holyoffice (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} holyoffice) wrote in ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small} seamlessgarment,@ 2005-07-29 10:28:00 |
|
Who Is Pro-Life?
Okay, I apologize for posting about abortion. If it's off-base, please delete. However, I have been reading a lot of discussions lately in the context of John Roberts' likely confirmation as the latest justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ever since last year's U.S. presidential election, there has been much debate in the Catholic Church over whether politicians who support abortion rights (call them "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice," depending on your own bias) should receive Communion.
Essentially, what this means is that there is a debate over whether Democratic politicians should receive Communion - last year, John Kerry was the focus of this controversy, but lately it's broadened to include Catholic Democrats in the Senate like Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen. Joseph Biden, and, of course, the dread scourge of the Right, Sen. Ted Kennedy. The argument is that if these senators vote against Roberts' confirmation, they are supporting abortion, and are thus unfit to receive Communion.
This is largely the result of a multi-million dollar Republican effort to wrest the Catholic vote away from the Democrats, an effort that was spearheaded by Baptist-turned-Catholic Deal Hudson (since disgraced by a sex scandal), and which finally succeeded in 2004, when a majority of Catholics voted for the Republican presidential nominee.
But the debate over Communion is a victim of the shrill and polarized nature of the abortion debate in America. In truth, in order to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, Catholics must see this issue as being outside party lines.
First, it's worth noting that there are powerful interests in the United States who are strongly invested in the current abortion narrative, which pits "pro-life" Republicans against "pro-choice" Democrats. Both parties reap considerable electoral benefits from this narrative; additionally, any number of pressure groups on both sides are dedicated to keeping their membership believing in the simple "Thesis/Antithesis" narrative. You can see this in the reflexive criticism of Roberts by pro-abortion rights groups, even though it's by no means clear that Roberts would ever vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing abortion as a Constitutional right.
But this narrative is seriously flawed.
In fact, it's designed to maintain the status quo; the goal of both parties and their allies is for abortion to be preserved forever, but for it to be preserved under a constant barrage of abuse. As George Orwell wrote, the war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be permanent.
In fact, neither major party in the United States can be rationally called "pro-life" on the abortion question. Ergo, I suggest that, if Communion is to be denied, it should be denied to all elected officials of the Democratic and Republican parties.
First, let's be clear about what we're talking about. In comments he made defending the singling out of Catholic Democrats, Scripps columnist Terry Mattingly wrote, "The Communion issue was linked to people’s actual public acts in violations of clear directives and doctrine from the highest levels of the church. The issue was not what politicians did, but what supposedly practicing CATHOLICS did."
Fair enough. Most Americans already assume that Democrats are "pro-choice" - and that the "actual public acts" of Catholic Democrats can be construed as such. But what about the "actual public acts" of "pro-life" Republicans?
"Actual public acts" usually seem vaguely to refer to some kind of support for Roe v. Wade. But Roe has never been voted on by a single legislature anywhere in the country. So how can we determine how someone's "actual public acts" tend to support abortion?
How about if those acts lead directly to the funding of abortions with public money?
According to Planned Parenthood, in its annual budget of roughly $775 million, about one-third of that comes directly from the federal government (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/p
In addition, all of Planned Parenthood's 121 chapters receive various state grants (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-ne
This money is appropriated through the Health and Human Services budget, which constitutes a part of the total annual federal budget, under Title X of the Public Health Service Act.
Planned Parenthood provides many more services than just abortion, of course, and it also pays for research into various health-related causes. But it's ludicrous to assume that some of the more than $250 million that goes to Planned Parenthood annually doesn't go toward providing abortions (or artificial contraception, which is also problematic for Catholics); furthermore, that huge revenue stream enables the steady functioning of Planned Parenthood. Without federal and state grants, the organization would have to become an entirely for-profit service; it would also likely need to decrease its payroll, affiliates, and clinics.
The Title X funding for the current fiscal year, which ends September 30, was approved as part of H.R. 4818 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque
Also on Nov. 20, the Senate voted 65 to 30 to approve the bill, with 42 Republicans and 23 Democrats voting in favor; meanwhile, 23 Democrats, six Republicans, the lone independent voted against it.
On Dec. 8, Republican, "pro-life" President George W. Bush signed HR 4818 into law, making it Public Law No. 108-447. This is especially notable because it exceeds by $30 million the highest Title X spending signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the Right's most durable hate-figure.
In fact, Title X spending has gone up every year under President Bush (http://opa.osophs.dhhs.gov/titlex/ofp-f
But Title X and the related Title XIX (which allows Medicaid funding for abortion under certain circumstances) can't be the whole story, can they?
When Bush first took office in 2001, he restricted federal funding for overseas organizations that provide abortions. This was taken as evidence of his "pro-life" stance.
Indeed, but just two years later, he quietly reversed that stand, and Congress approved a $15 billion aid package designed to fight AIDS in Africa - money that would go to overseas groups which provide abortion (http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/2003/LT03
Nor is this a matter of a few gnomes in the Republican Party voting pro-abortion on a few obscure appropriations bills and hoping that no one will notice. The Republicans for Choice Political Action Committee salutes eight Republican Senators (including two Catholics and one Orthodox Christian) as being consistently "pro-choice." These senators will vote on the confirmation of Roberts, yet there has been no talk in "pro-life" circles about influencing their votes (http://www.republicansforchoice.com/)
Finally, this isn't only a federal matter. Prominent "pro-choice" Republican Catholics include former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, New York governor George Pataki, and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is not only enthusiastically committed to support access to abortions, but also signed a law making millions available for fetal stem cell research.
Schwarzenegger is indeed an interesting case. The same year that Schwarzenegger successfully drove California Gov. Gray Davis out of office and then won a recall election, Sacramento Bishop William Wiegand denounced Davis in a homily, and told the Democratic governor not to receive Communion for his abortion stance. Tellingly, such condemnations have not been directed at Schwarzenegger (http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/of
Nor do "pro-choice" Republicans have a hard time winning elections. Connecticut's three Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives are pro-choice; at least three of Bush's Cabinet secretaries in his first term were "pro-choice"; his current Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, is "pro-choice"; "pro-choice" Republican M. Jodi Rell, governor of Connecticut, recently signed into law a bill legalizing same-sex civil unions.
The point of all this is not that there are a few isolated supporters of abortion rights in the Republican Party, but that the Republican Party, whatever its official platform says, is effectively pro-abortion: its members at the state and federal levels regularly vote to approve funding increases for agencies that provide abortions, even as its judicial appointees aver that Roe v. Wade is "a settled issue" (http://www.raisingkaine.com/blog/?p=54
The reason that this isn't brought to light more often is that there are powerful vested interests devoted to preserving the narrative of "Democrats are pro-choice and Republicans are pro-life." This narrative serves both sides well, both in terms of votes and in terms of political donations. Pro-choice groups would probably be less successful in stirring up the membership if they said frankly, "Abortion is never going to be outlawed," while Pro-life groups benefit from the political access that comes with supplying loyal footsoldiers to the Republican Party. This is a win-win situation unless, of course, you believe that human lives are at stake.
If, as Mattingly says, the issue of Communion should be decided based on the "public acts of individual Catholics," then I submit that Communion should be denied to all Catholic politicians from the two major parties until they can prove that they have (a) never voted against legislation that would restrict abortion, (b) never voted for a single appropriations bill that included public funding for abortion, and (c) never agreed to run on a slate alongside a pro-abortion politician from their party.
Jesus is not a ward heeler. The idea that Communion should be dispensed as a reward for getting the vote out is disgusting; it constitutes a violation of the sacrament, in my view. The entire debate over Catholic politicians and abortion is meaningless as long as the current narrative is allowed to stand. In order for someone to be "pro-life" on even the single question of abortion, we should be consistent in requiring that their actions match their words.
Okay, I apologize for posting about abortion. If it's off-base, please delete. However, I have been reading a lot of discussions lately in the context of John Roberts' likely confirmation as the latest justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ever since last year's U.S. presidential election, there has been much debate in the Catholic Church over whether politicians who support abortion rights (call them "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice," depending on your own bias) should receive Communion.
Essentially, what this means is that there is a debate over whether Democratic politicians should receive Communion - last year, John Kerry was the focus of this controversy, but lately it's broadened to include Catholic Democrats in the Senate like Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen. Joseph Biden, and, of course, the dread scourge of the Right, Sen. Ted Kennedy. The argument is that if these senators vote against Roberts' confirmation, they are supporting abortion, and are thus unfit to receive Communion.
This is largely the result of a multi-million dollar Republican effort to wrest the Catholic vote away from the Democrats, an effort that was spearheaded by Baptist-turned-Catholic Deal Hudson (since disgraced by a sex scandal), and which finally succeeded in 2004, when a majority of Catholics voted for the Republican presidential nominee.
But the debate over Communion is a victim of the shrill and polarized nature of the abortion debate in America. In truth, in order to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, Catholics must see this issue as being outside party lines.
First, it's worth noting that there are powerful interests in the United States who are strongly invested in the current abortion narrative, which pits "pro-life" Republicans against "pro-choice" Democrats. Both parties reap considerable electoral benefits from this narrative; additionally, any number of pressure groups on both sides are dedicated to keeping their membership believing in the simple "Thesis/Antithesis" narrative. You can see this in the reflexive criticism of Roberts by pro-abortion rights groups, even though it's by no means clear that Roberts would ever vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing abortion as a Constitutional right.
But this narrative is seriously flawed.
In fact, it's designed to maintain the status quo; the goal of both parties and their allies is for abortion to be preserved forever, but for it to be preserved under a constant barrage of abuse. As George Orwell wrote, the war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be permanent.
In fact, neither major party in the United States can be rationally called "pro-life" on the abortion question. Ergo, I suggest that, if Communion is to be denied, it should be denied to all elected officials of the Democratic and Republican parties.
First, let's be clear about what we're talking about. In comments he made defending the singling out of Catholic Democrats, Scripps columnist Terry Mattingly wrote, "The Communion issue was linked to people’s actual public acts in violations of clear directives and doctrine from the highest levels of the church. The issue was not what politicians did, but what supposedly practicing CATHOLICS did."
Fair enough. Most Americans already assume that Democrats are "pro-choice" - and that the "actual public acts" of Catholic Democrats can be construed as such. But what about the "actual public acts" of "pro-life" Republicans?
"Actual public acts" usually seem vaguely to refer to some kind of support for Roe v. Wade. But Roe has never been voted on by a single legislature anywhere in the country. So how can we determine how someone's "actual public acts" tend to support abortion?
How about if those acts lead directly to the funding of abortions with public money?
According to Planned Parenthood, in its annual budget of roughly $775 million, about one-third of that comes directly from the federal government (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/p
In addition, all of Planned Parenthood's 121 chapters receive various state grants (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-ne
This money is appropriated through the Health and Human Services budget, which constitutes a part of the total annual federal budget, under Title X of the Public Health Service Act.
Planned Parenthood provides many more services than just abortion, of course, and it also pays for research into various health-related causes. But it's ludicrous to assume that some of the more than $250 million that goes to Planned Parenthood annually doesn't go toward providing abortions (or artificial contraception, which is also problematic for Catholics); furthermore, that huge revenue stream enables the steady functioning of Planned Parenthood. Without federal and state grants, the organization would have to become an entirely for-profit service; it would also likely need to decrease its payroll, affiliates, and clinics.
The Title X funding for the current fiscal year, which ends September 30, was approved as part of H.R. 4818 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque
Also on Nov. 20, the Senate voted 65 to 30 to approve the bill, with 42 Republicans and 23 Democrats voting in favor; meanwhile, 23 Democrats, six Republicans, the lone independent voted against it.
On Dec. 8, Republican, "pro-life" President George W. Bush signed HR 4818 into law, making it Public Law No. 108-447. This is especially notable because it exceeds by $30 million the highest Title X spending signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the Right's most durable hate-figure.
In fact, Title X spending has gone up every year under President Bush (http://opa.osophs.dhhs.gov/titlex/ofp-f
But Title X and the related Title XIX (which allows Medicaid funding for abortion under certain circumstances) can't be the whole story, can they?
When Bush first took office in 2001, he restricted federal funding for overseas organizations that provide abortions. This was taken as evidence of his "pro-life" stance.
Indeed, but just two years later, he quietly reversed that stand, and Congress approved a $15 billion aid package designed to fight AIDS in Africa - money that would go to overseas groups which provide abortion (http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/2003/LT03
Nor is this a matter of a few gnomes in the Republican Party voting pro-abortion on a few obscure appropriations bills and hoping that no one will notice. The Republicans for Choice Political Action Committee salutes eight Republican Senators (including two Catholics and one Orthodox Christian) as being consistently "pro-choice." These senators will vote on the confirmation of Roberts, yet there has been no talk in "pro-life" circles about influencing their votes (http://www.republicansforchoice.com/)
Finally, this isn't only a federal matter. Prominent "pro-choice" Republican Catholics include former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, New York governor George Pataki, and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is not only enthusiastically committed to support access to abortions, but also signed a law making millions available for fetal stem cell research.
Schwarzenegger is indeed an interesting case. The same year that Schwarzenegger successfully drove California Gov. Gray Davis out of office and then won a recall election, Sacramento Bishop William Wiegand denounced Davis in a homily, and told the Democratic governor not to receive Communion for his abortion stance. Tellingly, such condemnations have not been directed at Schwarzenegger (http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/of
Nor do "pro-choice" Republicans have a hard time winning elections. Connecticut's three Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives are pro-choice; at least three of Bush's Cabinet secretaries in his first term were "pro-choice"; his current Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, is "pro-choice"; "pro-choice" Republican M. Jodi Rell, governor of Connecticut, recently signed into law a bill legalizing same-sex civil unions.
The point of all this is not that there are a few isolated supporters of abortion rights in the Republican Party, but that the Republican Party, whatever its official platform says, is effectively pro-abortion: its members at the state and federal levels regularly vote to approve funding increases for agencies that provide abortions, even as its judicial appointees aver that Roe v. Wade is "a settled issue" (http://www.raisingkaine.com/blog/?p=54
The reason that this isn't brought to light more often is that there are powerful vested interests devoted to preserving the narrative of "Democrats are pro-choice and Republicans are pro-life." This narrative serves both sides well, both in terms of votes and in terms of political donations. Pro-choice groups would probably be less successful in stirring up the membership if they said frankly, "Abortion is never going to be outlawed," while Pro-life groups benefit from the political access that comes with supplying loyal footsoldiers to the Republican Party. This is a win-win situation unless, of course, you believe that human lives are at stake.
If, as Mattingly says, the issue of Communion should be decided based on the "public acts of individual Catholics," then I submit that Communion should be denied to all Catholic politicians from the two major parties until they can prove that they have (a) never voted against legislation that would restrict abortion, (b) never voted for a single appropriations bill that included public funding for abortion, and (c) never agreed to run on a slate alongside a pro-abortion politician from their party.
Jesus is not a ward heeler. The idea that Communion should be dispensed as a reward for getting the vote out is disgusting; it constitutes a violation of the sacrament, in my view. The entire debate over Catholic politicians and abortion is meaningless as long as the current narrative is allowed to stand. In order for someone to be "pro-life" on even the single question of abortion, we should be consistent in requiring that their actions match their words.
