While they may not have been able to vote on the “core legality” of abortion, Pelosi (I haven’t yet looked up Biden’s record) has REPEATEDLY been given the chance to “limit the harm done” by limiting abortions and NOT DONE SO. One wonderful thing about technology these days is that public records are easy to obtain.
The concept of “limiting the harm” was introduced by JPII in Evangelium Vitae, but in the CDF Doctrinal Note on Participation in Political Life put out in 2002 (and approved by JPII), licit applications where made very narrow.
The Church specifically stated that limiting the harm could not be at the expense of other fundamental moral principles, and even gave a pretty broad list of principles which are not negotiable.
While Roe and Casey are in effect, the ability to ‘limit harm’ in terms of actually stopping abortions is pretty small. On the flip side, many of these attempts to minimize have other potential impacts.
Let’s take the example of prop 4, or Sarah’s law, which just failed in California. It is basically a parental notification law for minors wishing to obtain abortions. The stated reason for the law was that abortion is a surgical procedure with serious risks, and parents have a right to protect their children from death.
But, as nice as that sounds, everyone knows up front that is not the real reason for the law. The hope would be that parental notification would stop some abortions. Stopping abortions is a laudable goal, but it does not (at least in Church teaching) trump all other moral obligations.
So we have to look at the full ramifications of the law, and the efforts to pass it. Right off the bat, there is an identifiable moral conflict. There hasn’t been an identifiable problem with minors being physically harmed or killed receiving abortions that their parents were unaware of in California, ‘Sarah’ had to be brought in from out of state. Jammie Garcia Yanez-Villegas was a 15 year old who died, seemingly, of a post abortion infection in Texas in 1994.
Further, from discovery in a legal suit about the proposition, it appears that ‘Sarah’ was not used to protect privacy, but because the sponsors thought that there would be more sympathy if Jammie’s ethnicity was concealed. Compared to abortion, many people would consider these issues small, but they have to be acknowledged. The law was being promoted by contending that there was a (seemingly) non existent problem in the state and the message was (seemingly) being tailored to accommodate racism.
Two larger moral problems also exist. First many proponents of the law repeatedly contended that there has never been a death or serious injury as a result of parental notification laws. But it only takes a few minutes with Google to discover that this is untrue. In addition to the horrible case in Michigan where the girl had her boyfriend repeatedly beat her stomach with a baseball bat, there seem to be at least two suicides and one death from an illegal abortion.
Second, ‘Sarah’s Law’ would not have applied to Sarah. Sarah was already a mother and living in a common law marriage, her parents would not have been notified.
The reason I see these as larger moral complications is that “society’s protection of minors” is specifically listed by Rome as a non negotiable moral principle in voting. If some minors would be injured, then they have to be at least considered by Catholics in voting. Attempting to conceal their existence then becomes a pretty serious offense against the 8th Commandment.
Also, when 15 year olds are parents, living in common law marriages, and dying from abortions, I believe that we have already failed, collectively, in our duty to protect minors. Using that failure (and horrible tragedy) as a tool to promote other purposes is not, in of itself, particularly Christian behavior.
When all things are weighed, I know how I would have voted, but it would be wrong of me to judge California Catholics who reached different conclusions. We all sense the certainty of our moral conscience, but we must remain aware of its fallibility (CCC 1790).
In an emotionally charged issue like abortion it is hard not to start judging and making moral comparisons between ourselves and others. But we are expressly warned against this in the Gospels (Prodigal Son, Pharisee and the Publican, etc.) Such judgements are, themselves, sins.
Think of it this way. Last year children in hunger jumped about 50% in the US, to about 700,000. There is no doubt in my mind that this is something we will have to answer for when we stand before the Son of Man (Matthew 25). I could probably identify a bunch of places in your voting and your everyday life which I could point to and argue that you had not done everything in your power to limit this harm. But that would be my prudential judgement, you have yours. We all pronounce that we are unworthy for communion when we receive it, how can we be totally sincere in that portion of the Mass if we are also arguing that ‘unworthy’ is a sliding scale?
This is why JPII set the standards and process he did for applying CIC 915. This is a matter for Pelosi and her bishop, not for you and I. No matter how sure we may be that we can correctly judge her personal state of grace.
Peace.
