Recently Deal Hudson published a statement by Doug Johnson- Legislative director of National Right to Life, where Johnson and Hudson refer to abortion reduction as a "scam". I recently went over the fine points with Doug Kmiec, an authority on this issue in his own right in the following interview.
Eric McFadden: Doug Johnson - Legislative director of National Right to Life and some others have suggested that "Abortion Reduction" is a "scam" used by Democrats to gloss over the issue of abortion with Catholics. They believe that you create the impression that Obama will merely preserve the legal status quo on abortion, while creating a token government handout for women experiencing crisis pregnancies. These folks are convinced that an Obama administration will simply increase the numbers of abortions performed.
Doug Kmiec: First, as I indicate in my book Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama, my endorsement of Senator Obama has from the beginning indicated places where this conservative Republican disagrees with the Senator, and we disagree on the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which I oppose, and indeed, believe in its current form exceeds the power of Congress. Second, to the extent FOCA is believed to mandate the public funding of abortion, and that is not explicit, I would oppose that as well.
That said, while the Senator and I are in disagreement, it does not dim my enthusiasm for his presidency since I believe for the first time we will have a president who genuinely intends to address the poverty and anxiety that in the vast majority of cases determines a woman's decision.
Second, I greatly respect Doug Johnson and his work in behalf of life. In this regard, he has been in this vineyard long enough to know that there is a meaningful difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice. Indeed, in Senator Obama's case, it is more aptly a difference between criminalization and compassion, or to be even more fair to the approach advocated by Mr. Johnson, regulation and restriction or the encouragement of a responsible exercise of freedom.
In any event, Senator Obama has never been pro-abortion, and is not now.
Eric McFadden: Some have claimed that Obama advocates repeal of the Hyde Amendment? -- and he would enact national health care that would also mandate coverage of abortion on demand.
Doug Kmiec: Again, "mandate coverage for abortion on demand"?
This has never been Senator Obama's position, which instead accepts the Roe framework, leaving the ultimate decision to the expectant mother, and consistent with language the Senator was instrumental in having added to the Democratic Platform also "strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs."
Eric McFadden: Abortion opponents have argued that Obama will not renew the Hyde Amendment.
Doug Kmiec: As Doug Johnson indicates, the Hyde Amendment is renewed year by year. Even were the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) to pass, and even if my doubts about its unconstitutionality were determined to be unfounded, Congress has it well within its power to renew the Hyde Amendment after FOCA, which by well-settled, last-in-time interpretative principles would keep the abortion funding limitation in place. What's needed is what has always been needed, a convincing and legislatively winning argument that on balance public funding for abortion wrongly implicates the taxpayer in what many citizens, including me, see as a moral wrong.
I have not discussed this with him at great length, but I imagine that Senator Obama views health care funding as something that as much as possible should be governed by the needs and determinations of a patient and the patient's doctor, and it is this nondiscrimination principle, which convinces him that just as public funds should be available for pre and post natal care so too a woman's choice to bear a child cannot be coerced under criminal or regulatory penalty.
Given that FOCA in one form or another has been stalled in Congress since 1989, arguably, FOCA's fate will be more determined by the electoral outcome in Congress than the presidency.
Eric McFadden: Johnson and others point to a quote from Senator Obama: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." - they express the same fear that state laws would be nullified by the Freedom of Choice Act.
Doug Kmiec: Again, I believe this to be overstatement, both in light of the preemption principle noted above and the underlying constitutional doubt about FOCA derived from well-settled law that Congress lacks authority to redefine constitutional rights and liberties. A Supreme Court that some years ago denied Congress' ability to enact into law as against the states a super-protection of religious liberty is likely to have the same reservations, maybe more given the sensitive and controversial nature of the abortion subject.
Eric McFadden: Johnson has pointed out that Obama has also voted directly against parental notification requirements twice. He also refers us a study of Cardinal Rigali's regarding the Freedom of Choice Act.
Doug Kmiec: I fully accept the teaching of my church. That teaching, including the thoughtful letter from Cardinal Rigali, indicates that "in recent months, the national debate on abortion has taken a turn that may be productive. Members of both parties have sought to reach a consensus on ways to reduce abortions in our society." While his Eminence finds this consensus emerging especially on the regulatory front, I do not read his letter as denying the possibility of consensus by means of improved support for women in poverty and who are often alone and isolated.
Quite the contrary, the Cardinal himself notes, quite consistently I might add with the perspective of Senator Obama (though, appropriately of course, the Cardinal does not mention any political figure by name), that "because many women have testified that they are pressured toward abortion by social and economic hardships, bipartisan legislation providing practical support to help women carry their pregnancies to term, . . . deserves Congress's attention."
Senator McCain's history here is curious. On the one hand, the Senator voted in favor of amending those eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to include the unborn-while voting against legislation to expand SCHIP's coverage to low-income children and pregnant women at least six times.
Eric McFadden: Johnson and others have been critical of your claim that Republican office holders have not achieved a "Human life Amendment". In their critique, they claim that Constitution does not give a president any formal role in the constitutional amendment process.
Doug Kmiec: Yes, constitutional amendments depend on the initiative of members of Congress, like that which Senator McCain could have undertaken - but did not -- during his almost 30 years occupying public office.
Eric McFadden: Johnson has stated that "Obama even advocates repeal of the national ban on partial-birth abortions, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2007 on a 5-4 vote."
Doug Kmiec: It is well known that Senator Obama has clearly stated on numerous occasions his support for restrictions on late term abortions. Indeed, Senator Obama has identified the need to draft a clearly defined health exception, the responsible narrowing of which Doug Johnson and I - and perhaps the entire right to life community -- have been advocating for decades.
Eric McFadden: In a statement Johnson wrote: "Finally: Kmiec has written elsewhere of the personal work that he and his wife have done in assisting women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies, which is certainly commendable. Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) across this nation help many, many women each year, and save the lives of many children. Before Kmiec speaks again about Obama's purported commitment to "abortion reduction," perhaps he should reflect on the question put to the Obama campaign by RHrealitycheck.org, a prominent pro-abortion advocacy website -- "Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?" The Obama campaign's official response was short, but it spoke volumes: "No.""
Doug Kmiec: Continue funding? The counseling centers known to me and my spouse have not had the benefit of such funding. Must be hard to get. Anyway, Senator Obama's signal of clear and strong support for women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term offers the kind of complementary assistance that will hardly impede crisis pregnancy centers. And that's the thing, you have to have the funding for pre and post natal care, income support and parenting skills before you can help anyone in the context of a crisis pregnancy center or otherwise. And as I see it, only Senator Obama has made this clear. All McCain-Palin have is platform rhetoric about finding "new ways to empower," which is really rather tired, old verbiage more likely to mean embarrassingly little.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Subscribe
If Prof. Kmiec is so convinced that Barack Obama is not pro-abortion, what is his opinion of Obama carefully equivocating on the sanctity of human life in the unborn stages--stating, in Debate III, for example, that it is a "moral question" that people can come to different opinions on. Funny, Mr. Kmiec, I thought your Catholic teaching you purport to champion posits expressly that abortion, as an intrinsic evil (again, something you completely proffer as a defense of your credentials), is something that people may not reach different positions on in order to recognize the good.
If Obama was truly as brave and pioneering as you suggest, then why does he also Pander to the Pro-Abortion lobby. How do you explain his 100%, better-than-boxer, NARAL rating ?
Doug, whatever is animating you, it isn't a seamless desire to decrease abortions (a disquietingly utilitarian concern for you in how you champion that over wresting control over our wayward law itself), or a desire to see the public grow in its appreciation of life. Do I think you have jettisoned your values ? That's definitely not guess number one. But you have a gremlin in your conscience. Where is the personal stake pulling your strings ? Did you lose someone close to you because McCain didn't support a minimum wage increase (an odd foil for vacillating on which party champions life and love) or because he supported the surge in the War ? I don't want to think you've been promised a Supreme Court appointment (surely that would be too crude).
Whatever it is, no amount of your cherry picking of Catholic authorities can convince those of us who knew you when that you're not b.s.ing us, or yourself.
You deliver us death, man.
More abortions can be prevented with birth control, which I do not expect Catholics to support than almost anything else. Next is support and education, and adoptive services.
Even if oevswade falls, when would California make abortion illegal? A long long time. But we can stop it now with supportive services, healthcare, birhcontrol.
I do wish the personal assaults would stop on this thread. Let's progress as though both Doug Kmiec and Doug Johnson are sincerely convinced of their positions. There's no need for the personal attacks -- just creates noise instead of thought.
I am pro-life. I've written on this topic for decades, including a number of articles which appeared in Cornerstone magazine (1972-2003). I am also voting for Barack Obama. This decision has to do with a number of factors.
1. Being pro-life has long been equated w/ overturning Roe v. Wade. I believe that if we Christians really, really wanted to, we could begin that process at any time. It would not, however, be via electing Republicans to office (more on that momentarily). It would take a mass populist set of actions, rooted in complete non-violence and without taking sides whatever politically speaking. This was tried once (Operation Rescue), but the leadership of O.R. was highly flawed, did side with the Republicans (a fatal error in my opinion), and eventually lost track of its original commitment to totally non-violent means. But the other reason O.R. failed happened -- or did not happen -- early on. Namely, that the vast majority of Evangelicals and Catholics decided not to participate in such a "radical" action as praying while blocking abortion clinic doors. I think we could start doing this any time, and would have an excellent chance to reshape the entire abortion discussion.
What will *not* work is the continual voting for Republicans over and over again in order to appoint "pro-life" Supreme Court Justices. Ronald Reagan appointed two who voted to UPHOLD Roe v Wade when given the opportunity. George Herbert Walker Bush (Dubya's dad) appointed another one, Sutter, who also voted to UPHOLD Roe v Wade. Currently, Roe has been law for over 35 years, and it is very unlikely that it will be repealed, for all sorts of reasons. We Obama voters are not at present voting FOR Roe v Wade (which was authored by Blackmun, a lifelong Republican, by the way). We are voting for a radical break from Republican Presidents, who have owned the White House for all but 12 of the 35 years since Roe v Wade, and for all but 8 of the past 28 years (1980 being when the first overtly "pro-life" President, Ronald Reagan, was elected).
There are all sorts of reasons all sides could attack for why these pro-life Republicans could not and did not get the job done regarding the repeal of Roe v Wade. But in the end, isn't it apparent that trying to get Roe flipped by electing Republicans is a bit like trying to change a light bulb with a wrecking ball?
Doubtless, I will not be happy with some choices President Barack Obama makes. But as someone who has watched his career here in Chicago for years, I believe he really will attempt to find a middle way re abortion. But again, I don't think he matters nearly as much regarding Roe as we ourselves matter. That is, we can begin a social movement within this nation whenever we get the -- ahem -- to risk our reputations and possibly arrest by peaceful mass protest. That is the way to bring about social change for the marginalized, and we know this via America's own history.
One other reality that only the most self-delusional must grasp... there will always be legalized abortion in America. Overturning Roe v Wade would not do away with legalized abortion. It would at best ameliorate it, put more regulations on how, to whom, and when it could be done. But we do not now live in a Christian nation, and this Evangelical at least doesn't really want to live in a Christian nation. I know the leaders in my own movement, and none of them ought to be made equivalents to, say, the religious leaders in Iran. We don't need or want a Theocracy here. Do we?
I haven't given my reasons for voting for Obama. This is already too long. So, in short, I am voting for Obama because I believe he is extremely uncommon in the best of ways, as a thinking Christian in politics. I think he'll make a stellar leader. And I think the Christian Right has so badly frightened me, as a morally conservative Christian, that I believe Jesus is currently being held hostage by these people who are sometimes outright hate mongers. That, on top of what our current Evangelical President has done in Jesus' name, completely forces my hand.
My conscience convicts me to vote for Obama. And I respect those whose consciences convict them otherwise.
Blessings to all as they pray and act in Christian hope and faith.
Jon Trott, Chicago
Jesus People USA Evangelical Covenant Church
Excuse me for numbering my first reason, then forgetting to number all that followed. In the heat of composition, I guess I decomposed.
I am a Catholic and my Catholic conscience convicts me to vote Pro-life, what have I got to loose, I either save a life or save a life. On the other hand if I were pro-choice, I would either save a life or destroy one. You can't be pro-both if it is not for the good of society, i.e. giving a baby life. By the way, everyone who supports being Pro-choice perceives us as being anti-abortion and don't forget anti-death (yes, we are anti-death, what's wrong with trying to save a life when 93% of abortions occured because a woman decided that her baby was an inconvience or unwanted -go look it up yourselves, it's a multi-billion dollar business and they are using our tax dollars!! why can't i pick and choose where my tax money goes!?). How about perceiving Pro-choice people as being Anti-life or Pro-death for a change.
If someone wants to quote Douglas W. Kmiec, they need to quote him as an independent American speaking his opinion and not as a Catholic. He is not the Pope, nor does he come remotely close to a person whom the practicing members of the Church could ever regard as an expert. If he was truly Catholic he would never deprive himself of the most precious gift God left us--the Body and Blood of His Son our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. To be in communion with the Catholic Church is to be in a state of grace to be able to receive the Eucharist (ie. Communion). Since he cannot receive Christ, he cannot speak for the Church. By his own choice he has isolated himself from God.
To be Catholic is to believe in Catholic doctrine (think of it as a law), you cannot pick and choose. You either follow the faith or you don't, there is no argument from a Catholics stance, read the doctrines that have been written, don't get your resources from someone who is American first then Catholic. My religion comes first, just like any other "religious" person would say. The following is what Catholic doctrine:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church on when life begins and abortion (2270-2275):
"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception...having the rights of a person--among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life"
"Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable."
"Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law."
"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation...The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law....the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined".
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.