Pro-life Democrats: Oxymorons?
Picking up on the post below, there is a very good piece today on The New Republic site about the Dems platform battle over abortion language, and the efforts of Democrats for Life, a small organization (need it be said?) founded in 1999 with chapters in over 40 states. It is led by Kristen Day. The piece is called “Life Support? Inside the battle over abortion’s place in the Democratic platform.” Here’s a sense of it:
Unlike many other pro-life activists, Democrats for Life deemphasizes Roe v. Wade. A repeal “wouldn’t really do a whole lot” to reduce abortion, Day told me. The group decided to ignore Roe altogether in their platform proposal, assuming the party would support the case no matter what. Instead, they chose to focus on promoting an abortion reduction plank. “Once Roe is in [our proposal],” said Lee, “they just stop listening to us.”
(snip)
…as it makes gains in more conservative districts, the Democratic Party is increasingly welcoming of pro-life candidates. Two of its most recent electoral successes–special election victories by Travis Childers in Mississippi and Don Cazayoux in Louisiana–were pro-life campaigns. And in the last few years, a flurry of Democratic-sponsored abortion reduction measures have been proposed in Congress, such as the “Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act” and the “Pregnant Women Support Act.”
But when it comes to the platform, pro-life Democrats face strong resistance from other corners of the party. “These kind of efforts are perennial,” says Ramona Oliver, communications director for Emily’s List. “They’re based on the assumption that Democrats’ position isn’t in the mainstream, and that’s just wrong. They’ve not succeeded in curtailing Democrats’ principles, and I don’t think they will in the future.”
But Day and the rest wind up saying they are committed to their goals. Thoughts?
Just want to mention that I was able to access the entire article without a paying a subscription.
It’s interesting and hopeful. Ultimately, the way they will get traction within the party is by surfacing and supporting winning candidates that buy into their program.
Thanks for the access heads up. I’ll redact the post accordingly. My instinctive symapthies are with them, but wherever you come from, I think there is much to admire, as there is with folks working in the GOP for change.
As for Log Cabin Republicans, well, that’s another story!
Any group calling itself pro-life has serious problems if one of their flagship initiatives is called “Reducing the Need for Abortion.” How about reducing the need for slavery, or rape, or ritual human sacrifice? Once you treat abortion as merely an unpleasant result of economic circumstances rather than a profound moral evil, you have already lost.
Sean, while I agree that we shouldn’t settle for half-measures if we don’t need to … sometimes, if that’s what’s possible, half a loaf is better than none.
“Any group calling itself pro-life has serious problems if one of their flagship initiatives is called “Reducing the Need for Abortion.” How about reducing the need for slavery, or rape, or ritual human sacrifice? Once you treat abortion as merely an unpleasant result of economic circumstances rather than a profound moral evil, you have already lost.”
And yet hard line pro-lifers, who have enjoyed control of the government on a number of occasions in the past 30 years, can only point to things that “reduced the need for abortion” promulgated by their sworn defenders as a result of all their political support.
If we are operating in a context of a population who by and large is not pro-life in the sense that you speak of it (and that would include many if not most of the “pro-life” GOP) then perhaps doing things that will push abortions back is what needs to be done now because it is all that can be done now. There is a danger with an all or nothing approach that seems to say that nothing is better than something.
Sean,
I’m going to quote, yet again, my favorite paragraph from the Declaration on Procured abortion:
Glossing over the part where the Church does not appear to be endorsing the free market as the best solution for dealing with the deprived, doesn’t the last part sound to you like wanting to eliminate “the need for abortion”?
Here is a link to a serious effort by some Democrats to impact the discussion around abortion – it is a complex issue and there are many nuances. Allowing Bob Casey to speak at the DNC would be a positive step forward:
Shortcut to: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20080808_Casey_might_get_speaking_role_at_convention.html
When I say “nuanced”, I do not agree with an approach such as Sean Hannaway. That is why as a country and as parties/Congress/courts – we are bottlenecked. Casey’s approach is also reinforced by folks such as Kmeic.
As for Log Cabin Republicans, well, that’s another story!
Hmmmmm.
David, thanks for posting this and emphasizing the platform efforts of pro-life Democrats.
Day’s efforts at engaging and challenging the party’s platform committee make a lot more sense to me than those who encourage single-issue voting or who abstain from voting altogether.
Raber takes a different tack. He believes pro-life Democrats should form their own Christian Democrat Party if the current Dems won’t loosen that abortion plank.
I think he’s high if he thinks a party with “Christian” in it won’t alienate a lot of people in a pluralistic society like this one. But at least it’s a move toward participation in the system, and I find it easier to take than the abstention or single-issue strategy.
Does anyone know of a organization or website that has an example of a possible proposed piece of legislation on a federal level that might be supported that would change Roe? Since the constant failures of the so called Human Life Amendments, my concern is always that the call to change or overturn Roe does not have sustainable national support and would result in balkanization of laws, penalties, and availabilitiy to those with means as it was pre-Roe. Perhaps I have become either defeatist or relativistic, but I simply don’t see this argument for legal change as the best place to put energies in this struggle to creat respect for life — pre and post natal!
“Raber takes a different tack. He believes pro-life Democrats should form their own Christian Democrat Party if the current Dems won’t loosen that abortion plank.”
Well, he can sign me up. That would make two of us. And remember, Jesus started pretty small too.
David,
No, it doesn’t. This entire approach begins from a position that abortion on demand is an individual right – it views it solely from the perspective of the putative mother. This is the fundamental problem. No social program will make a substantial difference until we face that. Mostly, I think it provides a sop to those who are unwilling to tell their fellow progressives that they support a profoundly evil policy.
I support policies that promote strong families and support for children – absolutely. But if you really support “reform of society and of conditions of life in all milieux, starting with the most deprived, so that always and everywhere it may be possible to give every child coming into this world a welcome worthy of a person” can you say that things like AFDC, public housing, and many other progressive liberal ideas have done this? Simply wanting to do good isn’t enough, and relying on huge government bureacracies to meet our responsibilities is a cop out. Just passing out a check and having an overworked social worker visit once in a while is not a “welcome worthy of a person.” It is a welcome worthy of a unit of consumption, a burden.
Unagidon,
If you can name one instant in that last thirty years when “hard line pro-lifers” have controlled the government I’d love to know when that was.
“If you can name one instant in that last thirty years when “hard line pro-lifers” have controlled the government I’d love to know when that was.”
The GOP controlled the executive, the Congress and the Senate from 2000 to 2006. Congress was under a very rigid discipline between Hastert and DeLay. The GOP is the pro-life party and Bush ran on a pro-life platform. Most states during that period were also red. You could have shut the government down if you wanted to. So why didn’t you?
It struck me in going down the threads how this one and the one below have some overlap with the discussions on Humanae Vitae and polarization.
Of course, there’s some of the usual iterations, but I continue to beleive that the very close interconnection of politics/religion and culture in various folks lives and their perceptions contribute to a divide that is not lessening. The importance of a Magazine like Commonweal and of this blog in trying to advance discussion shoulde be appreciated, even if some are unhappy with iyts editorial approaches or “slant.”
What I’d still in my sill yway hope for is a real desire to move forward and not just be stuck in the same positions we continue to enunciate as the last word.
There are lots of oxymorons. “There is no international consistency regarding the legality of abortion. Abortion is generally permitted in most developed countries and prohibited (except to save the life of the mother) in most underdeveloped countries. The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America. In the countries where abortions are restricted, illegal abortions are common although their precise number is difficult to quantify. According to the best estimates, over 40% of all abortions annually are illegal. In countries such as Peru, Chile and Brazil, the overall abortion rate is higher than it is most countries where abortion is available on demand. The high rate in these countries bears some relationship to the fact that contraceptive practices are not as common as they are in the United States and Europe. Illegal abortions are also becoming increasingly safer due to the use of two medications: mifepristone and misoprostol. Misoprostol is widely available worldwide as an ulcer medication but is being used safely and effectively either alone or with mifepristone in what have become known as a “medical abortions”.” http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm
Lots of nonsense in the world.
What is at stake in this thread, so far as I can see, is how ought a serious Christian apply to his or her political action (voting, etc.) the Christian principle that abortion is always morally wrong.
Applying a principle to political action is always a matter for practical reason. Practical reason can rightly conclude that one cannot rightfully push for a law that would require one to get an abortion or to perform one. But, when the political question is “What should the state do about people who want to get or provide abortions?” practical reason cannot provide a single, unambiguous, best answer. There are no such answers in the domain of politics. One can arrive at answers that are more or less probably good and that meet the relevant prevailing circumstances. One can find good evidence to support these answers, but one cannot find certitude about any of these proposed answers. One has to resort to making a decision in favor of one plausible alternative and acting on it. Doing so leads one to oppose the other reasonable alternatives.
That’s the best we can do in the realm of political action.
Accordingly we’ll have strong political disagreements among ourselves. But these disagreements belong to the domain of politics. They are not necessarily disagreements about religion.
Unagidon,
You said “hard line pro-fifers” not the GOP. The US Senate was hardly hard-line conservative during this period. Further, there are three branches of the federal government, and in no way can you say that “hard line pro-lifers” have been in control of the judicial branch – ever.
I’m in with Raber and Unagidon.
We can caucus about the party name later.
Jean– I’m not abstaining from voting in this election; I’m just not voting for Obama or McCain.
“You said “hard line pro-fifers” not the GOP. The US Senate was hardly hard-line conservative during this period. Further, there are three branches of the federal government, and in no way can you say that “hard line pro-lifers” have been in control of the judicial branch – ever.”
Well, let’s look at what this means then.
First, it means that people calling themselves pro-life are not really pro-life in the Catholic sense of the word. So it would seem to follow that when Catholics are asked to use a pro-life litmus test position to vote for a GOP candidate they are not in fact usually voting for someone who holds a Catholic position, but rather for someone who at best may hold the same kind of modified position that you are decrying if a Democrat holds it.
Second, if you think that the Supreme Court is the key here, then it would follow that the only federal office a pro-life voter should really worry about in regard to a pro-life position is the presidency, since the president is the one who nominates the judges. So what difference does it make to elect Republican congressmen or senators, at least at the federal level?
Third, if you are implying that the president and the Congress at least were hard line conservative during 2000-2006, I’m sure that they could have between them figured out a way to shut down the government in order to make progress on the abortion front, given how utterly evil abortion is. Instead, one gets the impression that the hard right wants to election a hard line conservative president with a hard line conservative Congress and Senate, and get a hard line conservative Supreme Court that will overturn Roe versus Wade, although we will also need hard line conservative governments in all of the states as well since each state will have to pass its own abortion legislation. Before all of this happens, nothing can happen.
Is that the plan?
Want to try to keep this thread on the initial question. Mr. Dauenhauer – agree with your insights and statements completely. I believe that this position was best articulated by Mario Cuomo in an address at Notre Dame. If I may…..will take some liberties and modify a quote from Richard McBrien:
Jurisprudence vs. Moral Theology
In an article published April 23, 2004 in the National Catholic Reporter, the U. of Notre Dame theologian, Richard McBrien, makes the point that :
“To have made the moral argument against abortion, for example, is not necessarily to have made the legal argument as well. St. Thomas Aquinas himself had insisted that if civil laws laid too heavy a burden on the “multitude of imperfect people,” it would be impossible for such laws to be obeyed and this, in turn, could lead eventually to a disregard for all law.
Moreover, unenforceable laws are worse than no laws at all. And without a sufficient consensus within a society, no law is enforceable. Civil laws, therefore, can demand no more than a pluralistic society can agree upon.”
Again, most surveys suggest that the typical American Catholic is anti-abortion but does not want to criminalize it and is more conflicted around the issue of the prospective mother, her decision, when the abortion decision is made, etc.
In the issue of America magazine that came out today, there is an excellent open letter from Fr. John Kavanaugh to Senator Obama about Obama’s stand on abortion and how Obama can broaden his appeal to Catholic voters by recognizing the concerns that some Catholics have about abortion.
I don’t know if the article is subscription-restricted, but here’s the link in case this very worthwhile article is available to all:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10973
Again, most surveys suggest that the typical American Catholic is anti-abortion but does not want to criminalize it . . . .
Unfortunately (from my point of view, anyway) the Church does not confine its teachings to the moral issue of abortion itself, but also defines the moral requirements for voting and legislating when abortion is an issue. So American Catholics who oppose abortion and do not want to criminalize it are in dissent.
I would argue that the Church position on abortion has great weight, but the Church position on how one should vote has considerable less weight, considering the fact that pluralistic democracies are very recent developments, and consequently theories of how one ought to vote have not been thoroughly hashed out. Also, it appears to me that in saying what the law on abortion ought to be, the Church is making a blanket statement that would seem to cover every government and every type of government on earth without regard to the principles under which that government has been established. To me, that does not make for a very convincing theory of the morality of voting.
Thanks for citing the Kavanaugh piece–one of my favorite columnists. Only thing I’d disagree with him on is that there is only “an outside” chance of Obama’s Catholics advisory council reading it…
Jean, congrats on having started a cult, er, political party. In all seriousness: When your husband is elected, are you ready for the scruitny that will come with being First Lady? The fashions. The conversions. The blog posts…Better starting scrubbing this site now.
I can say this for certain: at least one member of the Advisory Council has read it.
“the Christian principle that abortion is always morally wrong.”
I question whether most Catholics and other Christians hold that abortion is wrong and are just against criminalization. The assertions of Garry Wills are by no means adequately answered. Those against abortions have shown no concern for all those “immortal souls” lost to miscarriage and the like.
What bothers the most is that liberals have fallen into the right wing trap of making abortion the number one issue. I am convinced this is a fraud issue and I have seen many pro lifers pass by the wounded man whom the Samaritan helped. http://philosophersplayground.blogspot.com/2006/04/how-did-ethics-get-reduced-to-abortion_11.html
Liberals give this issue more life than anyone.
William thx for the reference to the Kavanaugh letter – very provocative. FWIW, I was able to access the entire text without needing to provide an account number. (I do subscribe to America, so it’s possible they’re passing me through, but I’m usually not together enough to have all that info when I need it …)
Just speaking for myself: criminal penalties for women is the least of my concerns. Let’s focus on dismantling, to the extent possible, the structure of sin that is the for-profit abortion industry.
Was it not Fr. Kavanaugh who suggested years ago in AMERICA that the solution might be to tie a woman’s tubes [his expression]?
I find it saddening that in a purported Catholic magazine there is never a suggestion that prayer might be the only answer to the abortion plague. And that the promotion of chastity might be a “secondary” solution. I mean, is not that what religion is supposed to be about? Prayer and the practice of the virtues.
I support any pro-life movements within the Democratic Party, though I believe they will have limited success. Since it’s founding, Emily’s List has contributed 240,000,000 to its various sponsored candidates. Planned Parenthood remains the most powerful lobby for the abortion business, and it is a business. Unless pro-life Democrats can exercise comparable or greater financial clout than the abortion lobbyists, you aren’t going to have many candidates venturing off the farm. You only need to recall the pro-choice conversions that the Dem’s leading lights had in the mid 70s to see how many of them are in the pockets of these lobbyists.
“Just speaking for myself: criminal penalties for women is the least of my concerns. Let’s focus on dismantling, to the extent possible, the structure of sin that is the for-profit abortion industry.”
See, I guess I can see abortion both as a Catholic and as a non-Catholic, and that’s why these discussions just make me feel depressed and tired.
How can you shut down the for-profit abortion industry if they’re providing a legal service? If you don’t want to just blow them up–and I’m sure nobody’s advocating that–you’ll have to persuade non-Catholics that abortion laws need to be changed.
And the penalties-for-women-who-have-abortions is an issue for most non-Catholics who see abortion as more of a moral ambiguity. Like it or not, wrong or right, many see differences between first and third trimester abortions, between women who have abortions as birth control fallback and those who have them for what they consider medically valid reasons.
My hat’s off for those like Kristen Day who are willing to do the hard work of moving everyone forward, not just preaching to the choir.
David G., I’m not sure three people can be considered a groundswell of support for Raber’s Christian Democrat Party, but he was on the local planning commission one time. He seemed perfectly able enough to serve out his term of appointment despite having me as a wife.
“You only need to recall the pro-choice conversions that the Dem’s leading lights had in the mid 70s to see how many of them are in the pockets of these lobbyists.”
Without substantiation this has to be denied. The women’s movement is the great mover on the allowance of abortion. Democrats came on board because they would not get that important vote.
On the other hand Republicans and American bishops co opted the anti-abortion crusade as the sole item of their credibility because they could point to nothing else. It is like Nixon’s “Family Values” crusade. Sounds good, scares everyone, but means nothing.
[...] new language party’s abortion policy. Some will see it as a victory for pro-lifers, like those we discussed in the thread below–and I tend to agree–while others will see it as “yada yada yada.” And I [...]