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
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
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".
McFadden was arrested and charged with 7 felonies relating to allegedly running a prostitution ring. Nice being hectored on morals by a guy that has none.
I am an imperfect, conflicted Catholic struggling to respect a woman's choice and protect the unborn life...and I voted for Obama. I live in Modesto, California, were Fr. Joseph Illo is being lionized by his St. Joseph's parisioners for a letter to his parrishoners that they must go to confession before receiving Communion if they voted for Barack Obama. While I attend a neighboring parrish, I have read the letter (and Fr. Illo's subsequent clarifications), and I have spoken with many of his parrishoners. And, I have several observations:
(1) Fr. Illo struggles to recognize that the "sin" is not voting for Obama, but voting for abortion. I couldn't find a single Obama voter who voted for Obama because his platform was pro-choice;
(2) Unable or unwilling to make the distinction, Fr. Illo misses the opportunity to inform and offer reconcillation to his parrishoners if they cast their vote for any "sinful" purpose...like to continue war and torture because of fear, or deny welfare assistance to the poor and marginalized.
(3) By making abortion a single-issue determinant of how one will vote, many Catholics are abdicating responsibility for other "life" issues. The black and white clarity on abortion provides shelter to the conscience of voters who quite honestly just think they are paying too much taxes, or want taxpayer funded vouchers to offset private education costs, or want less government regulation of the business.
The Church must continue its advocacy of respect for life, but many Catholics just cannot see past this single issue. When is the first or last time a parrish priest used his homily to condemn the death penalty, "enhanced interrogation" or this unjust war? Here in Modesto, the answer is never.
GOD has plenty of single issues upon which HE will send us to hell if we do not repent there-of.
GOD Bless us all.
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.