Barack Obama on Abortion and the Question to the Catholic Voter

Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.

Within hours of the decision, an Alabama lawmaker introduced a measure to ban all abortions. With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe versus Wade and that is what is at stake in this election. . . .

I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality. Steve and Pam will tell you that we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation—laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito . . .

There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t find common ground. Because we know that what’s at stake is more than whether or not a woman can choose an abortion.

Choice is about how we lead our lives. It’s about our families and about our communities. It’s about our daughters and whether they’re going to have the same opportunities as our sons. There are those who want us to believe otherwise. They want us to believe that there’s nothing that unites us as Americans—there’s only what divides us. They’ll seek out the narrowest and most divisive ground. That is the strategy—to always argue small instead of looking at the big picture. They will stand in the way of any attempt to find common ground. . . .

[In answer to the question: "What would you do at the federal level not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?]

Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

-- Excerpted from Senator Barack Obama's address to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

* * *

It should be clear from his address that Obama's conception of "human freedom" and "equality for all" as seemingly protected by Roe v. Wade includes by necessity unrestricted access to abortion in perpetuity. When he berates those who do not grasp "the big picture" -- I cannot help but be conscious of the fact that Obama has framed his understanding in such a way as to intentionally exclude the weakest among us: those not yet born.

Obama has not brought the light of reason reason to bear upon the inconsistency of his own "pro-choice" position on this matter.

Rather, Senator Obama appears wholly committed to (and devoting his presidency to maintaining, among other things) a legal ruling and a system that the Catholic Bishops have condemned as "fundamentally flawed" at its very root.

It is true that the Bishops have not ruled out the possibility of voting for a "pro-choice" candidate in dire situations -- in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship they grant:

There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would
be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

But at the same time our Bishops also teach that:

Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, Pope John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible. Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.

The question is whether or not the possible good that may be provided under Obama's presidency (provided he is able to carry out all that that he has promised to bestow) truly outweigh the evils that may very well occur -- his appointment of judges to the Supreme Court? his stated intent to provide "unyielding support" to Democrats in Congress to pass legislation which would roll back any restrictions on abortion?

What kind of "change" will come about, what kind of "unity" can possibly occur under such a president who obstinately repudiates the very clear teachings of the Church on the sanctity of human life?

USCCB Responds to Feuerherd

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, writes in today's Washington Post:

Joe Feuerherd's screed against the Catholic bishops for their call for political responsibility epitomizes the incivility of this campaign season, where truth has become a casualty and half-truths the norm.

With demeaning and mocking words, Feuerherd scoffs at the bishops' November 2007 statement "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." It urges Catholics not to be one-issue voters but to look at all the issues and make prudent decisions. When up for a vote, it drew virtually unanimous support of the almost 300 active members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Few decisions get that kind of support.

***
The current campaign shows that politics is too often a contest of powerful interests, partisan attacks, sound bites and media hype. In "Faithful Citizenship," the Church calls for a different kind of political engagement: one shaped by moral convictions of well-formed consciences and focused on the dignity of every human being, the pursuit of the common good, and the protection of the weak and vulnerable. It stresses that Catholics need to be guided more by their moral convictions than by attachment to a political party or interest group. Catholic participation should help transform the party to which they belong; they should not let the party transform them in such a way that they neglect or deny basic moral truths.

Feuerherd's incivility is striking. The crude reference to the Eucharist as "the wafer" should be beneath anyone who respects people's religious sentiments, let alone an acknowledged Catholic. Belief in the Eucharist is sacred to Catholics, yet Feuerherd treats it in a belittling manner.

His final salvo, damning the bishops, is unworthy of both Feuerherd and The Post. It's hard to imagine The Post giving its pages to a writer suggesting the outright damnation of the leaders of any other religious body. Feuerherd's vitriol might be understandable if the bishops were concerned, like a typical special-interest group, only with what benefits them. However, the bishops' defense of the right to life of the unborn is a principled commitment in justice to the good of others who are vulnerable and with no voice of their own.

[Read the whole thing]

Dr. Ed Peters: Bishops should respond canonically to Feuerherd's curse

Dr. Ed Peters (In The Light of the Law) blogs on the proper canonical response to National Catholic Reporter's Joe Feuerherd's curse upon the Catholic Bishops:

To wish damnation on an individual or a group is to wish on them the absolutely worst fate conceivable: separation from God forever. CCC 1035. Catholics possessed of even a rudimentary catechesis know that one cannot invoke upon a human being any greater calamity than damnation, and that it is never licit, for any reason, to wish that another person be damned. . . .

Now, Canon 1369 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that "a person who . . . in published writing . . . expresses insults or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty." Canon 1373 states that "a person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry . . . is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties."

I believe Feuerherd has gravely violated both of these canons.

Joe Feuerherd vs. The Catholic Bishops

Three inter-related stories addressing the issue of voting and the upcoming U.S. presidential election:

• Not all political issues of equal value, says Bishop DiMarzio Catholic News Service. February 13, 2008:

  A "hierarchy of values" exists, which means not all political issues are of equal value, said Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn.
  

  "Our faith must inform our political decisions," he said, and Catholic voters are obliged to distinguish "between moral evil," such as abortion, "and matters of prudential judgment," such as tuition tax credits.
  

  Bishop DiMarzio made the comments in an address Feb. 7 to a crowd of 500 at the Cathedral Club of Brooklyn's annual dinner. His remarks drew on the U.S. bishops' 2007 document, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility." . . .
  

  In his talk, the bishop referred primarily to issues in New York state. He described as "a most radical abortion bill" legislation proposed by Gov. Eliot Spitzer and known as the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act.
  

  The bishop said it would legalize partial-birth abortion, a procedure which he noted the late U.S. Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, D-N.Y., described as "near-infanticide."
  

  Bishop DiMarzio said the measure would "disenfranchise parents of their right to play a central role in the most significant decisions of their minor children" because it prohibits parental notification, and it would also expand access to over-the-counter pharmaceuticals "that destroy human life."
  

  "In our own country, despite significant victories that extend protection to the unborn, this modern slaughter of the holy innocents continues because of the policies of unscrupulous politicians," he said.
  

  "Only in circumstances that are extraordinarily hard to contemplate may a Catholic voter support a proponent of so great an intrinsic moral evil," the bishop said.
  

  Bishop DiMarzio also questioned legislative efforts "that would undermine the family by redefining marriage." He said that "pandering to a small but well-funded special interest group, our leadership in Albany would undermine the institution that is the bedrock of our society."
  

  Saying that the business of government is to protect the common good, the bishop asked how the state benefits by extending "the benefits of marriage" to same-sex couples.

  And what of the war in Iraq?

  Turning to the war in Iraq, Bishop DiMarzio said Pope Benedict XVI "has made no secret of his personal opposition" to the conflict, "in which 4,000 servicemen and servicewomen have died, 50,000 have been wounded and the lives of tens of thousands, perhaps even a hundred thousand, Iraqis have been crushed."
  

  Many theologians contend that a pre-emptive war cannot be justified in Catholic teaching, he said.
  

  The current debate over troop surges or withdrawing troops or timetables for withdrawal, however, "is a matter of prudential judgment," he said.
  

  In viewing the range of issues elected officials and candidates might take on the national and local levels, Bishop DiMarzio said that support for anyone who "espouses policies that are gravely immoral" is possible "only under exceptional circumstances that are hard to imagine."

  
  
  

• On a similar note, the bishops who head Kentucky's four Catholic dioceses urged the state's Catholics to take a close look at life issues when voting this year. Catholic News Service reports:

  "All human laws must be measured against the natural law engraved in our hearts by the Creator," said the bishops in a pastoral letter, "Reverence for Life: Conscience and Faithful Citizenship" [.pdf format]
  

  "Our religious beliefs affirm basic human rights and obligations that are essential to the fabric of our social life. In particular, respect for human life is numbered among those basic values that underpin the very foundation of civilization," they said.
  

  "What we profess in defense of the sacredness of unborn human life harmonizes with our historic legal tradition founded on the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," they said. "Abortion on demand does not."
  

  "Reverence for Life" was issued Jan. 22, the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton that legalized abortion virtually on demand.
  

  Signing the pastoral were Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville and Bishops Roger J. Foys of Covington, Ronald W. Gainer of Lexington, and John J. McRaith of Owensboro.

  Without bothering to "name names", the Bishops addressed the common fallacy found among those who are "pro-choice":

  The claim political candidates have made that they are personally opposed to abortion but unwilling to impose their beliefs on others was condemned by the bishops as "an evasion," "a moral contraction" and "self-deception."
  

  "No one can be excepted from the logical step to translate moral opposition into effective strategies," they added. "If there is a lack of public consensus to effect full legal protection (for the unborn), no one can be excused from working toward creating consensus as a first step."
  

  The bishops said, "We do not seek the formation of a religious voting bloc, nor do we desire to instruct Catholics on how to vote either by endorsing or opposing candidates," but "we do uphold our right and duty to provide moral analysis of the major issues confronting society."

  
  
  

• Also this week, National Catholic Reporter journalist Joe Feuerherd boasted of his vote for Obama, decrying the "right wing lurch" of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Cardinal Sins: "I Voted for Obama. Will I Go Straight to. . . ?" Washington Post February 24, 2008):

  Like most Maryland Democrats, I voted for Sen. Barack Obama in the recent Potomac Primary. By doing so, according to the leaders of my church, I put my soul at risk. That's right, says the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops -- tap the touch screen for a pro-abortion-rights candidate, and you're probably punching your ticket to Hell.

  he bishops have raised the stakes: It's not only lawmakers and candidates who risk damnation, 98 percent of the U.S. bishops agreed last November, but the voters who put them in office. "It is important to be clear," the bishops said in a 44-page statement titled "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" [.pdf format] "that the political choices faced by citizens[emphasis added] not only have an impact on general peace and prosperity but also may affect the individual's salvation." Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, chairman of the committee that drafted the statement, put those high-minded sentiments into plain English earlier this month. Support for a candidate who "espouses policies that are gravely immoral" is possible "only under exceptional circumstances that are hard to imagine," he told the Cathedral Club of Brooklyn.
  

  To Catholics like me who oppose liberal abortion laws but also think that other issues -- war or peace, health care, just wages, immigration, affordable housing, torture -- actually matter, the idea that abortion trumps everything, all the time, no matter what, is both bad religion and bad civics.
  

  Feuerherd also took the opportunity to attack the oudated convictions of not only the USCCB but Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor, John Paul II:

  This fire-and-brimstone approach to the ballot box is the long-term bequest of a conservative pope, John Paul II, enacted by a U.S. hierarchy appointed during his 27-year tenure and now by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. John Paul's key criterion in choosing the men who lead the United States' 194 dioceses was their vocal support for church teachings that have been rejected in whole (birth control) or in part (women's ordination and abortion) by many Catholics in the pews and the broader American culture.

  and closes by proclaiming his moral superiority:

  So what's a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That's an easy one. True to my faith, I'll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations. Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned.

Related Discussions

• How the Left will tackle McCain", by Deal Hudson. InsideCatholic.com February 24, 2008 | (As Jay Anderson @ Pro Ecclesia points out, the Right have been tackling McCain along similar lines as well, so the McCain Campaign had better pay attention.
  
• Morally Justifying Immoral Voting Behavior The Cranky Conservative February 25, 2008.
  
• Conscientious Voting: Doing injustice, by Ramesh Ponnuru. National Review February 25, 2008.
  
• National "Catholic" Reporter reporter: "bishops be damned" by Carl Olson (Insight Scoop): "Is it really 'bad religion' and 'bad civics'? Not according to Pope John Paul II, . . ."

Why Barack Obama Opposed the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act

Leon Wolf minces no words at RedState.com Barack Obama: Morally Depraved:

when I examine what Presidential candidates say on the campaign trail, and how they have voted or governed in the past, I am not so much looking for a checklist of positions, or someone who makes me feel warm and fuzzy when they speak, but rather I am looking behind all of that to see what those speeches/votes/actions say about the judgment of the candidate. I do this because I know that when new and important questions approach the Presidential desk, President X will not go back and consult what he said as Candidate X in stump speeches; he will go where all leaders and decision-makers go: to his character and gut. And if a President's character and gut are rotten, it is a safe bet that bad decisions will flow from it.

This brings us to Amanda Carpenter's excellent story about Barack Obama and the Born Alive Infants' Protection Act ("BAIPA"). . .

One note - somebody objects from the comments: "And, you'll note that the BAIPA is not an "abortion position," which is why NARAL did not oppose it. It's a "being a decent human being" position."

On the contrary, it was precisely because this raised an intellectual challenge to the legitimization of abortion that Obama opposed it -- or as Obama noted:

... I just want to suggest... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. [Barack Obama - IL Senate floor on March 30, 2001]

Obama is sharp enough to perceive the implications (and perhaps what was actually intended by) this legislation -- and, true to form, staunchly opposed it.

Which only goes to affirm Leon Wolf's charge.

Paul Kengor on "Why the Rudy Rejection Matters"

Paul Kengor on Why the Rudy Rejection Matters (National Catholic Register):

The reality is that the rejection of Rudy by Republicans should not be brushed off lightly and quickly; it merits pause for careful reflection, and perhaps even celebration.

Let there be no doubt that Rudy was refused because of outrage at how he proudly and unequivocally supports a “woman’s right to choose.” This was a Republican religious rejection of Rudy. He was rejected not only by evangelicals but by the pro-life Catholics who share his party and his faith.

Yet, it was also much more, especially for Republicans and for Catholics. Consider the big picture:

Over the last two or three decades, the Democratic Party has increasingly championed policies that extinguish what Pope John Paul II and his Church have called the first of all freedoms and the most basic of all human rights: the right to life.

Since Roe v. Wade, and particularly since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1981, the Republican Party (by and large) has not sacrificed its soul at the altar of political expediency on the abortion issue. Republicans like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have battled dogmatic abortion advocates in the Democratic Party like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and now Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for whom abortion remains a kind of political sacrament, even though some of them are Catholic. . . .

All of this now brings us to a historic crossroads: Thanks to pro-life diligence by certain Republicans, and particularly two decades of generally decent court appointments by Reagan and Bush (along with some obvious failures), Roe v. Wade has the chance of being reversed under the next president.

And that’s where denying Rudy Giuliani the 2008 Republican nomination and the presidency becomes so profoundly important: If Roe v. Wade is reversed, Catholics, and Catholics who are Republican, will be spared the shame of a Catholic Republican president unable to understand or make the moral case against abortion. They will be spared the spectacle of a Catholic Republican president voicing his “personal disagreement” with the decision.

However, if Obama's momentum persists as it has been, we may very well find ourselves with a president wholeheartedly committed to the preservation of the "right to choice" under Roe v. Wade. There's the rub.

Former Head of "Catholics for a Free Choice" and So-Called "Philosopher of Abortion Movement" Says Obama A Better Choice than Hillary

From LifeSiteNews:

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Not all pro-abortion feminists from the heyday of the Sexual Revolution are behind Hillary Clinton as their abortion candidate. Frances Kissling, former president of the abortion advocacy group, Catholics for Free Choice, has instead come out swinging for Barack Obama, whom she believes is the best abortion candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"While I believe in the nitty gritty of a day-to-day legislative agenda, there will be little difference between Clinton and Obama, I am convinced that in the larger struggle to complete the social transformation promised by Roe, Obama's instincts and values will bring us closer to that transformation," said Kissling.

Kissling, who has been called the "philosopher of the pro-choice movement" among abortion advocates, said she disagreed with the 10 fellow radical feminists, such as Martha Burk, Cecelia Fire Thunder, Irene Natividad, Ellie Smeal, and Gloria Steinem, who endorsed Sen. Clinton in a recent Huffington Post article.

She agreed that both Clinton and Obama would nominate pro-Roe v. Wade justices, overturn the Mexico City policy, and give back funding to UNFPA, which lost US funds after being exposed for its cooperation in coerced abortions in China. But for Kissling nothing indicates that Obama would be any less of a pro-abortion leader than Clinton.

The main difference between the two candidates, for Kissling, was that Sen. Clinton was not radical enough on the issue of abortion and "had more than once failed the movement." Kissling criticized Clinton for failing to require abortion coverage in her health care reform plan as First Lady in 1994, and for allowing "any provider, religious or not, to refuse to provide any service they deemed immoral and still participate in the plan and reap the benefits of participation."

According to Kissling Clinton still has not sufficiently addressed whether her plan for universal government health care would require abortion coverage or whether it "will give religious organizations the right to refuse to provide services they consider 'immoral' - emergency contraception, voluntary sterilization, condoms to prevent HIV, and assisted reproduction come to mind."

Kissling also chastised her radical feminist colleagues for not holding Sen. Clinton to task for not restoring Medicaid funding for abortions, which were banned under the Hyde Amendment signed by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

"It is no longer about 'winning, the culture war. It is about completing the social transformation that Roe began but did not solidify," Kissling concluded. "That task, I believe, will best be accomplished by a president who sees her or his role as calling us to greatness ... I think Barack Obama is the person who can do that."

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
That's quite an endorsement of Obama's pro-abortion bona fides.

Bill Clinton Blows a Gasket with Pro-Life Protestors

The Billary Machine was campaigning in Steubenville, OH this past Tuesday -- the Steubenville Students for Life organized a public protest, provoking the former president to lose his temper. Thomas Peters (American Papist) provides full coverage and updates.

James Hitchcock on "Abortion and the Catholic Right"

"Abortion and the Catholic Right" by James Hitchcock. Human Life Review Spring 2007 -- a study of how the Catholic (re: "traditionalist") Right -- as represented by Joseph Sobran, Paul Likoudis and contributors to The Wanderer & The Remnant -- have been obsessed with their opposition to democratic-capitalism, "neoconservatives" and the Bush administration, to such an immense degree that they now hold the aformentioned issues as being "more pressing" than abortion -- even to the point of, in the case of The Wanderer, celebrating the defeat of Republican candidates.

Some food for thought / discussion:

The opposition of these conservative Catholics to the Bush administration has also led some of them to reject important pro-life allies. In their fierce denunciations of "neo-conservatives," Sobran and Likoudis ignore the fact that neo-conservatives, especially in the pages of their leading publication, The Weekly Standard, are among the few secular people enrolled in the prolife cause. TWS regularly publishes strong and highly intelligent articles against abortion, fetal-stem-cell research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other life issues, as well as against radical feminism and the homosexual movement. It is a moral conservatism that is not accidental, since "neoconservatives" are usually defined as people who became disillusioned with traditional liberalism on a variety of issues.

Similarly, Likoudis's dismissal of Santorum as merely a puppet of the White House and of a neo-conservative conspiracy impugned the integrity of a man who had been regarded as one of the most principled and effective Senate champions of traditional moral causes, and it is not at all clear whether Santorum was opposed primarily for his lapse in supporting Specter or for his heresy on other issues. Since his opponent was also pro-life, opposition to Santorum could be justified, but some of his Catholic critics implied that he had to be turned out of office without regard for the life issues.

Economics appears to be the engine that is now driving The Wanderer's stand on public issues, and establishing its priorities. Neither liberals nor conservatives, as those terms are understood in the U.S. today, represent classical Catholic social teachings. But since the U.S. is a predominantly capitalist country, the teachings criticizing capitalism appear more pertinent to our condition than do the teachings against socialism; so, to the degree that the Republican Party champions the free market, some Catholics draw the conclusion that it is in effect immoral to support Republican candidates.

While this is usually considered a liberal idea, in the pages of The Wanderer it has a conservative counterpart that is in many ways almost indistinguishable from the liberal position. The paper stops short of advising readers precisely how to vote in order to achieve true social justice, but its economic ideas seem logically to lead to the conclusion that only strong state action can overcome the plutocratic exploitation of the people, something that has been the premise of left-wing American politics since the 1890s. . . .

* * *

. . . Many, perhaps most, committed pro-lifers are former Democrats who were rejected by their party and found themselves welcomed by the Republicans. Most of those converts are probably not conservatives in a principled ideological way, so that their presence in the Republican ranks has the effect of helping facilitate the "betrayal" of conservative principles that Sobran and others decry.

Hard-core conservatives tend now to hearken back nostalgically to the days of Barry Goldwater, ignoring the fact the Goldwater turned out to be fanatically pro-abortion, as well as very liberal on most other social issues, something that gives pro-lifers little reason to want to be "true" conservatives. Sobran's way of dealing with the life issues can then be seen as the conservative counterpart to the liberals' "seamless garment"-an attempt to persuade pro-lifers to transcend their "narrow" outlook and support a wider agenda.

The widely held, apparently self-evident, assumption that the pro-life movement is the creature of the "religious Right" has blinded even most informed observers to the unexpected and intriguing fact that, for some on the Catholic part of "the Right," the life issues are no longer paramount, if they ever were.

James Hitchcock is a professor of history at St. Louis University, is the author of The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life (Princeton University Press, 2004).

Liberty Corner on "Joseph Sobran's Intellectual Decline & Fall"

• Sobran's Intellectual Decline and Fall [Guest Post to] Liberty Corner January 8, 2008.
  
• Joseph Sobran: Final Verdict [Guest Post to] Liberty Corner January 10, 2008.
  

Mark Stricherz, Deal Hudson on McCain's "Stem Cell Problem"

From InsideCatholic.com, Mark Stricherz asks the obvious question regarding McCain's position on ESCR:

Deal , John McCain continues to say that he supports federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. If he is elected president and Congress votes to approve it, he will overturn President Bush's policy. How does that make McCain "very forthright in his support of unborn life"?

Deal Hudson responds: "John McCain IS Pro-Life":

Mark, you can also take up the question of McCain's pro-life voting record with the head of Priests for Life, Fr. Frank Pavone who said to McCain on a call I organized that the senator had a "clear and convincing pro-life voting record." If you don't believe Fr. Pavone, you might take a look at NARAL's rating of McCain, which is ZERO. ...

If NARAL thinks he is anti-pro-choice, Fr. Pavone thinks he is pro-life, along with Sen. Brownback, then I think the label fits.

I am disappointed in his stand on embryonic stem cell research, just as I am with Mitt Romney and President Bush on the same issue. Bush, as you know, allowed federal funds to be spent on the 50+ existing stem cell lines. Romney would "allow" private funding of the same.

The pro-lifers I have heard from complain less about his record than the fact that he has not seemed a "friend" of the movement. Fair enough.

Over at Vox Nova, Michael Joseph finds his response wanting (What's the Deal with Deal?:

So Hudson’s brilliant piece of reasoning really amounts to: “Other people say John McCain is pro-life, so he must be pro-life.” Such arguments from authority would not hold up in a logic course, much less in the eyes of St. Thomas Aquinas, who reminds us that arguments from authority are the weakest sort (Summa Theologiae 1.1.8 ob 2). Truth is, Hudson hides behind Fr. Pavone and Brownback rather then really engaging the question raised by Stricherz.

He also pits Hudson's claim against his own stance in How to Vote Catholic, finding "Hudson is not only inconsistent in his evaluation of McCain’s record on life, but he also implicitly contradicts himself in stating that embryonic stem cell research is a life issue on the one hand, and that McCain is pro-life on the other."

Granted that with respect to pro-life issues, either McCain or Huckabee will be better than the alternatives offered by the Democrats, I wish Hudson had taken McCain to task on his disappointing and deficient stance on ESCR when he actually had the chance, interviewing him for InsideCatholic.com in December 2007:

Yes, it has. By the way, the only area that you have been criticized by pro-lifers is in the embryonic stem-cell area and as you know, just a few days ago there was an announcement that researchers had been able to create embryonic stem cells out of human skin tissue. Do you think this is a way that we can move ahead with this issue?

Well, I am very encouraged by the news and I hope that it can make this discussion academic; this is something I had stated that I had hoped would happen for a long period of time. I haven't changed my position yet but I certainly am encouraged by the news.

Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"

Todd Aglialoro at InsideCatholic links to this piece at Slate by former Catholic University law school dean and advisor to Mitt Romney, Douglas Kmiec:

... But now that Romney's out, whom might Catholics turn to? Since I served at one time as Reagan's constitutional lawyer, it would be natural for me to fall in line behind John McCain. Don't worry about his conservative lapses, says President Bush, the foremost expert on lapsed conservativism. There is no gainsaying that McCain is a military hero deserving of salute. But McCain seems fixated on just taking the next hill in Iraq. His Iraqi military objective is laudable, but it assumes good reasons to be there in the first place. It also ignores that Catholics are looking to bless the peacemakers.

Now, don't think me daft, but when Obama gave his victory remarks in Iowa calling upon America to "choose hope over fear and to choose unity over division," he was standing squarely in the shoes of the "Great Communicator." ...

***
Beyond life issues, an audaciously hope-filled Democrat like Obama is a Catholic natural...

***
So, here's the thing: John McCain will have many Catholics in the pews a little while longer, but more than a few of us are thinking of giving him up for Lent. Reagan used to say that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left him. The launch of "Reaganites for Obama" might not be far behind. We might not be there yet, but we're getting close.

[More]

(emphasis added)

Brian Saint-Paul responds to Mr. Kmiec at InsideCatholic:

Reaganites for Obama? How precisely is Barack Obama like Ronald Reagan?

***
So Obama is ambiguously inspiring in the same way that Reagan was. That's great, but it doesn't take us very far. An inspirational speaker needs to inspire the listener to do something, or what's the point of it? Given that, what specifically does Obama want us to unify over? What are the particular fears he wants us to abandon? How does he think we're being divisive... and who are our nation's dividers?

These are all questions that Kmiec might have answered in his 1300 word essay. Of course, had he done so, he might not have ended up with much of an essay at all.

UPDATE
Brian Saint-Paul again:

Douglas Kmiec is pro-life -- let that be understood. But that doesn't stop him from employing the flawed ethical arithmetic of the religious Left...

***
... The Democrats support abortion and the Republicans support the death penalty, so it all comes out in the moral wash. But of course, this is wrong. While abortion is an intrinsic evil, the death penalty is not. We may oppose the death penalty vociferously, as I do myself, but it is of a different moral quality than abortion.

Douglas Kmiec knows this. So why didn't he say it?

[Cross-posted with commentary at Pro Ecclesia]

Catholics Back McCain in Potomac Primary

Deal Hudson writes at InsideCatholic:

McCain won Catholics in Maryland 59% to 21% over Mike Huckabee. In Virginia McCain won Catholics 73% to 23% over Huckabee. McCain's attractiveness to Protestant voters is about the converse in Virginia, losing 38% to 49% to Huckabee, but in Maryland winning Protestants, 51% to 37%. When the "born-again" Protestants are scored separately, McCain loses to Huckabee 33% to 54% in Maryland, and 31% to 60% in Virginia.

[More]

McCain Asks for the Vote of All Conservatives

Here's the text of his speech today before the Conservative Political Action Committee in Washington, D.C. Notice the unambiguous pro-life references which I have put in bold print. The text follows:

Remarks By John McCain to CPAC

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today released the following remarks by John McCain as prepared for delivery:

Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. It's been a little while since I've had the honor of addressing you, and I appreciate very much your courtesy to me today. We should do this more often. I hope you will pardon my absence last year, and understand that I intended no personal insult to any of you. I was merely pre-occupied with the business of trying to escape the distinction of pre-season frontrunner for the Republican nomination, which, I'm sure some of you observed, I managed to do in fairly short order. But, now, I again have the privilege of that distinction, and this time I would prefer to hold on to it for a while.

I know I have a responsibility, if I am, as I hope to be, the Republican nominee for President, to unite the party and prepare for the great contest in November. And I am acutely aware that I cannot succeed in that endeavor, nor can our party prevail over the challenge we will face from either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, without the support of dedicated conservatives, whose convictions, creativity and energy have been indispensible to the success our party has had over the last quarter century. Many of you have disagreed strongly with some positions I have taken in recent years. I understand that. I might not agree with it, but I respect it for the principled position it is. And it is my sincere hope that even if you believe I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative, you will still allow that I have, in many ways important to all of us, maintained the record of a conservative. Further, I hope you will grant that I have defended many positions we share just as ardently as I have made my case for positions that have provoked your opposition. If not, thank you for this opportunity to make my case today.

I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens. And like you, I understand, as Edmund Burke observed, that "whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither . . . is safe."

While I have long worked to help grow a public majority of support for Republican candidates and principles, I have also always believed, like you, in the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, who warned in an address to this conference in 1975, that "a political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers."

I attended my first CPAC conference as the invited guest of Ronald Reagan, not long after I had returned from overseas, when I heard him deliver his "shining city upon a hill" speech. I was still a naval officer then, but his words inspired and helped form my own political views, just as Ronald Reagan's defense of America's cause in Vietnam and his evident concern for American prisoners of war in that conflict inspired and were a great comfort to those of us who, in my friend Jerry Denton's words, had the honor of serving "our country under difficult circumstances." I am proud, very proud, to have come to public office as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. And if a few of my positions have raised your concern that I have forgotten my political heritage, I want to assure you that I have not, and I am as proud of that association today as I was then. My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstream conservative. I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and unborn.

Those are my beliefs, and you need not examine only my past votes and speeches to assure yourselves that they are my genuine convictions. You can take added confidence from the positions I have defended during this campaign. I campaigned in Iowa in opposition to agriculture subsidies. I campaigned in New Hampshire against big government mandated health care and for a free market solution to the problem of unavailable and unaffordable health care. I campaigned in Michigan for the tax incentives and trade policies that will create new and better jobs in that economically troubled state. I campaigned in Florida against the national catastrophic insurance fund bill that passed the House of Representatives and defended my opposition to the prescription drug benefit bill that saddled Americans with yet another hugely expensive entitlement program. I have argued to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, to reduce the corporate tax rate and abolish the AMT. I have defended my position on protecting our Second Amendment rights, including my votes against waiting periods, bans on the so-called "assault weapons," and illegitimate lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers. I have proudly defended my twenty-four year pro-life record. Throughout this campaign, I have defended the President's brave decision to increase troop levels in Iraq to execute a long overdue counterinsurgency that has spared us the terrible calamity of losing that war. I held these positions because I believed they were in the best interests of my party and country."

Surely, I have held other positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives. I won't pretend otherwise nor would you permit me to forget it. On the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.

All I ask of any American, conservative, moderate, independent, or enlightened Democrat, is to judge my record as a whole, and accept that I am not in the habit of making promises to my country that I do not intend to keep. I hope I have proven that in my life even to my critics. Then vote for or against me based on that record, my qualifications for the office, and the direction where I plainly state I intend to lead our country. If I am so fortunate as to be the Republican nominee for President, I will offer Americans, in what will be a very challenging and spirited contest, a clearly conservative approach to governing. I will make my case to voters, no matter what state they reside in, in the same way. I will not obscure my positions from voters who I fear might not share them. I will stand on my convictions, my conservative convictions, and trust in the good sense of the voters, and in my confidence that conservative principles still appeal to a majority of Americans, Republicans, Independents and Reagan Democrats.

Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences. This one will not be. We are arguing about hugely consequential things. Whomever the Democrats nominate, they would govern this country in a way that will, in my opinion, take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives; to substitute the muddled judgment of large and expanding federal bureaucracies for the common sense and values of the American people; to the timidity and wishful thinking of a time when we averted our eyes from terrible threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. It is shameful and dangerous that Senate Democrats are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists. This election is going to be about big things, not small things. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our principles prevail over theirs.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government.

I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes.

I intend to cut them. I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won't let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy.

They will offer a big government solution to health care insurance coverage.

I intend to address the problem with free market solutions and with respect for the freedom of individuals to make important choices for themselves.

They will appoint to the federal bench judges who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

They won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.

I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.

I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.

These are but a few of the differences that will define this election. They are very significant differences, and I promise you, I intend to contest these issues on conservative grounds and fight as hard as I can to defend the principles and positions we share, and to keep this country safe, proud, prosperous and free.

We have had a few disagreements, and none of us will pretend that we won't continue to have a few. But even in disagreement, especially in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives. If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in complete accord.

I began by assuring you that we share a conception of liberty that is the bedrock of our beliefs as conservatives. As you know, I was deprived of liberty for a time in my life, and while my love of liberty is no greater than yours, you can be confident that mine is the equal of any American's. It is a deep and unwavering love. My life experiences in service to our country inform my political judgments. They are at the core of my convictions. I am pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere in the world because of them, because I know that to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature's Creator. I will never waver in that conviction, I promise you. I know in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be "nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and ta ke comfort from the knowledge that I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives.

You have heard me say before that for all my reputation as a maverick, I have only found true happiness in serving a cause greater than my self-interest. For me, that cause has always been our country, and the ideals that have made us great. I have been her imperfect servant for many years, and I have made many mistakes. You can attest to that, but need not. For I know them well myself. But I love her deeply and I will never, never tire of the honor of serving her. I cannot do that without your counsel and support. And I am grateful, very grateful, that you have given me this opportunity to ask for it.

Thank you and God bless you.

McCain Scores with Catholics on Super Tuesday

Deal Hudson writes at InsideCatholic that John McCain did well among Catholic voters on Super Tuesday.

Ted Olson, Conservative Jurist, Backs McCain

Ted Olson, a former Republican Solicitor General under President George Bush, is a big catch for McCain because Olson's credentials as a conservative jurist are impeccable. Olson will co-chair the McCain Judicial Advisory Committee, which will give input on whom McCain appoints to federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The other co-chair is Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a leading pro-life Catholic politician. Here is Olson on McCain:

John McCain has a deep-rooted conservative philosophy and I trust him to appoint strict constructionists, like Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, to judicial positions.

See link for full endorsement.