March? What March?
I am always taken with the editorial decisions a newspaper makes: not only its editorials themselves, but what it chooses to report on, what placement it gives to the stories (page one, page twenty-one) etc.
Yesterday, according to Catholic News Service:
For nearly two hours Jan. 22, a crowd estimated at 100,000 listened to three dozen speakers pledge to fight efforts to expand the availability of abortion and to oppose any increases in federal funding for agencies that perform abortions.
Now, at least in the edition of the newspaper of record that comes my Boston way, I failed to find any reference to said event. This is the same newspaper that will place prominently a story of some dozen folk sitting-in at a parish in protest. But somehow one hundred thousand pass unnoticed.
However, to show its Catholic bona fides, said newspaper did provide today a riveting account of that hot-off-the-press item: Saint Francis of Assisi’s “Peace Prayer” was not, after all, composed by St. Francis.
And for this you need a Rome correspondent?
I must say that reading about the events of the past few days leave me confused.
The night before the March, it was reported, a discussion across lines between prolife and Naral advocates had occurred with some positive appreciation but a realization of the problem of finding any comon ground.
Then a report (see NCR on line today) that the March crowd had reacted to our new president “with disdain.” I’m not sure that this is “politically savvy.”
On the Brody file from yesterday, it was reported that Obama would not sign the policy rolling back the Mexico Policy as a signal that folks should instead focus on trying to reduce abortions (a common ground we’ve talked about.)
Today, MSN repoerts that unnamed sources say Obama will sign the order today.
So there’s lots of information on the internet, but how the direction of prolife forces approach the issue in the new regime and how the Government will react to that is not very sharp.
So I guess we’ll continue here and elsewhere with the same kinds of discussions we’ve been having, with different emphases. IMHO, Peter Nixon’s you tube showed an appreciation of using medium and how a message is conveyed as a prolife plus. I still think the issue of effectiveness is critical.What’s vital is to shape the message to non-pro life women who seem to see otherwise.
Did the March do that?
Bob,
Have you seen Juno?
Cathy
Cathleen
Here in Italy I saw Juno at school with my students. They was 65, of 16- 17 year-old, most girls.
All after told me it was a beautiful movie, but they didn’t like the end: “it’s too silly, you can choose to have abortion or to keep the baby, but if you choose the latter you’ll never give him in adoption, he’s your child!” and so what should you choose? ” to have an abortion, of course, we are too young to have a child”.
I guess about abortion, as John Allen write: http://ncrcafe.org/node/2376, there is a basic contrast in Catholic culture on the two side of the Atlantic.
The Times did mention the march in one of its political blogs yesterday, and the blog piece contained a link to an AP Story that covered the march in some detail.
What’s vital is to shape the message to non-pro life women who seem to see otherwise.
Bob,
I think more than a message is needed. I’ll quote my favorite passage from the Declaration on Procured Abortion for the umpteenth time:
If Barack Obama tries to accomplish what’s in that paragraph, how many in the pro-life movement (made up largely of political conservatives who believe government is not the solution, but the problem) will support him?
If we’re finding fault with stories and story placements and the Catholic bona fides of various publications, I’ve got to say that your prominent display of Professor Kmiec’s casuistry is in no way invulnerable to aspersion.
Apparently a lot of anti-abortion folks reviled the man for his optimistic hopes in regards to the new president’s stance on the dignity of human life.
Two days into the administration, this news shattered the professor’s frilly apologia:
“….the administration in the afternoon issued a reversal of a ban on federal funding for non-governmental organizations working outside the U.S. that offer abortions or abortion counseling.
Obama signed the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.”
Craig: what’s your source for that info? Googling the quote leads me to a Fox News article, but I can’t find anybody else reporting that as having happened. And it’s not listed on the White House site.
Mary, I think that’s true here too. What should be the take-away? In my view, the very bonding that takes place between mother and child during pregnancy means that it will take almost extraordinary strength to give it up (and Juno was played as a very strong young woman).
I think it means finding ways, not simply to encourage adoption, but to help women go on with their lives as single mothers. The statistics show that most women who have their babies keep their babies.
Mollie, you can got to the Comcast home page for more information.
Mollie–
The AP is reporting that the executive order will be signed today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_abortion_ban
I’m disappointed, but there’s been no flip-flop by Obama as to his position on this issue, so I can’t say I’m surprised.
The PWSA has been re-introduced in both the Senate and the House, by Sen. Bob Casey and Rep. Lincoln Davis, respectively, so it would seem prudent for the president, for political purposes if nothing else, to come out in support today of the PWSA, which has some modicum of bipartisan support and which is directly related to the president’s oft-stated goal of wanting to reduce the incidence of abortions.
Thank you for posting this.
I don’t know if it’s reasonable to expect a crowd of 100,000, which includes many teenagers and such, to be “politically savvy.”
I guarantee that members of the pro-life movement will continue to make some missteps along the way. Some will go overboard in their criticisms of pro-choice politicians. Some will make unfortunate comparisons or draw invalid parallels. Some will not be consistent advocates for life, ignoring important issues like torture, capital punishment, and warfare. There may even be another outbreak of “pro-life” violence.
But the pro-life movement is on the right side of an important cultural struggle of our time. I understand that not all of us may be called to join them, but I also think our first duty to them is our support, rather than an assessment of their political savviness as if we’re disinterested observers.
Thanks, William. I wonder why Fox still reports, at the end of this article, that he signed it yesterday? It’s not surprising that he’d sign it, of course — as you say, that’s what he always said he’d do. But not doing so yesterday, as expected, is a small but significant step away from abortion-politics-as-usual. Fox is the only outlet I can find that actually ran with its prewritten report on how “Obama signed the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states…” But I bet most news organizations had the same boilerplate written up and ready to go yesterday. Maybe this administration will be keeping journalists on their toes…
P.S. Nancy: Comcast? Isn’t that a cable company?
David N.
Thanks for the passage from the Declaration on Procured Abortion. I intend to keep it. I need to keep reminding myself that I have never been willing to adopt and raise an unwanted child. Chances are I wouldn’t even be willing to march for one.
I talked to a Mexican friend by the name of Ernesto last Sunday. My friend is back home in Mexico for what he hopes is just a short visit. In a few days he will try to come back to the United States. He may not be able to get back. Ernesto talked about the grinding poverty in his town. I hope things get better for poor Mexicans and their children. I hope the United States can help.
Off topic, I wish more American Catholics would do more for our undocumented immigrants. We have an underclass of about 12 million people who live in bondage to our violent immigration attitudes and system.
There was a story about the march on p. 2 of the Washington Post this morning. But I guess for them it is seen as local, not national, news (though it was in the first section, not the Metro section).
Here’s a final bit of media covergae from the official US news agency Voice of America, broadcast yesterday in 45 languages around the globe.
Obama Reaffirms Woman’s Right to Choose Abortion
By VOA News
22 January 2009
President Barack Obama has reaffirmed his belief in a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion as tens of thousands of abortion opponents held their annual rally in Washington.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-01-22-voa69.cfm
Obama Reaffirms Woman’s Right to Choose Abortion
Craig,
No one, and certainly not Doug Kmiec, ever argued that Obama was not strongly pro-choice. The argument was that there are things that can be done, without taking away the right to choose, that can reduce the number of abortions, and that Obama was more likely to do those other things than a conventional pro-life Republican. If anyone is disillusioned that Obama is reaffirming a woman’s right to choose, he or she wasn’t paying attention at all during the campaign.
The Los Angeles Times reports that President Obama was invited to speak to the marchers. He declined but released this statement:
“While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make,” the statement said.
“On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom,” it said, “but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-anti-abortion-march23-2009jan23,0,5774218.story
A little something for everyone there.
Jim is 100% right. A little something for everybody.
And apparenly most Americans are happy living in the gray zone:
Americans want shades of gray in abortion debate
By Terry Mattingly
Newspaper Enterprise Association
When it comes to abortion, most Americans know what they want — and what they want will not please either Planned Parenthood or the Vatican.
What they want is compromise. What they want are shades of gray.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/nationandworld/ci_11518496
If I were to suggest that Professor Kmiec’s article might very aptly be re-posted in a gray font, would that open me up to accusations of vituperation?
Not going to second-guess the news coverage here, but it might be useful, before stringing up the journalists, to determine whether the paper is morning or evening. What happens Jan. 22 isn’t going to be reported in morning papers until the following day, or even day after, depending on timing, especially during a heavy news week like this one.
Moreover, as print papers lay off reporters and reduce the number of pages in their papers due to hard times, coverage is getting spotty. Fewer local reporters mean spottier local news coverage. And when those reporters contribute to the wires, national world news becomes spottier as well. This is a constant source of concern and discussion in our J-school–how can the press continue to provide even-handed coverage as readership decreases and costs of production and personnel increase?
Ignoring a gathering of 100,000 people sounds like a gaffe to me, but not necessarily one that’s fueled by the International Liberal Media Conspiracy.
Craig: Is “shades of gray” code for “accurate information”? When FoxNews.com gets around to correcting the evidently erroneous report you cited above, what color font would you recommend they use?
Jean,
all credit to you for addressing the post’s concern.
but I did smile at the rhetorical range from “stringing up the journalists” (presumably by those awful “conservatives”) to “gaffe” (on the part of the “liberal” media).
presumably, we denizens of dotCom can all join together in praying: “Lord, make me an instrument of your peace” — whoever wrote it.
“No one, and certainly not Doug Kmiec, ever argued that Obama was not strongly pro-choice. The argument was that there are things that can be done, without taking away the right to choose, that can reduce the number of abortions, …”
So what is the break-even number of reduction in American abortions to offset the public funding of abortions overseas as would take place with the repeal of the Mexico City policy? Was that part of Mr. Kmiec’s analysis? I’m honestly asking, as I have not read any of Mr. Kmiec’s statistical analysis of the topic.
Elephant in the living room time:
Could it be that, for the majority of people in this country, abortion is simply not a debatable issue any more? Marches pro and con on abortion appear to be drawing fewer and fewer participants as the years move on. The extremes have solidified and the vast middle deals with it, case by case, time by time.
Until the church figures out how to get its message to the vast middle in a compelling way, this will continue to be a debate between the extremes … and a big ho hum for the rest.
What they want is compromise. What they want are shades of gray.
Craig,
You say “compromise” as if it were a dirty word. Compromise is what we should have in a pluralistic, democratic society. Politics is the “art of compromise.” I understand why you wouldn’t want to compromise on abortion, but I understand why pro-choice people don’t want to compromise with you. So both sides can continue to fight each other tooth and nail, or there can be compromise. And of course most Americans are somewhere on the middle, so the right compromise will reflect the will of the people.
i reject the notion that how politically savvy one is in approaching government is taking a distanced perspective.
I strongly suspect that the Right to Life movement in approaching this administration would be immensely better off if i tdsisociared its presentation from the neocon wing of the Republican Party -as hard a saying as that might be for some here.
So what is the break-even number of reduction in American abortions to offset the public funding of abortions overseas as would take place with the repeal of the Mexico City policy?
MAT,
Things are not as simple as you make them out to be. The organizations that will receive funding (again) if the Mexico City Policy is reversed also help prevent unwanted pregnancies (and consequently, abortions) by providing contraceptive information. They also fight HIV/AIDS. It is an open question whether the Mexico City Policy lowers or increases the number of abortions.
Also, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, under the Mexico City Policy, can take no money from the US government and continue to provide abortions and abortion information, even if the make sure they only use other funds for their abortion programs and use US government money for, say HIV/AIDS. However, Planned Parenthood in the United States receives quite a bit of federal funding, just so long as they keep their abortion services separate from the services for which they use federal dollars. There need be no US government funding of abortions overseas just because the US government provides funding to organizations that provide abortion services.
I don’t want to speak for Doug Kmiec, but what I will say is that I believe the argument of many pro-lifers for Obama was that there was too little pro-life progress under pro-life Republicans, that Roe v Wade was never going to be overturned, and that there was a better chance of some real success at reducing abortions under a pro-choice president who would pursue another approach, for example, the 95/10 Initiative. All of these things are debatable, and only time will tell, but the pro-life Catholics who supported Obama did not do so under the illusion that he would surprise everyone and work to overturn Roe v Wade.
I am still confused by the concept of “reducing the number of abortions”.
Is it an improvement if only 500,000 American babies are killed, instead of 1,000,000?
What proportion should be black babies [who now make up 30% of those destroyed]?
Should there be racial or minority exemptions – giving an edge to black babies or Hispanic babies or female babies or Indian babies?].
Should there be an income limit [those above the poverty line should or should not not be allowed]?
Should there be a distinction between legitimates and illegitimates?.
Should there be a time limit in pregnancy? How precisely is this limit to be determined? Would it be three months [more or less] or 12 weeks [more or less] or 90 days [more less]?
Is the father to be allowed any say in the matter? [V. the discussion about frozen embryos].
In my doddering age, I am bemused by the thought that the baby boom now has a reluctance to produce enough willing workers to support its claims on the Social Security System. Merely from a utilitarian point of view, I think it was farsighted of the war generation to produce an abundance of babies [with God's help. of course] to support us in our old age [if we are not "euthanized" first].
strongly suspect that the Right to Life movement in approaching this administration would be immensely better off if i tdsisociared its presentation from the neocon wing of the Republican Party -as hard a saying as that might be for some here.
I guess this is one more casualty of the sketchy coverage of the March — it didn’t include the placards celebrating Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol, and favoring the invasion of Iraq and backing Israel. I’ll have to look for primary accounts.
On the Mexico City Policy, I refer you to dabid Gibson’s thread over at Pontifications – it struck me as sensible.
My comments on the Right to Life movemen tare broader and again to how intertwined some views here are with political leanings that may not well be helpful.
And many positive views on social justice, health carem etc. are intertwined with Planned Parenthood’s abortion advocacy.
So what? It doesn’t make those views wrong. People and movements are a mixed bag.
And perhaps the pro-life movement wouldn’t be so identified with the less savory parts of the Republican Party if people inclined to read Commonweal joined them in advocating for the unborn instead of armchair quarterbacking them.
It’s a cycle, and both parties play a part. The more “Commonweal Catholics” treat the pro-life movement like an red-headed stepchild, the more conservative it becomes in reaction, and the more it will be crticized as such.
Both have played a role in getting us to this point; both have a role in getting us back together.
It might be worthwhile to review an actual Supreme Court Justice statement from Roe v Wade….
Here is one interesting paragraph from Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion:
“This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [p166] state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.”
Interesting in terms of keeping the issue within the judgment of the patient and her MD – a medical decision. Highlights the desire to allow states to intervene in terms of abortion limitations matching the need to protect life.
Just a suggestion.
First, I am thankful that you were specific in your criticisms targetted the specific rhetoric and individuals you found to be offensive. I think the failure to do so was one of the weaknesses of Prof. Kmiec’s piece, and would lead a sympathetic reader to the conclusion that all criticism that Prof. Kmiec has received over the past year was hateful name-calling. This was hardly the case.
I agree that the people you name let their rhetoric get away from them a bit, though I’m not sure calling someone a “decadent Catholic,” really needs to disqualify someone from polite company. I would also think that Weigel’s support for the war should be more damaging to his status as an opinion leader than his rhetorical excesses.
I could cherry-pick some words form Prof. Kmiec’s piece if I wanted to find a reason to swear off dialogue with him — “sore losers,” “hate-filled blogosphere,” “missiles of hate,” “venomous right-wing blogs” are hardly the basis for bridge-building. My point is not to criticize Prof. Kmiec, merely that it would be wrong to judge a movement by the worst rhetoric coming from it.
I’m quite sure my wife and I have called each other things we regret in discussions over much more trivial matters. I am glad we do not see that as a reason to forswear dealing with each other.
And I think the constant drumbeat of criticism like Prof. Kmiec’s article, and the constant analysis of the pro-life movement do more harm than good by feeding the notion (one which th culture is all too willing to accept) that the pro-life movement is populated by zealots and wing-nuts, not the 100,000 peaceful marchers that were there yesterday. And it also gives movement pro-lifers the message that those who favor more moderate rhetoric are already aligned against them, so there is nothing to be gained by adopting a moderate tone. I think such a thinking informed my bishop’s pastoral letter on the election, which I don’t think was terribly helpful, peppered as it as with the phrase “so-called Catholics.”
If we wait for the pro-life movement to shed itself of all excessive rhetoric before giving it our support, we will be waiting forever. Same goes for requiring every pro-lifer to adopt a completely consistent “Seamless Garment” pro-life view to all issues, as desirable as that might be. I think that standing on the sidelines and critiquing the movement’s savviness will only drive it further to extremes. Why not add our more moderate voices to the chorus? Wouldn’t that make the movment more difficult to dismiss as a vehicle of right-wing hatred?
I am still confused by the concept of “reducing the number of abortions”.
Gabriel,
Are you confused by the concept of reducing the number of auto accident fatalities? We could put the speed limit at 10 mph and bring the rate practically to zero.
Or are you confused by the concept of reducing the infant mortality rate? Or the suicide rate?
Why not add our more moderate voices to the chorus?
But who’s to say we (any of us) are not already doing that? Who gets to decide what counts as advocacy for the unborn? I think it’s possible for criticism of ineffective rhetoric or alienating tactics to be part of prolife advocacy.
I think the failure to do so was one of the weaknesses of Prof. Kmiec’s piece, and would lead a sympathetic reader to the conclusion that all criticism that Prof. Kmiec has received over the past year was hateful name-calling.
I don’t think that’s a fair interpretation of what Kmiec was doing in his essay. It’s true that he didn’t respond to the non-insult-laden criticisms he received, and I think that’s his prerogative (perhaps he feels he already has?). But he wasn’t trying to “explain himself,” as one blog I saw characterized the piece. And he didn’t say that everyone who offered criticisms of his argument coupled them with insults. Perhaps he painted the “right-wing blogosphere” with too broad a brush — but I think his objective was to identify a toxic strain in political debate based on his personal experience. And it seemed to me that his choosing not to call out his “tormentors” by name was an attempt to keep it from reading as purely retaliatory.
David N.,
Traffic fatalities are almost never deliberate acts.
If we all agreed on the definition of a person from the start, would there even be a debate? How can the definition of a Human individual be a matter of opinion? Either an individual is a person or they are not a person. There is no such thing as an in-between person. ( and personhood does not require that one is walking around)
David N.: That seems reasonable enough, but there must be some metrics we can look at to objectively measure how these non-Roe pro-life policies are working. You say “only time will tell”, but don’t we need standards to measure progress? Has anyone laid those out? And wouldn’t they have to include non-domestic standards as well, especially in the Developing World where the implicit policy of many in the international community (read: Western Europe and these United States) is that the solution to poverty is, to be euphemistic about it, “attrition”? Tragedy of the Commons and all that. I am actually one of those people who sees the Mexico City policy as much scarier than FOCA.
Traffic fatalities are almost never deliberate acts.
Kathy,
Suicide, rape, divorce, robbery, illicit drug use, vandalism, air pollution . . . anyone can come up with a long list of thinks that we can only hope to reduce but never to end (a great many of them against the law already).
Even John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae discusses limiting abortions when prohibiting them altogether is impossible.
There is absolutely nothing illogical or immoral about the idea of trying to reduce the number of abortions by means other than total legal prohibition. Isn’t this what crisis pregnancy centers try to do?
If by some miracle a compromise were reachable on limiting abortions to cases of rape, incest, and real danger to the life of the mother, would pro-lifers reject it on the grounds that it only reduced abortions rather than eliminating them altogether?
That seems reasonable enough, but there must be some metrics we can look at to objectively measure how these non-Roe pro-life policies are working.
MAT,
Do you mean like the metrics that tell conservatives that the minimum wage is harmful and liberals that the minimum wage is helpful? Or the objective data that tells liberals that global warming is real and attributable to human activity but tells conservatives that global warming is a fraud? If political affiliation determines how people look at a scientific matter like global warming, do you think the pro-choice and pro-life advocates are ever going to agree on what abortion statistics mean?
And in addition to that, a great many of the pro-life people I have discussions with insist that it is ultimately not about the number of abortions, it’s about justice, about formally recognizing the right to life of a particular class of people. I have had people tell me it would be better to make abortion illegal even if that increased the number of abortions. I am sure that if Obama really succeeded in making abortion “safe, legal, and rare,” he would still be demonized by many in the pro-life movement.
On newspaper coverage:
Our local paper today had nothing on the rescinding of Mexico City Bush policy or the removal of the excommunication of the 4St. Pius Bishops.
It did have a lengthy religion piece on an Atlanta church that “saves solesz” by providin gfoot care for parishoners.
More to the point, on the front page, a lon garticle on BXVI joining youtube. The PR from Rome says he’s a “man of dialogue” who wants to be able to engage people everywhere.
Hmmm…..
Father Imbelli, glad to know my wrong-footed rhetoric hasn’t lost it’s ability to elicit those supercilious smiles from the clergy!
“Off topic, I wish more American Catholics would do more for our undocumented immigrants. We have an underclass of about 12 million people who live in bondage to our violent immigration attitudes and system.”
I think the Church has done more than most. Could we do more? Sure.
Ultimately these immigrants live in bondage to Americans who would rather pay undocumented workers poverty wages – and skip the requirements of labor laws – than treat them as their dignity as workers requires. Which is of a piece (I would argue) with the utilitarian, solipsistic attitudes which makes these million plus abortions every year possible.
Abortion remains the gravest (although not the only)affront to human dignity in America today, and so long as the innocent unborn are not afforded the protection of law, we will continue to fall short of the promise afforded by our founding documents, just as surely as we did under slavery and Jim Crow. If President Obama can take concrete steps to reduce this significantly (without incurring other evils), I will surely support that far. Four days into his administration, however, he has done just the opposite. So I’m left to pray he has a change of heart in the four years that remain.
Especially since it’s increasingly clear that the Culture of Life will not triumph in the current manifestation of American politics until both parties embrace it.
Hello Mr. DeHaas,
“Interesting in terms of keeping the issue within the judgment of the patient and her MD – a medical decision. Highlights the desire to allow states to intervene in terms of abortion limitations matching the need to protect life.”
Unfortunately, Doe v. Bolton (issued the same day as Roe) effectively gutted the legislative attitude recognized by Justice Blackmun. And Casey essentially confirmed that – and it is Casey which actually forms the abortion regime now, not Roe.
Misspelling: “legislative latitude,” not attitude.
Hi Mr. Lender,
I live in San Francisco which is a sanctuary city. Just last week a new law went into effect that allows San Francisco to issue municipal identification cards to undocumented immigrants. This was done because Congress failed to adopt immigration reform legislation and because there was a series of federal immigration raids in the San Francisco Bay Area. I personally know one the Supervisors who got this done. I often do volunteer work for him. Most of the people in San Francisco who get things done for undocumented immigrants are also pro-abortion and pro-labor and many of them are LGBT. I would guess this might be true in other places. I am grateful for what Church has done for undocumented immigrants. Nevertheless I hope Catholics help these women and men some more.
Hello Michael,
It speaks well of the SF community that so many have been willing to go out of their way to help some of the most downtrodden among us.
I wish they could extend some of that compassion to the unborn. But that said, the Church leadership has been quite vocal in the immigration debate, and I like to think it has helped move it ever so slightly onto more compassionate terrain. Which gives me hope, as it does you, that Catholics can help these women and men some more. They need it.
Hello Mr. Lender,
Thanks for your response. I appreciate it. From my experience many people who are pro-choice are not selfish. This gives me hope. Perhaps if we all work together, we can make it possible for every child born into the world to be given a welcome worthy of a person.
Mr. Lender – thanks for your reply. My intent was to suggest alternate ways of moving towards the middle – “what I call pro-life vs. pro-abortion or pro-choice” – in fact, rejecting either pro-abortion or pro-choice. Was suggesting that given our current scientific knowledge, the current state of catholic morality and the need to revisit our understanding of natural law, that states/federal laws are able to restrict/limit abortions; that the most debatable grey area is conception to implantation and that be left to the discretion of mother/MD.
Not sure that Bolton or Casey radically changed Blackmun’s opinion.
What I would like to see is a “new” definition of “Pro-Life” that realizes the tension between total denial of any means that interferes with physical intercourse and the opposite which rebels against any means that restricts or limits ways to intervene/destroy life after implantation or the first trimester. This pro-life position would reflect the significant challenges faced by women in third world nations; by women in poverty; by families to be who need alternatives because they know they are not fit to be parents. In a way, it is using my old high school “Principle of Double Effect” and applying that to many situations such as the highly contested “Mexico City” policy (refer to both sides of the issue as outlined by Mr. Gibson at Pontifications). It picks up on elements of Bernadin’s Consistent Ethic of Life and Cuomo’s Notre Dame speech in outlining the role of a church’s moral position and what a society and its laws can manage.
The March for Life 2009 had an estimated 300,000 people attend the event on the Mall and walk to the US Supreme Court. The crowd usually numbers around 200,000 each year but this year was exceptional. I was there. We were peaceful and offered prayer for President Obama to change his mind. The most welcomed speaker was an African American pastor from MD who explained what Dr. Martin Luther’s dream entailed, and it certainly wasn’t abortion of his people who comprise of 15% of the total Us population but comprise of over 32% of all abortions. No national coverage of any quality at all, sad and disturbing.