Douglas Kmiec stands by his man Obama
May 5, 2008, 9:55 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
An argument for Obama from a pro-life Catholic; he wrote earlier on Slate supporting Obama; here he further explains his reasoning. Worth a read:
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=27820
Here’s his original endorsement in Slate:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx
I wonder what prompted Doug Kmiec’s change of heart — it’s a bit suspicious when someone goes from being a Romney adviser to supporting Obama for such transparently silly reasons.
For example, this:
Kmiec is smart enough to know that in no sense is there a “choice” between those two objectives. Indeed, Obama hails from a political party many of whose supporters vehemently oppose crisis pregnancy centers, and there is absolutely no reason to think that Obama would do anything to support such centers.
Stuart, even if, as you suggest, there is absolutely no reason to think that Obama would do anything to support crisis pregnancy centers, they would continue to function. With or without a “friendly” high court, such centers would continue to help save lives of unborn children. To this day, there is still the perception that the Catholic Church and other pro-life organizations are all talk and no walk in helping women with unwanted pregnancies. Yet we know that there are numerous outreach efforts to help these women. Kmiec is saying that the proverbial bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
On a different matter, I was surprised to see a professor of constitutional law assert that the Supreme Court should feel free to cite the “natural law presuppositions in the Declaration of Independence” in decisions about the meaning of “life” and “person.” I’m no lawyer, much less a constitutional lawyer, but it has always been my understanding that the Declaration is neither a legal nor a constitutional document. Perhaps someone with some background in this area can confirm my understanding or offer information to the contrary?
Joseph — that’s not responsive. The point is that Kmiec is positing a false “choice” — either support changing the Supreme Court (via McCain) or support crisis pregnancy centers (via Obama), even though there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama would support crisis pregnancy centers at all (let alone more than McCain). Indeed, if Obama does anything about crisis pregnancy centers at all, one would expect him to oppose them; after all, Obama has sought the support of pro-choice groups, and they absolutely detest crisis pregnancy centers. See, e.g., http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/abortion/access-to-abortion/anti-choice-crisis-pregnancy-centers/
To be sure, some have charged that many crisis pregnancy centers hand out inaccurate information; but the point here is that it’s absurd to suggest that Obama, of all people, would somehow do more to support such centers than McCain.
Isn’t Kmiec’s chief point that the continuing effort to change the Supreme Court to overthrow Roe hasn’t worked and has distorted the decisions of many other critical cases? He accepts that overthrowing Roe will simply return the matter to the states and not make abortions in most places illegal. Or so I read him.
Stuart, I agree that we’re “talkin’” apples and oranges here with respect to “choice” — pursue changing the high court or support crisis pregnancy centers. As Kmiec has pointed out, however, it is unlikely that Roe will be overturned anytime soon. In the meantime, McCain supports continuation of many of GWB’s policies that have gotten our country in the domestic and international mess that it’s in. In the final analysis, I think, Kmiec is saying he’s not at all impressed with either McCain or Obama but believes, nonetheless, that Obama will be the better candidate: support for faith-based initiatives, belief in education and personal responsibility, opposition to the war, etc. Kmiec sees his choice as between two less than ideal candidates, and he’s opting for Obama. That’s my take.
As a consistent life ethic person I’m so tired of ‘right wingers’ using abortion as a political litmus test. Fact; African American teenagers more often keep their pregencies full term. Middle class and upper middle class white teenagers abort much more often. Without checking I’m willing to bet Wright’s former church in Chicago does ten times more for pregnant teenagers than Catholic suburban parishes. Kmiec, a conserative,realizes McCain will do nothing on this issue if elected.
Ms Steinfels,
But the idea of changing the Supreme Court is working. George W Bush–for whatever else you think about him–definitely moved the court closer to overturning Roe. Bush cannot control the number of vacancies that appear while he is in office.
Furthermore, a McCain presidency would (hopefully) move the court even closer to scrapping Roe–an Obama presidency certainly would not. Douglas Kmiec and many Catholics may have a number of good reasons for supporting Obama, but hoping the Illinois senator will be the better choice on abortion is not one of them.
I too with Ed Gleason, m wearied by the one issue -not consisten tlife ethic – argument about abortion that goes on and on in thisb log and elsewhere.
I’m hardly convinced the GWB Supreme Cout approach is working and has ben followed in fact by eseveral awful decisions (cf. e/g. capital punishment.)
I’m bothered by the naivete of those who who criminalize women having abortions with their faith in a justice system (based on my experience) that is shot full of problems.
Finally, having read many(many many) posts pn this, I cannot help but think that partisanship matters as much if not more than idealism in what is set forth.
Robert Reid: I don’t think Justice Kennedy will vote to overthrow Roe. And I doubt that Justice Roberts would go that far though he might be ready to constrain the time frame. I think putting all one’s political eggs in the SC basket will not overturn Roe (The Republicans would not win another election for one hundred years), but will wind up doing other unacceptable things. Haven’t we had this discussion before?
Senator Obama’s emphasis on personal responsibility must begin with respect for the Sanctity of Life as well as respect for the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family. If you don’t start there, you will never end with an outcome that reflects personal responsibility. I’m wondering just how Mr.Kmiec thinks one develops a well formed conscience that reflects the concept of personal responsibility if one does not begin with respect for the Sanctity of Life and the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family.
I don’t think Justice Kennedy will vote to overthrow Roe.
Why do you put it that way, as if there were any question?
And I doubt that Justice Roberts would go that far though he might be ready to constrain the time frame.
I don’t think you have any basis for this doubt.