“It’s the economy, stupid!”—James Carville’s memorable note-to-self during the 1992 presidential race—will be the determining factor in the 2012 campaign, according to the common wisdom. That may be true. But as Catholics consider their responsibilities between now and November 6, it would be good to remember that the future of the pro-life cause in America is also at stake.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79. Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are 76. Justice Stephen Breyer is 74. The president elected in November will likely appoint two Supreme Court justices, and may appoint as many as four, over the next quadrennium. If that next president replaces Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy with nominees who think that Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) were wrongly decided, there could conceivably be a 7-2 Court majority to overturn (or, in effect, gut) those dreadful decisions and return the abortion debate (and related life-issues questions like euthanasia) to the states. There, the pro-life cause would win some states (likely the majority) and lose some others. With national opinion polls showing a pro-life majority for the first time in a long time, however, the conditions would be right for legally advancing the cause in a dramatic way.
If, conversely, Justice Scalia (and Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, and possibly Kennedy) were to be replaced in the next presidential term by nominees favorable to the Court’s judgment in Roe and Casey, the radical abortion license created by those two decisions might well be set in federal legal concrete for the next thirty years. The pro-life cause would go on, but it would continue under severe federal legal constraints.
That this choice should present itself in partisan terms is a national tragedy. In the aftermath of the 1992 election, several of us gathered around Governor Robert Casey of Pennsylvania to plan a Democratic nomination challenge to President Clinton in 1996. Casey had been blocked by the Clintons from speaking at the 1992 Democratic convention; he combined a strong pro-life record with an appeal to the important voting bloc of “Reagan Democrats”; he had twice been elected governor of a crucial swing state; and whether or not he could wrest the Democratic nomination away from President Clinton, a strong Casey campaign in 1996 would have established two crucial points: The pro-life issue is a bipartisan one, and there is ample room in the Democratic Party for gung-ho pro-lifers.
It would have been great fun; it might have been historic; but it was not to be. Governor Casey’s health went south, the challenge to President Clinton never materialized, and the throw-weight of pro-lifers within the Democratic Party was further reduced. Where all of that eventually led was demonstrated in early 2010, when pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives provided the slim margin of victory for Obamacare—the implementers of which are now whittling away religious freedom and asking dental insurers whether they provide abortion coverage in their plans, all in the name of a virtually unlimited and government-funded right to abortion on demand.
As the natural successor to the classic civil rights movement, the pro-life cause ought to have been a bipartisan cause; it should certainly have been the cause of Catholic progressives. Yet as early as 1967, Richard John Neuhaus, then a Lutheran pastor and a civil rights veteran, warned his fellow liberals in a Commonweal article that they were betraying the civil rights cause by flirting with “liberalized” abortion laws. Neuhaus’s article won a prize from the Catholic Press Association; but that was then, and this is now. And as the Democratic Party has become ever more intransigent on the abortion question—with rare exceptions like Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois), a true pro-life hero—the pro-life cause has been abandoned by the old pro-civil rights coalition, even as African-American communities are decimated by the abortion license.
In any case, the pro-life stakes in 2012 could not be greater. Men and women of conscience will form their judgments accordingly.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Comments:
that breeds distrust. The lack of detail may be one thing that brings down their ticket in the debates. The clearing up of Europe, furthered this AM in Germany, will boost 401's and help the incumbent. Romney promised 12 million jobs but it turns out that Moody's analytics and others predicted 12 million jobs organically in coming years regardless of who wins. Trust and high purpose are not in the air except on several sex/ life issues but even by Weigel's best case scenario, in the US of the future, females wanting abortions will have to commute to abortion states.
I will vote for Romney/ Ryan but it
Given this circumstance, Weigel's argument needs buttressing: What reason is there to believe that Romney is any more likely to appoint firmly committed "Pro-Life" justices (at least concerning abortion) than Obama? To me, it is not immediately evident at all that he would be.
So why prefer him politically?
As one who works with the poor daily, (and, therefore, deals with Medicaid all the time) I know the current trend for Medicaid is self-destruction. I also know that the proposed solution called Obamacare is just further down that same road. I also know enough history to know that Republicans have never acted strongly agaist government programs in the past to give me concern they would sacrifice the poor on the altar of ideology. Show me where.
May be every parent organisation in schools would start with a demonstration of a tiny baby parakeet ( for ease of availabilty ) to the 10 y.o and up ..and show by comparison what a human embryo can be like too . in The Hand of God , in the light of His love ...bring in the truth of the mighty angels meant to guard that baby ..and what that baby is meant to be - 9 mos ahead.., to bring smiles and love from those around ..to give and recieve comfort from and to parents ..
and show what the destruction of that baby does , in graphic enough manner .. .along with the cells left behind in the parents ( since the parents are one , even if science so far shows the cells only in the mother ) - cells that carry the memory of brutal death and the enemy claims that come with it ..or cells of joy for the gift of the love being given and received..
angels that sing of the holiness and goodness of God ..and the same holiness that might lead to meausres of mercy , of having to bring forth repentance to hardened , fearful hearts , unless the fallen angel claims are meant to be long lasting ..
Is that what is at the root of all the malaise of Europe and other nations too , that have done away with God's angels , in many families ..to invite in, the ways of the fallen angels !
You were too short on detail and then gave us a long research assignment to do instead of you doing it... on the republicans of past years. We don't have to do your work or finish your short post for you. And... we're not voting for republicans of past years. New ones are not bound to republican precedent; this isn't court.
Liberals like to say that the reason fetuses have no right to life is that they aren’t “full-fledged” persons. This suggests a way for opponents of same-sex marriage to demolish the civil rights mantra of same-sex marriage’s supporters. Conservatives can say that same-sex sexual unions, as less than full-fledged unions (because same-sex couples are incapable of having full-fledged or “paradigmatic” sexual intercourse), do not concern civil rights. Same-sex unions can coherently (but not necessarily convincingly) be argued for on an individual rights basis but not a civil rights basis, for the same reason that the “minority” group called fetuses is not defended on a civil rights basis.
How can homosexual relationships be a matter of civil rights when homosexual couples are at least as incapable of having full-fledged sexual unions as fetuses are incapable of being full-fledged persons, and when the pro-life cause is not generally depicted as a civil rights concern? It is illusional and illogical to regard same-sex marriage as a matter of civil rights.
Civil rights are about equality for minority groups. Fetuses are a minority group, as are homosexuals. Neither of them have the relevant property (personhood, capacity for sexual union) in its full-fledged form, and because of this they can’t claim equality with self-aware persons and heterosexual couples, respectively. Specifically, they can’t do so as a matter of civil rights. Whatever moral and legal claims they have are not civil rights claims.
The unions of same-sex couples do not rise to the level of full unions, in the same way that fetuses, who cannot talk or socialize, do not have full personhood, but this comparison shouldn’t be overdrawn. Fetuses have an essence of personhood--just not the fullness of psychological attributes; same-sex couples lack complementarity and do not have an essence of sexual unity.
The pro-life cause doesn’t need the vocabulary of civil rights. Adopting that vocabulary will have at least one disadvantage, by making it harder to show why same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue.
"...it would be good to remember that the future of the pro-life cause in America is also at stake..."
Not "also," I don't think. One of things that got us to where we are and has helped create the revival of libertarians on the Right is the idea that abortion and marriage are among the menu of "issues" along with "smaller government" and economic growth. But it's all the same thing. How so?
I don't know if On the Square accepts HTML hyperlinks or not, but I'll give it a shot. I read an excellent article by Douglas Farrow in Touchstone magazine and I drew the following explain it in a picture. If the hyperlink doesn't appear, just click here:
http://crisisofthehousedivided.blogspot.com/2010/08/audacity-of-state-by-douglas-farrow.html
In summary, as long as voters seek material outcomes above all else the government will never shrink. It will, however, just plain collapse some day.
How about not wanting to be a one-term president?
No, you are not alone. I think it will require a conversion of heart, or at least greater and honest education as advocated by A.M. Then people will recognize it for the utter barbarism it is. I really do believe our descendants will be horrified by what our unenlightened generation does.
And Bill, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if Ryan's plan or at least _something_ isn't implemented and soon, the poor really will be on their own, and there'll be a lot more of them. The country will go bankrupt. But have no fear, Bill. The American public is a collective drooling, mouth-breathing moron, lazy, greedy, short-sighted, and stupid. Obama's platform is essentially, "Vote for me and I'll give you free stuff!" Romney's is essentially, "Vote for me and I'll cut back on your free stuff. You might even have to work for a living." Who do you think is going to win? So your beloved poor and old will be well taken care of right up to the time we go over the fiscal cliff. Obama will win and America's future will look a lot like Detroit's present.
"What reason is there to believe that Romney is any more likely to appoint firmly committed "Pro-Life" justices (at least concerning abortion) than Obama? To me, it is not immediately evident at all that he would be. "
Do you honestly believe this? Do you honestly believe that judicially speaking there is no reason to see any light between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, who was the only politician in IL (and only politician in the USA) to vote against a born alive infants act? Do you believe his upbringing, his education, his friendships with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn, his twenty-year relationship with Rev. Wright, and so on provides no clue whatsoever that Mitt Romney might actually be to the right of Barack Obama on judicial philosophy?
Can't we refer to it as "Romney has evolved on abortion..." a la Obama and gay marriage?
Just asking.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. I think it's a fair guess that Obama was always on the side of redefining marriage, but didn't say so because he could not have gotten elected in 2008 saying that. Now, by the counting of the Washington Post, 1 in 5 of his biggest campaign bundlers are open about their same-sex attraction and their demands that he support the redefinition of marriage, and so Obama is now a reliable supporter of their cause. Whether he actually had a change of heart is, I suppose, beside the point--he will absolutely support the redefinition of marriage wherever he can.
Likewise, Romney could not survive politically without the support of Pro-Life, and while someone could argue other whether or not his change of opinion on the matter is sincere, it is probably safe to say that he will absolutely support Life wherever he can (i.e. judicial appointments) just as Obama will absolutely oppose it along with traditional marriage.
The difference is that within the Judeo-Christian framework, Romney is moving toward the good while Obama is moving in the opposite direction.
or
Go to http://whatcatholicsreallybelieve.com
Then go to the answer to question # 13.
Links are provided to the "Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition" which obliges all Catholic Citizens to VOTE.
and
Links are provided to:
1) A statement by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict);
2) A Voting Guide for Serious Catholics;
3) Where do Candidates stand on key issues (2012 Presidential);
4) A Comparison of the 2012 Republican and Democratic Party Platforms;
5) A link to the short video “Test of Fire”.
The voting choice is very very clear.
What an odd posting for a site already heavy with an academic bent. But, back to the point: I understqnd. I couldn't find a time when Republicans did that, either.
This is not particularly helpful when crafting public policy today, but I remain unconvinced that our species' best morality is in the past.
-Friendly atheist.
Anyone who remembers France before the Veil law of 1975 will know that every village, almost, seemed to have its « faiseuse d’anges » [Angel Maker]. Everyone knew it, nobody talked about it and the police regarded it as “women’s business” and studiously ignored it. It was only when a woman died that the Parquet (like Captain Renault in “Casablanca”) would be “shocked, shocked to discover” that such things went on and a prosecution of some unqualified woman (never a medical professional) would follow.
That was before drugs like Mifepristone became available.