Thank you, Mark Shea…
…for saying what I should have said a long time ago: “Just as I would not torture the innocent in order to save my skin, so I will not support a health care ‘reform’ that says ‘Sacrifice your children and for you it will be well.’”
I’ll acknowledge what many (particularly our more conservative readers) have probably noticed: between my very real desire for authentic health care reform, my disillusionment with both the tone and the substance of the Republican Party’s attacks (many of them personal and untruthful) on President Obama and his administration, and my frustration with the pro-life movement’s willingness to buy into conservative talking points about “socialism” and “big government” without recognizing that universal health care (with a preferential option for the poor) is indeed a moral imperative, I have not been as zealous as I should in speaking for the unborn on this issue. So let me here and now add my voice to Mark’s: I support health care reform. I believe that health care is a human right. I believe that those who are more angry about “big government” than they are about Americans dying because they can’t pay for health insurance have drastically screwed-up priorities. I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to expect our elected government to address this situation. And I believe that all of this is consistent with the highest ideals of Catholic social teaching, and wish that fewer Catholics would buy into right-wing talking points to the contrary. But with all of that said, all Catholics, regardless of party affiliation or political philosophy, must draw a line in the sand and insist that we will not be forced to choose between the born and the unborn. If the final health care bill does end up loosening restrictions on abortion funding (which is far from certain), we cannot equivocate. We must oppose the bill, no matter how disappointed we may be at losing the opportunity to support truly meaningful health care reform. Abortion funding is not health care; it is the opposite. Woe to us if we ignore or downplay this truth. Woe to us if, for the sake of the poor, we sacrifice the poorer.
Comments are closed.
Amen.
If the final health care bill does end up loosening restrictions on abortion funding (which is far from certain), we cannot equivocate.
The problem, it seems to me, is defining “loosening restrictions on abortion funding.” As I understand it, the law of the land currently says no federal money may go toward funding abortion (except in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother). The Baucus bill achieves that, but pro-lifers object because while federal funds will not go to funding abortion, they will go as subsidies to people who may pay for abortion coverage with their own money. The argument is that money is fungible. But as has been frequently pointed out, the argument about the fungibility of money can be used against federal dollars going to religious hospitals and schools for nonreligious purposes. If money is considered fungible in those cases, then federal funding is unconstitutional.
Mickey,
Abstractions in politics are dangerous, especially when used without regard to intentions and circumstances, or when they remain unmediated through prudential judgment.
Given that premise, let me ask: are you willing to tell someone whose life depends upon quality health care that the health care insurance package they had hoped would provide the financial means to save their life, or the life of someone they love, is not now forthcoming?
And when they ask why, are you willing to explain that the health care reform bill they, or their loved-ones, so desperately need was defeated on solid moral grounds?
And when they ask you to explain further, are you willing to say that the bill was defeated because it contained a small provision which allowed government funds to be used to procure private insurance which could then be used to fund an abortion? You know, a back door way of getting around the Hyde Amendment.
And when they ask what has that to do with them, are you willing to point out that the decision to kill health care has nothing to do with them or their illness whatsoever?
And when they point out that that doesn’t make sense, are you willing to go on and provide a more in-depth narrative, like the following:
“Well, you see, its like this. We had to take a firm stand against abortion. We had to protect the unborn. You see, some Members of Congress were willing to let government funds be used to procure an abortion. They put that provision in the legislation. But we just couldn’t let that happen. I’m sure you know what I mean, right?”
“So you see, Mr. & Mrs. America, as pro-life Members of Congress, we had no choice. We had to take our stand. And we did. We rallied together and drove a stake right through the health care bill. Every last bit of it. That was the only way we could stop federal funds from potentially being used for an abortion.
“But let me hasten to offer our sympathies to you. We are terribly sorry our principled decision had to affect you so cruelly. That was not our intention. You have to realize that the impact of our decision on you is one of those — well, you know what they call it — those unintended consequence. You know, the principle of the lesser of two evils. It was our duty to choose the lesser of two evils and put a stop to the greater of two evils. I’m sure you know what I mean.
We had no choice. We HAD to do what we did? You see, moral choices were involved and they are difficult to make. You do understand … don’t you? Heavens, we weren’t even aware of what was going on in your life! We didn’t mean you any harm. Our sights were set much, much higher — they were fixed on the stars.”
And so it goes …..!
Mickey, once again, let me reiterate that abstractions in politics are dangerous.
Ask yourself: What is the greater evil in the life of any Mr. and Mrs. America? Is there even the remotest possibility that the person denied health insurance would say: “Oh. yes! I understand Mr. Congressman. Thanks for explaining. I really feel relieved knowing that you were able to put the kibosh on the greater of two evils. Thanks for drawing a line in the sand. Thanks for your great decision. Yes, the greater of two evils ….. wow, we have to get rid of them!
Would Mr. & Mrs. America really say this? I hardly think so. And how many Mr. & Mrs. America’s are there? How many will it be necessary to sacrifice before we arrive at the greater good which lies oh so far in the future?
Mickey, I think in your honest reflection here that you’ve hit upon some very important issues that distinguish Catholics who agree and who disagree with the current proposals for health care reform (HCR, for short). Indeed, there are fundamental differences in philosophical approach to government between conservatives and progressives, and it behooves us all to examine others’ claims in light of those differences, rather than assume bad intentions, cynicism, or deception on the part of those with whom we disagree (and to be sure, I’m not saying that you’ve done that here, but referring in general terms to bad blood between the two sides in the politics of the HCR debate nationwide.)
For example, I’m a registered independent with a distinctly conservative political philosophy in terms of the purpose and direction of government, but by no means am I a Republican or a neo-conservative. Rather, I am a Catholic first and foremost, and the teachings of my Church and the Natural Law supercede any possible “conservative positions” that may violate Church teachings. From what I gather and have read here at Vox Nova, most of you bloggers here are Catholics with a distinctly progressive political philosophy, and for the most part, I think you feel the same about areas in which your political beliefs may violate Church teachings and the Natural Law (e.g., I haven’t read any blogger here argue, as many on the Left have argued, that HCR passage as a general rule is more important than any possible increase in abortions or contraception that may result from these things being allowed and even funded by new legislation.) As Catholics, we understand properly that fundamental Scriptural and Church teaching that “evil acts may not be allowed that good may come of them.”
I would argue that many involved in the HCR debate, both conservatives and progressives, do not share this fundamental set of values with us, and indeed many are being cynical and even deceptive in their speech and acts in favor of or against current HCR proposals. To wit:
–Many conservative legislators refuse to consider any major revamping of rules that would exert pressure on insurance companies, undoubtedly because they would lose considerable campaign funding from insurance companies if they didn’t fight against such a revamp;
–Many progressive legislators refuse to consider any major revamping of malpractice insurance or even direct medical tort reform, undoubtedly because the trial lawyers who are tremendous financial backers of the Democratic Party would cease providing their own considerable funding to progressive campaign coffers.
People on both sides that fit into these broad patterns are often the ones displaying the greatest degree of cynicism and misrepresenting facts and figures in the overall HCR debate nationwide. And yes, indeed, special interest groups on both sides are influencing some voters to protest for or against HCR as part of their campaigns.
Nevertheless, among Catholic conservatives and progressives who share fundamental values (e.g., that which is the subject of your post, Mickey), I think there are genuine and honest differences that are profound and perhaps even unbridgeable in the end. Within the broad principles of Catholic social teaching that the Church outlines for us, in Her wisdom, Holy Mother Church is careful not to prescribe specific policies, as those rightly belong to legitimate lawmaking bodies within a given polity. There may be honest disagreement on specific policies to be carried out within the greater framework of Catholic social teaching, and I think this is what we are seeing in many disagreements between genuinely Catholic progressives and conservatives. To wit:
–Catholic progressives argue that top-down universal health care approaches are necessary in order to save lives (e.g., those thousands who die every year due to lack of medical coverage or access), and that simple insurance reform won’t cut it because it fails to address power imbalances between the providers (e.g., insurance company bureaucrats can still deny treatments that may save lives, even if they are forced by the government to cover literally everyone) and the poorest recipients, many of whom don’t have the education or saavy to know how to deal with wily insurance adjusters.
–Catholic conservatives argue that Federally-run universal health care runs the risk common to all government-run programs in the long run, namely that government power almost never shrinks or recedes, but instead always grows, often to the detriment of the governed. They argue that there are ways to balance subsidiarity and solidarity that would not grant the Federal government such potentially limitless power in the future, indeed the power to even determine life and death in terms of abortion, euthanasia, etc., all things with which Catholics can never agree because they violate Natural Law itself.
I find myself squarely between those two groups, but with a real understanding of the worries held by conservatives who fear that complete Federal control over private health care decisions (e.g., the aforementioned end-of-life care; the ability to search for alternative providers or treatments not found in government-run health systems) could become a real possibility. Slippery slope arguments in any debate are not often popular, but they exist for a reason: the slippery slope is real and is part of humanity’s fallen, prideful nature. Just look at the way our medical and scientific technology in the past few years has far surpassed our medical ethics frameworks (e.g., cloning and other reproductive technologies; transplant/donor organ technologies).
So what is the answer to this in the end? I wish I knew, but I don’t. I would say those of us with genuine concern for the Natural Law and for the teachings of Christ must work together to forge compromises, as neither side is capable of completely submitting to the will of the other one. We must work from basic areas of agreement as outlined in Catholic social teaching and refrain from arguing in bad faith, name-calling, and suspicion. Both sides will have to give in some to the other, but in the end, something better may result.
And FWIW, Mark Shea is a blogging hero of mine, as well as a friend! Because of his reasoned and careful, good faith arguments on the issue of government-sanctioned torture, I moved from a relatively neutral position on this issue (i.e., I don’t like torture in principle, and it’s ugly as a policy and as a practice, but if it’s necessary to save lives, then I guess it’s acceptable) to a much clearer, more Catholic understanding of the issue (i.e.,torture is never acceptable under any circumstance as it violates human dignity so completely). Mark gets criticized by both progressives and conservatives, which to my mind means he’s doing something right! After all, Catholic beliefs and values cannot be shoe-horned into either Republican or Democratic Party platforms in the US system!
I think your stand is exactly right. Congressional leaders have had numerous opportunities to say NO to abortion in the health-care reform package, and they have repeatedly declined–making it clear through the Capps amendment that they fully intend to treat abortion as part of mainstream “care.” They might still decide differently. But unless they do, health-care reform needs to be put back on hold.
Gerald, while I understand the argument from compassion, I think the more important principles are two:
1) Difficult cases make bad law.
2) Evil actions may never be done so that good may come from them.
For example, your line of reasoning there could just as easily be used to argue that all death row inmates should receive the death penalty now because if even one escaped and murdered innocent people on some rampage, then it’s the fault of those who argue against the use of the death penalty as a matter of principle. Or am I missing something?
The notion that pro-choicers should not be held to account for their firm stand in passing health care reform as it currently stands is a complete double-standard held simply in support of an unspeakable moral evil, abortion, which is never acceptable. Do you really believe that pro-choicers in Congress can never be forced into cutting out abortion funding, directly or indirectly, from the current bills? From President Obama’s words, he apparently doesn’t believe that himself. However, as he himself is deeply pro-choice, we cannot count on his veto pen in any bill that would go to his desk that included abortion coverage. He certainly is not going to be willing to die on that hill if he himself doesn’t share our fundamental value of all human life from conception to natural death.
Kevin: thank you for your comments. I think you are exactly right. The problem, as I see it, is that too many of us (often including, God knows, me) identify more with our particular political party than with the Church and the faith that we share. I know that, for the sake of my own soul, I desperately need to work on that, and maybe if enough of our fellow Catholics do the same, we’ll actually get something done. And by the way, I feel the same way about Mark; he’s hands-down my favorite Catholic blogger. I link to him quite often!
Ron: I am still guardedly optimistic. Even if Ben Nelson can’t keep it out of the Senate bill, Representative Stupak seems to have enough pro-life Democrats in the House to sink any bill that contains abortion funding. I have to believe that even if the Democratic leadership is by and large either ideologically committed or (at best) indifferent to federal funding of abortion, they’ll recognize the political reality and be unwilling to give up a legislative victory for the sake of keeping NARAL happy. But I may be wrong, and if I am, then Catholics need to take a stand. I dearly hope it doesn’t come to that, because we need health care reform.
Gerald: what do you want me to say? I’ve heard that same argument–that abstractions are dangerous in politics–used to defend torture. I’m sure you’ve heard them too: “what will we tell Americans if there is another terrorist attack? What will we tell the families of the victims? Are you willing to face them and tell them that their loved ones died because you thought waterboarding was immoral?” If health care sinks because of abortion, it will be the fault of pro-choice Democrats, not pro-life Catholics. The US Bishops’ Conference, the de facto “official” voice of Catholicism in the United States, has repeatedly said that it would be the Administration’s greatest ally in pushing for universal health care if only the Democrats would insert a teeny tiny amendment, one favored by the majority of Americans, ensuring that the provisions of the Hyde Amendment would apply to federally-funded health care plans. But the Democratic leadership, putting a lie to all of their talk about “common ground” and “reducing the number of abortions,” has thus far refused to do so. I want health care reform as much as you do. I find it obscene that people die in the richest country in the world because they can’t pay for treatment. But we have to draw the line somewhere. The fact is that abortion is legalized murder, and allowing it to be covered in a health care plan would be the most flagrant violation of the very principles that cause us as Catholics to demand universal health care.
Thanks for this post! I’m by temperament, education and tastes very much not ‘progressive’, at least in US political terms: and personally have no great stake in the HCR business.
I’m pretty sure that ‘the government’ will screw it up but I’m willing to give conscientious consideration to the HCR proposals that are on the table because the Church, mater et magistra, seems to teach that a society as wealthy as ours has an obligation to go that route. As you remark, however, if the pro-abortion people insist on their blood money, I’m done with it, for the time being at any rate.
Is this a case of making the perfect the enemy of the good?
Nobody will be forced to get an abortion, and if health care reform is not passed, that will not do away with abortion.
This is not necessarily a question of doing evil so that good might come of it, but of doing what good can be done in an evil world.
Abortion is evil, but I don’t see that insisting that HCR stand or fall on this one issue is a good idea.
Kevin,
Thank you for your comments.
While compassion, or love, is compelling, it is not that which inspired my previous comments.
Rather, I was drawing attention to the nature of politics. Politics is quite different from speculative philosophy or theology. It has a different methodology and object, and requires different virtues, or habits. Whereas metaphysics, for example, is about knowing, politics is about doing, about action, about managing change, about freedom. It is about praxis.
There is a strong but erroneous tendency to confuse the forms of knowing and doing in politics. Too often, knowing and doing, truth and action, are discussed in the same exact breath, as though they were indistinct in meaning and practice. It is often said: We must speak “Truth to Power”, as though means were an incidental part of the calculus of success. Stand for Truth; all will be better. So goes the blah, blah, blah.
Though means may appear as logically neutral to the realization of an intended end, the simple truth is that the means one employs give shape to the end achieved through action. The means employed become the very form of the end and, for that reason, it is imperative that we judge means and ends to be proportional. Otherwise action results in the creation of an end that was not originally intended.
In Iraq, the U.S. used military means to achieve a political objective and, while a military victory was achieved, there remains after seven long years only faint signs of political reconciliation. The means and ends were disproportionate from the outset. It was a failed strategy.
Time and patience are essential in politics. Most essential of all is prudence. The Wisdom of the Church is Eternal. But in practice, the Church moves slowly and with deliberation, always guided by the Holy Spirit. In and through time, the Church has cultivated and nurtured a practical wisdom that stands as an inspiration to all who seek to change society and culture. Practical wisdom is an essential ingredient in the struggle to bring about a transfiguration of the world. This is true for the Church and, even more so, for the World.
I read through your post and for the most part I found myself agreeing with much of what you said. Your analysis, on the whole, is similar to mine, give or take a few. Perhaps if we shared a few beers, I might agree with it all, so disposed I am to what you say!
But, for the most part, you were unmasking logical relationships. You were not setting forth a prescription for action.
Thus, despite our logical agreement — an agreement about what is judged true and what is not true — there remains the knotty questions about doing, about freedom, about action, about change. If we are to engage in political life, we must act and act in ways that inspire others and achieve ends that we share in common. But in the arena of action, conflicts immediately come to the fore. Soon they can threaten to dominate the entire scene, being reinforced by passions of all stripes — some beautiful, most ugly. In all cases, the forms of the present fear the forms of the future, and struggle inevitably ensues.
it is our lot to live in a pluralist society. It is good that we do. Who wants to be dominated by those with whom we fundamentally disagree? No me. Not you. So we are placed in an arena where contradictions are endemic. We wish we could be relieved of their burden, but they protect us as well. So, if we are to progress, it is necessary that we confront these contradictions. But we must do so in ways that brings them to the point of reconciliation.
There is no other way forward except through compromise. Compromise has always been America’s great genius. Where compromise has failed, progress has stalled, and strife or violence has ensued. Compromise is the way Progress moves through the veins of American history.
There are some who would use force to speed up this process. But history is littered with the wreckage created by those who choose to take this course. The evolution of human consciousness is a slow and painful process. It is made most successful when time and prudence are allotted their just due in accordance with the dictates of prudence.
All this is to say that there is a great need to comprehend more clearly what is involved in instituting new forms in our culture. The title of Balthasar’s first volume in his fifteen volume masterwork, “Glory of the Lord,” is “Seeing the Form.” First we have to see the form and then we have to find ways to embed it in the living dynamics of our culture and our lives. It is our task to strive and tinge our national aesthetic with the radiance of Divine Love.
It is in this struggle that we need to gain a deeper appreciation of freedom. We must pay heed to its measure and struggle to reconcile those myriad and contradictory forms that shape our society and culture. Those forms stand opposed to much of what we seek to establish. Yet we must not destroy the old forms; we must reconcile them with the new. Dualism must not be allowed to destroy the dynamism of the human spirit. We must proceed on our path, but we must do so using prudential judgment. Especially, we must be fully cognizant of the practical principle of the lesser of two evils because it is essential to the process of reconciling competing goods.
It has been said that the Church is free to teach and inspire but a politician must design a practical policy — a course of action. This is true. And it is here that we see most clearly the distinction between truth and action, knowing and doing — and the possibilities of freedom. We even see the dialectical relationships of theology and politics without having to merge them into one!
A politician is often informed by profound truths. Yet, when he acts he often finds himself in a context that not only rejects these truths but embodies enough accumulated power to defeat his every move. The difficulty for him is to find a way to proceed without unleashing greater evil than already exists. How is it possible to make the flame burn brighter in the hearts and minds of the powerful and yet do so when they relish living in the shadows.
In the final analysis, then, it is the question of prudential judgment that I have been underscoring in my comments here and elsewhere. Practical wisdom is not something that one arrives at through any speculative discipline. It is a study that is quite different. It requires of its practitioner a creative way of seeing and acting, one that is encapsulated in the phrase Practical Wisdom.
Too much discussion on critical issues such as abortion flies away to the farthest stars at the first impulse. It never returns to earth. Were those making the most forceful declarations find themselves placed in a position of great responsibility, they would quickly grow to appreciate the distinction I am making. But then, they won’t really appreciate it until they get to that point and, most likely, they won’t get there because they haven’t appreciated it in some measure beforehand. This is the Conundrum we all face at one time or another in our journey through life.
I have enjoyed reading these intelligent posts this morning. Gerald, you stated that metaphysics is about speculative knowing and politics is about doing and action. I am not educated in philosophy nor politics and my remarks may reflect my ignorance in these areas.
It is my experiential observation, that within the realm of human experience, the metaphysical is always being affected by the underlying disposition and actions of human relationships–the butterfly effect. The nature of politics seems to be the outcome of an underlying belief system based on the interpersonal and intrapersonal influences of social experiences and transgenerational instinctive adaptations to the history of human violence and what responses better one’s odds for survival.
Love and/or fear are always influencing every human interaction. The extent to which we are open to love seems to determine the conscious or unconscious sense of value one has for oneself and the other and what political belief system one adheres to and what methodolgy one employs for the resolution existential crises.
On the left many of the resolutions for these crises seem to evolve out of a pro-life perspective but fail in a conscious understanding that the life in the womb is where this understanding must originate. The right on the otherhand do stand for the right to life in the womb but seem to fail in providing the means to support life after birth. “Pro-choice” seems to give the woman the freedom to decide whether or not it is feasible and safe to have a child. “Pro-life” insists that she has her child whether she feels safe or not.
What will give women throughout our world the instinctive metaphysical sense that the human race has finally begun to understand the value of her presence? It started with the hope that was created when a man of color was elected president. His election seems to have been the result of a collective unconscious metaphysical action to bring the natural law of love to the forefront of human existence.
What does love wish to transform in this endeavor? I think first and foremost the collective human heart. Will politics change heart? No. Political movements seem to exhibit how far we have evolved towards love.
What is the answer? A national sacrificial love that will show just as clearly as the election of Obama that we have no limits on what we will do for love. It does not matter what type of UHC plan is passed. Our faith is not dependent on this. Our faith is dependent on how much each of us is willing to give in a unified sacrifice to provide whatever help any person may need. We must go beyond the materialist view and unite in the metaphysical desire for love to be expressed. It is through this knowledge that a system will naturally form and be clearly seen as a light that changes hearts and draws others to it. Belief either inhibits or promotes the manifestation of love and the form in which it appears.
By the way, my wife and daughter and I will be in DC to run the Marine Corps marathon 10/25.
Kevin in Texas,
Thank you for a thoughtful post. Maybe least important, but for me a sign of a serious commentator, you managed to refer to the Democratic Party by its actual name without dropping a syllable.
Kurt: I noticed that too! I usually tune a pundit or politician out the first time they refer to the “Democrat Party”!
Ron writes: They might still decide differently. But unless they do, health-care reform needs to be put back on hold.</i?
Mickey writes:… if only the Democrats would insert a teeny tiny amendment, one favored by the majority of Americans, ensuring that the provisions of the Hyde Amendment would apply to federally-funded health care plans. But the Democratic leadership, putting a lie to all of their talk about “common ground” and “reducing the number of abortions,” has thus far refused to do so.
I think the problem with Ron’s position is that it suggests sitting on our hands until others come to us.
Mickey, I think, in a way that comes off as with a more sincere desire to see HCR and not block it, still leans the same way.
I don’t think it is fair to be like children and expect “Mommy” to fix it (or, in the Senate, “Daddy”).
The Democratic Leadership has included language in both the Senate and House bills that maintain at least a minimal understanding of the status quo on abortion. Pro-Lifers would like to go further. They will be given a chance to offer an amendment (maybe several) on the floor of both the House and the Senate for an up or down vote.
Given the Speaker and a majority of the Democratic caucus are pro-choice, I think those two concessions are generous (the clear status quo amendment and making in order further anti-abortion amendments). I think further expectations that she fix it rather than us doing the grunt work of calling our members of Congress and asking them to vote right on the amendment (s)is somewhere between juvenile and unproductive.
It seems to me that people who believe in HCR and are against abortion should be working to make the current bill as favorable as possible, which for me means pushing for a strong public option, the employer mandate, reasonable subsidies for the lower middle class, revenue sources from the well off instead of the middle class and any anti-abortion amendment offered.
Obviously, those opposed to HCR would like to use abortion as a way of killing off all reform.
Mickey,
Good and thoughtful post.
In re Gerald’s points about practicality: It’s important to recall at a practical level that when one is at the negotiating table, a goal for which one is not willing to kill the deal is a goal that gets left behind. The calculus here is pretty simple: Are pro-life Democrats willing to threaten to walk if they don’t get the ban on abortion funding. If they are, it’s almost certain that pro-choice Democrats will not kill the bill over getting abortion covered — the PR on that would just be too horendous. “We could get health care reform, but we killed it because we cared more about making sure abortions were funded.” If, however, pro-life Democrats say it’s a nice to have, but they’re completely willing to vote for the bill either way, then abortions will be covered. It’s really pretty much that simple. A test of will and seriousness.
Gerald L Campbell — two magnificent posts — I admire your patience as thinker and educator and your flawless style of communication. An injection of wholesome reasoning into these debates could do much to end the destructive shrillness that prevails — which of course is Vox Nova’s mission.
Darwin: well said. Here’s hoping those 40 pro-life Dems in the House will stand firm. I’ve got to believe they’re under a lot of pressure from their party leaders. But perhaps if they kill the bill the first time, Pelosi and Reid will realize the folly of their stance and allow the bill to be re-introduced with the Stupak Amendment attached.
Mickey–
Who are these counter-balancing pro-choice/anti-health care Republicans?
As the Democratic Leadership has already agreed, there will be a pro-life amemdment offered on the floor (Stupak/Hatch). It will either pass or fail. If it passes, problem solved. If it fails, then the same majority that voted for it I would assume votes for final passage — unless there is a secret cadre of Republicans who believe in universal access to abortion but no other procedure.
Again, stomping one’s feet and crying for Mommy to make it better it does not seem like a wise strategy — unless this is all a game to kill HCR.
Spirit of Vatican II,
I greatly appreciate your kind words. It has been creative thinkers like yourself that have inspired me over the years. My prayers go out to you.
I recall many conversations with Fr. Walter Ong, S.J., as he tended to his section of gardens at St. Louis University. What struck me watching him was not his soaring intellect, but his gentleness of spirit and patience. He treated the least perfect of living things — a simple plant — with a care and reverence that still strikes a perfect chord in my imagination. Were we able to comfort those persons who struggle with the unrelenting harshness that life presents them, often in sorrow and mourning, we would reap the rewards that reflect our deepest yearning.
This thread got me thinking….
There’s not a lot of love for the pro-life movement among progressives. Why not start a new one? Do you have the equivalent of a Susan B. Anthony List or Emily’s List, a fundraising network for pro-life liberal candidates? In all the talk about Ted Kennedy’s life, it became clear that this country lacks a vocal pro-life wing in the Democratic Party. Over on my side of the aisle, the issue of abortion is actively debated, but I don’t get the sense that the Democrats have the equivalent of Giulianis and Powells.
Pinky: I’ve actually been thinking about that a lot. There’s Democrats for Life, and they only endorse pro-life Democrats, but I don’t think they do fundraising. We need a Eunice Kennedy Shriver List, or maybe a Bob Casey Sr. List.
Thoughts about playing a role in strengthening the progressive wing of the pro-life movement play a fairly dominant role in my fantasies about my post-college life/career (or even about potential projects for later in college if I do not stay with STAND). At present, it seems to exist primarily on the Internet, and is represented by several dozen Democratic congressmen from fairly conservative districts. If the movement was better organized, with a fundraising/campaigning arm, a full-scale advocacy arm dedicated both to legal and socioeconomic issues relating to abortion, and a student arm, all taking full advantage of modern social media, I think a lot of good could come of it. The latter factor (the student arm) is of particular interest to me, since polls have shown that younger voters, though they tend to vote Democratic and support most of President Obama’s policies, are much more pro-life on abortion than their parents. I know CUA is full of people (like myself) who consider themselves progressives but are also consistently pro-life, and unwilling to just push the issue of abortion to the sidelines. I imagine the same would be true of many other universities, particularly Catholic ones.
Mickey, I think that’d be a great idea, except for the Democratic part, because boooo Democrats! (I kid.)
There’s a sense that if you want a seat at the adult table in the Democratic Party, you have to be a pro-choicer, or become one “after careful consideration”. The Republican Party has its share of opportunistic pro-life converts, but a pro-choice Republican candidate can vie for any office except the presidency or VP.
I think there already is a pro-social justice/anti-abortion organization. It is called the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Well, we’d have to agree to disagree on that part! In all seriousness, though, as much as I may disagree sometimes with conservative pro-lifers, it’s fairly obvious that the movement will need to breathe with both lungs if it is to be successful in the end. Often when pro-life liberals (including myself) express the wish for the movement to be non-partisan or bipartisan, what we really mean is that we wish the Democratic Party had the monopoly on pro-lifers that the GOP does today. Obviously, that’s a very bad attitude to have. It’s something I’m working on personally, and that a progressive pro-life movement would need to very carefully avoid. We’ll need to emphasize areas of agreement, not disagreement, with the conservative wing of the movement, while still making it clear to potential progressive supporters that our opposition to abortion is, in fact, based on “liberal” ideals. This won’t be an easy balance to strike, but it’s essential, since issue-based advocacy is about coalition-building.
And you’re absolutely right about the opportunistic pro-choice conversions. Ted Kennedy is the most obvious example, but quite a few Democrats, including Vice President Biden and former Vice President Gore, were at one point pro-life. I would love to see a pro-life Dem at least make a presidential primary run, ala Giuliani, in 2012 or 2016 (or maybe even a third-party run, given that I doubt I’ll be voting to re-elect Obama). The problem is that there aren’t, at this point, any really viable or well-known candidates, which is why we really do need the pro-life Democrats’ version of Emily’s List sooner rather than later.
I agree, Kurt. I wish more people on both sides of the aisle would listen to our Catholic Bishops. They’re much smarter than, say, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity (and Keith Olbermann and other more lefty pundits). But they are not able to campaign or fundraise for pro-life social-justice candidates. Such actions are more suited to the laity anyway.
Mickey,
Join the Ward 5 Democratic Committee. They would love to have you as a precinct captain. Fred Allen, an active Catholic and leader of the Teamsters is one of the officers.
Mickey, I like the name “The Eunice List”.
It seems obvious to me that the liberal would support care for the most defenseless in our society. I don’t think you have to build coalitions though; that’s up to the elected officials. You have to get pro-life liberals and/or Democrats elected. Or, rather, you have to get the candidates and office-holders into a position where they don’t pay too high a price for remaining pro-life. The rest will work itself out.
I grew up on Pennsylvania politics. There are three axes (pl. of axis) in the state’s politics: Dem/Rep, pro-life/pro-choice, and Philadelphia/Pittsburgh. No one of those is dominant. People on opposites sides (in the case of Philly and Pittburgh, literally opposite sides) don’t cooperate. They govern in an uneasy truce.
The point is, you wouldn’t have to create a political party, just a specialty subcontractor. You help one particular group of candidates.
When everyone who has employer paid/subsidized health insurance that provides for abortion and/or treatments resulting from embryo destruction – look carefuly through your policies – refuses that employer paid/subsidized health insurance in toto, and goes out and finds insurance that won’t cover that and pays for that insurance themselves – then they can unhypocritically pontificate and try to derail lower cost health care for the MILLIONS of self-employed and small business employees who can’t afford, and so don’t have, any coverage at all.
I’m as pro-life as anyone and I’d prefer that abortion not be part of a public bill; I’d also like to see MILLIONS of people who would never have an abortion be able to get the medical care they need.
Ray: you won’t get any disagreement from me on that.