From the Hufffington Post
 Life matters.  From conception to natural death, it matters.  This is  a principle Catholics must carry with them into the voting booth.
But it is not a simple binary equation.  It is not an either/or  proposition. In the end, determining which candidate better serves the  interests of life is a prudential judgment. A simple promise to overturn  Roe v. Wade does not automatically make one the pro-life candidate.
In my estimation, Barack Obama is the more seriously pro-life  candidate in this year's presidential contest.  Voters should not forget  his early connections to the Catholic Church.  He attended St. Francis  of Assisi Catholic School in Jakarta for three years.  His mother, Ann  Dunham, assisted Fr. A.M. Kaderman, S.J., in managing an  English-language training school during this time.  When Barack Obama  worked as a community organizer in the middle 1980s, he did so out of  the rectory of Holy Rosary Catholic Church on the South Side of Chicago,  where he helped to coordinate the efforts of eight Catholic parishes  and numerous other religious organizations to improve the lives of  unemployed steel workers and others whom the financialized economy was  leaving in the dust.  He still considers the late Joseph Cardinal  Bernardin of Chicago an inspiration.  (On this background, see the  wonderful new book by the Catholic legal scholars Douglas Kmiec and Ed  Gaffney, and the Harvard Medical School Professor of Pediatrics, Dr.  Patrick Whelan, "America Undecided:  Catholic, Independent, and Social  Justice Perspectives on Election 2012.")
Kmiec, Gaffney and Whelan stress that there is no more powerful  abortifacient in this country than poverty.  It may be difficult for the  comfortable, upper-middle class conservative Catholics who support Mitt  Romney for "pro-life" reasons to associate with this reality.  But  imagine for a moment a young woman, 18 or 20, 25 or even 30 years old.   She comes from a broken, impoverished family and has little real  economic future.
She's gone through a bad relationship or two, and  faces a soul-crushing existence being nickel-and-dimed through a series  of dead-end jobs in America's service economy.  She is poor, desperate,  alone and maybe even threatened by her boyfriend.  The jobs are so  haphazard, the poverty so shattering, that family formation is  impossible.  A powerful description of the plight of women who lead  these lives of invisible suffering can be found in Barbara Ehrenreich's  "Nickel-and-Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" (2001).  Conditions  have only grown more acute in the decade since Ehrenreich wrote her  book.
In fear, in humiliation, in aching isolation, she seeks an abortion.   This bleak portrait depicts the tragic dimensions of the abortion  crisis in America.  It is a crisis born not of the selfish pursuit of  the glittering baubles of American materialism, but of the  panic-stricken sense of having nowhere to turn.  And it is fed at the  top by politicians who prize Randian individualism and the unfettered  quest for riches above every human value.
The Netherlands and Germany have abortion rates less than one-third  of the United States. Why? Because those nations address the cause of  abortion at its root -- poverty.  They provide pre-natal and post-natal  care, and a social system that genuinely assists the new mother who  chooses life.
President Obama's Affordable Care Act represents a small, measured  step in the direction of maternal assistance for women in crisis.  It  does not go nearly far enough, in my judgment, but in our present  political environment it is probably the best that can be achieved.  It  is grounded on the basic premise of Catholic social thought, reiterated  time and again by the popes, from Leo XIII to Benedict XVI, that health  care is a fundamental right.  It is the indispensable starting point of a  seamless ethic of life.
The Affordable Care Act legislatively recognizes this fundamental  moral right.  Among its provisions, the ACA creates a Pregnancy  Assistance Fund.  Specifically on the issue of crisis pregnancy, this  fund assists in several ways.  It can cover the salary of counselors who  point young women in the direction of social services.  It supports  parenting classes and aids with day-care costs at colleges and  universities.  It teaches and supports and, in sum, helps equip  panicked, pregnant young women to become responsible, future-directed  young mothers.
The Affordable Care Act helps save unborn lives in other ways as  well.  It increases tax credits for adoptions, making this loving  alternative more affordable and more readily available.  It recognizes  that Medicaid currently pays for one-third of all live births in America  and promises to maintain adequate funding for this vital service.   Abortion is a serious wrong, but it is better, as the proverbial saying  goes, to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
And what do the Republicans, that ostensible pro-life party, offer in  return?  They deny that health care is a basic right, describing it  instead as a matter of "personal responsibility," thereby repudiating a  foundational principle of Catholic social thought.  They promise the  repeal of the Affordable Care Act, including presumably the Pregnancy  Assistance Fund and the adoption credits.  They solemnly pledge to slash  budgetary allocations to Medicaid, thus fueling the ever-deepening  desperation of the pregnant poor.  And in life's final years, the  Republicans will voucherize Medicare, putting at risk the health and  well-being of millions of senior citizens.
Well, one might retort, perhaps the Republicans will at last reverse Roe v. Wade.  The reversal of Roe v. Wade has been a part of every Republican platform since 1980.  Hasn't  happened yet.  Catholics who cling to this thin reed should prepare for  disappointment.  The Supreme Court will perpetually be one vote short of  reversal.
A recent poll shows that Catholics prefer candidates who give  attention to the poor than abortion (see Chicago Tribune, "Catholics  Want More Focus on Poverty Than Abortion, Survey Finds," October 24,  2012).  In reality, it is not one or the other.  Fight poverty, and you  fight abortion. So, I am voting for life -- Obama-Biden 2012.
Mr. Reid has it right.  To end abortion you need to end poverty.  And have access to birth control.
Suck that Lyin' Ryan, Frothy Mixture, and Newt! 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment