Real and Fake Pro-Life Pledges
I discovered recently that one of the so-called pro-life groups is seeking to line up Republican politicians behind a so-called pro-life pledge. Let me reproduce it in full:
FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;
SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;
THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;
FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.”
This is flawed on so many different levels. For a start, it is incredibly limited in what it regards as pro-life. By that, I don’t just mean that it focuses on a very limited subset of pro-life issues (which it does), but that the particular pledges themselves don’t actually anything to help the unborn. Appointing a “pro-life” person to a cabinet position – what will that achieve exactly? And look at the first pledge – with this listed as the primary priority, is it any wonder that large business and financial interests are so willing to encourage “social conservatives” in their coalition? For the main result of such an outcome would surely to shift the balance of power further toward business and monied interests, and away from unions and consumer groups. The unborn, as always, are an afterthought. The third pledge is interesting. It is the strongest, and yet I doubt it will do anything about the incidence of abortion. Of course, what this really means is ending the huge subsidy of employer-based insurance through the tax system, until the federal government is certain that none of the plans offered through employers fund abortion in any way. But I doubt the authors of this pledge intended something so drastic. But that just proves my point – this is about optics, not the unborn. It is about culture wars, not respect for life. It is about driving false wedges, not solving real problems. There is very little pro-life about this pledge. It is a sham, a mirage, a charade.
So what would a real pro-life pledge look like? How about something like this 7-point plan (and I welcome comments on how this might be improved):
I pledge to seek legal protection for the life of the unborn child.
I pledge to oppose any legal framework that supports euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.
I pledge to seek an end to the death penalty.
I pledge to oppose all forms of torture, whatever euphemisms might be used.
I pledge to oppose all war, unless there is a direct invasion, or the war is supported by the United Nations for the sole purpose of humanitarian relief.
I pledge to support robust social safety nets to end poverty, cognizant of the concentration of abortion among the poor and minorities.
I pledge to support universal health care that includes maternity costs as part of the basic package of benefits.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
I’d sign your pledge MM.
I would sign as well.
I’m weary of pledges. Politics involves compromise, give-and-take, and choosing among typically bad choices. Having said that, I do like MM’s broader sense of what it means to be pro-life.
Kyle,
I agree that politics requires compromise, and sometimes you must bend on things that are dear to achieve other ends. But as a statement of principle this would make clear where you stand and what you are bending on.
And I might point readers to this:
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Ten-Questions-for-the-2012-Campaign-Tim-Muldoon-06-14-2011.html
from our very own, Tim Muldoon.
thanks for the shout out, Brett.
On the SBA pledge, I would be willing to agree that it is flawed in being overbroad in some places and over specific in others. I could see wanting the first point rewritten to deal specifically with life issues, the third and fourth dropped (as good steps, but not the only or even necessarily most urgent moves that a pro-life president would take) and the second softened a bit, though I think it is moderately important.
That said, yours seems specifically designed to loop in enough extra issues to make it a perfect (in your mind, anyway) which can be an enemy of the good. A more realistic approach would be to stick to 1 and 2 on your list, with 4 as a possible. While I realize this will be blasted as being “incompletely pro-life” I would point out that you are quite willing to make common cause with people who disagree with those three when you’re working on support for item 3, or 6 or 7 in isolation. If you’re willing to recognize someone as being “pro health care” even if he’s also pro-choice, then you should be willing to recognize someone as being “pro-life” in its standard political usage in the US even if he’s not pro welfare or pacifist.
Or if the main goal is to be partisan, while you’re at it, shouldn’t you add support for open borders, a total ban on guns, and a 100% tax on all income over 2x that national average household income?
To call them “extra issues” misses the fundamental point that they are all pro-life issues. They are all part of the seamless garment. They should not be partisan, and should be something all Catholic would be willing to sign up to. Now, in the world we live in, it is certainly reasonable to support people who only selectively accept these principles. I’ve never said otherwise. But an organization that calls itself “pro-life” must have somewhat higher standards. One might reasonably say this list is unreasonable, even a fantasy. I can’t think of a single major public figure that could accept all 7 positions. But that only tells us we have a lot of work to do in terms of changing the culture.
You make a good point on gun control, as this too is a life issue – both in the US, and in Mexico were gang access to weapons that flow across the border is causing so much death and destruction.
First off, it sounds like your objection here is simply to the fact that the anti-abortion movement in the United States calls itself “pro-life” rather than “anti-abortion”. You are certainly welcome to object to this, but it doesn’t seem like a very interesting grounds on which to oppose their pledge. Just read “pro-life” as meaning “anti-abortion” which is the accepted meaning of the term in American political discourse and most of your objections vanish.
My personal suggestion in these situations is always that both sides to the debate relabel themselves with “pro-lifers” renaming themselves “anti-abortion” and “pro-choicers” relabeling themselves “pro-abortion”, but as I recall that demand is actually frowned on around here.
The problem is that while those who oppose abortion are anti-abortion, those who support the right to choose are not necessarily pro-abortion. Some pro-choicers sing hymns to abortion. But others earnestly wish no woman ever had an abortion but feel that criminalizing abortion would be a mistake along the lines of Prohibition. So I would suggest pro-choice and anti-choice, but I doubt that the pro-lifers would like that.
I prefer pro-legal abortion and anti-legal abortion, but admit that the longer terms get, the less likely they are to be used.
“pro choice” and “anti-choice”
But “choice” is a misleading euphemism masking the issue. Who can be against the ability to choose? The ability to choose is what makes America great!!
“Pro-choosing-abortion” and “anti-choosing-abortion” is better. Or “pro-having-the-ability-to-end-the-life-of-a-human-entity-in-the-womb” and “anti-having-the-ability-to-end-the-life-of-a-human-entity-in-the-womb” might be even better, in the interests of objectivity.
But I think I’m with Brett: “pro-legal abortion” and “anti-legal abortion”.
Darwin, my friend, I tend to agree with you. MM presents a good philosophical framework to what the Church and Catholics should witness to. But in our system of parliamentary democracy, this framework is best advanced legislatively by individuals working on particular parts of it and making alliances with any willing partner who accepts parliamentary democracy.
But while MM’s list is useful, when used a certain way, the SBA list is simply political hackery, designed to advance their political agenda and defeat Mitt Romney.
“For the main result of such an outcome would surely to shift the balance of power further toward business and monied interests, and away from unions and consumer groups.”
Why?
Because that seems to be the main thrust of recent court decisions taken by those who trumpet the “orginal meaning” of the constitution.
That’s not fair. Despite what Court-watchers tell themselves, there is no decided bias. First, there’s the law, then the case, then the appeal, then if the Supreme Court accepts the case, they have a hearing and make a decision. Any attempt to discern a pattern in the final step is doomed to failure. It’s like standing in the 7/11 parking lot for five minutes and deciding that blue cars use more gas, because two of them stopped at the pump.
Can you make the claim that you did “surely”? Is it inherent in strict constructionism? Are you so sure about it that you can fairly label it a “flaw” in the pledge?
As for the effect on the unborn being an “afterthought”, well, I hate to keep using the word unfair, but really. An airline safety commission declares that tires should be checked before each takeoff. Would you denounce that as being primarily about the tires, with the passengers as an afterthought? Of course not. The legal philosophy behind the Roe decision is undemocratic; to end abortion in this country, we need to not only win the minds of the electorate, but also give them a voice in the issue.
One qualification to that: we could impose anti-abortion law from above. Do you think that would work? If not, we need to both win the argument and have judges who will allow that win to stand as law.
Pinky,
I think you are missing the point. If SBA wasn’t a conervative hack group, they could have said “appoint judges who will reverse Roe” or “appoint judges who will allow laws to protect unborn life.” Instead they invoke the buzz words of secular conservativism. They reject the idea of a Mary Ann Glendon or an Archibald Cox on the Court, beause they are Republicans first and the unborn come after that.
Remove #4 and #6. Both of those, while good ideas, are left wing ideologies and not purely pro-life.
While I personally believe them, I respect the counter-arguments of those that don’t. They are reasonable. Those people should be entitled to call themselves pro-life without subscribing to these viewpoints.
4 relates to torture. This is not left-wing ideology, but a core component of the culture of life, listed in the hierarchy right after murder, abortion, and genocide (Gaudium Et Spes).
6 relates to social safety nets, which again, are deemed essential by Catholic social teaching. There is of course room for legitimate disagreement on how they might be provided, but to simply call for dismantling them is not an option. There is also a lot of evidence that social benefits are associated with lower poverty rates across countries, and abortion is directly related to poverty. This is far more of a pro-life issue that some of the items in the SBA list.
Pro-life and Pro-Culture-of-Life are two different concepts. Subtle, but different. You can be opposed to all killing and support torture as a mechanism to protect the innocent under exceptional circumstances. It’s not killing. It’s against the culture of life, but if seen as a response to aggression, it can be perceived as the same argument as #5.
As for #6, you acknowledge that there is room for disagreement. I’m in support of social safety nets, but I respect those who sincerely believe they exacerbate the problem.
Further to the above, I don’t want to open any debates here on torture or social programs. I thought the whole point of your post was that if there is room for debate, it shouldn’t be an axiom, and this seems like you’re doing exactly what you’re railing against.
I think the difficulty with #6 is that it can mean many things. I am basically supportive of it, but it’s not exactly clear what, precisely, “robust social safety nets” entails. There can be legitimate reasons for being opposed to certain social programs. Signing this pledge might make it difficult to not support certain ones that need to not be supported.
As for #4, I think any Catholic pro-lifer has to sign off on that one. I don’t see any wiggle room, at least not if you’re in communion with Rome.
Not sure I agree. The Church clearly defines torture as dehumanizing and evil. But I think the Church is in complete contradiction with itself by forbidding torture in all circumstances but allowing capital punishment in exceptional circumstances. I think it is well within the rights of someone’s conscience to recognize this contradiction and choose one side consistently.
I was on a Catholic-Mennonite ecumenical dialogue that was very interesting. The Catholics said abortion is wrong in every case but, in certain circumstances, war could be justified. The Mennonites said war is wrong in every case but, in certain circumstances, abortion could be justified. Both sides were made to feel quite uncomfortable because of the possibility that their position was not entirely consistent.
It is, of course, possible that someone be convinced in conscience that the Church is contradicting itself on torture and capital punishment, or on abortion and war, or on NFP and contraception, or on any number of topics. A person must follow their conscience, this is clear. And if one’s conscience says the Church is inconsistent, then, one must act accordingly when push comes to shove (though it is impossible to say exactly what that looks like absent a concrete situation).
On the other hand, a Catholic is in a very unique position here because a Catholic acknowledges the authority of the Church and grants that it is more likely that he or she is making a mistake than that the Church is. As such, a Catholic who finds that their conscience does not agree with Church teaching is always conflicted and seeking resolution. He or she even hopes to find out that he or she is wrong, if for no other reason than that my being wrong is much better for the world than the Church’s being wrong.
In any case, moral life is messy and ambiguities can make it difficult to tell if the Church is being consistent. I think it is certainly possible for someone to be convinced in conscience that the Church is wrong on torture, but it is also possible for someone to be convinced in conscience that the Church is wrong on abortion. But I’d still want #1 on my pledge.
Now I think on it a little more, I’m kind of fascinated that you respond to this:
with this:
If you merely meant to observe that often those judges who aren’t inclined to invent a right to abortion, or to same sex marriage, or to physician assisted suicide happen also to be judges who are comparatively “business friendly” at least in opposing new areas of regulation, this is clearly true. (On the other hand, it was the liberal half of the court which chose to use eminent domain to allow cities to confiscate private land and give to to Walmart to be developed.)
However, are you actually saying that priorities such as supporting unions and consumer groups are only possible through judicial fiat, because their claims are not in fact supported by the constitution and passing amendments or new laws which would allow their agendas to move forward is impossible through the electoral process? If so, and now I think about it, it’s arguable, that’s a very fascinating admission of the way in which enlightened autocracy is sometimes necessary to move forward the supposedly progressive agenda.
This is not a fruitful path for discussion. All sides claim their position is “supported by the constitution” – that is the point. The point I want to make is that this “orginalism” or “strict constructionalism” (call it what you may) is just a fig-leaf for a restoration of pre-New Deal economic jurisprudence. Just look at the recent Supreme Court decisions – clamping down on the rights of workers, weakenining drug company liability, and opening up whole new areas of “corporate free speech” that is being used to challenge regulation across the spectrum. These are dreadful developments, not in line with the common good, and yet are being driven by those professing zeal for the constitution. This is what you get from these judges. The unborn get nothing, but the pro-life movement never seems to realize it has been sold a lemon.
The first point has nothing to do with pro-life but is a demand to embrace secular conservatism. There are various schools of judicial thought. Restraint and original meaning are no guarantee of anything for the unborn. Some advocates of this school of thought hold the founders did not hold the unborn to be a “person” (likely true) and others have said that Roe has been decided too long ago to be upset now. Others who do not hold this school of judicial reasoning (i.e, liberals like Archibald Cox or scholars like Mary Ann Glendon) have also been strongly pro-like. But SBA would demand presidential candidates pledge not to nominate them as judges. In this demand, they show them to be a secular conservative organization, not a pro-life organization.
Further, the Pledge is carefully designed not to offend the TEA party and GOP. It, of course, refuses to consider any means of saving unborn lives that requires public funding. It adopts the focus-group tested demands to attack public funding of health care and overseas aid programs that do not fund a single elective abortion. The real agenda is to stop government spending on health care and overseas aid, not to protect the unborn.
This is made further evident in the secret deals they made with Rick Santorum. Mitt Romney refused to sign the pledge because of the radical demand to defund all contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions. Romney was not about to agree that every hospital performing abortions could not accept Medicare, Medicaid or federal employee patients and every defense contractor with abortion coverage in their health care plan would be disbarred. Rick Santorum was not too thrilled about agreeing to that either, but got a private commitment to SBA that the pledge did not mean what it clearly called for. Romney got no such assurances but did get a nasty response from SBA for refusing to sign.
So we see SBA is not about the unborn, but playing games for their preferred presidential candidates.
Very well said.
Perhaps I”m too realpolitik at this point for these lists to have much appeal.
#1 is simply a nonstarter. As for #2, I don’t see why we need to limit ourselves to incompetent bureaucrats. #3 is a conflation and the part that isn’t has more to do with class pandering than anything else. #4 is in the if wishes were airplanes category. If #4 could be passed, an outright ban on abortion could be passed. The latter can’t be passed, therefore the former won’t be.
As to MM’s list, I see nothing grossly objectionable. There seems to be an underlying assumption that such a ticket would win or otherwise enjoy popular support. I’m doubtful.
I really applaud your effort to encourage a broader platform in pro-life activism. I have said similar things, but one of my points has been that any Catholic pro-life mission ought to include the regular invitation to baptism for a saved child (which would include, of course, the commitment to instruction in the Faith). I don’t know if anyone here is aware that the women’s centers across the nation do not do so.
But I have also had thoughts about the issues you address. I would like to comment on every single point you raise, but may I just address your positing of a real safety net for women who do not abort their children but on the contrary take on the difficult job of motherhood.
What kind of safety net? That’s the problem. The Democrats offer subsistence, a mean existence at that, the Republicans offer whatever living is possible (maybe sometimes decent, I could grant that) in an ‘unregulated’ economy which favors Big–concentrated capital, Capitalism at its most moribund. Ugly! Neither offers ownership, a real stake in the game. Real shares or equity. Both parties keep working people, working women, in a position so heartbreakingly subclass, so poor, so beat down, that any woman with the nerve to bring a child into the world with a future such as the one we are offering–I have to hand it to her, but I turn away crying.
What kind of safety net? I think it exists but it’s not on the table from anyone we know. There is an old Catholic way of doing economics which both takes care of the poor and does not buy them off. Doesn’t corrupt them. It’s hard to put. I have seen bits and snippets on so-called distributist websites (not all of which are pro-life in the simplest way to define it–so it has caused me, personally, to forget them). Plans applicable to now, rather than just clubs for appreciating the old times, medievalists or whatever, seem to favor breaking up the big conglomerates over a much greater time than we associate with revolutionary schemes, mostly through tax structures that make it unprofitable to grow beyond a given number of units–like, four pizza shops, or whatever. Notice that says tax structures, not class warfare or even trash talking. (There is no rash word for which we do not pay, that applies to societies as well as individuals.) Particulars can be discussed by more expert people but you get the idea.
And so forth. There’s so much ‘forth,’ but we’re not talking about it at all. We just keep re-hashing the same old thing!
However, support for Democrats is totally impossible. There is no responsible way to give this particular secular government more power of any kind. For me, Republicans either. I have no one to vote for. Aaargh.
I think we need a Catholic party. I could get behind all your principles if you could conceive of ‘safety net’ as policies that foster one thing: more capitalists, not fewer. More distribution of ownership, less of income. Many more small owners, fewer big ones. Break it all up. Then follow some of the principles of the middle ages, just start googling and reading; there’s very little speculation, and there’s regulation to keep ownership broad, regulations against super profiting.
And I think health care would be de-profitized, put back in the hands of simple fee-for-service (like most dentistry is still) and religious charity work for all the rest. That’s putting it too simply, sorry. But that’s how it was before Henry VIII ran the first privatization scheme.
Well, I applaud your effort.
Also, it seems to me that if every American Catholic agreed with Rome about the death penalty and did something about it, it would be gone pdq. That would be a great victory for a pro-life culture and great street cred for the abortion battle.
Also, it seems to me that if every American Catholic agreed with Rome about the death penalty and did something about it, it would be gone pdq.
Catholics only make up 25% of the US population,and many of those don’t even go to mass, believe in the sacraments, oppose abortion, etc. So I’m not really sure, given the broad support for the death penalty in the US (and the nuanced nature of Rome’s opposition to the death penalty) that even if all Catholics (much less just all Catholics who are anti-abortion) came out against the death penalty it would make any difference.
I’ve come around to being tepidly against the death penalty, at least for practical reasons, but honestly, it’s a hard sell, it seems to me, that it’s the biggest thing that’s needed to establish a culture of life. When you read a news story about how a couple of guys robbed, beat, and raped a mom and her two teenage kids, then tied them to their beds and killed them by setting them on fire, and someone’s trying to tell you that the big threat to the culture of life is if you execute these guys… I just can’t see making that sale. At best, one can argue it’s not worth the bother and expense of making a death penalty stick in our modern legal system and it’s better to lock them up and throw away the key.
That would be a great victory for a pro-life culture and great street cred for the abortion battle.
I’m no clear that this is actually the case. Many (probably the vast majority) of those who are in favor of abortion aren’t going to be turned around by seeing anti-abortion groups oppose the death penalty as well. They’re committed to the availability of abortion because they see it as necessary to allow women “freedom and equality” and because it makes certain sexual lifestyles more convenient. Doing away with the death penalty won’t change that.
And seriously, would MM and other strongly left-leaning Catholics here even commit that they would vote exclusively for “pro-life” candidates if those candidates opposed both abortion and the death penalty, if they still disagreed with those candidates on health care, safety net and foreign policy?
Many (probably the vast majority) of those who are in favor of abortion aren’t going to be turned around by seeing anti-abortion groups oppose the death penalty as well.
I would tend to agree. The problem is that too many Americans, rather than carefully consider the humanity of the unborn, simply don’t get beyond seeing Pro-Life leaders de-humanize their political opponents.
The problem is that too many Americans, rather than carefully consider the humanity of the unborn, simply don’t get beyond seeing Pro-Life leaders de-humanize their political opponents.
Uh, no. If dehumanizing opponents was a turn-off, virtually no politicians would be popular. (As it stands, dehumanizing one’s opponents often makes a politician more popular.)
The reason is more basic: An awful lot of people would prefer to have an emergency exit of sorts if they find themselves (or their girlfriends/daughters/wives) pregnant and don’t want to be. It’s hard to get people to support banning abortion because a significant number of people would like to be able to abort if they think it necessary.
Those people aren’t going to have their minds changed because the pro-life movement decides to graft on opposition to the death penalty. The only thing that will change their minds is a shift in the culture such that behaviors likely to “necessitate” abortion are less frequent and abortion is no longer seen as an acceptable “get out of parenthood free” card.
Uh, no. If dehumanizing opponents was a turn-off, virtually no politicians would be popular. (As it stands, dehumanizing one’s opponents often makes a politician more popular.)
Well, it need not be one or the other. I would agree with you that when Pro-Life leaders dehumanize their opponents, it helps their popularity among a certain element. Yes, just look at the com-boxes of certain sites where the nastiest and most dehumanizing comments by Pro-Lifers get the largestest and most positive response. Still, it causes too many others to stop considering the rest of what they have to say.
In support of Kurt’s point, consider that this group is the Susan B. Anthont List, the very group who got taken to task for running afoul of election law prohibiting lying. This was in the context of health care reform in Ohio. This group lied, simply to get rid of pro-life Democrats. It’s that simple.
Whether they were lying depends on one’s point of view — they agreed with the bishops as to the nature of the health care reform law.
The seat in Ohio that they were sued over I happen to know well as it’s where my father-in-law lives and I know a lot of Catholics in the area. The allegedly pro-life Democrat (Driehaus) who lost that seat was pretty much doomed to lose it from the start. He beat a many-term incumbent (also pro-life, Steve Chabot) in 2008 by riding the Obama wave, and lost to that same incumbent in a landslide in 2010. Whether you like the SBA List or not (like many political groups, they can play hardball at times, but surely someone in Kurt’s profession can’t object to that) the election certainly wasn’t swung by their ad. Given the demographics of the district Driehaus’s win was pretty much doomed to be a one term fluke.
Accepting Darwin’s assertions, what we have is SBA being so fanatical that they threw resources into a race where the outcome was in little doubt over a dispute among pro-lifers — SBA being so obessed with the elimination of anyone within the pro-life movement who did not conform to SBA’s political agenda. Sad, very sad. SBA truly is a wicked organization.
As far as Catholics in their percentage of the population goes, politics (in my experience) does not have to go by the numbers; persuasive arguments can win a day regardless of demographics. I believe a truly Catholic economic proposal would find support among all with the common sense to see that the broadest ownership is best, not the concentration of ownership as in developed, or degenerated, capitalism, even if prices are higher.
As far as the death penalty goes, I cannot see how death as a penalty for crime, especially the cruel and heinous kind, is heavier than the penalty of living. I find living with the consequences of my own crimes to be the most difficult challenge of growing old. Regret is terrible.