Bob Novak Backs Up John Fund's Story on McCain and Alito

Columnist Robert Novak writes at The Washington Post:

As John McCain neared his momentous primary election victory in Florida after a ferocious campaign questioning his conservative credentials, right-wingers buzzed over word that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative. In response, McCain said he recalled saying no such thing and added that Alito was a "magnificent" choice. In fact, multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago.

McCain, as the "straight talk" candidate, says things off the cuff that he sometimes cannot remember exactly later. Elements of the Republican Party's right wing, uncomfortable with McCain as their prospective presidential nominee, brought the Alito comments to the surface long after the fact for two contrasting reasons. One was a desperate effort to keep McCain from winning in Florida. The other was to get the party's potential nominee on record about key issues before he is nominated.

***
That was the background for conservative John Fund's Wall Street Journal online column the day before Florida voted. Fund wrote that McCain "has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.' " In a conference call with bloggers that day, McCain said, "I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that." He was "astonished" by the Alito quote, he said, and he repeatedly says at town meetings, "We're going to have justices like Roberts and Alito."

I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund's source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts, as follows:

"Wouldn't it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?" one lawyer commented. McCain replied, "Well, certainly Roberts." Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
I think some of those who called into question the veracity of Mr. Fund's account owe him an apology. At least one person commenting at Pro Ecclesia the other day - a prominent Catholic pro-lifer supporting McCain - called Fund's piece "a slime job" that "should be ignored".

Well I'm not ignoring it, especially now that Bob Novak has confirmed the story as true. As for "slime jobs", McCain has become an expert at sliming conservatives over the last 8 years in order to curry favor with liberal Democrats and the MSM. So far, I haven't been convinced that that's about to change.

Countering the "GOP / Bush 'duped' Pro-Lifers" Smear

In recent weeks we've heard the argument -- advanced by more than one member of Vox Nova -- that the pro-life movement has been exploited by the Republican Party. "Dupes" of the GOP who pay little more than lip service to the cause if and when they find it politically expedient to do so. See, for instance, "Willingly Duped, Again and Again (Vox Nova January 24, 2008); likewise, over the past several days various members of Vox Nova have issued the following denunciations:

• "The GOP cannot afford to actually work to end abortion. If they did, it would be a great victory, but they would have nothing else that serious Christians could point to as a reason to support the party. Republicans need to keep abortion legal, but make it look like they are trying to end it, so that this game can keep on going and going." (Michael Iafrate 01/28/08)
  
  
• "I think token gestures such as voting for "this guy" because "he is against abortion" and politics continue as usual, abortion continues as usual, and the walks for life with only a reflection on abortion being bad without any progress continue as usual, ends up being the one who is causing the greatest harm to the cause. Pro-lifers have become just a token group with only lip service given to them and that lip service amuses them enough that they think everyone has done their duty. Instead, it just means they have given over to flattery." (Henry Karlson 01/27/08)
  
  
• "At bottom, politicians are adept at manipulating the public’s opinion about themselves. Rarely do they go much beyond that. Jesse Helms was on the right side of the unborn issue, but look what he did on the questions of social justice. And what did he accomplish on the unborn issue. Nothing. The odds are simply too great that none of these politicians will accomplish anything, and when they do, it is too often the case that the means they employ will create more problems than they solve. . . . As for the rights of the unborn, I know of no existing policy that is going to make a difference. It simply won’t happen precisely because at bottom this challenge is a spiritual matter requiring a spiritual solution. Once again, the means must be proportionate to the end." (Gerald Campbell 01/28/08)
  
  
• "None of the cadidates are either willing or capable of stopping the slaughter of our unborn. America’s entire system of governance is satanically rigged to produce injustice, for it is founded upon idolatry and violence. . . . ponder the fruits: thousands of nukes ready to annihilate the world, millions of abortions, and a “justice” system that can’t stop torture or the crowding of our prisons with blacks and latinos. The monsters of the Apocalypse are alive and well in this world, and they live in the political structure of the United States." (Nate Wildermuth 01/29/08)

DISCLAIMER:^* The political affiliation of the aformentioned authors is unknown. Most of them have elsewhere offered criticism of the Democratic Party's formal support of abortion and anti-life policies, and some -- but not ALL -- of Vox Nova contributors are deeply critical of the Republican Party.

However, insofar as the better part of "pro-life" legislation is introduced and promoted by Republicans, this reader's impression is that the GOP remains the target of this unfair characterization when it is offered.

Consequently, this line of "argument" is often advanced (here and elsewhere) to criticize Republicans and "Catholic conservatives"; or to deride both parties in general (in a "pox on both your houses" manner of speaking); and, in the case of one author in particular (Gerald Campbell, with whom we have previously taken issue), it has been employed as a case for voting for Barack Obama, on grounds that since attempts to resolve the scourge of abortion by legislation and the formation of public policy have proved inconsequential, a reasonable alternative would be to embrace a candidate like Obama who, through his gift at rhetoric, might

". . . summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind."

With respect to this proposal, I dispute whether any Catholic could vote in good conscience for a candidate who is wholly committed to passing The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).

I also reject the characterization of the pro-life movement as little more than "dupes" and the Republicans as nothing more than con artists. To assert this, I think, is a great disservice and slander against many of those in the GOP who with sincere convictions have paid their dues "slogging through the legislative trenches", so to speak, on behalf of their constituents, chief of all the unborn. We have profiled many of these individuals within this blog and it troubles me to see them ridiculed in such a manner.

In this post I'd like to challenge this allegation by examining some past pro-life legislation and legislative achievements (initiated by Republicans) to get a sense of what is at stake when we vote -- and why it is important to vote for politicans who are concerned about advancing a culture of life.

Significant Pro-Life Achievements Sponsored by the GOP

When we started this blog in 2004 I blogged a post on the legislation that might be passed under the Bush administration. I found it very educational and a helpful reminder of ways in which legislators we elect can mitigate the effects of Roe v. Wade by the passing of pro-life legislation (much of which is aimed at laying the groundwork for legal recognition of the personhood of the unborn).

• Unborn Victims of Violence Act (also known as "Laci and Conner's Law"), signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 1, 2004, was enacted after a five-year effort led by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). This bill was sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Melissa Hart (R-Pa.). A Senate companion bill (S. 1019) was sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio). The House of Representatives approved the bill on February 26, 2004 (254-163) and the Senate approved it on March 25, 2004 (61-38).

  The act recognizes that when a criminal attacks a pregnant woman, and injures or kills both her and her unborn child, he has claimed two human victims. The bill would establish that if a "child in utero" is injured or killed during the commission of certain federal crimes of violence, then the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child.
  

  While the law makes an exception to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal), or to any form of medical treatment, it was nonetheless supported by the National Right to Life as granting legal personhood to the unborn -- and by the same token was vehemently opposed by Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations. See Legislative history on federal and state versions of the bill.
  

• The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act extended legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. Identified as Public Law 107-207, it was signed into law August 5, 2002 by President Bush,[1] and was based on HR 2175 (passed March 12). The Senate counterpart, initiated by Sen. Rick Santorum, passed July 18. When he signed the law, President Bush said, "This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive -- including an infant who survives an abortion procedure -- is considered a person under federal law." He added, "Today, through sonograms and other technology, we can see clearly that unborn children are members of the human family, as well." (Legislative History.
  

  As reported earlier, a version of this law (the Induced Infant Liability Act,) was vehemently opposed in Illinois by Senator Barack Obama.
  

• The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was perhaps the most famous piece of pro-life legislation signed into law by President Bush in 2003. The bill represents the first direct national restriction on any method of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in 1973. The bill bans "partial-birth abortion," and it legally defines a partial-birth abortion as any abortion in which the baby is delivered "past the [baby's] navel . . . outside the body of the mother," OR "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," BEFORE being killed. See the complete official text of the bill; key documents on medical issues relating to partial birth abortion and
  

  The bill has been met with vigorous opposition by Democrats and subject to numerous attempts to repeal. In the case of Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge by a lower court blocking enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act -- the 5 justices voting to uphold the ban? Newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Anthony Kennedy.
  

• In November 2004, Congress passed the Hyde/Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment, prohibits discrimination on the level of federal, state or local government against health care providers who decline to provider, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
  

• In June 6, 2007, the U.S. House turned back a "stealth attempt" by Democratic leadership to pass a "clone-and-kill" bill that would have promoted large-scale cloning of human embroyos for research. Deceptively titled "The Human Cloning Prohibition Act," it would have banned "reproductive cloning" but would not have prohibited the cloning, harvesting and ultimate destruction of embroyos for scientific research.
  

  As the USCCB explained: "Such a ban [on "reproductive cloning"] does not actually ban cloning. It waits until the cloning procedure is finished, then forbids live birth of the resulting clones. It would be highly ineffective even at achieving its own goal." [Click here for the full NRLC page on legislation pertaining to human cloning].
  

• In June 20, 2007, President Bush veto of legislation (S. 5) that would mandate federal funding of the type of stem cell research that requires the killing of human embryos, in addition to issuing an executive order to promote more federal funding for promising types of stem cell research that do not require harming human embryos. On May 3, 2007, President Bush sent Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) and House Speaker Pelosi letters in which he said, "I will veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage."
  

• In September 20, 2007, Senator Brownback introduced the Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, which would require that a doctor (1) perform an ultrasound, (2) share the results with the woman and allow her to (3) view the images before performing an abortion. The bill seeks to ensure that abortion providers allow women to understand fully the nature of the young life within them. No woman could be prosecuted, as the requirements are placed solely on the abortion provider.
  

Failed legislation:

• The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S 356 & HR 3442) | Full text, introduced by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), would require abortionists to provide women seeking abortion after 20 weeks past fertilization (the beginning of the sixth month) a brochure explaining that there is "substantial evidence" that the abortion will cause pain to the unborn child, and advise them of their right to request the administration of pain-reducing drugs to the unborn child. The bill failed by a vote of 250-162, short of the two-thirds majority required under rules that limit debate.
  

  On its face, this might not seem like a very significant act -- it is what you might call incremental. Like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, it's value is in placing before the consciousness of the mother (and perhaps the abortionist) the humanity of the unborn. To quote Senator Sam Brownback:

  Women should not be kept in the dark; women have the right to know what their unborn child experiences during an abortion. After being presented with the medical and scientific information on the development of the unborn child 20 weeks after fertilization, the woman is more aware of the pain experienced by the child during an abortion procedure, and able--at the very least--to make an informed decision.

  Suffice to say it was for this very reason that it was opposed by "pro-choice" organizations.
  

• The Child Custody Protection Act (S. 403), sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nv.) and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.), would have make it a crime for anyone to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion (to circumvent parental notification/consent laws in their home states). It was originally passed by the Senate on July 25 by a vote of 65-34, but future progress was blocked:

  Hours before Congress adjourned for pre-election campaigning, 57 senators voted to remove the final procedural obstacle to S. 403, which would have cleared the bill for transmission to President Bush for his signature. But 57 was three votes short of the 60 required under Senate rules to break through a procedural roadblock erected by the Senate Democratic leadership.

  
  

President Bush's Pro-Life Record

In addressing the question of whether or not President Bush has been sympathetic to the pro-life movement (and not merely using it for political expediency), I think it best to let his enemies testify. Which is to say, in judging his pro-life accomplishments, who better to turn to then Planned Parenthood? -- See "George W. Bush's War on Women: A Pernicious Web: A Planned Parenthood Report on the Administration and Congress" providing "A Chronology of Attacks on Reproductive Rights" under the Bush administration and a GOP-led Congress. The actual report is 87 pages long, but let's focus on just one aspect of accomplishments of President Bush's term: Redefining the Legal Status of the Fetus (keep in mind the perspective is that of a "pro-choice" organization):

• House passes "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (April 26, 2001).
  
• HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson announces new rules making fetuses, but not pregnant women, eligible for prenatal care in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (March 5, 2002).
  
• Announcement made by administration that approximately $900,000 available for financial assistance and applications for embryo "adoption" (July 25, 2002).
  
• HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection Charter gives embryos new status as "human subjects" (October 2002).
  
• House passes so-called "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" giving zygote, embryo, or fetus the same legal rights as a person and further undermining a woman's right to an abortion (February 26, 2004).
  
• Federal District Judge Phyllis Hamilton Protects Patients' Privacy by Denying DOJ's Request for Planned Parenthood Medical Records in Course of Federal Abortion Ban Trial (March 5, 2004).
  
• "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" passes Senate, grants fertilized egg legal status distinct from woman, posing threat to the foundations of Roe v. Wade (March 25, 2004).
  
• President signs so-called "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" into law, may help lay groundwork for future effort to reverse Roe v. Wade (April 1, 2004).

Why Does Pro-Life Policy Matter?

In January the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the special research arm of Planned Parenthood, showing the annual number of abortions reaching their lowest level in nearly 30 years (Abortion Numbers Continue to Decline NRLC January 17, 2008):

The Guttmacher Institute report finds just over 1.2 million abortions in the United States in 2005, down nearly 25% from their high of 1.6 million in 1990, and the lowest reported total since 1.179 million in 1976. Additionally, the report shows the abortion rate (the number of abortions per every thousand women age 15-44) down to 19.4 per thousand – the lowest since 1974. The Guttmacher report speculates that the lower abortion rates may be due to "more women carrying unintended pregnancies to term," implicitly acknowledging that attitudes toward abortion and pregnancy may have substantially changed.

Some of this decline may probably be attributed to dubious causes -- the widespread use of contraceptives, more specically the provision of RU-486 and the "Morning After Pill".

At the same time, we can likely attribute some of this decline to the genuine efforts of those in public service to passing legislation at the federal and state levels protecting the unborn and equipping mothers with information:

Twenty-three states have women's right to know laws that provide women seeking abortion with information about abortion and its risks, biological information about the development of their unborn child and available alternatives to abortion, including, significantly, the types of both governmental and private assistance available if they choose to bear their child. Eleven states also make provisions for women to view ultrasound footage of their unborn child.

Twenty-eight states have laws providing for parental involvement in a minor daughter's abortion decision. Other data show that teen abortion rates have fallen further and faster than abortion rates as a whole.

Also significant has been the enactment of partial-birth abortion bans at the federal and state level. Public debate surrounding these laws has further increased the public's awareness about abortion and the development of unborn children in utero.

This is something to be thankful for, though there is much work yet to be done. And I concur with the critics of Vox Nova: legislation alone will not change hearts and minds. What is truly needed is spiritual transformation on the part of the American populace and a re-orientation towards life. But the passing of such legislation and the efforts of the Bush administration and Republicans have at the very least served the cause of justice, in protecting the right to life of the "least among us." In the words of Br. Matthew Augustine, OP in a comment at Vox Nova: "The law isn’t merely there to coerce behavior but also to protect the common good and reflect the truth of the human person and the moral order. It is worth our blood, sweat and tears to work to ensure that the dignity of unborn life is reflected in law."

WHAT YOU CAN DO

I don't expect to win any hearts or minds of those who have ridiculed the pro-life movement as chumps for falling into the hands of conniving Republicans. But I have the hope that readers will
keep in mind what is at stake when they vote, and why those representatives whom we elect matter. As far as supporting legislative pro-life efforts, here is what you can do:

• The USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities lists the following concerns for Catholics: Abortion, Assisted Suicide, Capital Punishment, Cloning, Contraception, Embryo Research, Euthanasia, Fetal Research, In Vitro Fertilization, Morning After Pill, Mexico City Policy, Partial-Birth Abortion, Post Abortion, Roe v. Wade, RU-486, Stem Cell Research and Unborn Victims of Violence. Many if not most of these concerns are shared by non-Catholic Christians nationwide. (You can also ask yourself, where does your prospective candidate stand on these issues?)
  

• The Right to Life Legislative Action Center provides action alerts on current pro-life legislation on abortion, human embroyos/human cloning, euthanasia/assisted suicide, adoption and abortion alternatives and Key Votes in Congress. Likewise important, it keeps you up to date on legislation which should be opposed.
  

---

* The "Disclaimer" was offered and modified subsequent to the posting on account that some parties cited might be perceived as being beholden to the Democrats or formally supporting a Democratic candidate. As stated only one author has publicly expressed his personal support for Obama.

My hope is that the discussion will proceed from questioning this or that individual's partisan affiliation to challenging the specific claim -- as stated in the title of this post -- that the GOP / Bush have "duped", and done nothing for, the pro-life movement.

Catholic GOP Voters in Florida...

...went for Senator McCain.

37% of weekly Mass attendees (13% of total vote) voted for McCain, 31% for Governor Romney, and 22% went for Mayor Giuliani.  42% of Catholics who go to Mass less often (16% of total vote) voted for McCain, 26% for Romney, 19% for Governor Huckabee, and 12% for Giuliani.

More McCain

I see McCain denials on the Alito comment have been made. Given that Fund actually wrote that he "might draw the line" on another Alito (the operative word being might) I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, former Senator Rick Santorum has recently been critical of Senator McCain:

Although McCain has a largely pro-life voting record, Santorum — who led on pro-life and marriage issues in the Senate — cautioned against misunderstanding McCain’s public stance: “Not only was he wrong on embryonic-stem-cell research, but on a whole host of conservative issues, where he may have voted with us.” Santorum took radio listeners into the back-room workings of the Senate, emphasizing how the first step toward legislative success is finding time on the floor to discuss and vote on the issues: “That discussion is held in private, where you’re jostling and jockeying to get your legislation into the queue so that you can have your time on the floor to get something done. And I can tell you, when social-conservative issues were ever raised — whether it was marriage or abortion or a whole host of other issues — there were always the moderates who said ‘no, no, no, we can’t: they’re divisive, divisive, divisive.’ And more often than not, John McCain was . . . with them,” agreeing that these were divisive issues that the Senate should not bring to a vote.

“That’s wrong,” Santorum added, “and that gives me an insight into what he would really be like [on these issues] if he were president of the United States.”

More.

I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things, but I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s marriage or abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up, because he was uncomfortable voting for them. So I mean, this is just not a guy I think in the end that washes with the mainstream of the Republican Party.

And more.

I talked to Rick Santorum briefly tonight. He told me that he “can’t in good conscience give details about what happened in senator-only meetings.” But in response to Ramesh’s question on abortion-related legislation, the former Pennsylvania senator offers to NRO: “the one that comes quickly to mind was a ban on cloning. While the House passed a cloning ban at least on one occasion, we never voted on the issue despite pleas from social conservatives as to its importance. Many senators including Senator McCain wanted to avoid casting votes.”

John McCain's service to our nation is more then commendable, it is more then we should ever ask of our sons or daughters. For many issues important to Catholics he has been there fighting the good fight.

What Senator Santorum claims though is disturbing. If the above is indeed true, what can we expect from a President McCain if the Congress attempts to repel DOMA or the PBA ban? Would he want to avoid having to veto such legislation? And is he really willing to put up SCOTUS nominees like Alito, Roberts, and Scalia in the face of Democratic opposition in the Senate?

These are serious questions for Catholic Republican voters to consider.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)

What is the Freedom of Choice Act?
If you've been paying attention to our presidential candidates -- at least those beholden to Planned Parenthood and NARAL and supporting a "right to choice" in the matter of abortion, you may have encountered the phrase "Freedom of Choice Act." This is what they are referring to:

According to the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC):

The promoters of the FOCA sometimes claim that its purpose is to "codify Roe v. Wade," the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand. But the key binding provisions of the bill would go further than Roe, invalidating all of the major types of pro-life laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the decades since Roe.

"The claim that the bill would ‘codify Roe' is just a marketing gimmick by the proponents," explained Johnson. "The sponsors hope that journalists and legislators will lazily accept that vague shorthand phrase – but it is very misleading. The references to Roe in the bill are in non-binding, discursive clauses. The heart of the bill is a ban that would nullify all of the major types of pro-life laws that the Supreme Court has said are permissible under Roe v. Wade, including the ban on partial-birth abortions and bans on government funding of abortion."

The bill flatly invalidates any "statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official (or any person acting under government authority) that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" abortion, or that would "discriminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."

This no-restriction policy would establish, in Senator Boxer's words, "the absolute right to choose" prior to fetal "viability."

The no-restriction policy would also apply after "viability" to any abortion sought on grounds of "health."

According to the National Right to Life Committee's Legislative Action Center, the FOCA was introduced by Democrats in response to the April 18, 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Gonzales v. Carhart) upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Among the types of laws that the FOCA would invalidate are:

-- The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits most federal funding of abortion, and the laws of many states that restrict state funding of abortion.

-- Laws in effect in some jurisdictions that bar abortions in government-operated hospitals.

-- Laws requiring parental notification or consent, or judicial authorization, before an abortion can be performed on a minor daughter.

-- Laws requiring that girls and women seeking abortion receive certain information on matters such as fetal development and alternatives to abortion, and then wait a specified period before the abortion is actually performed, usually 24 or 48 hours.

-- "Conscience" laws, allowing doctors, nurses, or other state-licensed professionals, and hospitals or other health-care providers, to decline to provide or pay for abortions.

• The House bill, H.R. 1964, was introduced by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who in the new Democratic-majority Congress is the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee that has jurisdiction over such legislation. To view an always-current list of co-sponsors, arranged by state, click here.
  
• The Senate bill, S. 1173, introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.), had 13 Democratic cosponsors, including presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY), plus independent Joseph Lieberman (Ct.). (To view an always-current list of co-sponsors, arranged by state, click here.)
  

Where do Democratic candidates stand on the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)?

• Barack Obama (in his Statement on 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision):

  "Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

  When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.

  Senator Obama is a co-sponsor of the FOCA.
  
  
  
• Hillary Clinton (in her Agenda For Reproductive Health Care announced on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade):

  Hillary will sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade and send a renewed signal to the courts that the will of Congress and the President is to keep abortion legal.

  Senator Clinton is a co-sponsor of the FOCA.
  
  
  
• John Edwards (in a position statement: "A Women's Right to Choose" JohnEdwards.com ):

  The right to choose and the right to privacy are fundamental constitutional rights. Edwards strongly supports those rights as recognized by Roe v. Wade. He supports a federal freedom of choice act codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law so that the right to choose is protected no matter what the Supreme Court does. He opposes legislation that would undermine reproductive freedom and choice, like the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

  
  

Where do Republican candidates stand on the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)?

Presumably opposed. That said, if you can find any specific references by former mayor Giuliani on this matter, I'll modify this post.

Planned Parenthood and NARAL are currently rallying for the passage of this legislation -- in 2007, bolstered by the

More on McCain and his Views on Judicial Nominees

From John Fund today:

More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."

Senator McCain needs to provide some answers on this disturbing comment.

What would a President McCain's Supreme Court Nominees Look Like?

Andy McCarthy of National Review Online suggests his nominees could surprise many of his pro-life backers:

McCain's signature legal issue is campaign finance reform. As a class, conservative legal figures reject this initiative as an unconstitutional curb on political speech (i.e., the speech it was the First Amendment's principal purpose to protect.) As demonstrated in last term's case, Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life , it is the liberal bloc of the Court (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) which adopts McCain's position. Justices Scalia and Thomas (along with Justice Kennedy) appear poised to reverse the Court's 2002 McConnell decision that upheld McCain/Feingold; Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, though not yet willing to go that far, ruled it unconstitutional as applied and signalled a willingness--if appropriate in some future case--to, as Justice Alito put it, "reconsider the holding in McConnell that the law "is facially constitutional."

McCain is certainly not going to reverse himself on campaign finance reform--indeed, he filed amicus briefs in the Wisconsin Right to Life case and continues to regard this regulatory scheme as critically important. He made his constitutional views quite clear, arguing, for example, that "the discussion of political policy generally or advocacy of the passage or defeat of legislation is entitled to no greater protection under the First Amendment than advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates for federal office." (Citations and internal quotes omitted.)

So my questions are (a) are there really lots of respected conservative legal figures who would flock to McCain; (b) even if there are, does anyone really think a President McCain would appoint to the Supreme Court a justice who is likely to reverse McConnell; (c) shouldn't we assume that a justice who is likely to uphold McConnell would be one who, philosophically, inclines toward the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court rather than Justices Scalia, Thomas, et al.; and (d) given that Sen. McCain went to the trouble of explaining his views on constitutional interpretation in Wisconsin Right to Life, don't the editors think conservatives should rely on McCain's own words--rather than anything he'd tell us about who his advisers would be--in anticipating what sort of judges he would nominate?

I think the good senator has some explaining to do. And I wonder how Prof. Bradley and Senator Brownback would respond to McCarthy's suggestion?

Debating Catholic Support for Barack Obama

Carolyn Kennedy's endorsement of Democratic Candidate Barack Obama signifies an opportunity for Gerald Campbell, Morning's Minion and readers of Catholic blog Vox Nova to swoon over his rhetorical skills:

# Matt Talbot Says:

I’m not ashamed to say I choked up a bit toward the end of Obama’s victory speech in South Carolina last night. This guy has charisma coming out of his ears.

There hasn’t been a rhetorician with his skills on the scene in at least 40 years. America is going to be an engaging place to follow politics if he gets the nomination and wins the general election.

# Morning's Minion Says:

Obama’s rhetoric is stunning. No public figure since Bobby Kennedy has spoken so eloquently, so hopefully, about uniting and bringing out the best in people.

# Matt Talbot Says:

There are actually a lot of parallels between RFK in his time, and BHO in his. Both are running as unifying candidates in a badly divided electorate, an electorate that was and is looking for an alternative to the status quo; both are running against an unpopular and unjust war…

Most of Vox Nova's posts on politics and/or the 2008 presidential campaigns have focused their criticism on the Republicans (and the evils of the Bush administration, in particular) -- perhaps, in their thinking, to make up for what they perceive as a dearth of criticism from other "conservative Catholics" in St. Blog's Parish. In the past several weeks, the members of the Catholic blog Vox Nova have raised serious (and, in my opinion, valid) concerns over the pro-life credentials of John McCain on ESCR. They have complained how Catholics have been "duped" by the GOP.

By comparison, the only two posts of which Obama is the subject have treated him with what one might call "kid gloves," and taken an approach that I can only describe as "laudatory."

Why does this get under my skin? -- We are talking about a candidate who for all his talk of unity has fought tooth and nail to exclude a rather significant portion of human beings -- of whom the "right" to murder he has obstinately advocated (going above and beyond even NARAL) to the point of opposing life-saving medical treatment to babies who survived an abortion, which no amount of praise or shouts of “Yes, we can! Si, se puede can conceal.

Rather, I'm reminded of Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley, who "expressed his bafflement and righteous fury at Democrats backing abortion rights" (Boston Globe November 15, 2007):

In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

"I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.

Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O'Malley said, "I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned."

"However, when I challenge people about this, they say, 'Well, bishop, we're not supporting [abortion rights],'" he said. "I think there's a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change."

I don't mean to suggest that Catholics should be wedded to the GOP, but if one voices their support for Obama, at least endeavor to explain how a candidate with a 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood would merit Catholic support. I posed this question at Vox Nova and received the following reply from Gerald Campbell:

As for the unborn, this is an intellectual and practical challenge that has yet to be seriously engaged — by anyone, anywhere — on either side of the debate. This issue has been framed, and deliberately so, as a political wedge issue. Its logical structure is thoroughly contradictory and self-defeating. It insures that political chaos will endure and remain self-perpetuating. It is a debate that only serves the interests of Power.

Pro-life advocates believe they have a practical solution to the mounting tragedy of the unborn. But, in fact, no such solution exists. For over a half century, this debate has been frozen in time while the rate of abortions have increased day after day, year after year, decade after decade. This is the tragic fact. No solution stands on the horizon. It is time to stop and think. [...]

And again:

At bottom, the behavioral crisis facing this country — as reflected in homelessness, violence, substance abuse, gangs, abortion, family dynamics, and so forth — is a spiritual crisis. It is a function of the failure of the individual to realize intrinsic relationships, e.g., love, compassion, understanding, mercy, etc. . . .

The logic inherent in the atomistic individual leads directly to wide-spread spiritual alienation. This alienation is the root cause of dysfunctional behavior. The formal cause of human behavior is always spiritual.

In my work and testimony to the Congress, I speak of the “unmet need to belong.” This is not a psychological or sociological need, although it has psychological and sociological implications. It is an existential need. Individuals will do whatever it takes to find a way to belong with others, even if that involves sharing heroin needles, murdering another individual, or indulging in a life of power and wealth.

The question that must be faced by the national leadership is how to address a spiritual crisis. Policy is limited by the very fact that it is mechanical in nature. Are their other ways to impact the dynamics of a society?

And again:

Remember, the person is intrinsically relational. It cries out to belong with others in love and community. Isolation and aloneness strikes at the spiritual core of the human person. Indeed, spiritual alienation is the definition of Hell. Given that, all Americans would benefit from an inspired call to transcendent purposes which only they can realize in their interaction with one another. Such is the central dynamic of human community as existentially conceived.

Watching Obama closely, one can already see such dynamics at work. . . . there are signs of a new political imperative appearing in the body politic. A new kind of politics is beginning to emerge, one that transcends the narrow and fragmenting dynamics of interest group politics. To be sure, we have been conditioned to believe that interest group politics is all there is. But it is not. There is also a politics that inclines individuals to noble purposes and thereby reduces the fragmentation and atomization of society.

And again:

What kind of dynamics would be unleashed across the country? In American institutions, in communities and schools, in families and neighborhoods? I think such transformation is something that would greatly benefit America and strike at some of the behavioral dysfunctions we see all around. This is the audacity of hope.

As I've noted previously, this is not the first time Gerald Campbell has waxed messianic on Obama. He talks a good game -- but having articulated his reasons, let me offer a brief response:

• "Wedge issues" -- to be understand as "a social or political issue, often of a divisive or otherwise controversial nature, which is used by one political group to split apart or create a "wedge" in the support base of an opposing politic group." We've heard this tactic before, most recently in the form of the "Catholic Call to Observe Civility in Political Debate", which translates into silence on such "divisive" issues as abortion, embryo-destructive research, and homosexual marriage.
  

• "No practical solution exists [to abortion]" -- I suspect the United Conference of Catholic Bishops would beg to differ. I agree with Gerald's basic proposition that the root of our nation's ills is spiritual. But I do not think that this is incentive for dismissing what he calls the "interest politics" or practical policy.
  
  

  The USCCB, for example, takes a particualr interest in the "wedge issues" and "the narrow and fragmenting dynamics of interest group politics," in providing a good checklist of legislative pro-life issues in the 110th Congress -- on which practical decisions can and should be made, and policies enacted. Suffice to say I can predict where most Republican candidates would stand, and what they will do when legislation passes their desk. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for any Democratic candidate.
  

  In fact, we can be certain that if Obama is elected he will do everything in his power to roll back even the incremental pro-life advancements that were implemented under Republican administrations and supported by the USCCB. Given what he has already promised Planned Parenthood and pro-choice lobbyists: he will encourage and implement where possible public funding for abortions (for instance the repeal of the Mexico City policy); as a means of reducing abortion, he will expand the distribution of contraceptives in public schools and encourage their use through sex education; he will oppose any restrictions to late-term abortions, and ensure that Roe v. Wade is unapposed. (Obama on abortion and birth control GlassBooth.org).
  

• Even if Obama is blessed with a golden tongue of rhetoric, I have little hope that he will provide the means to social-political unity (much less the kind of existential healing that Gerald envisions). Obama's platform isn't just about "CHANGE!", "HOPE!" and "UNITY!" -- whether Gerald admits it or not, a presidential administration under the likes of Obama (or Hillary) would inevitably amount to the enforcement of Democratic policy on "interest issues," including what I would call the paramount issue of our time. And with respect to abortion, Obama has already promised to his constituents that "he will not yield, and Planned Parenthood will not yield."
  

Related

• Sen. Barack Obama: "I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion" Carl Olson responds to (and dismantles point-by-point) Obama's Q&A with Christianity Today. Ignatius Insight January 24, 2008.
  
• "Nice is Different Than Good", by Paul. Thoughts of a Regular Guy July 20, 2006:

  Senator Obama, in one of the debates with his opponent during his last campaign, asserted that "no one is for abortion". I've asked here many times, but I would still like to know, the practical difference, in terms of voting records, of a politician like Obama who is "personally opposed, but", and a hypothetical "pro-abortion" politician. Given that Obama, while a state senator, three times opposed legislation that would have protected babies who had been born alive from being aborted anyway, I can't see that there would be much difference.

Follow-Up Discussions on Vox Nova and elsewhere

• Michael Joseph clarifies "for whom I shall not vote" Vox Nova January 28, 2008:

  However, while we try to heal that indifference, I think not only of the persons involved in having an abortion (e.g., mother, doctor) but of the need of government to secure justice for the one about to murdered. And so I admittedly vacillate between seeing abortion as a moral issue that can only be solved by true humanism and concern for the root causes of indifferences and seeing abortion as a legal issue for the one about to be murdered who could be protected by policy. Overturning Roe v. Wade does not stop abortion; the social and individual evils cannot be stopped by mere legality (which is why I do not condemn another Catholic who may support a pro-choice candidate). But when I think of the person who is killed, I am possessed by an overwhelming feeling that legal protection must extend to him/him regardless of the situation and environment in which the decision for an abortion is made.

• Katerina: "Obama doesn’t make me cry, but I’m willing to listen" Vox Nova January 28, 2008.
  
• Obama, the Proabort, by Alexham. Vox Nova January 28, 2008:

  My left-leaning Catholic friends apparently need to be reminded that Senator Obama, for all of his pretty words, is a radical proabort.
  

  If you honestly think that you can vote in good conscience for a man who is arguably more proabortion than NARAL, then you’re deluding yourself, and playing with fire in the process.

  
  
• The Audacity of Naïveté, by DarwinCatholic. January 28, 2008.
  

Catholics Respond to "Call for Civility"

Back in November 2007 a "diverse group of prominent lay Catholics" called for "a more civil tone to political discussion in America's public square:

“Civility should be a guiding principle in our public life,” the statement says. “Civility and its potential impact on the fabric of the Catholic Church should be of concern to all faithful Catholics, both clergy and lay people.”

"The statement directly addresses controversies over Catholic politicians whose positions on various polarizing issues conflict or give the appearance of conflicting with Church teachings,” said Ambassador Thomas P. Melady. “Some voices have been shrill. The language at times has been offensive. The level of dialogue and conversation in too many instances has not met the standards that one expects in a country trying to establish worldwide standards for all democracies."

This past week, another group of influential Catholics released a formal response to the statement. Catholic News Agency reports:

"Rather than giving pro-abortion Catholic politicians a pass, we should vote them out of office and encourage them to repent,” said Austin Ruse, the president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) on Monday. Ruse made his comments as he and 95 other influential Catholics responded to the “Call for Civility” in politics statement released last November.

The November 2007 statement calling for more civility in politics was made after some pro-abortion Catholic politicians expressed their opinion that they should be treated more civilly by their fellow Catholics over their political positions.

The 96 signers of the response statement about political civility say that while not all of the signers of the November statement intended it, the net effect of the “‘Call for Civility’ would be to silence the pro-life and pro-family movements. We oppose this effort root and branch.”

• Catholic Laymen in the Public Square: A Catholic Response to the "Call for Civility" (Full text) January 21, 2008.
• A Catholic Call to Observe Civility in Political Debate Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. November 6, 2007.

Thomas Peters covers March for Life @ Washington DC

Thomas Peters (American Papist) is providing extensive eyewitness coverage (written and video) of the March for Life in Washington.

Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson and Black Genocide

Today we commemorate the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., Baptist minister and preeminent leader of the American civil rights movement. To summarize his accomplishments:

He led the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955 - 1956) and helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (1957), serving as its first president. His efforts led to the 1963 March on Washington, where King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech. Here he raised public consciousness of the civil rights movement and established himself as one of the greatest orators in U.S. history. In 1964, King became the youngest person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end segregation and racial discrimination through civil disobedience and other non-violent means.

In a profile of the "100 Most Important People of the Century", Time magazine explains why we as Americans should be grateful for the prophetic witness of Dr. King:

Three decades after King was gunned down on a motel balcony in Memphis, Tenn., he is still regarded mainly as the black leader of a movement for black equality. That assessment, while accurate, is far too restrictive. For all King did to free blacks from the yoke of segregation, whites may owe him the greatest debt, for liberating them from the burden of America's centuries-old hypocrisy about race. It is only because of King and the movement that he led that the U.S. can claim to be the leader of the "free world" without inviting smirks of disdain and disbelief. Had he and the blacks and whites who marched beside him failed, vast regions of the U.S. would have remained morally indistinguishable from South Africa under apartheid, with terrible consequences for America's standing among nations. How could America have convincingly inveighed against the Iron Curtain while an equally oppressive Cotton Curtain remained draped across the South?

Some additional resources on Dr. King:

• The Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University.
• There is no understanding Dr. King without recognizing the deep Christian faith which fueled his campaign for civil rights. Those interested will certainly appreciate Strength To Love, a fine collection of his best sermons.
  

• Catholic Church remembers MLK, Michael Joseph @ Vox Nova commemorates today with two passages from Church documents on his life and work.
  

Remembering Martin Luther King Jr., by Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus. Personal memories of the civil rights leader interspersed with a critical review of an autobiography of Dr. King by Marshall Frady. First Things 26. Oct. 2002:

. . . In New York, a few months before his death, we had lunch, together with Young and Al Lowenstein, an activist who would later be murdered by one of his protégés, and King turned philosophical about the limits of political change. It was a leisurely and convivial lunch. The restaurant had been alerted that “the famous Dr. King” was coming, and the waiter assumed that the white man in the clerical collar must be he, and so throughout the lunch addressed me as “Dr. King.” It both astonished and amused that one of the most famous people in the world was not recognized, and King enjoyed it immensely, taking the opportunity to smoke cigarettes throughout lunch, a regular habit that he usually indulged only in private. Among many other things, we talked about the abiding wisdom of Reinhold Niebuhr and the need to recognize the distinction between the morally imperative and the historically possible, agreeing also on the moral imperative to press the historically possible. It was the last time I saw him. . . .

It is well worth reading, addressing the positive and negative aspects of Dr. King's life and legacy, including his unfortunate sexual philandering:

Then and now, I think it possible and necessary to make a crucial, albeit not unambiguous, distinction between the very broken earthen vessel and the treasure of truth that vessel contained and so powerfully communicated.

And what of Dr. King's legacy today? -- Alveda King, neice of Dr. King, believes that civil rights leaders have by and large neglected their commitment to the least among us: (Illinois Leader January 15, 2004):

"I can remember the days when Jesse Jackson was pro-life, and he went across the country calling abortion genocide. I don't understand how he took that turn or why. I personally believe that any leader, especially African-American leaders -- and I can say this because I'm African-American -- should be compelled to remember the days of slavery and to remember their responsibility toward the children we call the unborn. They are real people too, and they actually have civil rights."

As Mrs. King put it in an essay on her website: How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children?:

My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., once said, “No one is going to kill a child of mine.” Tragically, two of his grandchildren had already been aborted when he saved the life of his next great-grandson with this statement. His son, King once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother.

In a 1977 essay for the Right to Life News, civil rights leader and colleage of Martin Luther King, Jr. Jesse Jackson stated that "How we respect life is the over-riding moral issue". Speaking at the March for Life, he mused: "What happens . . . to the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience."

Jesse Jackson would later do an "about face": shortchanging his moral conviction for a chance at the Democratic nomination for president in 1984 and 1988 (See Jackson's Reversal On Abortion (Washington Post May 21, 1988). He later became something of a "spiritual advisor" to President Bill Clinton and -- not suprisingly -- announced his support for Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

* * *

BlackGenocide.com is a project of the African-American pro-life ministry Learn ("Life Education And Resource Network"). Founded by Rev. Johnny Hunter, it "publishes extensive data and research information on the racist origins of Planned Parenthood, it's founder, Margaret Sanger, and the American Eugenics movement." BlackGenocide.com
seeks to bring attention of the Black community to the horror of abortion and what is in their mind the paramount "civil rights" issue of today (often butting heads with the NAACP, which has stubbornly refused to acknowledge the need to reduce abortion within the Black community). Consider these horrifying statistics:

• Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion.

• 1,452 African-American children are killed each day by the heinous act of abortion.

• 3 out of 5 pregnant African-American women will abort their child.

• Since 1973 there has been over 13 million Black children killed and their precious mothers victimized by the U.S. abortion industry.

Needless to say, Reverend Hunter is not too enamored of Jesse Jackson:

In his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", Martin Luther King said, "The early church brought an end to such things as INFANTICIDE." What would Martin Luther King say to the church today?

The Rev. Jesse Jackson once said:

"That is why the Constitution called us three-fifths human and then whites further dehumanized us by calling us 'niggers'. It was part of the dehumanizing process. The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do and not even feel like they had done anything wrong. Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore abortion can be justified".

Jackson's massive flip-flop on the abortion issue is further proof that his political future is far more important to him than are his principles.

With 1/3 of all abortions performed on Black women, the abortion industry has received over 4,000,000,000 (yes, billion) dollars from the Black community.

Catholic Vote in the GOP Primaries (So Far)

Catholics made up 38% of the vote in New Hampshire. Senator McCain and Governor Romney each garnered 38% of the Catholic vote there.

Catholics overall made up 29% of the vote in Michigan. Governor Romney won 41% of the Catholics who attend Mass weekly vote compared to 36% for Senator McCain. McCain won 36% of the Catholics who attend less than weekly vote compared to 35% for Romney.

Catholics made up only 12% of the vote in South Carolina. Senator McCain won 35% of he Catholics who attend Mass weekly vote compared to 28% for Governor Romney, 18% for Senator Thompson, and 14% for Governor Huckabee. McCain also won 58% of Catholics who attend mass less than weekly compared to 20% for Romney.

Looks like Catholics are really only looking at McCain and Romney.

(Data from CNN Exit Polls.)

President Bush proclaims National Sanctity of Human Life Day

On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we recognize that each life has inherent dignity and matchless value, and we reaffirm our steadfast determination to defend the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.

America was founded on the belief that all men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our country remains committed to upholding that founding principle.

Since taking office, I have signed legislation to help protect life at all stages, and my Administration will continue to encourage adoption, fund abstinence education and crisis pregnancy programs, and support faith-based groups.

Today, as our society searches for new ways to ease human suffering, we must pursue the possibilities of science in a manner that respects the sacred gift of life and upholds our moral values.

Our Nation has made progress in its efforts to protect human life, and we will strive to change hearts and minds with compassion and decency.

On National Sanctity of Human Life Day and throughout the year, we help strengthen the culture of life in America and work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 20, 2008, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.

I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Archbishop Chaput: "Better Citizens, More Faithful Catholics"

The First Things blog On the Square has published a portion of Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput's January 11, 2008, presentation in New Orleans titled “Catholic Identity in the American Public Arena”:

When we speak about a nation’s culture, we mean the entire fabric of its common life, from art and music to sports and schools. But since this is an election year, I want to apply the idea of Catholic witness specifically to our public life as citizens. Here are ten simple points to remember as we move toward November ...

***
2. Catholic is a word that has real meaning. We don’t control or invent that meaning as individuals. We inherit it from the gospel and the experience of the Church over the centuries. We can choose to be something else, but if we choose to call ourselves Catholic, then that word has consequences for what we believe and how we act. We can’t truthfully claim to be Catholic and then act as though we’re not.

3. Being a Catholic is a bit like being married. We have a relationship with the Church and with Jesus Christ that’s similar to being a spouse. If a man says he loves his wife, his wife will want to see the evidence in his love and fidelity. The same applies to our relationship with God. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to show that by our love for the Church and our fidelity to what she teaches and believes. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves, because God certainly won’t be fooled.

***
5. Scripture and Catholic teaching, however, do have public consequences because they guide us in how we should act in relation to one another. Loving God requires that we also love the people He created, which means we need to treat them with justice, charity, and mercy. Being a Catholic involves solidarity with other people. The Catholic faith has implications for social justice—and that means it also has cultural, economic and political implications. The Catholic faith is never primarily about politics; but Catholic social action, including political action, is a natural byproduct of the Church’s moral message. We can’t call ourselves Catholic, and then simply stand by while immigrants get mistreated, or the poor get robbed, or unborn children get killed. The Catholic faith is always personal but never private. If our faith is real, then it will bear fruit in our public decisions and behaviors, including our political choices.

6. Each of us needs to follow our own conscience. But conscience doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It’s not a matter or personal opinion or preference. If our conscience has the habit of telling us what we want to hear on difficult issues, then it’s probably badly formed. A healthy conscience is the voice of God’s truth in our hearts, and it should usually make us uncomfortable, because none of us is yet a saint. The way we get a healthy conscience is by submitting it and shaping it to God’s will; and the way we find God’s will is by conforming our lives to the counsel and guidance of the Church that Jesus left us. If we find ourselves disagreeing as Catholics with the teaching of the Church on a serious matter, it’s probably not the Church that’s wrong. The problem is much more likely with us.

***
8. So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics—people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views. And they also need a proportionate reason to justify it.

9. What is a proportionate reason when it comes to abortion? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them in the next life—which we certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives, then we can proceed.

[More]

(emphasis added)

Obama Speaks at a Catholic College

From the Cardinal Newman Society:

On Wednesday, January 9th, pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama addressed a large crowd at Saint Peter’s College, a Jesuit Catholic institution in Jersey City, N.J., generating considerable media attention to his campaign.

“It’s irresponsible for a Catholic college and its leadership to host a political rally for an aggressively pro-abortion candidate,” said Patrick J. Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society. “Such events curry public attention at the expense of public morality. In so doing, they demonstrate reckless disregard for the most vulnerable human lives and contribute to the general decline of Catholic higher education.”

The president of Saint Peter’s College, Dr. Eugene J. Cornacchia, endorsed the event in a prior press release, welcoming Obama “as we would welcome any presidential candidate who wishes to discuss and debate the ideas and events that are shaping our history.” The college worked cooperatively with the Obama campaign to provide links for media registration and public participation. According to the Obama campaign website, 1,074 individuals registered for the event as a result of the Saint Peter’s College link.

The Cardinal Newman Society has protested similar events in the past, citing the U.S. bishops’ 2004 mandate that Catholic institutions should refuse speaking platforms and honors for abortion advocates. Obama supports Roe v. Wade, partial-birth abortion and embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against parental notification and for increased contraceptive funding for teenagers.

"The Man Comes Around" - Catholic Republican Bobby Jindal was sworn in as governor of Louisiana today. RedState.com has the details.

Here is Bobby's inaugural address.

Anti-Huckabee E-mail Targets Michigan Catholics

The text of the email can be found here. This looks to me like someone who really doesn't like Governor Huckabee who is using the anti-Catholic bias card to try and stir up some discontent and anger among Catholics. Will it work? We'll see Tuesday.

Disclaimer: I am not a supporter of Governor Huckabee.

George Weigel on Henry Hyde

"He was the most consequential Catholic legislator of his time."

 

Go read the whole very personal account.

More on Huckabee and Catholics

Christoper points out some Deal Hudson comments below which suggest Governor Huckabee did not do well among Catholics in Iowa and New Hampshire because of his visits to John Hagee's church and anti-Catholic comments made by a Huckabee supporter. Similar thoughts have been made over at RedState.com. I do not buy it.  Though Catholic voters are normally well-informed, I find it difficult to believe that so many of them would have been turned off solely by Governor Huckabee's appearances at churches pastored by anti-Catholics and comments made by his supporters. I think there is more to it.

 

The anti-Catholic theory is just too easy. Besides, Governor Huckabee's answers to Deacon Fournier seem to dispel any anti-Catholic sentiment from the presidential candidate.  I would be curious of the breakdown of the Catholic vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. And there appear to be other serious Catholics who are supportive of the fomrer Arkansas governor. I believe knowing the percentage of frequent church goers among the Catholics who voted, as well what issues were most important to them would help us better understand their motivations for not voting for Governor Huckabee. Until then, I would suggest that Deal Hudson's and RedState's theory on Governor Huckabee's poor showing among Catholics is just that, a theory.

Deal Hudson and Deacon Fournier on Huckabee's "Catholic Problem"

Deal Hudson discusses Huckabee's failure to attract Catholic voters (InsideCatholic.com January 9, 2008):

The Catholic voter problem that surfaced in Iowa has followed Gov. Mike Huckabee to New Hampshire. In Iowa, Huckabee received strong support in predominately Evangelical counties, but his support fell sharply in counties with large numbers of Catholic voters.

There was no improvement in New Hampshire for the former governor of Arkansas. Sen. John McCain attracted the most Catholic support, 38 percent, while Huckabee received only 8 percent. In other words, McCain garnered almost five Catholic votes for every one going to Huckabee.

Huckabee did almost twice as well with Protestants as he did with Catholics -- but not as well as McCain, who received the most Protestant votes (40 percent). McCain nearly attracted the same number of self-identified born-again voters as Huckabee, 30 percent to 33 percent.

It's clear that Catholics, thus far, have not been charmed by Mike Huckabee.

Hudson locates the problem with "Huckabee's campaign being dogged with charges of anti-Catholicism stemming from, among other things, his recent appearance at John Hagee's church in San Antonio" and an email sent out by Rev. Tim Rude (a Huckabee supporter), who identifying himself as a "recovering Catholic," criticized Brownback for converting to Catholicism and exclaimed that was all he needed to "know about his discernment" to choose Huckabee over him.

Deacon Keith Fournier, a Huckabee supporter, has been covering the campaign for Catholic.org -- on December 15th Fournier was granted an exclusive interview with Mike Huckabee wherein he spoke on a range of issues including Catholic social teaching, Huckabee's efforts to advance the "culture of life," foreign policy in Iraq, school choice and immigration.

On December 29th, in a follow-up, Deacon Fournier asked the Governor directly about this and about another issue of importance to our Catholic Online readers and viewers:

DEACON FOURNIER [...] Your interview with Catholic Online is one the highest read stories in our history.

However, shortly after its publication, you spoke at a Church in Texas, on a Sunday morning. Of course, there is nothing unusual about that.

What caught the attention of many of our readers and viewers was a concern that the Pastor of the Church has written some material that insults the Catholic Church and has been labeled by some as anti-Catholic.

Our readers understand that you, like all of the candidates, are running for the Presidency. In other words, we know that you seek to govern the whole Nation and, of course, you must reach out to all Americans.

However, there has, unfortunately, been a history of anti-Catholicism in this Nation that we all love.

Your campaign quickly noted the presence of Catholics in many of the top positions of your campaign staff.However, the issue and the concern raised by your visit, has not gone away.

Would you comment upon your visit and on your views concerning Catholics in America?

GOVERNOR HUCKABEE: “I am invited to speak at thousands of diverse venues each year. My willingness to address a group says nothing about whether or not I agree with every tenet, policy or belief espoused by a group.

To be honest, I have never thought about having “a view” about Catholics in America.

Rather, I have enjoyed strong, personal relationships with many Catholics over the years and I would hate to think about my life without those relationships having been there.

For more than a decade, I marched side-by-side with Catholic Bishops in Arkansas’ annual March for Life.

Throughout my years as Lieutenant Governor and Governor, I enjoyed a very close relationship with leaders and members of the Catholic Church in Arkansas.

My pro-life record is largely the result of this close working relationship.

My relationships with Catholics predated my entry into politics. When I was pastoring a Baptist church in Texarkana, I had the opportunity to work closely with the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word at the St. Michael Hospital near my church. I was always welcomed warmly by the sisters when I visited the sick.

As a pastor, I held joint services with my neighboring Catholic congregation, was invited to speak in Catholic churches for special services, and had regular breakfast meetings with the Bishop of the Arkansas Diocese, Bishop Peter Sartain, now in Illinois.

Those early years of ministry showed me the value of working with caring people whether or not every one of our religious tenets line up exactly.

In short, if I held any animosity toward Catholics, I don't think Justice Scalia would have ever taken me up on my invitations to go duck hunting.

As I mentioned before, many of my top-level staff and closest advisors are Catholic, including my national campaign manager, national campaign director, my policy advisor and my campaign’s chief operating officer.

McCain

Thanks Christopher for another good round-up posts this time on Sen. McCain.

As many know Sen. McCain's pro-life voting record is quite good except for the glaring example of voting for and supporting embryonic stem-cell research. Christopher posts the following from McCain's site.

Addressing the Moral Concerns of Advanced Technology

Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases - hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles.

For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.

As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.

Some have said with the very pro-life Sen. Brownback supporting Sen. McCain that the Senator now has a more restrictive view on ESCR than what he once held. The question is what does the above statement mean in the real world. If he is actually against human cloning and the intentional creation of human embryos than how does this effect actual research?

One of the reasons that cloning has become the grail for promoters of embryonic stem-cell research is that there are immunological issues associated with putting cells derived from one person into the body of another. These are not minor considerations and one easily solved and are the primary reason that so-called "therapeutic cloning" from the patients own tissue is the primary focus. You don't have immunological issues if a clone is made of yourself and they kill your twin to get embryonic stem-cells. Using large scale genetic engineering to modify embryonic stem-cells from other sources is highly dubious, if possible at all, and could very well introduce genetic mutations The other possibility is as in organ transplants is finding a good match for the patient and would obviously require a large supply of embryos to make practicable.

So if the Senator is against both cloning and creation of embryos then where exactly are the embryos suppose to come from that he can approve research from? If the statement is actually represents his belief the only alternative is so-called "leftover" embryos from In Virtro Fertilization. If this is the case why doesn't he just say so. If this is his position it would make it identical to Gov. Mitt Romney's in that he specifically only supports ESCR with embryos from IVF.

This is a position that has been staked out by other politicians and one that I think makes not only no moral sense, but also no practical sense. Leaving aside moral concerns of using these embryos, say for example that there were sufficient human embryos that were released by the parents for use in research and that this research actually led to actual cures using embryonic stem-cells. This would then create a instant demand for human embryo's that could not be met by the supply provided from research as a result of IVF. So by supporting use of these human embryos for research you are really automatically supporting the demand for human embryos from other sources.

As a side note it really is I think surprising how IVF seemed to fly in under the moral radar in the first place with very little outcry over it. Once again is is only the Catholic Church that is consistent and she publicly condemned the use of IVF while for the most-part Protestants have no problems with it. I think it is unfortunate the the pro-life community has hardly touched on this issue and I have never heard of demonstrations outside of clinics where IVF is done. Here we have a case where multiple embryos are created and then several embryos are implanted into the womb in the hope that one survives. When too many (by their standards) survive than "elective fetal reductions" are performed. Then of course there are also the other human beings that aren't implanted who are placed into the "freezer." It is because of IVF that we have had part of the temptations to use these persons. The argument being that they are going to die anyway so I guess we should harvest the organs of prisoners about to be executed or experiment on people with terminal cancer since they are also all going to die anyway. Though of course all of us are going to die anyway.

As for myself I have a host of issues with Sen. McCain, though if he was the GOP nominee is would support him against the Democratic candidate who will be not pro-life at all. For the primaries though I will vote for someone much more pro-life even if they are a Don Quixote candidate.

Sen. McCain on his site also says he will protect marriage though he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, though he defends this as a state's rights issue. He did support Arizona's proposition to outlaw same-sex marriage which was narrowly defeated.

This is another issue that annoys me among some of the GOP's nominees. For example not supporting changes in the Constitution in regards to abortion and marriage. They say these are state's rights issues only and should be left to each individual state to decide. It seems rather dumb to me that you could get married and then go across a state lines and have a marriage not recognized. But even if you could make the case for this when it comes to abortion we need to ultimately have Federal action done to protect life. Nobody now would accept a situation where slavery was once more condoned depending on the state. This was the situation before where slavery was legal in some states and outlawed in others. As a moral issue abortion is much worse than the great evil of abortion and to say it is only a states-rights issue is quite problematic. On a prudential level I will be quite happy if Roe v. Wade is overturned and the legality abortion once again be determined by each state since it is so much easier to fight against abortion at a state level. Ultimately thought anybody against abortion should see that the protection of life needs to be done at the Federal level. We amended the Constitution to outlaw slavery and we should do the same for abortion. Murdering children is not a states rights issue.

Catholics for McCain?

Back in December Senator John McCain announced a "Catholic leadership team" to advise his campaign:

"As Catholics, we are proud to announce our support for John McCain, a genuine American hero with a conservative record who has what it takes to lead this country," said U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), National Co-Chair of Catholics for McCain.

Former Governor Frank Keating (R-OK), also National Co-Chair of Catholics for McCain said, "John McCain can uniquely appeal to Catholics with his strong, 24-year pro-life record, his stand for traditional values and school choice, his proven leadership in defending America, and his demonstrated ability to appeal to independent-minded voters. These are exactly the type of qualities that Catholic voters will be looking for in 2008."

In a joint statement, Governor Keating and Senator Brownback added: “In this election, with so much at stake, we need a leader who will help transform history to extend and uphold the rights and dignity of each and every child of God. John McCain is that leader.”

John McCain expressed his appreciation and stated: "I am very pleased to have the support of this distinguished coalition of Catholic leaders. I am proud to stand side-by-side with Catholics on many of the most critical issues of our day: defending the sanctity of human life, upholding traditional marriage, expanding educational choice, and defending America from the threats that we face around the globe. I have fought my entire life to protect religious freedom and human rights around the world. I look forward to working with these Catholic leaders in the weeks and months ahead as we take our shared values to the White House."

The roster of the leadership team consists of:

Catholics For McCain National Co-Chairmen

• Senator Sam Brownback, Kansas
• Governor Frank Keating, former Governor of Oklahoma

Catholics For McCain National Leadership Committee

• Former U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)
• Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
• Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
• Hon. Alexander Haig, Former Secretary of State
• Congressman Ray LaHood (R-IL)
• Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA)

Catholics For McCain National Steering Committee

• Andresen Blom of Hawaii, former Executive Director, Hawaii Right to Life
• Professor Gerard Bradley of Indiana, University of Notre Dame Law School
• Mary Brunette Cannon of Virginia, former Executive Director, the Bioethics Project
• Denis Coleman of Florida, former Chairman of Covenant House and Current Chairman of InsideCatholic.com
• Martin Dannenfelser of Virginia, former Vice-President for Govt. Affairs, Family Research Council
• Robert Reilly of Virginia, Former Director, Voice of America
• Warren Sweeney of New Jersey, former Executive Director, National Right to Life Committee
• Eugene J. Zurlo of South Carolina, Chairman of the Zurlo Investment Trust and Former President of the Catholic Radio Association

Catholics For McCain State Chairmen

• Iowa: Dana Phillips, Former Catholics for Brownback Co-Chairman and Brownback for President Marion County Chairman
• New Hampshire: Hon. Maureen Mooney, NH State Representative (R-Merrimack) and former state director of Catholics for Bush/Cheney 2004
• Michigan: Chuck Yob, Republican National Committeeman for the State of Michigan
• South Carolina: Jim Corbett, Esq., Former State Director, Brownback for President
• Florida: Laurence Alvarado, Managing Director of Bearing Point and Contributor to InsideCatholic.com

Catholic Students For McCain National Chairman

• Billy Valentine of Franciscan University of Steubenville, OH, former National Chairman of Students for Brownback

Whether McCain can boast a "24-year pro-life record" is a matter of some dispute. Michael Joseph @ Vox Nova responds:

I am shocked and amazed to find Catholics claiming that John McCain has a good record on pro-life issues. These Catholics must be, no doubt, quite ignorant of political processes, for John McCain is a strong supporter of embryonic stem cell research, one of those “non-negotiables” we often hear about in Catholic circles. He has voted for every measure that seeks to provide funding and enhancement for embryonic stem cell research while a Senator for Arizona. He has joined with Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama in supporting such legislation–the three have identical voting records on stem cell research.

(See Vox Nova for a discussion of this issue).

* * *

Via On The Issues.org, John McCain's legislative record on abortion and ESCR:

• Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
  
• Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
  
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
  
• Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
  
• Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
  
• Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
  
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
  
• Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
  
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
  
• Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
  
• Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
  
• Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
  
• Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
  

From the PewForum's Stem Cell Research Profile of the 2008 Presidential Candidates:

McCain opposes embryonic stem cell research that uses cloned human embryos, but supports research using human embryos left over from fertility treatments. In 2006, McCain supported a trio of Senate bills designed to increase federal funding for adult stem cell research, ban the creation of embryos for research and offer federal support for research using embryos slated for destruction by fertility clinics.

Here's McCain's position on stem cells, according to his 2008 Presidential Campaign website:

Addressing the Moral Concerns of Advanced Technology

Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases - hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles.

For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.

As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.

Catholic Discussion of USCCB's "Forming Consciences in Faithful Citizenship"

Back in November I had posted the link to the USCCB's "Forming Consciences in Faithful Citizenship" with a request for your thoughts -- it didn't seem to provoke many comments, which may speak to either to a lack of interest, a lack of readership. Such is the reception of most USCCB documents.

At any rate, following is a brief compilation of responses to said document culled from the web:

• Reaction from Fr. Neuhaus:

  “Faithful Citizenship” is a carefully considered reflection on political responsibility, the difference between “intrinsic evils” and prudential judgments, and the ways in which conscience is rightly formed. Several news stories have highlighted that the bishops left “loopholes” or created “leeway” for Catholics to vote for pro-abortion candidates. That is not true. The document repeatedly and emphatically gives top priority to the protection of innocent human life in instances such as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research.
  

  But, of course and of necessity, it also says: “In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.”
  

  The “conscience clause” is not a loophole but speaks to a solemn obligation. It is clear Catholic teaching that one must act in accord with conscience, even if one’s conscience is misguided. At the same time, one is obliged to form one’s conscience according to moral truth. It is also the Church’s teaching, reiterated in this document, that acting according to a rightly formed conscience is a matter that impinges upon one’s eternal salvation.
  

  It is obvious that some Catholics are, if not pro-abortion, at least of the view that opposition to abortion is trumped by other matters they consider more important, such as an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, their preferred health plan, or a Democratic victory in the presidential election. If knowingly and with full intent they collaborate in the intrinsic evil of abortion, they may say that the conscience clause provides them with a loophole. In such an instance, as “Faithful Citizenship” rightly underscores, they are provided only with the choice to surrender their soul’s salvation.

  
  
• Praise and Criticism for Lengthy US Bishops Statement on Catholics and Political Responsibility, by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman and Steve Jalsevac. LifeSiteNews. Nov. 16, 2007.
  

• Deal Hudson:

  Given that this document was written by a committee, I think that outcome is encouraging. It's too bad that a long list of prudential issues, commonly supported by the Democratic Party, are included, but that is to be expected until there are serious changes at the USCCB. . . .

  But the document has some serious theological muscle, which should be appreciated in the pro-life community.

  
  
• "Does it matter anyway?" Curt Jester November 14, 2007:

  This document does handle moral issues that are intrinsically evil much better and it is also much clearer what they are compared to other issues. The pro-life focus is quite evident throughout. It was of course mentioned in previous years, but there was much more confusion in regards to lesser moral issues. Last time around they even mentioned supporting Affirmative Action which I don't see is consistent in Catholic teaching by correcting one evil by using the same evil to racially discriminate against others. The first section of the document is fairly decent, but it demonstrates why documents written by committee are seldom very good. The last third though made me think that someone I had accidentally clicked onto a link and landed on a Democratic Party talking points page. All problems seemed to have a government solution (and Federal at that) and while subsidiarity is mentioned at the front of the document it is noticeably missing in essence in the rest of it. While many of the responses to these issues are prudential ones they are consistently ones championed by Democrats except perhaps on school choice.
  

  The real question though is does the document really matter? What was the last time to saw any Bishop's document at your parish and how likely will it be that many if they saw this semi-large document would read through it in the first place.

  
  
• Impressions of "Faithful Citizenship", by M.Z. Forrest. Vox Nova November 16, 2007:

  The highest praise folks seem to give it is that it doesn’t get anything wrong. It purports itself to be voting guide, but it is pretty much a restatement of the USCCB’s domestic policy agenda. I don’t have a problem with that policy agenda, but I also don’t see any particular party’s candidates opining to bring back racism or remove the last vestiges of it. (This doesn’t mean someone can’t make a second or third order argument over the matter. That kind of reasoning has its own problems that I won’t go into here.) One thing the guide doesn’t do is provide manifest conclusions over which candidates, as in putative ones informed by watching American elections over the past two dozen years, one should seek to elect.

  
  
• "Voting and Salvation: Thanks, but No Thanks" - Michael ("Catholic Anarchist" Iafrate) responds to what he reads as an inordinate emphasis placed on the act of voting.
  

• Archbishop Chaput Not Satisfied With Proposed New USCCB Document on Voting, by Jay Anderson. Pro Ecclesia October 31, 2007:

  . . . if the Holy Father, in the context of addressing the responsibilities of the Catholic faithful in the public square, has chosen to describe certain public policy issues as being "not negotiable", surely a new USCCB document addressing the responsibilities of the Catholic faithful in the public square should at least make note of the fact, right?

  
  

Novak v. Last, Neuhaus as Referee

The 2008 Presidential Race has brought about some rather amusing discussions (and positions) among Catholic conservatives . . . this from December 2007:

• Why I Decided to Support Mitt Romney, by Michael Novak. "The Corner" @ National Review December 12, 2007. Michael Novak endorses Romney for president.
  
• A most curious endorsement", First Things December 13, 2007. Jonathan V. Last takes issue with Novak's endorsement.
  
• Jonathan V. Last on Romney "The Corner" @ National Review December 14, 2007. Michael Novak responds . . .
  
• Novak on Romney Reloaded First Things December 14, 2007. Jonathan V. Last attempts to marshal Fr. Neuhaus' criticism of Mormonism.
  
• Re: Romney, for the last time, by Richard John Neuhaus. First Things December 17, 2007. Fr. Neuhaus says "no way, I'm staying out of this!" ;-)
  

Sen. Brownback Endorses McCain for President

Here is the N.Y. Times link and an excerpt:

Mr. McCain was greeted by about 150 supporters at the Dubuque airport when he landed in Iowa on Wednesday evening, including Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, a former candidate whose endorsement lent him a boost among evangelical Christians in the state.

N.Y. Times, 1/3/08.

Who is Republican Kansas Senator Brownback? He is a Catholic who converted from evangelical Protestantism. He is very pro-life and pro-marriage. Brownback's own personal journey to Catholicism from a bout with cancer is quite impressive. My first choice for President in 2008 was Brownback, but he has since dropped out of the race. My personal choice now is McCain. Here is a link to past Catholic Analysis posts mentioning Brownback that give you the background to understand the significance for us Catholics of Brownback's endorsement of McCain for President in 2008.