Pro-Life News Roundup

• Bishop Gerald A. Gettelfinger of Evansville said he will not attend an April right-to-life dinner where Republican Chairman Michael Steele is scheduled to speak because he objects to comments he made about abortion. (Catholic Chronicle March 30, 2009.
  

  
  

• Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has signed a bill into law banning the use of some state funds for embryonic stem cell research:

  The move puts the DNC chairman at odds with President Obama, who signed an executive order earlier this month reversing the Bush administration's ban on federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells.
  

  Kaine approved the Virginia bill on Monday, according to the governor's office, the same day he enacted legislation that would permit "Choose Life" license plates in the commonwealth — an act that angered state and national abortion rights advocates.

  Good for him.
  

• Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed the Woman's Right To Know Act, permitting women to see an ultrasound or hear a fetal heartbeat before receiving an abortion and requiring abortion clinics to offer information about fetal development. (The Wichita Eagle March 29, 2009.
  

• The fourth anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death by court-ordered dehydration was observed by Priests for Life and Terri's Foundation with a Memorial Mass, celebrated by Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life and Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, President of Human Life International.
  

• Four More Bishops Make Thirteen Opposed to Notre Dame Obama Invitation LifeSiteNews.com April 1, 2009.
  

Fr. Pavone, Senator Brownback and Rudy Giuliani

A topic that seems to be on many a Catholic mind this week is the potential emergence of Rudy Giuliani as the GOP presidential candidate in 2008. A self-proclaimed "pro-choice, pro-gay rights" Catholic, conservative voters are finding themselves faced with the moral equivalent to Senator Kerry (also a self-proclaimed "pro-choice" Catholic) on their side of the political isle.

Fr. Pavone on the Permissability of "Voting for the Better of Two Bad Candidates"

Last month, Michae Iafrate (Catholic Anarchist) noted his disapproval of Fr. Frank Pavone's response to the question of what to do when the two major parties’ candidates are pro-choice, but a third party candidate is anti-abortion?? (More “Republicatholic” hypocrisy, courtesy of Frank Pavone May 13, 2007) -- In response to which, Fr. Pavone maintains that Catholics must distinguish between "choosing evil" and "limiting evil":

. . . just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?

For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that's the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not "choosing the lesser of two evils." We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good. . . . by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it's not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer -- in the case described above -- is yes.

Michael omits from his post the fact that Fr. Pavone was taking a cue from Cardinal John O'Connor (no slouch on the pro-life front, he). Pavone continues, citing from the Cardinal himself:

Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem,

“Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. If all candidates support "abortion rights" equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).

In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.

Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.

Michael Iafrate's reaction to Pavone is to brand him a hypocrite, although he has not actually established this to be the case. In fact, Fr. Pavone has held this same position (with respect to voting when faced with two leading "bad' candidates) back in 2000:

“Because voting is not a canonization,” he continued, “we may morally vote for a less perfect candidate who is actually electable at the present moment, rather than a better candidate who does not have the base of support to actually get into office. Our vote is our way of participating in actually moving our society forward, rather than a forum for ‘making statements.’ Statements can be made in a thousand other ways. But there is only one way to elect people to offices in which they can make a difference.”

I believe Fr. Pavone makes an important observation here about the viability of a given candidate -- a principled vote for the 'better' third party candidate with no political viability will result in the election of one or another candidate (and party) who will set the agenda and policies for the country. Last month I had devoted a post to exploring this very decision ("To Vote or Not to Vote?" Catholics in the Public Square April 21, 2007) and the ramifications of voting for a candidate with no realistic chance of success or even abstaining from voting altogether.

Moving on, Michael Iafrate's assertion that Catholic Answers teaches that "Catholics are obligated to vote for pro-life/anti-abortion candidates (typically Republicans) and may not vote for pro-choice/pro-abortion candidates (typically Democrats)" is not exactly true. A look at Catholic Answers' Voting Guide for Serious Catholics reveals an answer that is very much along the lines of Fr. Pavone's and Cardinal O'Connor's:

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality"(EV 73; also CPL 4).

Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.

Senator Brownback - Consistently Pro-Life or Sell-Out?

In the third debate among GOP candidates, Wolf Blitzer posed the question to Senator Sam Brownback of whether he would be able to vote for a pro-choice GOP candidate. Here is the exchange in full:

SEN. BROWNBACK: [...] I am pro-life and I’m whole life. And one of the things I’m the most, the proudest about our party about is that we’ve stood for life. We’ve been a party that has stood for a culture of life, and it was in our platform in 1980 and it continues today.

And with that respect — and I have respect for my other colleagues — that’s why I don’t think we can nominate somebody that’s not pro-life in this party because it is at our core. We believe that every life is beautiful, is sacred, is a child of a loving God, from natural — from conception to natural death, and that applies not only here and in the womb, it applies to somebody that’s in poverty, it applies to the child in Darfur.

And that philosophy, being pro-life and whole life, is something I think can really help move us forward as a country and as a party.

MR. BLITZER: Senator, if Rudy Giuliani got the Republican presidential nomination, would you be able to support him?

SEN. BROWNBACK: I — that question came up at the first debate, and I stated that this is something that we as a party have struggled with. I have great respect for the mayor. I don’t think we’re going to nominate somebody that’s not pro-life.

MR. BLITZER: Would you be able to support him?

SEN. BROWNBACK: I can support and will support the nominee of our party, but our party has stood on principles. It’s a party of principles, it’s not a party of personalities.

Michael Joseph of Vox Nova / Evangelica-Catholicism expressed his disapproval of Senator Sam Brownback, characterizing the Senator's response as a compromise of his moral principles, at the same time asserting that the "more Catholic and more democratic action" would be to vote for a third-party candidate (Brownback Backpedals Vox Nova June 6, 2007):

. . . All of Fr. Pavone's talk about ending abortion definitively in America by consolidating the pro-life vote ends here. He introduces a manufactured category to the matter: "realistic choice." So as a Catholic, I do not need to vote pro-life as long as that vote goes toward a "realistic" candidate? Is "realistic" an emergency moral category whose glass is broken in the event that a Republican nominee for president is pro-choice? "Realistic" releases me from any moral obligation to vote pro-life? I should not feel compelled to find a pro-life third-party candidate for whom I can vote in good conscience? I should not do the more Catholic and the more democratic action of voting for a third-party? I should allow practical politics to trump pro-life principles? Why, then, can I not just vote for a "realistic" pro-choice candidate anytime, even if there is a "realistic" pro-life candidate in the race?

Fr. Pavone exacerbates his double-talk by suggesting that a pro-choice candidate could be an "acceptable" candidate. If both candidates are pro-choice, one may be more "acceptable" than the other. Really, Fr. Pavone? And how so? Is there another behemoth non-negotiable issue that can overshadow a candidate's public desire to protect right to the murder the unborn? Perhaps socialized medicine? Perhaps tax-cuts? Perhaps immigration reform?

In "Worthiness to Receive Communion, General Principles", Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

(Cardinal Ratzinger's position -- not to be distinguished with proportionalism -- is explored and defended by Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin: What Ratzinger Said Sept. 9, 2004). I think that the collective voice of Vox Nova are rather too hasty in their rush to castigate Senator Brownback and Fr. Pavone as hypocrites guilty of "pro-life backpedalling" whose only desire is that Catholics vote Republican. Based on a closer analysis of Brownback and Pavone's own words and stated reasoning, this is simply not the case.

Steve Dillard and Catholics Against Rudy

Responding to an piece on Catholics Against Rudy on Vox Nova this week (Catholics Against Rudy: All the Way?, by Michael Joseph Vox Nova June 12, 2007), Steve Dillard conveys the position of his organization Catholics Against Rudy (formally launching in July 2007):

(1) My comment that, "You cannot, in good conscience as a faithful Catholic, vote for Rudy Giuliani," is limited to the GOP presidential primary. . . . I certainly believe that there would be "proportionate reasons" to vote for Mayor Giuliani in the general election against a pro-abortion democratic candidate (e.g., Clinton).

(2) Yes, if Giuliani "were to earn the Republican nomination," which I agree is "a very likely scenario," Catholics Against Rudy will "continue its campaign beyond the Republican primaries" That having been said, for the reasons noted above, our arguments against his candidacy will have to shift gears a bit. While there clearly are not "proportionate reasons" that would permit a Catholic to vote for Giuliani in the GOP primary, the same cannot be said for the general election, and, as such, our arguments will shift from the theological to the prudential (e.g., that Catholics should not vote for Giuliani because of the long-term harm that would result from having a pro-abortion leader as the head of the only pro-life political party).

(3) For all of the reasons noted above, Catholics Against Rudy "will . . . make good on its campaign and advise Catholics to choose a pro-life third-party candidate," while at the same time respecting those Catholics who, for other prudential reasons (e.g., supreme-court vacancies), elect to choose the lesser of two evils.

Before I go on, I would like to publicly commend Steve Dillard for his patience and Christian charity, having been the recipient of a great deal of verbal abuse and unjust accusations in Vox Nova's combox. The accusation that Catholics Against Rudy would be an organization "utterly beholden to the Republican Party" is unjustifiable and patently ridiculous on its face. Thanks to Michael Joseph for displaying the courtesy of amending his post.

In Conclusion

Like Senator Brownback, I hope and pray it will never come to pass that Giuliani will be the GOP presidential nominee. Unfortunately, I fear that Brownback is far more optimistic about the integrity and conviction of the Republican Party than I at this time. While the Giuliani campaign has been met with increasing opposition among conservative Catholics, the amount of attention bestowed upon him by other Republicans is disconcerting, not to mention what one would describe as fawning adulation from the likes of FoxNews pundit Sean Hannity and Rich Lowry of the National Review (in what Jay Anderson appropriately described as a "Rudygasm").

A conscientious vote for Giuliani against, say, Hillary or Obama is perhaps defensible from a Catholic point of view (or at least not prohibited). I honestly can't predict my decision come November 2008. For the moment, I think it is clear that we as Catholics should collectively put our effort into opposing the nomination of Rudy Giuliani -- not only for the sake of accurately presenting Catholic teaching in the public square, but for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the Republican party in future elections.

The Republican Party has recognized in its platform that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." Would it be worth it to elect a "pro-choice" politician at the cost of sacrificing or making a mockery of that very position? Would it not be a slippery slope, in fact "widening the Republican tent" to allow for the election of more "pro-choice" politicians in the future? -- The Democrats have worn the "pro-choice" mantle for decades. Let's curb this headlong rush to join them.

* * *

This post is written in the attempt to work out my thoughts on the issue and a clarification of the positions of Senator Brownback and Fr. Pavone; I welcome the feedback of my colleagues and readers and their reactions. Let the discussion begin.

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning. -- President Ronald Reagan Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation

General Reading

• Anti-Rudy Catholics Plan Their Assault, by Rebecca Sinderbrand. New York Observer May 27, 2007.
  
• The Failure of Catholic Political Leadership, by Robert P. George and William L. Saunders. Crisis 18 no. 4 (April 2000): 17-22.
  

Responses to This Post

• Fr. Pavone, Senator Brownback and Rudy Giuliani by Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia June 13, 2007).
  
• Response from Morning's Minion [see also: "Can Catholics Vote for Pro-Abortion Politicians?", by Morning's Minion. Vox Nova May 23, 2007].
  
• Does Voting for Giuliani Make You a Pro-Life Fraud?, by Michael Denton. For the Greater Glory June 13, 2007.
  

Fr. Frank Pavone joins the Blogosphere . . .

Priests for Life now has a blog. I'm sure I can speak on behalf of my colleagues at CPS in extending a hearty welcome to Fr. Frank Pavone.

Welcome, father! =)

Fr. Pavone (Priests for Life) on the Confirmation of Samuel Alito

From Fr. Pavone's e-letter on the confirmation of Samuel Alito:

As I bring you my latest column . . . let me also comment on two news items from today.

First, of course, Justice Samuel Alito was confirmed and sworn in today as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Again we see that elections have consequences. This new Justice, who will be much friendlier to pro-life concerns than was Sandra Day O'Connor, would not be on the Supreme Court today if all of you had not worked as hard as you did for the elections of 2004. It was the coming change of the Supreme Court that motivated so many of us.

I ask you to pause and reflect for a moment. Where is all the power of the pro-abortion movement? Why couldn't the pro-abortion and other liberal organizations that are so well-funded and have so many friends in Hollywood, the media, and the political world, stop the confirmation of Justice Alito? They certainly wanted to and they certainly tried. For that matter, why weren't they able to keep President Bush from a second term?

The fact is that we have things that they don't have, including a stronger grassroots network, and the right message. So thank you again - and let's gear up now for the elections of 2006 and 2008 so that we can replace more Supreme Court Justices!

On another note, you may have seen the news that Coretta Scott King, wife of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., died last night. Her niece, Alveda, told me this morning that the family appreciates your prayers. (You may send a note of condolence to the King family at mail@priestsforlife.org.) Alveda, as you know, continues fighting for Dr. King's dream of equal dignity for all human beings by fighting for the right to life of unborn children. We are happy to have her as our director of African-American outreach.

"Elections have consequences." Remember that: one can only wonder what the Supreme Court would look like had Senator Kerry been elected, or where the pro-life movement would be today.

Priests for Life on Miers Pick

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 -- Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life and president of the National Pro-life Religious Council, thanked President Bush this morning for nominating a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a timely manner, and called upon the Senate to do its work in an expeditious way as well.

"Our prayers are with Harriet Miers this morning as she begins this important process. We trust the President's judgment and his determination to fulfill his promises about the kind of Justices he wants to see on the Court.

"It is the judgment of certain liberal Senators, however, that gives us more concern. The demand that some make for preserving the current ideological balance on the Court, or for more "mainstream" nominees, is ridiculous. Do we have a more "mainstream" Constitution in some generations but not in others? Or do they think it is up to the Justices to re-write the Constitution? In short, there is no Constitutional requirement that Justice O'Connor's replacement should be a clone of Justice O'Connor.

"The place for arguments about ideology and mainstream positions is in political races. For the purposes of confirming nominees to the Court, the focus should be on qualifications to be a Justice, not on personal views on controversial issues."

More from Fr. Pavone on Judge Roberts

I see Christopher points to a press release from Fr. Pavone. Here is his newsletter from tonight:

---

Dear Friends,

Just a few minutes ago, President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts is highly qualified and has proven legal abilities.

Now, his nomination will go to the Senate while he will be questioned about his judicial philosophy and credentials.

We can also expect, unfortunately, that many Senators will seek to derail his nomination with vicious personal attacks against his faith, his belief in strict interpretation of the constitution, and any rulings that he has made that do
not fit their public policy ends. They will question him about abortion and Roe vs. Wade, as if that decision cannot be reversed and belongs to some kind of sacred, unchangeable dogma. In regard to this, of course, it is important to keep in mind what I said in a recent column, that is, that the current Chief Justice of the United States is one of the original dissenters in Roe vs. Wade. If he can hold that position, so can an Associate Justice of the Court. A belief that Roe should be overturned should certainly not be considered an obstacle to serving on the Court.

Expect some Senators to attack Judge Roberts for his religious and personal beliefs. Many have argued in the past that those with strong religious beliefs do not belong on the Supreme Court. This would effectively eliminate every faithful member of any faith from service on the highest Court in the land.

To achieve their goals, some may choose to filibuster Judge Roberts. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent. It would be the first time in history that a minority of Senators prevents the full Senate from fulfilling its duty to provide advice and consent on a Supreme Court nominee. This would create a constitutional crisis, as a minority of Senators would unilaterally amend the Constitution without going through the necessary process to do so.

We can fight those who would engage in these bigoted and unfair tactics, but we need your help to do it!

Please take a few minutes to contact your Senators and tell them you expect a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate! Tell them, furthermore, that any religious or moral beliefs that Judge Roberts expresses should not disqualify him from confirmation. Simply call (202) 224-3121 and ask for your Senator. You will need to make two calls, one for each Senator.

And please keep up to date on this judicial confirmations battle by going to our website, www.priestsforlife.org and clicking on the link for "Judges." Be sure to join our prayer campaign for the Supreme Court at www.PrayerCampaign.org Remember, this will be a battle. Pro-abortion advocates have suffered many losses in the legislatures, and many losses at the voting booth. The Courts are their only real stronghold of political power, and they don't want to lose that! You and I need to urge our Senators to do the right thing. This is what we voted for in November's election - a positive change on the Supreme Court! Let's keep the momentum going!!!

Thank you!
Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director of Priests for Life

John Roberts - Nod of Approval from Fr. Pavone

(Via Domenico Bettinelli), President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts gets a nod of approval from various figures which may give an indication of where he stands on the life issues:

National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez:

Since the Washington Post wrote about Bush's women and abortion today, how about Judge Roberts's? John Roberts's wife, Jane, has served as executive vice president of Feminists for Life (one of my favorite groups).

More reactions at the NRO's Bench Memos.

Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life [press release]:

"I am thrilled that the President has kept his promise by selecting a nominee who understands the importance of strictly adhering to the Constitution," Pavone said. "The President's selection of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. shows that he has a fundamental understanding of the types of judges that we need on the Supreme Court, judges who understand the difference between applying law and rewriting law. I look forward to working to ensure that Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. is treated fairly and receives a timely up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate."

Father Pavone on '95-10'

The commitment to defend the weakest and most vulnerable human beings does not arise from a political party or platform, nor from any kind of personal or communal agenda.

Nor does it arise from bishops, priests, or pastors. Rather, it arises from our humanity itself, fashioned as it is by the hand of God. God, who is life, writes upon our hearts its value, and He bestows on us both the gift of life and the privilege and duty to defend it.

Nobody needs any kind of permission to defend life, nor can anyone excuse himself from that duty. Nobody has a monopoly on the defense of life, nor is the pro-life task a means to an end. Defending life is an end in itself, and has in itself all the justification it ever needs.

The two major political parties in America, right now, take opposite views of the right to life. The Democratic Party platform (2004) reads, "Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay." The Republican Party platform (2004) reads, "We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it."

There are, nonetheless, pro-life and pro-abortion members of both parties, including legislators on the state and federal level.

Recently, I was with some of the pro-life Democratic members of Congress at a press conference led by Democrats for Life and held at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington. The topic was the "95-10" Initiative, which contains numerous legislative proposals aimed at reducing the numbers of abortion by 95% in the next ten years.

There are many proposals in this package, like women's right-to-know provisions, funding for promotion of alternatives to abortion, strengthening of adoption practices, and more. These are key goals for all of us to pursue. The precise way in which these and other proposals in 95-10 should be written into law will, of course, need to be carefully debated and refined. For example, we always have to avoid the trap of thinking that access to contraception is a solution to the abortion problem. The opposite, in fact, is true.

And in the end, we cannot be content to reduce the numbers of abortions. We have to acknowledge that laws permitting even a single abortion undermine the very fabric of our freedom and our republic. Abortion is an act of violence that no nation has the right to permit. But when anyone in our great nation, Democrat or Republican, wants to advance the Culture of Life to any degree, that deserves an "Amen!" from us all.

Father Pavone on "95-10"

National pro-life leader commends pro-life Democrats

WASHINGTON DC, USA, May 17 (CNA) - Fr. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, commended Democrats for Life of America's "95-10" Initiative, which aims to reduce the number of abortions.

"A pro-life stance is far more consistent with principles Democrats claim to hold than is a pro-abortion stance," said Fr. Pavone at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington. The "95-10" Initiative enjoys the support of a number of pro-life Democrats in Congress.

The pro-life priest said his support does not mean that the initiative is not in need of further modification and debate. But he conceded that the initiative was a good starting point. [I am assuming this has to to with the proposals to promote contraception in insurance coverage and the possibility that sex-ed proposal would promote condom use.]

He also challenged Democrats and Republicans "to resist the temptation to dodge the abortion issue.

"Abortion is an act of violence that contradicts not only what a political party should stand for, but what America already stands for - the equal dignity of every human life," he said. "Abortion must not only be limited; it must be ended."

Fr. Pavone added: "It important that the pro-life movement and the Church not be identified exclusively with one or another political party, for the simple reason that the right to life is rooted in human nature and the nature of God, not political platforms."