldn’t another Catholic apply his judgment and come out the other way? Many Catholics (including me) would tell you that McCain is also wrong on other important life issues.

I’m not saying that McCain is clearly and obviously worse, but I am saying that he is not clearly and obviously better. I think the issues have to be thought through and the candidates carefully measured, and different good Catholics will come to different conclusions. Isn’t the real point not that the Church mandates one answer, but that Catholics disagree on how to judge the candidates? Is it not only impossible that you are wrong, but also impossible that I sincerely think I am right? If so, then are most of the clergy also self-deluded, because most did not take the “Obama evil” stand.

 

[rossum]

Laying down and taking it is not a viable strategy.

How do you see working to reduce the number of abortions as “lying down and taking it”?

If you do not want to work in a hospital then go and work in an adoption agency or an orphanage.

rossum

 

[Teflon93]

You admit that McCain supports one of the issues the Church has said is non-negotiable. If voting for Obama is wrong because he takes the wrong stance on abortion, isn’t voting for McCain wrong because he takes the wrong stance on embryonic stem cell research? If your answer is that, in your judgment, McCain will do less harm with his wrong stance then Obama will on his own bad stance, why couldn’t another Catholic apply his judgment and come out the other way?

They’ve been given plenty of opportunity to give their reasons, but have failed to provide anything which passes the “justify your actions to an abortion victim” test.

I started a thread on that very topic—it’s here.

Also, had McCain been elected, I would have given money, time, treasure and ink to making sure he didn’t implement his embryonic research policy. Since conservatives are resolutely opposed to it, I have no doubt we would carry the day against McCain. After all, we did against Bush.

What precisely are Obama supporters doing to oppose the Freedom of Choice Act?

Many Catholics (including me) would tell you that McCain is also wrong on other important life issues.

And Obama is diametrically opposed to McCain on euthanasia, contraception, etc?

I’m not saying that McCain is clearly and obviously worse, but I am saying that he is not clearly and obviously better.

I am saying that you are willfully blind to it. What do you think a 100% rating vs. a 0% rating from NARAL means? What do you think the legislative record I posted means (if you bothered to read it)?

Let’s not pretend that Obama isn’t pro-abortion and McCain isn’t
pro-life.

I think the issues have to be thought through and the candidates carefully measured, and different good Catholics will come to different conclusions. Isn’t the real point not that the Church mandates one answer, but that Catholics disagree on how to judge the candidates? Is it not only impossible that you are wrong, but also impossible that I sincerely think I am right? If so, then are most of the clergy also self-deluded, because most did not take the “Obama evil” stand.

Disobedience toward the Church on a matter of faith and morals is a sin.

You simply can’t reason your way out of that box.

If you are pro-abortion, why not just say so?

 

[Teflon93]

How do you see working to reduce the number of abortions as “lying down and taking it”?

If you do not want to work in a hospital then go and work in an adoption agency or an orphanage.

rossum

What precisely is the work to reduce abortions?

Do you really think the Catholic Church position on abortion is made more credible by providing abortions in Catholic hospitals?

 

[chris_molter]

You admit that McCain supports one of the issues the Church has said is non-negotiable. If voting for Obama is wrong because he takes the wrong stance on abortion, isn’t voting for McCain wrong because he takes the wrong stance on embryonic stem cell research? If your answer is that, in your judgment, McCain will do less harm with his wrong stance then Obama will on his own bad stance, why couldn’t another Catholic apply his judgment and come out the other way?

This is called proportionality, yes.

I’m not saying that McCain is clearly and obviously worse, but I am saying that he is not clearly and obviously better. I think the issues have to be thought through and the candidates carefully measured, and different good Catholics will come to different conclusions. Isn’t the real point not that the Church mandates one answer, but that Catholics disagree on how to judge the candidates? Is it not only impossible that you are wrong, but also impossible that I sincerely think I am right? If so, then are most of the clergy also self-deluded, because most did not take the “Obama evil” stand.

I have yet to see a Catholic pro-Obama argument that provides a proportionate reason to have voted for him vs McCain or a third party candidate. All attempts I’ve read (Doug Kmiec’s, for example) have been handily refuted by more competent sources (Archbishop Chaput, for example).

If you’re aware of any cogent argument for why a Catholic could licitely vote for the most pro-abortion candidate in US history, I’d be very interested to read it.

 

[Teflon93]

The link to the “Justify Yourself To An Abortion Victim” is here.

Any pro-Obama Catholic is certainly welcome to make their case.

They’ll have to make it to God and abortion victims one day anyhow—God willing.

 

[DebChris]

TMS, rossum–I agree. Arguing among ourselves does nothing to change a situation.
The Catholic position is clear and any attempt to “force” Catholic hospitals to perform abortions would clearly be a violation of the 1st amendment. In many communities, the Catholic hospital is the only hospital available. Do you think that any politician would risk the backlash caused by a law that would force that hospital to act in a way contrary to faith or close?
Catholic hospitals do care for women suffering the after effects of abortions. We do not hear of these acts because of HIPPA and patient confidentiality.
The law in most states, prior to Roe v. Wade, did allow for therapeutic abortions if the life of the mother was threatened. Again, those procedures were allowed, even within Catholic hospitals, because when the life of the mother is threatened then so is the child’s life. Every reasonable effort needs to be taken to protect both.
I do think we need to stop fear mongering and placing more power into the hands of a single politician than that person actually yields. We can continue discussing the issue civilly and persuasively while praying for a change of heart for those whose positions are opposed to our own. We have have seen that change. Many of the most effective pro-life advocates are those who have seen the issue from both sides, who know the devastation this issue has already caused.
I recently watched a Boston Legal episode that I found interesting. One of the lawyers advocated for the court to bypass parental consent for a minor. Yes, the court did uphold the minor’s petition. In the process of the episode, many pro-life statements were made. Two of the characters had had abortions and expressed the long term pain it causes. Gender selection could not be questioned if the law itself were not questioned. The decision in Roe v. Wade keeps its advocates from really looking at the scientific evidence of when life begins and its moral implications. The ending keeps open the question of whether or not the teen actually followed through with the procedure.

 

[sodak]

How do you see working to reduce the number of abortions as “lying down and taking it”?

If you do not want to work in a hospital then go and work in an adoption agency or an orphanage.

rossum

We should be working to reduce the number of abortions AND voting against pro-abortion candidates. There is no conflict here.

I do volunteer work with overseas orphanages and adoption agencies. Do you?

 

[DebChris]

We should be working to reduce the number of abortions AND voting against pro-abortion candidates. There is no conflict here.

I do volunteer work with overseas orphanages and adoption agencies. Do you?

When I was growing up overseas, my parents played Santa and Mrs. Claus for orphans every Christmas.
Once a year, we went to a special picnic in which we “adopted” at least two orphan boys for the day. Most families only adopted one boy for the day, but I come from a large family. The idea of this “adopt an orphan” for a day was to give these children a chance to glimpse of what family is like. This picnic was held at a special sporting facility with swimming pools of all sizes. I always had fun. My mother usually packed fried chicken and her famous potato salad.
My daughter advocates for homeless families.

 

[Teflon93]

I think Archbishop Chaput’s very insightful on this:

In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be “personally opposed” to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse—exactly as it is today. In fact, I can’t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life—not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there’s very little action. In the United States in 2008, abortion is an acceptable form of homicide. And it will remain that way until Catholics force their political parties and elected officials to act differently.

I don’t see how ceding the legal realm to abortion supporters squares with this Catholic teaching either:

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person **must be recognized **and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . .** As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights**."81

As a student of history, I like to compare this struggle with ones past.

Could we with a straight face argue that slavery ought to be legal and we focus on trying to soften the hearts of plantation masters?

 

[Teflon93]

When I was growing up overseas, my parents played Santa and Mrs. Claus for orphans every Christmas.
Once a year, we went to a special picnic in which we “adopted” at least two orphan boys for the day. Most families only adopted one boy for the day, but I come from a large family. The idea of this “adopt an orphan” for a day was to give these children a chance to glimpse of what family is like. This picnic was held at a special sporting facility with swimming pools of all sizes. I always had fun. My mother usually packed fried chicken and her famous potato salad.
My daughter advocates for homeless families.

What a wonderful witness!

Sadly, abortion is one reason why there aren’t more U.S. orphanages nor children available for adoption—they never get to experience the home and family life you were able to expose those children to for what may well have been the best day of their childhoods.

 

[TMC]

This is called proportionality, yes.

I have yet to see a Catholic pro-Obama argument that provides a proportionate reason to have voted for him vs McCain or a third party candidate. All attempts I’ve read (Doug Kmiec’s, for example) have been handily refuted by more competent sources (Archbishop Chaput, for example).

If you’re aware of any cogent argument for why a Catholic could licitely vote for the most pro-abortion candidate in US history, I’d be very interested to read it.

I posted my reasons in detail in another thread. The first post is here:

TMC:

…

Much discussion follows. Or rather, much more explaining and justifying from me, with a chorus of "you’re wrong’ and “prove it” from others.

 

[chris_molter]

I posted my reasons in detail in another thread. The first post is here:

Much discussion follows. Or rather, much more explaining and justifying from me, with a chorus of "you’re wrong’ and “prove it” from others.

I might have missed it, but I didn’t see any discussion of nominating replacements for SCOTUS, or the pro-life executive orders which Bush enacted which Obama will immediately overturn in January.

I’m not sure how you think you’re going to get a net pro-life result from a President who’s totally committed to making homicide available on demand, taxpayer funded, and mandatory for all hospitals to provide. If Obama can be wrong on this most vital issue, why would he be right on anything else related to life issues? (Including his openness to invading Pakistan pre-emptively, unbridled support for ESCR, and gay unions/marriage)

Humanae Vitae was very clear that keeping abortion legal is not acceptable. Laws that keep abortion legal are unjust laws and must be opposed by all Catholics. Merely reducing abortions through economic policies is an insufficient response as economies will always have times of poor performance where abortions will likely increase, especially if unrestricted and taxpayer funded.

I hope you will actively oppose his many policies which are antithetical to Catholic teaching.

 

[TMC]

I might have missed it, but I didn’t see any discussion of nominating replacements for SCOTUS, or the pro-life executive orders which Bush enacted which Obama will immediately overturn in January.

I’m not sure how you think you’re going to get a net pro-life result from a President who’s totally committed to making homicide available on demand, taxpayer funded, and mandatory for all hospitals to provide. If Obama can be wrong on this most vital issue, why would he be right on anything else related to life issues? (Including his openness to invading Pakistan pre-emptively, unbridled support for ESCR, and gay unions/marriage)

Humanae Vitae was very clear that keeping abortion legal is not acceptable. Laws that keep abortion legal are unjust laws and must be opposed by all Catholics. Merely reducing abortions through economic policies is an insufficient response as economies will always have times of poor performance where abortions will likely increase, especially if unrestricted and taxpayer funded.

I hope you will actively oppose his many policies which are antithetical to Catholic teaching.

I will oppose Obama policies that are antithetical to Catholic teaching, just as I oppose immoral policies of his predecessor and of the guy before that. The point is that all of the Presidents and all of the candidates are a mixed bag and you have to make the best choice you can.

The proportionate reasons here are not that unjust war trumps abortion, that torture trumps abortion, or that social programs trump abortion. The proportionate reasons come from asking what a President will actually do about any of these things. The facts are that a President can do something about many issues, but can and will do very little or nothing about abortion.

The next President will not make a significant change in abortion law in this country. The chance that the next President’s appointments, or the one after that or after that, could result in illegalizing or significantly curtailing abortion in America is virtually zero. The chance that any law or order passed by the next President will do anything to liberalize abortion in America is virtually zero.

Bush’s last minute executive orders are grandstanding meant to give some political fodder to toss at Obama when he overturns them. FOCA is grandstanding on the left, will never pass, and would not change the law if it did. Neither can make significant changes in the ‘right’ to abortion in America because the courts have defined the outlines of that right. There just isn’t much room to move it around. And neither side has the political will to try to.

Think about it a minute. Do you think that Clinton was not pro-abortion? Was Bush not pro-life? How different were abortion laws when Bush was president with a Republican majority in Congress from when Clinton was president with a Democratic majority in Congress? If you actually believe that the President will make a difference next year, why didn’t he make a difference for the last sixteen years?

To me it makes no sense to vote based on a candidate’s rhetoric on an issue over which he has almost no control, versus issues he can control. Particularly given that McCain pledged not to impose a pro-life litmus test on judges, not to push for national level actions to outlaw abortion, and not to ban embryonic stem cell experiments - which are most of the things he actually has power to do.

To repeat - its not that abortion is not an important issue or that other issues are not important. Its that electing a President is not going to change abortion law.

If you believe the next President will make a big, or even little, change in abortion laws I would like to hear how. If you think that abortion should be the controlling issue even if the President can do nothing, I would like to hear why.

 

[clmowry]

To repeat - its not that abortion is not an important issue or that other issues are not important. Its that electing a President is not going to change abortion law.

Unfortunately, we will not be able to assess the truth of this statement until many years from now when we can review the decisions of the many judges he will appoint.

I will Hope and Pray for the best, though I have no reason to expect anything but the worst.

Chuck

 

[Teflon93]

The very 1st thing Barack Obama said he would do as President is push and sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will sweep away abortion restrictions at the state and federal levels and force Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions.

TMC, what are you doing right now to oppose the Freedom of Choice Act?

 

[TMC]

The very 1st thing Barack Obama said he would do as President is push and sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will sweep away abortion restrictions at the state and federal levels and force Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions.

TMC, what are you doing right now to oppose the Freedom of Choice Act?

Right now I am doing the same thing that Obama is doing to support it. Nothing. FOCA has been knocking around Congress for probably twenty years in one form or another. He can’t sign it because it hasn’t passed and is not close to passing. If that changes I will oppose it just as have opposed other bad decisions by other politicians.

If FOCA did pass, it would accomplish nothing. All it does is codify the holding of Roe v Wade in statute. Here is the text of the operant portion of FOCA:

((a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not–

(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

The rest is here: FOCA

Its a bad law that will never pass, is likely unconstitutional, and will not change the law if its not. The concern is that the “fundamental right” language will change everything, but the Congress cannot declare a fundamental right. The Supreme Court said (in Casey) that abortion is not a fundamental right and can be regulated under certain conditions. The Congress can say it has whatever policy it wants, but it cannot change that. The rest of the law is sufficiently vague as to mean little. Because the stated purpose is to “codify Roe v Wade” the courts will intertpret it to do just that - which does not change the law.

As far as forcing Catholic hospitals and doctors to perform abortions, that is based on the idea that FOCA would overturn the Hyde Amendment, but it would not.

I’m not saying its a good law, its a bad law. But it is mostly a tool for activists and lobbyists on both sides to shake at each other. Its not close to being passed and if it were passed, it would not do all the terrible things people say it would.

 

[Teflon93]

Not quite all:

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.
(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not–

(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.
This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

As I’ve noted, this act would simultaneously:

1. Invalidate all current federal, state, and local restriction on abortion—including the Hyde Amendment (note Section 6).
2. Force Catholic hospitals and Catholic doctors to perform abortions—note the red portion.

Barack Obama stated this would be the 1st thing he would do as President.

But how predictable that you would pooh-pooh the legislation, which is as clear as the Catechism is regarding abortion, and diametrically-opposed to it.

If it should pass, you have previewed for us your next excuse:

That it won’t do all the evil abortion opponents say it will.

Which just means you haven’t read “Humanae Vitae”, in which a great Catholic predicted just what the consequences of the sexual revolution would be, and which proved absolutely prophetic.

The Church knows what will happen in the wake of such legislation, which is why the bishops are lining up to oppose it.

Will you support them, or will you continue to make excuses for Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats?

 

[Teflon93]

Also, how on earth TMC can claim that the Supreme Court would find FOCA unConstitutional with Barack Obama replacing any retiring justices with candidates who must pass his proabortion litmus test is just beyond me.

Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton instituted a regime of abortion on demand at any time throughout a pregnancy. This is the whole reason why there is a fight over partial birth abortion (which Obama also supports).

If the Supreme Court has not overturned Roe and Doe, and indeed, Casey, who really believes they would find grounds to overturn FOCA?

And even if they did, how many more babies would die waiting for it to grind through the courts?

TMC says it’s a bad law. NRLC has a petition to make sure lawmakers know just how bad it is.

The petition is here, TMC—will you print it, sign it, and send it in?

nrlc.org/FOCA/FOCA2008Petition.pdf

More information on FOCA is here.

nrlc.org/FOCA/index.html

This is the first battle against Obama’s proabortion agenda.

TMC and any other Catholics who voted for Obama, here is your opportunity to fight that anti-Catholic agenda.