So much, it’s making me sneeze.
One of the points that is frequently raised by those who say they are opposed to abortion but who nonetheless give their support, advice and endorsement to candidates who are unequivocally and proudly supportive of unrestricted access to abortion (phew)…
…goes something like this:
You know, the anti-abortion movement just has to get over its fixation with overturning Roe. Instead of obsessing about criminalization, the anti-abortion movement should take the energy it puts into politics and work to find ways to decrease the number of abortion and improve the lives of women, children and families.
As I said, this is more than a straw man. It’s an entire straw movement.
1) Anyone who thinks that the anti-abortion movement is all or even mostly about politics and the law is obviously either a)unfamiliar with the anti-abortion movement or b)willfully distorting what he or she knows to be the truth about the movement in order to score points or promote a candidate. Deceitfully.
2) The anti-abortion (and I am using that term to head off the arguments about the definition of “pro-life.” Not in this post, please. We get it.) movement is like any other social movement. It is diverse, it is composed of different elements working at the defined problem from different directions. Some of these elements are even in conflict with each other, also normal for social movements.
3) The anti-abortion movement is composed of people involved in education. Others are working on the legal aspects of the issue. Others are involved in media. Others in supporting medical professionals. Others in lobbying. Others in direct support of women. Others in trying to build institutions that help women choose to carry their babies to term. Others in adoption work or work with the disabled. Others in post-abortion support. Others in prayer. And more.
4) Most of the energies of the anti-abortion movement in this country are absorbed in educational efforts (in schools, churches and the broader culture) and direct work with women in unexpected pregnancies. That is just a fact. For every individual whose energies go to working the political end of the issue, you have 10 volunteering at your local crisis pregnancy center.
5) Related to this is the “single issue” canard, which I’ll look at more closely in a later post from a couple of different angles. But in this argument, it usually goes, “Anti-abortionists are not working for health care reform with the fervor they give to trying to get abortion criminalized.” First, see #1-4. Anti-abortionists are mostly busy trying to set up women with medical care and social services and helping families work through a lot of surprise and pain. There are probably some in this movement that are, indeed, working for health care reform in various arenas. The rest are probably too busy making phone calls, filling out forms and holding hands. It is okay for people to focus on a specific purpose which involves helping the person who shows up at your door today. There are other, broader issues implicated, certainly. But not everyone can do everything, for then nothing gets done and the doorbell goes unanswered because everyone is so busy studying position papers.
Besides: You don’t want to start fixating on legislative solutions to problems at the expense of helping real women and children….do you?
Further, when it is political season, it is not really surprising that much of the public conversation turns to issues of the law and public policy. But that doesn’t mean the doorbell doesn’t stop ringing or that no one is there to answer it.
6) The implication is the Straw Movement assumption is the primary importance of abortion to the anti-abortion movement is as some abstract “wedge” issue, and nothing more. It is all about winning an argument, it seems, that someone started a long time ago for no good reason, the winning of which will…do what? Get someone a bit more power? It’s all pretty fuzzy to me. I can’t even figure out how that would work.
Years ago, I was riding in a car to a conference with Rosemary Bottcher of Feminists for Life, and at one point she said, “It’s about the babies. Never forget and keep reminding yourself – it’s about real babies.”
And that’s it.
Working to minimize, to stop abortion and abortions doesn’t win you friends and status in the United States in 2008. Not even, in more quarters than we’d care to admit, in the Catholic Church. There is no influence to be gained or riches to be made in the process. Certainly, politicians can and do use the issue to win votes and support from core constituencies (a subject addressed here many times), but politicians are not the subject of this post because the critics who wave the Straw Movement don’t specify “politicians.” They talk about the movement in general, opponents, workers in the vineyard who can’t ignore the call. The cry?
There is a lot more to be said about the arguments being flung about, feverishly, right now, but I’ve written this post with a very specific purpose related to this specific claim: that the anti-abortion movement spends most of its resources and energy on pursuing political paths at the expense of assistance and support of women, children and families.
That’s silly. It’s also dishonest and unfair and does nothing to advance the “dialogue” and “common ground” it is claimed is so necessary and important in regard to this issue.
Amen and amen. Thank you Amy, for this wonderful post.
Bravo!
Thank you, Caroline ;)
Heh. And thank you…NCR…
Excellent! Thank you.
This was one of the best posts I have ever read. Kudos!
The other area for prolife work is in chastity. This is really taking the long view, I know.
But when people don’t have the mindset that sex in situations not good for child-bearing is inevitable and that therefore abortion as a, “back-up” for failed contraception is a necessity, things get better in many ways, for many people, especially women
I agree with everything you are saying here. But, even without this straw movement, supporters of Obama do offer other reasons why an anti-abortion person might be able to support Obama.
One of these reasons that seems most compelling to me is this:
McCain can only reverse Roe by appointing judges to the Supreme court. He has not promised to appoint anti-Roe judges. McCain, although he has a strong voting record against abortion, is not a leader on the issue and does not appear to be passionate about it. Therefore, his use of the bully pulpit on the issue seems unlikely.
Amy-
Your take down of this argument is quite good.
Ironically, you address the merits of the argument, when the proponents do not offer the argument so much for its merits as for the “cover” it provides them in their vote for a pro-choice candidate.
I mean, if you’re Catholic, and you’re getting ready to vote for a pro-choice candidate—maybe even one who will be the President—you need some cover, right? You you need to convince yourself that what you’re doing is OK, right?
It’s a “results oriented” argument. A particular Catholic decides to vote for the pro-choice candidate, and works backwards from there to justify his or her decision.
In the law, they call this “bias.” A witness might stretch the truth, or testify without true sincerity, if he or she is biased towards one particular outcome.
Speaking of bias, how many of the people who advance the argument that you have fly-specked have actually had (or participated in) an actual abortion? To what extent is their argument offered as “cover” for what they themselves have actually done? It seems to me that this is a not insignificant “bias.”
Amen.
Here and hereI took on these arguments as put forth by Fr. Thomas Reese, SJ in the Washington Post. I just couldn’t sit by when he began extolling the pro-life credentials of the Democrats.
It seems to me that many have the wrong starting point.
The pro-abortion politician (or those that support them) starts with abortion view and tries to justify this view in light of Church teaching.
Rather, they should start with a Catholic worldview and then live and think according to that worldview.
They are living life upside-down and inside-out. So, while your argument makes perfect sense to those of us who see the world through the same Catholic lens, it is much more difficult to convince those that see the world through the lens of abortion “rights”.
I’d like to know where you think there is room in the Catholic Church for a woman who has had an abortion, been to confession and returned to the church?
Is there, in your view, room at the table for her?
Does this not require some kind of nuanced view of life, of forgiveness, of the Church and of the abortion issue?
I’m not asking you to assess whether or not her confession was good – assume it was. Assume she is indeed heartily sorry, and believes in the Church position and stance etc.
And I”m also not suggesting that the Church position on abortion be seen as nuanced. I’m talking about the role of a regular Catholic person. Say, one of her fellow human beings.
I am asking you to ponder what does someone who has had this experience do if she wants to remain in the Catholic Church?
Thanks for visiting! I am a little puzzled at your question, since the Church is a church of sinners. Of repentant thieves, liars, murderers, idolaters and abortionists (look up Dr. Bernard Nathanson).
One of the most revered Catholic women of the 20th century was Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Worker movement, a woman who had an abortion and then a child out of wedlock.
Christ comes to all of us, as we are. In Him we find, like Dismas the Good Thief, hope, love and forgiveness. He’s here with us, most intimately in the Eucharist. Come with an open, grateful heart, ready to love and then be sent from that Table, in turn, to love.
Amy,
Nice post but ultimately it doesn’t matter. The “Kmiecs” are just offering an “out” to people who are already liberal Catholics who, let’s face it, are cultural Catholics only. The only thing that would get the attention of those people is an anathematization – nothing less than the Pope saying something along the lines of
and even then it had better say “ex cathedra” in there somewhere (recall the rejections of Pope John Paul’s teaching regarding “WO” because there wasn’t a formal condemnation in the statement of those who reject it).
And even then, those people would claim that they were still Catholics no matter what the Church teaches (e.g. the “Roman Catholic Womenpriests”).
Kmiec, like Gary Wills, (and hell, while I’m at it, Benedict Arnold) before him, has sold out for his career. He’s making great money and will have extraordinary influence and will be at all the right parties for the next four years, perhaps even a Supreme Court seat. And he has convinced absolutely nobody who wasn’t convinced already – he’s just made them feel better about themselves.
Christian witness, volunteering and nonviolent action hasn’t changed a thing in 40 years of the largest genocide in history. They say “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” and I suspect that soon enough, the pro life/anti-abortion movement is going to cave altogether. I can’t say I blame Kmiec: that “straw-movement” has made a lot of people rich and he’s getting his while he can. Like most Catholics, he doesn’t believe that he has anything else to live for but money and power.
Thanks, Kozaburo. I’ve just gotten started.
“Working to minimize, to stop abortion and abortions doesn’t win you friends and status in the United States in 2008. Not even, in more quarters than we’d care to admit, in the Catholic Church.”
You can say that again. Our RCIA class had team members who tried to nuance the abortion issue in light of Church teaching. Ridiculous of course, and thankfully the issue only came up a couple of times over a few years. But people did hear them, and so Catholics get to hear this version from within the Church unfortunately.
My question is not meant to be argumentative. I ask it to understand.
I am a mother of four daughters, the youngest is 20. Through them and their friends I have the grace and blessing of often being surrounded by young people, many young women.
I hear their stories and their questions. This is one that comes up often. I often say something much like what you answered – the Church is a group of sinners. Everyone is welcome.
What they say to me is that THAT sounds false and insincere, which hits particularly hard in vulnerable areas like one’s very soul, when the people around you are vehemently angry over any possibility that an experience or opinion outside their view is “pure evil.”
I guess what I’m saying is that there are many young women in our world, perhaps many Catholic women, who hear the vehement political arguing and take it personally in a way that may keep them at a distance from the Church.
We are, after all, human beings ourselves. At least that is what I say to them. Who am I to say what is in the heart of another? It is not for me to judge.
I was just looking for some guidance from you – as a mother, a Catholic woman, and a writer – about speaking with these young women. Guidance for reaching out beyond the politics of abortion, to the grieving, healing and seeking woman.
Cindy: Take a look at Rachel’s Vineyard, (post-abortion healing) and at the Feminists for Life website. FFL is very specifcially targeting much of their efforts to young women. I think the broader point you raise is..how does the Church talk about sin?
These arguments are not only being offered by the Kmiec’s of the world.
This nugget ran in our parish bulletin in the Chicago suburbs a couple of weeks ago. It was offered by the parish Peace and Justice Committee.
A New Study on Abortion Reduction
The heated abortion debate has up to this time
been focused on legal measures. A new study
commissioned by Catholics in Alliance for the
Common Good concludes that government social
spending and economic conditions do more
to reduce abortions than legal strategies such
as parental consent laws. Joseph Wright (Penn
State University) and Michael Bailey
(Georgetown University) examined the dramatic
drop in abortions in the 1990s. The results are
significant. States that spend more generously
on nutritional supplement programs, for example,
could see up to 37 percent lower abortion
rates. Other factors such as cutting welfare
more slowly and higher male employment rates
had a 20 to 29 percent reduction rate. (By Mary
Nelson: Source, Jim Wallis’ Sojourners’ Website).
By reading blogs like America, Commonweal and National Catholic Reporter, I keep an eye on what liberal Catholics are up to and there is a very concerted effort going on to promote this ludicrous claim that electing Obama would reduce abortions and therefore is the right thing to do if you are anti-abortion. The best that can be said of those making this claim is that they are not being honest with themselves. Some of them however do not deserve the benefit of this doubt. The good news though is that most of the liberals seem to concede the point that abortion is wrong and that the Church is right to declare it intrinsically evil. This perhaps represents some progress.
Since there is a -zero- chance that abortion will be outlawed — criminalized — in the U.S. anytime soon, why isn’t a movement that focuses on reversing Roe v. Wade the victim of a straw man argument.
Look at the Church’s position on war: what credibility would the Church have had during the Cold War if it had taken the position that anyone who votes for the components of M.A.D. — mutual assured destruction — was not a real Catholic? Instead, it worked the issue around the edges and at least maintained its credibility……and did a lot of good.
Amy, I’m sure you know that the Church took a radical stand against the Roman Empire’s widespread practice of infanticide and that it did it, not by petitioning their senators in Rome, but by saving the children from the refuse heaps and taking them from their mothers after the paterfamilas had rejected the additional child.
Catholics do not control our secular government: we would do better to see the secular world as our enemy, rather than see it just a few tweaks away from being an instrument of Catholic polity.
And if you were mostly about helping people at your front doors, I assure we on the other side of the issue wouldn’t care. We’d be very happy about it. The problem is that you, and the Catholic Church, have taken a very specific stand on this very political issue — abortion should be punished through the criminal law. People do not stop doing things because we pass laws saying they shouldn’t. Banning something means you send the people who keep doing it to jail. This is called in legalese “an exercise of the police power,” from the same root as “political.” It is explicitly and exclusively a political question. If you stop advocating for changing the law, then you can justifiably argue that your position is not political. You do not, however. You believe either that 1. women who have abortions should go to prison; or 2. women are too stupid to be held legally responsible for committing murder. Both of these positions have serious public policy consequences. Own your position instead of being a coward and claiming this “isn’t primarily political”
Jim:
Simple question – would appreciate a simple answer.
So do you believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances with no restrictions, at any time during pregnancy?
Yes or no?
Should abortions be paid for by taxpayers?
Yes or no?
It seems to me that if your answer is no to either of these questions, then you naturally lead to the next question, which is, “Then what?” a question that implies a political answer. If you are for complete abortion license and taxpayer-funded abortion I suppose you could criticize the anti-abortion movement for entering into politics, but if you think that legal restrictions of any type are permissible, then…you’re in politics.
Karen:
I don’t think the point of the post was not that the anti-abortion movement is not political. The point was the capital of the movement and where it is spent. Critics of the pro-life movement say that it’s all about the politics and not about addressing the realities of life. Amy points out that this is not so. That this is false.
You know, the odd thing for me personally about my recent dust-up with a commenter on this issue is that I am actually sympathetic (not in necessarily in agreement, but sympathetic) with an argument that goes something like this:
1. Both sides of the political debate have used this issue to secure votes without “moving the ball” substantially in years;
2. There are other political issues where the party with the closest thing to the Catholic position on abortion has arguably quite problematic positions on other issues from a Catholic perspective; and
3. Better approaches to the issues associated with pt. 2 might have a positive side effect wrt abortion.
There are weak points in this, but again, I didn’t come to defend it, I’m just saying that it seems to me that a reasonable person might argue this.
The problem is that, now that these ideas are out there, people are using them for cover for a fundamenatlly dishonest agenda that pretends to be “pro-life” without taking the Church’s teachings on the subject very seriously. The straw man argument goes hand in hand with the “why does abortion have to be criminal when greed isn’t” argument.
I’ve been on both sides of this issue, but even when I was resolutely pro-choice, I recognized pro-life folk as people with genuine convictions, who were pursuing the broadest possible set of strategies for achieving their goals, who genuinely believed that abortion was serious misconduct with a victim, not just an abstract wrong. It’s odd to see people who insist they’re pro-life believing otherwise.
Cindy, the full answer to your question is a bit complicated by the fact that most priests cannot absolve the sin of abortion, because participation in the act itself (generally) entails automatic excommunication. However, there are many priests with a special faculty from their bishop allowing them to absolve the woman you describe, and there is a nation-wide movement to encourage this. See http://www.noparh.org and http://www.hopeafterabortion.com. And, if there isn’t time, any priest can hear her confession under the usual deathbed/battlefield type exceptions.
Then, if it’s the good confession you describe, of course there’s room at the table. That’s the point, isn’t it?
Re: #11 (Cindy)
The Catholic Church and the pro-life movement welcome such women. To remain in (or return to) the Church, all the repentant woman has to do is the same as the rest of us sinners: confess her sins, do penance, and amend her life with the help of God’s grace.
The Church goes beyond this minimum to offer direct support to post-abortive women with its Project Rachel outreach. So do many other pro-life organizations, such as Rachel’s Vineyard. And Silent No More is a pro-life ministry made up of women who regret their abortions, who seek to help other women avoid the same tragic “choice”. They, too, offer resources to help those who have already suffered from an abortion.
When will we have a candidate with a consistent pro-life stance? One who is anti abortion and who would not support a non-justified war and/or military action. The guy I liked is no longer running. I can’t vote for either of these guys and still have my conscience in tact.
Greg S.:
Your answers: No and No, never.
And now a few for you: Should contraception be legal? Should divorce be legal? Should fornication be legal? How about evicting the poor from housing? How about expelling illegal aliens who are fleeing economic oppression?
I’m against all of these, too, and see no value whatsoever in our present society in petitioning my legislators to see these things my way.
The “then what?” is to do what I can to fix these human problems without the heavy hand of the secular state to back me up. What would Jesus do? Start a signature campaign? Stop talking to prostitutes?
Oh, dear. I didn’t think about the automatic excommunication aspect, but the following indicates that any confessor can absolve if there is difficulty:
19. Regarding absolution for the sin of abortion, the obligation always exists to have regard for the canonical norms. If repentance is sincere and it is difficult to send the penitent to the competent authority to whom the absolution of the censure is reserved, every confessor can absolve according to canon 1357, suggesting an adequate penitential act, and indicating the necessity to have recourse, possibly offering to draft and forward it himself. (Source)
Jim:
Again, a simple answer, without immediately veering off into other issues.
You say you’re against taxpayer-funded abortion.
So, if Obama is elected and makes funding of abortion part of a national health care reform, you would recommend those who are opposed to that stand aside and let it pass?
If FOCA was being considered a Democratic Congress, with President Obama standing ready to sign it into law you would say that those opposed should set aside their opposition and not fight it?
Again- forget the other issues for the moment. Are you saying that if changes to the status quo of abortion were possible, changes that would liberalize abortion law even more than it is at present (with FOCA striking down state restrictions, or a move to put taxpayer-funded abortions in a national health program), those opposed to those measures should just stand aside and not, in actuality, work to oppose them?
Greg S:
I’ll be happy to answer your further questions, after you answer mine. It’s a dialogue — not some class that you’re running.
Jim, bored with the straw man, decides to push it down a slippery slope.
Greg S: Seriously, don’t bother. He’s not listening.
Ok, what the heck, I’ll play:
“Should contraception be legal?”
Yes, on the whole I think so, setting aside the serious category issue between contraception and abortion.
“Should divorce be legal?”
Yes, although perhaps not in exactly the current form.
“Should fornication be legal?”
My feelings about this are actually a bit complicated, in that there is a series of connected issues re. pornography, etc. I’ll give this one a provisional yes, in a criminal sense, assuming consent.
“How about evicting the poor from housing?”
Yes.
“How about expelling illegal aliens who are fleeing economic oppression?”
Yes.
Now, a question for you. Do you see any significant distinction in principle between these categories of conduct and abortion that might lead to a different answer wrt abortion?
Paul and Suchi (and Amy, of course) – thank you for your thoughts.
I will most definitely look up those links and organizations. I can’t believe they’re unknown to me. I’m truly amazed.
I do not feel comfortable navigating the waters of canon law and interpretation. I have no idea about the status of a priest’s ability to absolve – I have only the word of the woman who says she confessed and was absolved. It is not up to me to dig further, or even suggest that she do so.
I feel more able to offer her a chance to participate in a Catholic community of faith and to heal from the various effects of sin — as this is what I do.
And I simply understand her reticence. Again, thanks for the guidance.
It makes as much sense for pro-lifers to vote for Obama as Jews to vote for the Nazis in 1932. I think a body count of 45,000,000 unborn children since Roe justifies this application of Godwin’s Rule.
The argument that the pro-life movement can’t fight abortion on many fronts is, as Amy eloquently points out, nonsense. I have been active in the political fight against abortion since 1973. I have also been active in aiding women with crisis pregnancies from my college days when I was a volunteer for Birthright to my current position as President of the Board of Directors of the crisis pregnancy center in my county.
The effort to deter pro-lifers from political activity by those devoted followers of politicians who wish to maintain abortion on demand is the sheerest sophistry which, I doubt, even truly deceives those making the argument.
I am so sick of this abortion BS and the Roe v. Wade crap – I am so sick of just hearing about it! When is this country – the entire country – going to look at it? When are Americans going to be forced to look at what abortion is and does? After the defeat of Germany, German citizens were forced to walk through the camps to see the carnage perpetrated by the Nazi party – the same party they put in power.
Great post Amy! Thanks.
Paul:
Before you do yourself any further disservice, would you like to review “Veritatis Splendor”, Para. 80, before you proceed?
Just trying to avoid the usual results………and keep the thread on track.
… slightly off-topic from this “straw movement” discussion, but..
Here I am in a battleground state, greatly disappointed when I read articles like the one that appeared the other day in my Pittsburgh metro newspaper:
Abortion stances may take back seat on ballot
By David M. Brown
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sister Patricia McCann, a Catholic nun, and Rosemary Horvat, mother of three and grandmother of nine, both believe abortion is wrong and hold strong views on a range of political issues.
Abortion is a significant issue but not the sole determinant in their choices for president, the women say. They work as volunteers in opposing campaigns…
McCann, 72, an archivist for the Sisters of Mercy and retired teacher of church history at St. Vincent College in Latrobe, makes telephone calls from Democrat Barack Obama’s Pittsburgh office to solicit support for the Illinois senator, who is pro-choice…
…because so many issues, as we’ve heard so many times before, are equal in importance:
(She) opposes abortion but said many other “life” issues, such as ending the war in Iraq, make her an enthusiastic Obama backer.
“The Catholic church teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil, along with euthanasia, murder, war, torture, racism, oppression of people,” McCann said. “For me, life means from conception to natural death, so I look at the full range of issues.”
from: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_590617.html
Mike:
“The parish Peace and Justice Committee” lol, ’nuff said.
It would be interesting to know what the Orthodox do regarding their followers who are pro-abortion. Their bishops have the freedom to anathematize/excommunicate – they don’t have a Pope reining them in and consolidating power. That said, I can’t remember when they’ve used it.
I imagine the responses vary among the Orthodox churches. Dukakis wasn’t even close to admonished in 1988.
One should be very displeased that in an ethical evaluation of the candidates the pro-life voter would come up with the answer that he could only vote for the pro-abortion candidate.
And that he may be right.
As one who makes a very modest living in the pro-life movement, I have to say you’re spot on here. Nearly all of the energies of our organization go to helping women and their babies.
And I think I can safely say that our organization does not exist for the enrichment of its employees.
Thanks for making that clear. From your lips to the people’s ears.
Jim,
Not everything that is immoral has to be illegal. That said, there are some rights that are fundamental. The denial of such fundamental right is an intrinsic evil. The right to life is such a right. All human rights spring from this right. The reason the abortion issue is such a burning issue is that it deals with defending fully human persons who are incapable of defending themselves. Pope John Paul II wrote in his Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici:
38. In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of the rights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.
The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.
You can also look at the 1974 Declaration on Abortion from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
11. The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental – the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others. It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others: all discrimination is evil, whether it be founded on race, sex, color or religion. It is not recognition by another that constitutes this right. This right is antecedent to its recognition; it demands recognition and it is strictly unjust to refuse it.
It strikes me that this whole debate may soon be mute. If Obama is elected (as seems very likely in the wake of the financial crisis), there will be no chance at all of putting more legal restraints on the practice of abortion in the US anytime in the forseeable future. There will still be political fights–over public funding or the FOCA–but pro-lifers will certainly lose in an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress.
Then we will have to find a new strategy, one aimed at convincing more women that abortion is the wrong choice. I don’t see any alternative to it.
Jim,
I answered your question, reviewed the passage you’ve identified, and did not come to the conclusions that you apparently intend me to draw from it. Is this going to just be another game where you avoid all of my questions and insist angrily that I continue to answer yours?
Jim, arguing with you is like arguing with a tax protestor. You pluck stuff from the magesterium out of context like a tax protestor gleaning quotes from 1920s Supreme Court opinions, adn then you use them to support an argument that is premised on you having somehow discovered a truth that should be self-evident but has been suppressed by hostile forces. Trust me. That way madness lies.
Also, it continues to frustrate me that you’re unwilling to say what you would do that abortion opponents are not doing. I can maybe make a more educated guess now, based on your list of questions and the encyclical passage that you cite. But you do understand that Socrates was sort of a jerk, right?
Finally, I see you’ve decided to ignore Greg S, who has a fairly good argument to make, in favor of bright, shiny old me. How about you respond to him first? I’ll wait.
In the comment above, I should have said that this debate is going to be “moot,” but I hope that pro-lifers in the Obama era will be anything but “mute.”
Count me as a doubter. Let me also point out the straw in your initial argument, Amy:
“One of the points that is frequently raised … goes something like this:
You know, the anti-abortion movement just has to get over its fixation with overturning Roe. Instead of obsessing about criminalization, the anti-abortion movement should take the energy it puts into politics and work to find ways to decrease the number of abortion and improve the lives of women, children and families.”
Do you have a person to which to attribute this argument? The blogosphere, for one example, does not lack for pro-life Catholics who have serious doubts about the political side of the anti-abortion movement. My main critique of bishops is that they are ineffective. One of my main critiques of lay people is not that they don’t care about women and children, but that they lack the PR savvy to get the word out. Too many pro-lifers are still living like it’s the seventies.
Posts like this serve a purpose. They serve as pep rallies for the faithful. In the real game, however, the team has serious deficiencies. I’m not doubting the tenacity or the desire. But let’s bring the real arguments to the table: the coaches may have flaws in strategy, the tactics can be childish, and the favorable reviews are too fawning. Instead of a cheerleader spectacular in the gym, we need an all-night coaches’ session to hash out the truth and get the team ready for the game … where we can leave all the hayseeds on the bench.
I think it is well and good to speak of the non-political efforts of the pro-life movement. In the context of political advocacy, I think it is more than fair to evaluate the advocates’ political agenda. Personally I happen to support criminalization, so the argument above doesn’t perfectly align with my own argument. I would however say that there are issues of justice and even prudence that deserve critical examination along with abortion. This idea that if we elect people who just feel bad enough abortion then abortion will be ended is folly and is not political engagement.
MZ: As I pointed out in the post, this post speaks to a very specific issue: the accusation that the pro-life movement wastes time on politics while neglecting the good that could be done in the present. Issues that you raise will be addressed in subsequent posts.
I am revolted by abortion.
I spend a good part of my professional life trying to make the case.
I am still questioning the tactics of the last 35 years. I don’t think we’ve gotten very far.
If after all we’ve said, we can still bemoan 45 million innocent lives, maybe we have to take some of the responsibility for muddying the waters?
I think that people get up in arms at taking away their choices. Fine. They are wrong.
But how about we just leave that choice where it is and ramp up to make sure that people know that choice is wrong?
It becomes a moral issue. Not a legal or political one.
I may not be right. But the hollering of the last 35 years have gotten us nowhere, that I can tell.
Here’s what I don’t understand about your point. The “hollering” – what “hollering?” Pro-lifers work hard to educate and directly assist women.
What exactly are you saying?
That there should be more education and assistance? Who would disagree with that? Pro-lifers would agree and would tell you story after story about the obstacles put up to them in communities, schools and churches, obstacles that make their work of education, support and assistance more difficult.
Are you saying that no one should talk about abortion in political terms at all? When’s the last time you, in any of the parishes in which you’ve worked, heard abortion fixated on as a political issue?
What I’m saying is that your comment doesn’t make sense to me. Pro-lifers work very hard to address and deal with the moral aspect of abortion. That is what they do most of the time. If you think that pro-lifers should do more of that, are you telling them something they don’t already desire?
Why are you blaming pro-lifers for the abortion rate? Why not blame those in communities who block the pro-life message and throw up all kinds of obstacles – including legal ones – against the work of pro-lifers?
Well said, Amy.
I proudly wear the badge of a single issue voter because I am generally denied the luxury of choosing between or among candidates who are pro-life.
Life trumps all. If we are a society that does not respect the dignity of every human life then we fail in all areas others might consider more relevant to our times.
Take a look at catholicvote.com.
Curmudgeon:
Did you take the time to read her post? If so, please take the time to respond to it instead of just reiterating your position.
Look, it’s really, really simple. For all practical purposes, we have little choice but to “leave that choice where it is.” The S.Ct. has spoken it’s commitment to stare decisis. And the truth on the ground, at least from Amy’s perspective (and mine) is that folks actually have, “ramp[ed] up to make sure that people know that choice is wrong.” Very much so. So what, exactly, are you proposing that’s new?
If you are proposing a more “nuanced” political/legislative position, please explain how that is consistent with your asserted understanding that abortion is the taking of an innocent life.
If you are proposing a simple abandonment of the political/legislative argument in favor of silence, please explain why that is (a) necessary and (b) does not amount to taking a position in favor of something inconsistent with your beliefs, under Greg S.’s theory that failure to take a position amounts to the taking of a position.
If you are just proposing an increase in emphasis on non-legislative solutions, please address Amy’s argument that enormous resources are already going in that direction.
And in line with the displeasure I spoke of above, the voter should not be at all happy and should not be eager to provide any “moral cover” for the pro-abortion candidate.
Thanks for this post. I oppose abortion, and I get quite tired of pro-choicers saying things like “you anti-choice people only care about fetuses before they’re born, and don’t care at all what happens to the children who are born.” I’ve heard that argument so many times.
I work with the child welfare system. I do care, very much, what happens to children after they are born. It is because I am pro-life, in fact, that I wanted to enter a profession that cares for children. (And yes, the child welfare system is flawed. I am quite aware of that, unfortunately — but right now it’s all we have.)
It annoys me to no end to hear those same straw-man arguments over and over. This election deeply troubles me because of the volume of those arguments.
Hi folks,
I meant less our own ‘hollering’ and more what I hear politically. (I have Kennedy’s voice on “a woman’s right to CHOOSE!” ringing in my ears.)
I agree completely that people have done wonderful work and will need to continue to do so to support women and children.
And to Amy’s question about when I have heard it as a political issue in the parish – almost constantly. I work in a very ‘blue’ area, with a lot of thinking Catholics, who vote Democrat for a lot of reasons. Keeping abortion legal might be a reason for some, but others hold their nose and vote Democrat anyway. But our church leadership (locally) all but tells them to vote Republican.
This makes for a lot of parish discussion. Often sotto voce, but a great deal.
What I want to say is that I don’t think how we vote really matters on this issue. I know more than one person who has switched to vote Republican because of it and then feels a tad betrayed that nothing has changed.
I don’t think we’re at a point in our country when it can be decided politically.
So, for myself, I take it completely out of the equation. I work pretty hard for life issues myself, but I can’t make it a factor in my voting, because I either have a pretty contorted choice, or no choice at all. (For example, both Presidential candidates on stem cell and the death penalty.)
It makes me a bit crazy to have to do this subtraction, but I think it is getting us nowhere. I think we have to take the long view about societal change. Political change will follow that.
If my preceding post and this one still don’t make sense, then chalk it up to no coffee yet, or something.
Some say there is too much hollering.
Some say this is just one of many issues.
Some think it is just a woman’s decision.
Some say a lot of things.
In the 1850′s some said there was too much complaining about slavery.
Some said it was just a Southern problem.
Some said a lot of things.
If I went to my maker in that century I wouldn’t want to have to say I didn’t do all I could to eliminate slavery.
When I go this century I don’t want to say I did not do all I could to eliminate infanticide.
That is why some are single issue voters. I doubt God is going to be all that interested in whether I voted for the more eloquent candidate. Or the one more likely to increase or decrease government spending. Or the one right or wrong on a whole host of other issues. God may wonder how one could vote for a candidate strongly committed to expanding the greatest evil of our age. I sure don’t want to try explaining that vote with my soul’s destination hanging in the balance.
The post above that Obama will probably win because of the financial crisis is immensely frustrating to me. The Democratic Party caused the financial crisis because of its fundamental ignorance of the laws of economics. Starting in the Clinton years, they forced banks to lend money to people who could not pay it back. Democratic politicians on Capitol Hill protected Fannie and Freddie from Republican reform efforts because they wanted to continue the unsound lending practices and they were receiving huge campaign contributions from those two financial organizations.
The Democratic Party is also responsible in part for the economic slowdown caused by the rise in oil prices, since they refused repeatedly to allow oil drilling. This has damaged the economy, increased unemployment, eroded the financial position of the average American family and ravaged the airline and autoindustries. They have also increased minority youth unemployment by destroying hundreds of thousands of low-wage jobs through a large increase in the minimum wage.
Almost everything the Democratic Party does damages the economy and further impoverishes the people. When people are more economically desperate, they are more likely to feel driven through necessity to kill their children. The Democratic Party increases the abortion rate by ravaging the economy and making life miserable for poor people.
If the Republicans will start being rational and tell the people about the severe damage that the Democratic Party politician has done to our economy, McCain will win and the Republicans can possibly take back control of Congress. If we had a large enough Republican margin on Capitol Hill we could pass a federal statute to prohibit the killing of unborn children. Certainly we could have Supreme Court appointments to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Everyone in the pro-life movement should vote Republican for every office so we can have some hope of ending this evil and dealing with our economic problems at the same time.
It’s so true that most of the “don’t focus on Roe v. Wade” crowd aren’t focusing on babies.
I remember when I was young and more naive I thought: why don’t we give liberals the abolition of the death penalty in exchange for the abolition of the right to an abortion? It was so simple, and I half-blamed the right for holding onto the death penalty.
Ha! As if! I had no idea about how firmly the left is wedded to abortion, nor how it touches on so many tangential issues such as identity politics and the raw exercise of a woman’s power, sexual license, eugenics and oftentimes too the deep if unstated guilt over their own abortions.
Thanks, Amy for a great post. There are far too many caricatures of the prolife movement out there.
Kozaburo, you write:
Kmiec, like Gary Wills, (and hell, while I’m at it, Benedict Arnold) before him, has sold out for his career. He’s making great money and will have extraordinary influence and will be at all the right parties for the next four years, perhaps even a Supreme Court seat. And he has convinced absolutely nobody who wasn’t convinced already – he’s just made them feel better about themselves.
… I can’t say I blame Kmiec: that “straw-movement” has made a lot of people rich and he’s getting his while he can. Like most Catholics, he doesn’t believe that he has anything else to live for but money and power.
I’ve got to take serious issue with you here. A sharp disagreement with Prof. Kmiec’s position, I can understand. But you’re attributing motive to him here.
Do you have any personal knowledge of the man that gives you any insight into his motives? If not, on what basis do you make your judgment?
One can think that Prof. Kmiec is wrong while still allowing that he may be sincerely, conscientiously, honestly wrong. To claim, that “he doesn’t believe that he has anything else to live for but money and power,” implying that he’s deliberately sold out, is uncharitable, unless there’s evidence of his motives.
Cindy, the full answer to your question is a bit complicated by the fact that most priests cannot absolve the sin of abortion, because participation in the act itself (generally) entails automatic excommunication. However, there are many priests with a special faculty from their bishop allowing them to absolve the woman you describe, and there is a nation-wide movement to encourage this. See http://www.noparh.org and http://www.hopeafterabortion.com. And, if there isn’t time, any priest can hear her confession under the usual deathbed/battlefield type exceptions.
This is a ridiculous rule. I confessed the sin of abortion to a priest and received absolution and forgiveness right then and there. If I had read the paragraph above beforehand I would not have gone to confession and would not be part of the Church today. Thank God my priest didn’t turn me away saying sorry you excommunicated yourself.
I second Amy. I don’t particularly care why Kmiec has gone Saruman on us since it’s just sleezy guesswork. What we do have is a mountain of craptastic rationalizations from him. Let’s stick to those.
And as far as making abortion illegal. SDG said it well:
Laws (and precedents posing as laws) shape the contours of public discourse and culture, the ways people think, the possibilities they are open to.
As long as Roe v Wade stands, the pro-life movement is hamstrung not only in the legal battle but also in the battle for hearts and minds. People just assume and take for granted that that’s the way it IS.
If Roe were to fall, it would have a ripple effect, not only on legal possibilities, but also on moral, psychological and cultural possibilities. Is it a sufficient goal? Nothing remotely like it. Is it a necessary and even crucial goal? Absolutely. It is a cornerstone in any cogent pro-life strategy.
So the worst thing anti-abortionists can do is go into surrender-monkey mode on the legal battle. Our enemies want us to surrender on this, cause they now it renders the issue dead. That should be our first clue.
This whole argument that we should give up on reversing Roe serves only as an excuse to abandon the pro-life cause by people who were never part of the cause in the first place. We in the pro-life movement will never, ever accept Roe and we will never, ever give up the battle. As Mother Teresa says, we are called to be faithful, not successful. I don’t know if it will be in my life time, but Roe will fall one day — a lie cannot live forever — and when it does it will be because of pro-lifers who dedicated their lives to bringing it down.
Along with #54
If abortion should not be illegal, what should be?
Very well. Apparently Deal Hudson made a similar argument some time ago (google is awesome!) and Kmiec responded with the following:
(link)
So, presuming that Kmiec is being honest…
Can anyone change his mind based on faith or reason? No.
Can any layperson discredit him in the eyes of the public? No.
Can the episcopate discredit him in the eyes of the public? No.
Can the Catholic priests and episcopate organize the laity to oppose abortion? No – they aren’t even of one mind themselves.
And therein lies the problem…
Unfortunately I suspect that the truth is this: few Catholics – conservative and liberal – are believers at all. They are Republicans and Democrats first, or are just looking out for themselves. Looking out for yourself means putting money and power first. McCain is losing on the economy right now, and most people – including the nominally pro-life – put their investments and job security higher on the list than the “unborn”.
You can talk all day about Sts. Augustine or Basil or Gregory of Nyssa and know every detail about scholasticism, go through the exercises of natural law, expound on the history of the Church’s teaching on this or that, and not really give a damn about anyone in your heart.
Truth be told, abortion will never end because even the pro lifers care more about the issue more than the babies. If you saw a woman cutting her kid’s throat in the laundromat, you’d rush and stop her! But all you’re going to do is shout or pray and hold a sign as some woman walks into a clinic to have her unborn kid torn limb from limb?
Selling your soul for a Supreme Court appointment presumes you have a soul to sell. Kmiec has talked the right talk for years, but it may well have just been another academic exercise, much as saying “I’m pro life” or “I’m against abortion” is for most of us…
I agree with LargeBill. I’d rather not be one of the lukewarm that God spits out.
That, and read some of the comments and heard:
I wish abolitionists would stop politicizing the slavery issue. – Hat tip to the men who censured Adams.
And here’s the Curt Jester’s take along a similar line, which I just read:
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/2008/10/stephen-douglas.php#comments
Cindy, I understand what you were getting at with your comments at the beginning of this thread. Often the anti-abortion tone of many in the Catholic Church can make it seem to post-abortive moms (& dads & grandparents etc) like “Well, I guess I’m not welcome in that group!” and so they avoid involvement in the Church.
I know this is true because I lived that way for many years. It took a priest who knew how to “speak the truth in love” to convince me & my spouse that, indeed, the Church was a church full of sinners. His specific words were always: “In God’s eyes, it could be that I am a much greater sinner than a woman who has had an abortion because I’ve responded so poorly to all the graces I’ve been given & most women are make the decision to abort under great pressure from family & friends”.
So, I guess what I’m saying is that being the witness you are to your daughter & her friends about the Church is best thing you can do. We can never stop fighting this horrible Culture of Death on every level but we have to hate the sin & love the sinner too. JPII walks this line exceptionally well in The Gospel of Life, if you’re interested.
No sin is so great that it cannot be forgiven in the sacrament of Reconciliation. Many young women (and men) make many mistakes in youth or ignorance. Most do not result in the death of another human being, but some do. No one who is repentant of their sin will be turned away by God. We may deny Him but He cannot deny Himself.
As for playing the should this or that be illegal game. This is just more cases of straw men. Whether or not a specific war meets the criteria of the Just War doctrine is a point on which Catholics can usually disagree without one of them veering into the territory of committing an act of grave evil.
So to with immigration. I personally believe that the proper response to economically motivated illegal immigration is to speak out and work to fix the problems in the originating nation, not to justify undermining U.S. law as a solution to the economic problem. To that end I support a fine American priest who is working in Mexico with group of local nuns to help keep families together and working in Mexico rather preventing the enforcement of U.S. law in the states. U.S. bishops should be chastising the Mexican government, whose policies are causing so many impoverished people to illegally invade another country rather than the U.S. government for exercising its responsibility to protect its national sovereignty by controlling its borders and the presence of illegal aliens within its territory. Not to say that immigration laws don’t need to be changed, but Mexican policy is the real problem.
Either way, supporting what may be a just war and supporting the right of a country to control its borders is in no way either gravely evil nor is it equivalent to abortion.
We need to fight for life on all fronts all the time. Life is the fundamental issue! We need to keep up the pressure by standing up and speaking the truth on all fronts at all times, and to that end this article and blog are so helpful for we come to the water cooler to discuss, to wrestle with the complexities of the battlefield – noting that the lynch-pin issue is simple: protecting life.
Romishgrafitti, however, pointed out the flag on the hill issue, and it is political. Whoever owns the flag owns the battle. The battle won, Roe v. Wade overturned, is only the first step because it will allow for plenty of hard and necessary discussion, in the social realm, of morals, duties and responsibilities!
With two small girls at home, I want very much to crack our current culture. I am offended, read mad as _ _ _ _, that my girls (and all girls and boys) are enticed onto a road that glorifies sexual license. Our culture permits this predatory social posture (Walk through any mall and look at the big store posters selling jeans, if you doubt me.) The solution to this bigger issue (bigger than Roe v. Wade) must be largely solved in hearts and minds and in the social sector. Heaven help us if we tried to solve it any other way; I’m thinking theocracy – not good, definitely not good.
About what we can do now to battle the social issues, I thought Mary (#5) was right on with chastity education.
It takes sacrifice, time, charity and plenty of patience to minister to one heart at a time, but I don’t know of another way to do it.
Blessings from one of God’s simplest creatures.
Laura
Elmo and g — thank you both for your compassionate responses.
Since my post, I have done some research, and talked to a priest about the posts I read on here.
The first, and VERY reassuring, thing I heard was that it is NEVER the intent of The Catholic Church for Canon Law to be quoted out of context or to prove a particular point. In fact, use of Canon Law and the COCC should never be quoted in an argument. These are teaching tools based on Scripture and Tradition and are, therefore, to be viewed as sacred elements of prayer and spiritual growth.
So, I was glad that I wasn’t supposed to go barreling through the COCC trying to find “the truth.”
Secondly, I was told that if a priest gave absolution, then the sin was forgiven. Period. There are circumstances in which a Bishop has given guidelines and permission that is not public knowledge nor is it advertised. However, a confession can be made and absolution given, and nothing else need be done (after penance of course).
Further, I was told that use of the phrase “automatic excommunication” does not require any petition for reinstatement beyond confession. And, I was gently admonished to not take an internet post saying what Canon Law means or what the COCC means seriously — rather I should take the question to my pastor, my spiritual director and to God in my prayer and meditation.
I was told that a Priest or Deacon who has been educated by the Church and is up to date with the USCCB, if he was online, would tell me to go to my Parish. He would NOT quote law, scripture, damnation or excommunication at me. That goes against the teachings of the USCCB.
So, I really did feel better.
I like blogs and a Catholic presence on the web. I have learned a lot that way. But I think I sometimes put WAY too much credence in what someone says (anonymously) as if just because I read it in print it must be “true.”
Again, thank you. I feel sure that God guides me in my presence among these young women. I don’t think I ever felt the presence of a loving and compassionate woman in my life that way — and I believe Mary intercedes for me every time I intercede for one of these girls.
Working to minimize, to stop abortion and abortions doesn’t win you friends and status in the United States in 2008.
Really? I wasn’t aware there was any pro-life movement working “to minimize, to stop abortion and abortions” in the US – in fact, I thought the pro-life movement in the US was very largely politically opposed to the most successful method of minimizing abortions – free/cheap and accessible provision of contraception and fully informative sex education encouraging people – especially teenagers – when they have sex, to use contraception.
Nor in fact does your post mention any such thing.
My position is quite simple:
Someone who wants to take away the legal right to choose abortion, is arguing for the following set of consequences:
For women who don’t have abortions, the known consequences of making abortion illegal are:
1. More women dying or suffering serious maternal morbidity because of pregnancy and childbirth that damage their health (and for each woman who dies, the fetus she carries will die with her).
2. Women who have had miscarriages being abused and harassed in hospital under suspicion of having had an abortion.
3. Rape victims, especially young girls who are victims of incest, being unable to find anyone to help them to have an abortion in time. This added penalty for rape is just horrific: no one who has been raped ought to be forced to bear the rapist’s baby against her will.
For women who do have abortion, the known consequences of making abortion illegal are:
1. Women jailed, often for years, even if this separates them from their children.
2. Women having to seek out criminals to perform abortions, who may sexually harass or rape them, who have been known to kill, who will almost certainly not perform the abortion as safely – or as quickly.
3. Any woman who can afford it evading the whole situation by flying to a country where abortion is legal. (This is what happens in the Republic of Ireland: women aren’t allowed legal abortions in their own country, so if they can afford it, they simply travel (the UK or the Netherlands are the two commonest destinations) to countries where they can get an abortion.)
4. Sixty-five thousand women die each year in consequence of getting an unsafe abortion in countries where abortion is illegal. Half a million women die each year of complications in pregnancy and childbirth. These are real women, often already with families, who die because, in this world, people who claim to care about human life are more interested in making abortion illegal than they are in saving human lives.
The consequences of making abortion illegal are all bad.
The justification for making abortion illegal is that it may prevent some of the women who want to terminate an unwanted pregnancy from getting an abortion in time, and thus forcing some pregnant women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will.
This is not a bad means justifying a good end: this is a bad means justifying a bad end. No woman deserves to be forced to bear a child against her will. All women deserve to be able to choose when to have children, and how ma ny children to have.
That’s why I’m pro-choice.
Chaput’s recent video interview with NRO includes some of the clearest thinking I’ve heard on the abortion issue so far.
http://delicious.com/cemmer/video+Chaput
Why are Catholics even having an argument about whether a primary end of the anti-abortion movement MUST be to make abortion illegal??????
The Church, in the person of John Paul II, has clearly taught that the right to life is the foundation of all other rights, and that legalized abortion is completely unacceptable.
Here are Evangelium Vitae 72 and 101:
Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual … In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. (EV 72)
Because the right to life is the ground of all other rights, efforts to seek or pursue the “common good” while denying or undermining the right to life are fundamentally fraudulent:
It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop. A society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized. Only respect for life can be the foundation and guarantee of the most precious and essential goods of society, such as democracy and peace. (EV 101)
Why are Catholics even having an argument about whether a primary end of the anti-abortion movement MUST be to make abortion illegal??????
Because when abortion is made illegal, women die.
So, because some Catholics feel that women are included as having the right to life, and therefore find it unacceptable to pass a law making certain that women will die.
Especially as it’s been shown that legislation making abortion illegal does not appreciably diminish the number of abortions.
The country with the lowest abortion rate in the world is the Netherlands – in which women have free access to legal abortion.
It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop.
Agreed. And free access to safe legal abortion is part of acknowledging and defending the right to life. Making abortion is illegal makes it impossible to further the common good. That’s why it’s an issue for Catholics, in particular, since it’s obvious that it’s necessary for the common good to keep abortion safe/legal, and obvious it’s necessary for the common good to help prevent abortions by making sure everyone has access to contraception – but church doctrine is strong against the common good. I appreciate that this is a problem for devout Catholics. I don’t think it helps to argue that it isn’t a problem at all because devout Catholics should just wash their hands, stand aside, and let all those women be crucified.