This is covered terrain for Vox Nova. Blackadder and I have very different political outlooks, yet we both see eye-to-eye on the big problem with McCain: He IS NOT pro-life.
Over at InsideCatholic, Mark Stricherz asks the pressing question: How can we call John McCain “pro-life” when he has consistently supported federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? This is an important question, which both Blackadder and I have raised many times.
Stricherz’s fellow contributor at InsideCatholic, Deal Hudson, contrived a response entitled “John McCain IS Pro-life.” Hudson listed a number of reasons why we should all think of McCain as an advocate for life:
- Fr. Frank Provone, head of Priests for Life, states that McCain has a “clear and convincing pro-life voting record.”
- NARAL gives McCain a “Zero” rating
- Senator Sam Brownback says that McCain is “pro-life”
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.
Now, it is well known that McCain’s voting record on abortion is consistently pro-life. No one’s disputing that. However, what seems to be ignored is that McCain voted in 2006 and 2007 to enhance federal enhancement of embryonic stem cell research. McCain voted “Yea” on S.5 and H.R. 810. S.5 and H.R. 810 were bills to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. These measures passed the Senate, but were vetoed, thanks be to God, by President Bush. Incidentally, Hudson–a long time Bush supporter–obfuscates matters by comparing McCain with Bush on the issue. A contrasting of positions would be more beneficial (Bush vetoed the bills that McCain supported).
Some Catholics have asserted that McCain is beginning to change his view on embryonic stem cell research. No, he’s not. Blackadder noted the following report from The National Review on a campaign stop McCain made in Florida just before its primary:
A woman asked McCain at his West Palm Beach town hall if he will change his position to oppose federal funding for embryonic stem cells research in light of new developments. McCain said he’s very encouraged “by the information you just relayed and I agree it has tremendous potential to eliminate an issue which has divided our pro-life community and eliminate the need for embryonic stem cell research. We’re not there yet. According to a growing body of scientific opinion, we are approaching it. I look forward to that day. I’m not changing my position yet, but I am encouraged by the progress that has been made.”
So, my friends, John McCain has voted 100% of the time in favor of federal enhancement of embryonic stem cell research, and as recently as January 2008 he has stated that he has not changed his mind on the issue. Okay, now back to Hudson…
Hudson authored the now (in)famous “How to Vote Catholic” guide in which he laid out what HE thinks is the proper political perspective for ALL Catholics. In this guide, he forged a tenuous distinction between non-negotiable issues and issues of prudential judgment. Allow me to quote a few passages from his guide on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Hudson writes (all emphasis is mine):
Bioethics is taking center stage in the arena of public policy and morality. The past few years have witnessed highly visible debates on human embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Since the future of such research has a direct impact on the life and death of human persons, it’s a life issue for all Catholics.
—
Catholics take seriously what science reveals about human embryogenesis and intrauterine human development. Human life begins at conception, and the gift of a child is linked with the conjugal act. Therefore, the Church opposes abortion and embryo-destructive research and rejects reproductive procedures that attempt to substitute for the marital act, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and artificial insemination. In this way, the Church upholds the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the marriage union.
—
The Church’s message is one of enthusiastic support for biomedical science, yet firm opposition to killing in the name of research. To experiment on unused, unimplanted, or frozen embryos violates Church teaching and “reduces human life to the level of simple ‘biological material ‘” ( Evangelium Vitae , 14). The fact that surplus embryos have been effectively orphaned does not reduce them to the status of expendable research material, nor does it remove their right to be protected by law.
—
Members of the U.S. Congress are now facing the issue of whether human clones, once they are created, can be killed for the sake of medical research or benefit. Immediate attention to this matter is critical.No Catholic can justify such a policy.
Hudson clearly states that embryonic stem cell research is a life issue in his guide to voting (we have an election coming up!). This would mean that, according to Hudson’s own words, McCain is on the wrong side of a life issue. Might I add that this life issue is not a matter of prudential judgment.
Putting things together here, we see that 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. Look, it’s either one or the other: Either opposition to the practice and funding of embryonic stem cell research is the pro-life position or it is not. You can’t have it both ways.
So has Deal Hudson changed his mind on embryonic stem cell research and now rejects what he wrote in “How to Vote Catholic”? Does he think supporting McCain over the real pro-life candidate, Mike Huckabee, is more important than consistently voting pro-life? Is he fundamentally confused right now? Perhaps all of the above. In any case, what is clear is that Hudson is not consistent in his positions.
Support for ESRC is inconsistent with the claim of being a pro-life politician. It speaks of McCain’s tendency to sell social conservatives down the river whenever the polls permit him to act as a ‘maverick’.
That being said, he has pledged to appoint justices like Alito and Roberts, and that is really what counts as far as pro-lifers are concerned. At the very least he is better than Obama, who voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act when he was in Illinois protecting babies who survive abortion. A similar bill passed the U.S. senate, by the way, 98-0. In other words, his record in 2002 was more anti-life than that of anyone who was a member of the U.S. Senate.
…http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/2008/02/obama-mania.html
I don’t like McCain, but Obama would be a disaster for the pro-life movement in terms of judgment and his own views on life issues.
Eddie,
Must we settle for the lesser of two evils? We must not let McCain off the hook for his voting record and stance on ESRC simply because someone else happens to be worse than him. Unless we start demanding perfection and true goodness out of candidates we will continue to watch America fall further in the “culture of death.”
Obama’s evils do not excuse McCain. Shame on both of them.
JB
I would even say someone who says they are pro-life, that life begins at conception, and then allows for ESCR is more monstrous than someone who doesn’t believe life begins at conception. One might allow for more evil from their ignorance, but the other, despite knowing the truth, allows for evil. That is a greater evil.
Absolutely agree. I don’t like McCain. I don’t want to vote for him. I’d like the ‘Straight Talk Express’ to recognize the inconsistency between opposition to abortion and support for ESRC.
But, I think practically we do have to settle for the lesser of two evils; that I think people in both parties agree on. That is the nature of politics. If the issue you care about more than other issues is abortion (as it is for me), then the only way to offer the American people a chance to vote on that issue is to put justices on the Supreme Court that will prescind from dictating our nation’s abortion laws. The only chance we have of getting a potential fifth vote is with McCain, as distasteful as he is.
There’s still time for Republicans to make a statement with Huckabee. With his unexpected and meteoric rise within the Republican ranks (who would have thought he’d make it this far?), there’s no way to predict how well he might do in the General Election in November. Why the pro-life Republicans are not rallying to him mystifies me.
There are certainly things to like about Huck (especially in comparison to McCain), but at this point he’d have to win 126% of the remaining delegates in order to get the nomination.
Now, it is arguable that if he continues to do very strongly in the primaries that will make it more clear to the party leadership that they need to do more to accomodate the pro-life vote. However, to the extent that people are starting to rally around McCain, the reason is that although it’s still possible to deny anyone the winning number of delegates (if he wins less than 25% of the remaining delegates) it’s not possible for any other candidate to get the winning number at this point.
“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).”
Thanks for that appeal to authority.
The real problem with this whole conversation is that you demand an impossible standard of perfection of our political leaders and require them to be the ultimate moral conscience and guardians of righteousness in this country.
There’s only so much we can demand. I’m sorry, but we have to make due with the best available options. It is the Church’s responsiblity to restore the culture and to change the nations moral compass by sharing the Gospel of Christ to the lost and dying world around us! I think you are asking way too much of the next president. He’s a political leader–not a spiritual leader. That’s why we are commanded to pray for whoever our leaders!
Both McCain or Huckabee are either much better than the alternatives.
I don’t think having a Republican candidate who doesn’t favor using taxpayer dollars to kill embryos is an impossible standard of perfection.
Out of curiosity – Assuming Huckabee doesn’t want to make “The Pill” and the “Morning After Pill” (due to the alleged abortifacient side effect possibility) illegal and outlaw IVF as well, wouldn’t he still fail to be “pro-life” by your standards ?
It is the Church’s responsiblity to restore the culture and to change the nations moral compass by sharing the Gospel of Christ to the lost and dying world around us! I think you are asking way too much of the next president. He’s a political leader–not a spiritual leader.
“Restoring the culture” isn’t too much to ask of the president?
“Restore the culture” to WHAT?
Thanks for that appeal to authority.
It wasn’t an appeal to authority as I did not use St. Thomas to prove my point. Rather, I noted that St. Thomas reminded us of a logical truism. That’s not the same as relying on him (as Hudson does on Brownback and Fr. Pavone).
The real problem with this whole conversation is that you demand an impossible standard of perfection of our political leaders and require them to be the ultimate moral conscience and guardians of righteousness in this country.
It’s impossible to ask for a president who rejects both abortion and embryonic stem cell research? Be careful not to assume more than what is in my post. I said nothing about “ultimate moral conscience” or “guardians of righteousness.” You did.
I’m sorry, but we have to make due with the best available options.
I agree. And McCain is not the “best available option.”
Gerald,
From my perspective, the fact that Huckabee doesn’t want to ban the pill and IVF doesn’t make him not pro-life. The issue here isn’t whether ESCR should be legal (that, sadly, is not a politically practicable option). The issue is whether such embryo-destroying research will be supported by taxpayer dollars.
Blackadder, I was just wondering whether there are people who have that kind of standard, or whether there has been a politician wanting to outlaw “the pill” since its invention – since I’ve never really seen it brought up when “life” matters are discussed. I think McCain’s one shortcoming is now a moot point since he basically has the nomination. He’s better than Hillary and Obamessiah by leaps and bounds. Of course one can still vote for Huckabee out of principle, but the relevant issue is now the presidential election. Personally, while I find Huckabee quite amiable, I don’t consider him presidential material.
Well If you are on Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Wisconsin, Texas , Vermont, or Rhode Island vote Huckabee to send a message.
I have a huge feeling it is over after March 4th barring a miracle becaue the Huckabee campaign will spend it all in Texas. That does send a message and shows one benefit of Huckabee staying in the race
Then we just have to go our next choice that is acceptable and that will have to be McCain it appears
Geaux Huck
So, BA, you are saying he is actually pro-choice with regards to creating all kinds of human persons to kill (IVF) and for ESCR — and yet he is pro-life? Pro-choice can be pro-life?
This is simple. Hudson is a republican hack pure and simple. he will twist catholic teaching as it suits depending on the occasion.
This is all very interesting, considering The way Deal took Fred Thompson to task and criticized him despite his endorsement by the National Right to Life and 0% rating from NARAL.
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:
Pending a mathematical miracle, McCain is the Republican nominee. Perhaps a charitable and hospitable mass letter-writing campaign is in order. One can hope that he may be persuaded to embrace a life affirming response to ESCR.
Prayer and fasting may help too. Hey, it’s Lent. Offer up intentions for McCain, Hillary, and Obama!
Hudson is just trying to rally the base to support McCain. It may be that he is a partisan hack; it may be that he is pro-life and recognizes that the best option available now is McCain (with Huck unable mathematically to get the delegates) and so rallying the base is best way to achieve pro-life goals. It could be a mixture of the two, but I think it’s more charitable to assume the latter.
I don’t like McCain, and his support for public funding of ESCR disqualifies him as consistently pro–life. But I will vote for him because he has promised to appoint judges that are likely to give americans a chance to select their abortion laws, and he has consistently voted with pro-lifers on abortion legislation. A failure on one pro-life issue, with a promise to support the pro-life agenda on abortion is far better than the alternative for the pro-life movement.
Keep in mind that, although he cannot get the delegates to earn the nomination through the primaries, if Huckabee prevents McCain from reaching the requisite amount of delegates himself before the RNC, it is still possible that Huckabee would be selected for the nomination.
Far be it from me to agree with Politicratus on anything… but he is 100% right. Mike Huckabee is, in the classic definition the only pro-life candidate with any chance of influencing the outcome in November. He is totally consistent on the key issues of abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research. He is the only candidate in either party who is remotely close to that. That he has not fully seen the light of truth in the Catholic Church or her teachings on IVF etc. is sad, but the evil of IVF which involves he unintended death of a numerous souls, is not on the level of evil in abortion which intentionally kills the innocent.
So I urge anyone here who has yet to have the presidential primary in their state to go out and vote for Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination.
In November however, it will be time to break down and chose between Hillary/Obama and John McCain in all likelihood (with perhaps a stronger pro-lifer on the ticket). This is not a difficult choice. McCain is opposed to abortion in 99% of the cases and would seek to restrict abortion to those levels at least, and by judical nominations to overturn Roe vs. Wade. McCain has shown an inclination to reconsider his position on federal funding of embryonic stemcell research, he has rejoiced the progress of adult stem cell therapy and the recent breakthroughs that may eliminate the desire for stem cells from human embryos.
On the other hand, as was earlier stated, Obama does not thing that a baby who survives an abortion to be born alive should be given any care, but left to die on a tray, or perhaps left in a closet gasping for air. Hillary is as bad if not worse. Either of these candidates anathema to all faifthul Catholics.
God Bless,
Matt
I hadn’t read Mr Hudson’s infamous guide to voting Catholicly, but upon reading this post took that piece of his to task. Morning’s Minion, it seems to me, has hit the proverbial nail on the head: Deal is just a Republican hack. Notice, though his guide uses the terms “social justice” five times and “social teaching” on four occasions, at no point bothers he to question any politician’s economic policies. Clearly no issues ought to weigh more heavily that the life super-issue (abortion, ESCR, &c.), but even amongst those of us agree on these points differences on economic issues separate us, some of us falling closer to Chesterbelloc, others, right or wrong (not necessarily to suggest that the Distributists were wholly on the mark), to, say Ronald Reagan. Some pro-lifers, doubtless, embrace wholly untenable socialist ideas. Mr Hudson makes great effort, though conceding that we “have nothing to lose” by ending it, to defend capital punishment from the Catholic perspective, but speaks nothing of wages, ownership, or other significant matters.
More relevant to the nature of this thread, though I believe that Huckabee, indeed, is the better choice vis-à-vis our concern for life (and I offer kudos to him for his George W. Bush “bunker mentality” comment: he might be less inclined to send more troops to agitate more nations), I fear that he might be “too Christian” for some undecided, middle-of-the-road voters, whereas McCain, as we’ve all seen, has benefitted greatly from their support. Perhaps, as the Taft Club (amongst others, no doubt), has contemplated, the conservative movement needs to divorce the GOP. For now, however, so long as this marriage continues, supporting McCain seems to be the most prudently practical choice.
In Notre Dame,
Nathan
McCain has not yet won the nomination. If Huck and Paul together win enough delegates to keep him from getting the requisite number of votes, there is the possibility of a brokered convention, at which the delegates may vote for whom they want.
In any case, Republicans are being shortsighted, and looking only to the nomination, and not to the general election. “10,000 years in Iraq” McCain cannot win against Clinton or Obama; no one wants another war president. And McCain will be seen as extending the Bush administration a third term. As Pat Buchanan aptly put it, “McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi.” McCain is unelectable.
“This is simple. Hudson is a republican hack pure and simple. he will twist catholic teaching as it suits depending on the occasion.”
Amen, bro. You took the words right out of my mouth.
Born again rapist turned GOP hack supports Republican nominee.
Isn’t THAT a surprise!
Far be it from me to agree with Politicratus on anything… but he is 100% right.
Well, Matt, I think that you and I agree on far more than is manifest. We’re both attempting to be faithful to the call of Jesus Christ within his Church. We’re bound by the Blood.
Christine,
McCain cannot win against Clinton or Obama
Based on what? Most polls show McCain beating Hillary handily, and too close to call on Obama, this is before the GOP (or Hillary) comes out with any serious attack on Obama’s policies and background.
In any event, I would like to modify my thoughts on November, as Nathan has pointed out it “the conservative movement needs to divorce the GOP”, Alan Keyes has made me think about the possibility that the time is now.
God Bless,
Matt
[...] know that McCain has a checkered record on life issues, having fully supported federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. That’s an issue that the pandering Hudson [...]
[...] we have hope! I have been especially hard on Sen. John McCain for his pro-death stance on embryonic stem cell research, and I will continue [...]
[...] concerned with abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia. Well, McCain fully supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. McCain’s position on abortion is ambivalent at best [...]