This is my very first post on this site, so be gentle.
It seems to be in vogue to explain away the political tendencies of “liberal” Catholics as a results of poor catechesis, however I think this is a rather condescending oversimplification that avoids the reality that it is possible to have differing opinions on political matters. For many people (Catholics included), Obama’s pro-choice policies are not dispositive.
Ultimately the President has very little control over whether abortion remains legal in this country, and has only very limited authority over where federal money goes. We had two terms of Bush, an ostensibly pro-life president, and abortion remained completely legal. The legality of abortion under the Constitution is going to be an issue only the Supreme Court will have any meaningful say on, so unless you’re willing to allow your vote to be based solely on who a potential president might appoint to that court, I think looking beyond the abortion issue is quite reasonable.
While I personally will not be voting for Obama this November, I fail to see how the policies of a Santorum or Romney administration would be any more objectively pro-life than the current administration. They may appoint justices who would be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, but ultimately their support of the military-industrial complex and health care make them far less “pro-life” than the single issue of abortion may indicate.
So I think it’s good to weigh abortion heavily when deciding who to vote for, but understand also that its legality doesn’t really hinge on the person occupying the oval office.
Welcome. Not a bad first post at all.
You are right that the individual occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW cannot, by fiat, overturn Roe v Wade. And even if, in theory, he could, that would not prevent some states from keeping the process legal. After all, there were a few states that allowed mothers to slaughter their babies in the womb prior to that decision – there would be plenty who would have no part in re-criminalizing the process if that decision is ever reversed.
Having said that, there is a tremendous amount that a President can do to make it a whole lot more difficult. His first day in office, he could immediately cut off the abortion funding that is part of our foreign aid and part of our UN contributions. As soon as he could get a pro-life HHS secretary in place, he could dismantle all the regulatory structure that provides federal funding for abortion (while under the annual Hyde Amendments that are part of the annual appropriation bills, direct funding of abortion not allowed, there is a whole lot of indirect funding that goes on).
Of course, he appoints all federal judges (subject to Senate confirmation). He could make respect for life, from the moment of fertilization, a litmus test in who he appoints. But he also appoints all US attorneys for the country. Ensuring they are all enthusiastically pro-life will make sure that the arguments for life made in the courts are vigorously upheld.
And then there is the bully pulpit. Never underestimate that. During the 8 years of GW Bush, the March for Life always got verbal support. Imagine if a President actually appeared in person there…and maybe even marched with us? What about a national proclamation of National Right To Life Day…also within his power. And a declaration that all flags at government buildings in the US were to be flown at half-staff, in remembrance of the 55,000,000 lives that have been needlessly taken through abortion? What kind of powerful message would that send?
Granted, a president can’t overturn Roe v Wade, but there is a HUGE amount that one can do.
