It should be no secret that Senator Barack Obama is ardently pro-choice. He will not only stand firm, sword in hand, against any advancements toward overturning Roe v. Wade, but he will also, especially if elected President, charge the field to advance the legal foundation of “the right to choose.” Obama plays both offense and defense on the abortion issue. It might be fair to say he takes abortion policy more seriously than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
Nevertheless, Obama has his pro-life Catholic supporters. I’m not of their number, but I don’t find them any less Catholic or pro-life for their support of Obama’s candidacy. Of his Catholic pro-life defenders, constitutional law scholar Douglas W. Kmiec has received a fair share of media attention. He hasn’t backed down since his March piece endorsement of Senator Obama for president. On May 3rd, he reaffirmed his endorsement.
Professor Kmiec, who served Presidents Reagan and Bush I as head of the Office of Legal Council, supports Obama not despite Obama’s abortion stance, but rather because he believes Obama would be better at decreasing abortions in these United States. I don’t know whether or not Kmiec is right about Obama in this. I remain skeptical. Nevertheless, his position is reasonable.
To be sure, Douglas Kmiec doesn’t think Obama is more likely than McCain to appoint strict-constructionist or pro-life judges. Whereas McCain may appoint a Supreme Court Justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade, Obama is sure not to appoint such a judge. Rather, Kmiec sees his less than sufficient courses regarding abortion as follows:
(a) the continuation of an effort to appoint men and women to the Court who are thought willing to overturn Roe through divisive confirmation proceedings that undermine respect for law and understate the significance of non-abortion issues in a judicial candidate’s evaluation; orKmiec defends his choice of course thus:
(b) working with a new president who honestly concedes the abortion decision poses serious moral issues which he argues can only be fully and successfully resolved by the mother facing it with the primary obligation of the community seeing to it that she is as well informed as possible in the making of it.
If it’s a choice between giving a boost to the work of my fellow parishioners who week after week in thinly-funded, crisis pregnancy centers, open their minds and their hearts and often their homes to pregnant women (and Obama has spoken approvingly of faith-based efforts) and a Supreme Court Justice to be named later who may or may not toss the issue back to the states, I think I know which course is more effectively choosing life.In short, Kmiec doesn't hold up overturning that awful court decision as the primary, non-negotiable means aimed at bring an end to abortion. With that, at least, I agree.
My own thoughts on an Obama presidency are mixed. I like his politics of hospitality, which he projects without being wishy-washy or lukewarm about his principles and positions. I fancy his focus on personal responsibility. Unlike Professor Kmiec, however, I remain skeptical of what good Obama will bring to the unborn. I also smell the scent of imperialism in his foreign policy, a repugnant scent to this peacenik’s nose. His opposition to the Iraq War seemed to hinge on where we should focus our martial might, a might he wants to increase and position elsewhere around the globe. And, of course, he seeks the now tyrannical power of the presidency, which if not an evil inclination, is just downright nutty.
UPDATE I
Jay Anderson of Pro Ecclesia and Feddie of Southern Appeal respond to Kmiec. Both take issue with the professor's insistence that Obama is not pro-abortion, and Jay chastises Kmiek for misrepresenting the McCain campaign and for the disingenuous way in which he's gone about endorsing Obama. To quote Jay:
"For the record, I am critical of Kmiec, not so much for endorsing Obama, as in the disingenuous way in which he's gone about it.
As I've stated before, I think it entirely reasonable for someone to come to the conclusion that there are "truly grave moral reasons" that would justify voting for a "pro-choice" candidate like Obama. I might disagree with that assessment, but I don't think it a necessarily unreasonable conclusion for one to reach.
Again, however, my problem with Kmiec lies not in a belief that his endorsement of Obama is inappropriate, but rather that Kmiec is being dishonest."
UPDATE II
In response to Jay's response to this post (in the combox and on his blog), I've updated the first update to clarify Jay's position.
6 profound comments:
I apologize in advance for the length of this comment and the number of links included.
As I've stated before, I think it entirely reasonable for someone to come to the conclusion that there are "truly grave moral reasons" that would justify voting for a "pro-choice" candidate like Obama. I might disagree with that assessment, but I don't think it entirely unreasonable.
My problem with Kmiec is that he's being dishonest.
First, the reasons he gives for opposing McCain don't hold water because Kmiec at first supported Romney, whose positions on the issues Kmiec mentions are identical if not WORSE than McCain's from the standpoint of Catholic teaching. Why does Kmiec give Romney a pass for positions on which he now criticizes McCain? Could it be that Kmiec's antipathy toward McCain is personal rather than policy-based?
Second, Kmiec isn't being honest in favorably portraying Obama as the agent of "transcending political division" in contrast to the alleged "base tactics" and "divisiveness" of McCain. McCain has a proven track record of bipartisan cooperation. He's more likely to criticize his own party for "divisive tactics" than he is to engage in them himself. Obama, on the other hand, has proven himself to be among the most reflexively liberal and partisan members of the Senate - he was 1 of only 20 Senators, for example, who voted against Chief Justice Roberts (based on his belief that Roberts was a danger to Roe v. Wade). McCain has taken actual political risks that have often put him at odds with his own party (especially on issues of import to Catholics such as torture and immigration reform), whereas Obama has been nothing but a lockstep left-liberal who has evidenced absolutely no proclivity for compromising his left-liberal orthodoxy on issues of import to Catholics such as abortion and same-sex "marriage" (where, in fact, he has shown a proclivity for pushing the envelope even further to the left than most Democrats are willing to go).
Third (and finally), Kmiec isn't being honest in trying to make a pro-life case for Obama. As I blogged here, if you believe "truly grave moral reasons" exist for supporting Obama despite his support for legalized abortion on demand, then fine, support him. But do so IN SPITE OF his abortion position. And be willing to acknowledge just how bad he is on the issue. But what Kmiec and commentators like Gerald Campbell have tried to do is baptize Obama's abortion position so that "pro-choice" is suddenly an acceptable position for Catholics to support (rather than acknowledging it for what it really is: political support for legalized abortion-on-demand), and to make it appear that supporting Obama will actually FURTHER the pro-life cause. Give me a break!
I mean, Kmiec's reasoning on how a "pro-choice" Obama presidency will supposedly further the cause of "changing hearts and minds" and creating a culture of life is bizarre. One vehicle for accomplishing this miraculous feat that Kmiec talks about is the 95-10 proposal, which will allegedly reduce abortions by 95% over 10 years "by ensuring that no woman faces such decision without having already had the benefit of responsible information about abstinence and contraception [and in] the event of a pregnancy, ... objective information about fetal development, the proper guidance of a parent if the prospective mother is a minor, and the public's assurance of necessary economic support to carry the pregnancy to term, and if it be the mother's informed choice, the adoption of her child".
Let's lay aside the fact that Obama hasn't even endorsed such a thing, despite the fact that the proposal has been floating around in Democrat circles for a few years now, and he is unlikely to do so. But beyond that, Kmiec's claim that the proposal will reduce abortion by 95% is wildly optimistic to say the least. As one commenter has noted: "We already have a a mishmash of abstinence and contraception education in this country, so that's nothing new. And in the age of the sonogram, how will a few pamphlets about fetal development provide any further disincentive to have an abortion -- to say nothing of a disincentive so strong that it will stop 3,800 abortions a day??". Exactly. The 95-10 proposal is nothing more than a political band-aid to give pro-life Democrats cover (never mind that part of the proposal would be to make contraceptives available to teens). And it certainly won't reduce abortions by 95%. The critic of the 95-10 proposal concludes: "The kicker, of course, is that even these feeble, moderate measures are absolutely anathema to the abortion lobby, to which any national Democratic candidate MUST pledge obeisance." In other words, Kmiec is claiming something on behalf of Obama that Obama is unlikely to adopt as his own.
Like I said, Kmiec's being dishonest.
Kyle,
I don't think your original wording misrepresented my position at all. I HAVE been critical of Kmiec's endorsement of Obama.
But I merely wanted to clarify that the primary reason I've been critical of Kmiec's endorsement of Obama is that I don't believe he's being altogether above-board in going about it.
Please don't take my clarification as any sort of rebuttal of what you've written.
Glad to know I had presented your position fairly, Jay. Still, one strives for accuracy and precision. No apology necessary on the length or links, especially as both help to develop and to support your argument.
Unless I misread him, I don’t see Kmiec’s take on Obama’s abortion position as an attempt to “baptize Obama's abortion position so that "pro-choice" is suddenly an acceptable position for Catholics to support…” He’s not supporting Obama because he’s pro-choice or because he agrees with the pro-choice position. Rather, Kmiec says he supports Obama because he believes that Obama, in spite of his position regarding Roe v. Wade, would save more lives of the unborn.
Kmiec has given up on overturning Roe as a primary goal in building a culture of life. He looks to Obama as someone offering a different way. His case, as of yet, is unconvincing. I would need to see some concrete specifics of how Obama’s policies would save the unborn. But Kmiec seems to hope in Obama. Dishonest? Wouldn’t go that far myself. Wishful thinking, maybe.
That said, I can conceive of instances in which a hypothetical pro-choice politician would be effective in substantially reducing abortions, perhaps even more so than a hypothetical pro-life politician. Moreover, I suspect that the abortion problem is one that will be overcome (as much as humanly possible) not primarily through political, legal, or even economic means. Rather, I see the solution in conversions of heart and mind and on the cultural level. We won’t see any permanent legal protections of the unborn until there remain no traces of a pro-choice movement. That means for Roe’s overturning to mean much in the long run, the advocates for abortion rights must be persuaded to adopt a pro-life philosophy.
What are the "politics of hospitality"? How is Obama emblematic of this type of politics?
Some time ago I wrote:
"Too much of our political discourse is steeped in intellectual violence whereby the other is deliberately misunderstood and reduced to a false narrative. I say enough calling each other “baby-killers” or “anti-women” as if one’s motivation for his or her position on the abortion issue were a matter of reveling in the deaths of infants or the hateful oppression of women. Our public servants need to be leaders in this regard, making an effort to welcome others and their positions in a hermeneutic of hospitality. They should seek to understand the other with the awareness that the other is always more than their understanding. Our public servants should be in the business of civilized community, not barbaric alienation."
Obama has campaigned on changing our political discourse to one marked by this hospitality. To what extend he’ll live up to his rhetoric is another matter. At any rate, I’ve been impressed and pleased with his words in this regard.
Kmiec's claim that the proposal will reduce abortion by 95% is wildly optimistic to say the least
Maybe. But this initiative is unique in that it is the only proposal that actually quantifies itself, however debatable the numbers are.
Unlike others, I have NOT given up at repeal of Roe v. Wade. I continue to wish to see it repealed. But I know the loudest voices in that effort never speak of the number of unborn lives that might be saved under a repeal (even if their assumptions are as debatable as 95/10's).
The South Dakota disaster does not speak well of a Roe repeal having a profound impact.
Post a Comment