« Now we get it | Main | Somewhere, Bill Clinton is chuckling »
October 13, 2004
Kerry and PBA
Others do what he can't: clarify his position.
AT THE DEBATE last Friday night, audience member Sarah Degenhart asked John Kerry, "Suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder, and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion. What would you say to that person?"Whatever you think about abortion, President Bush was right that Kerry's answer needs some deciphering, particularly involving partial-birth abortion.
Kerry said, "I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you have got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother."
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart, which overturned a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortion--in part because of the health of the mother issue--the partial-birth ban that Congress recently passed and the president signed into law, does include congressional findings that the method is "never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother" and may in fact expose her to substantial health risks.
Nevertheless, the bill does have an explicit exception to allow the method if it were ever at any time necessary to prevent the death of the mother. Kerry voted against the bill six times.
Instead, he voted for the Feinstein Substitute that would have allowed partial-birth with no restrictions in the fifth and six months, and allowed partial-birth abortion in the seventh month and later for health reasons including mental and emotional well-being.
Kerry also voted for the Daschle Substitute that would
allow late term abortions for any degree whatever of physical risk--a standard, that according to a leading late term abortion practitioner, would apply to every pregnancy.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1233927
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kerry and PBA:
Comments
This morning CNN speculated that Bush's strategy is to turn out his base and Kerry's is to woo the undecided.
If Bush's base includes the estimated 2 million "evangelicals" who reportedly stayed home during election 2000, he should expose Kerry's atrocious record on this issue relentlessly in tonight's debate.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Oct 13, 2004 8:35:37 AM
This article should be posted in every Catholic church in the country. Kerry is seriously misrepresenting himself as someone who is strongly against abortion but bound to follow Supreme Court guidelines in legislating on the issue. He has never voted for any meaningful restriction on abortion. The article linked to by Amy shows he voted against the Partial Birth Ban even though it did purport to address concerns about the mother's health. His attempt to obfuscate his position on this issue is shameful. Abortions will increase under a Kerry presidency. I simply cannot see how anyone who believes that life begins at conception can vote for this man.
Posted by: jerry at Oct 13, 2004 9:14:02 AM
Jerry I agree with you but I just had this conversation with my dad... my dad thought kerry had a good point when kerry pointed out (regarding the taxpayer funded abortion question) that to not fund abortion with taxpayer dollars means a two tiered health care system where only 'rich' women can afford abortions. I think I cleared it up for my dad -who doesn't have a computer and so is informed politically entirely through the newspapers (Boston Globe) and NBC, ABC and CBS just like most people.
He's a Dem (old Irish and union guy) who cannot stomach Kerry but thinks Bush is a total moron. He didn't like Reagan but I think this time he and my stepmom (Dem) and going to go for Bush because here in Massachusetts, we've had Kerry up-close and personal for almost 30 years. The abortion issue doesn't factor in for them at all beyond what they see as Kerry's usual changing 'all things to all people' stance.
Posted by: Colleen at Oct 13, 2004 9:41:48 AM
"my dad thought kerry had a good point when kerry pointed out (regarding the taxpayer funded abortion question) that to not fund abortion with taxpayer dollars means a two tiered health care system where only 'rich' women can afford abortions"
This is why it is the duty of Catholics who've read the CDF document on Politicians and Abortions to point out it is a virtual impossibility for Catholics to vote for Kerry in good conscience--ie. without sinning.
Posted by: al at Oct 13, 2004 9:47:39 AM
> Abortions will increase under a Kerry
> presidency.
Probably the opposite is true, as abortions are decreasing in the U.S. for a variety of mostly good (noncontraceptive) reasons. And the worldwide trend is slowly improving, as contraceptives supplant abortions in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Worldwide, banning abortion appears to have no effect on the prevalance of the practice. It is not the police who will stop abortions, but womens' families and friends. The same is true in the U.S. Therefore, this debate has little to do with stopping abortions. People with Catholic convictions are being cynically used to support a right-wing ruler and his conservative allies.
Kerry's opposition to the ban on partial birth abortions has no effect on the number of late term abortions. The so-called ban is a charade, since the killing technique changes to another equally deadly atrocity. Next up will be painkillers for the doomed fetus, since despite the so-called culture war perpetuated by both sides it is becoming obvious to all that this is feeling,living human being.
Senator Kerry bears no responsibility for anyone having an abortion. If you believe Kitty Kelly, the same is not true of President Bush.
Posted by: George at Oct 13, 2004 10:05:31 AM
George, even if you believe than banning abortions won't reduce the number of abortions, I suggest let's ban it anyway and find out. That way at least our law won't be corrupted; our behavior we can work on before, during, and after that.
And invoking the name and bona fides of Kitty Kelley? Good Lord, man...
Posted by: John Heavrin at Oct 13, 2004 10:17:02 AM
For starters, Kerry will reinstate funding for abortions overseas, subsidizing it will increase it. George is living in the fantasyland if he thinks that making abortion illegal won't reduce its incidence. If you make anything illegal and enforce the law, be it speeding, alcohol, or spitting on the sidewalk, you will reduce that behaviour. Not to accept this basic proposition puts George beyond the scope of reasoned discourse.
Posted by: jerry at Oct 13, 2004 10:17:07 AM
George's statements are at odds with reality as well as Catholic doctine. The Magisterium has clarifid time and again that the Positive (Human, Civil) law has a teaching function in as much a people tend to defer to the law to determine the gravity of offenses (ie. "if its legal how bad can it be?").
The purpose then to outlawing abortion is not merely to drop the number in the abstract (which it most certainly will do) but to demonstrate to many (including many Catholics) that they are contemplating the commission of a very grave evil.
Posted by: al at Oct 13, 2004 10:23:25 AM
that to not fund abortion with taxpayer dollars means a two tiered health care system where only 'rich' women can afford abortions.
Someone brought up a good point yesterday - if the government has a duty to fund anything you are constitutionally entitled to, then it owes everyone a gun. We have a two tiered gun system in this country - only the rich get to afford guns.
In addition, 'everything' in a free market economy is going to be at least two tiered. Only the 'rich' can afford nice cars, nice homes, nice restaurants, etc. Not to mention, as far as "costs" go, it is a lot cheaper to abort than to raise a child, which PP subsidizes.
Posted by: c matt at Oct 13, 2004 10:29:09 AM
Senator Kerry bears no responsibility for anyone having an abortion. If you believe Kitty Kelly, the same is not true of President Bush.
Is there no level too low for Kerry apologists to stoop?
40,000,000 abortions have taken place in this country since Roe vs. Wade. Some of those abortions involved delivering a child feet-first up to his neck and then plunging scissors into his skull to murder him.
Many of the "doctors" who perform this procedure send checks checks to the Kerry campaign. They are in a better position to know whether electing Kerry will effect their livelihood.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Oct 13, 2004 10:31:09 AM
I wonder if George believes that there is absolutely no discrimination in the US? Apparently, if you believe groups like the NAACP, things are no better now despite the fact that racial discrimination is illegal. Perhaps we should just repeal all anti-discrimantion laws - after all, you can't "force" morality on people and the amount of discrimination won't change at all. The law has no teaching function.
Posted by: c matt at Oct 13, 2004 10:36:21 AM
For all of Kerry's superior articulateness, one weakness he has in his debating skills is the failure to answer questions directly, if at all. Because of his more coherent speaking style (good diction, fewer interruptions - ums, uhs, etc.) it is even more obvious that he is dodging questions.
Posted by: c matt at Oct 13, 2004 11:56:22 AM
al:
Any "teaching" function of the civil/criminal law is distinctly subsidiary and derivative. The civil/criminal law fundamentally to effect a practical (consequential) result. Otherwise, we should make all immoral acts illegal. Laws without practical result mocks the purpose of law and renders it object of scorn, undercutting respect for the law necessary to civil order. A law without effect not only places symbolism over substance, it makes symbolism subvert substance.
Sure, we should try criminalizing abortion to see how much it will discourage abortion, if we can. But we should also try other governmental means -- governmental social,educational, and economic programs -- that might be equally or more effective than punishing women/doctors involved in abortion. And, unlike the use of criminal law, there is no substantial legal obstacle to doing these things now.
If taking innocent life is the paramount issue, trumping all others, then positive governmental programs must also trump any any reservations one has about use of goverment in this manner, just as it is said to trump issues like elimination of poverty or war.
Posted by: T. Marzen at Oct 13, 2004 12:11:34 PM
T Marzen,
"Any "teaching" function of the civil/criminal law is distinctly subsidiary and derivative"
I should not that St. Thomas expands on the Augustinian principle that not all vices should be proscribed, so clearly he is aware of the priniciple that laws should not be so comprehensive as to breed contempt. Nonetheless, the principle that the teaching function of Human Law is a primary function is duly established.
Posted by: al at Oct 13, 2004 12:31:33 PM
"This is why it is the duty of Catholics who've read the CDF document on Politicians and Abortions to point out it is a virtual impossibility for Catholics to vote for Kerry in good conscience--ie. without sinning."
Not that I disagree with you Al, but I don't think many Catholics thoughtfully pause at the word 'sin' anymore. Look at the lines at the confessional box. Plus a ton of Catholics my father's age are divorced and remarried and w/o annulments. They were the architects of the wild and wacky 60s.
I think George is partially correct here when he says: "It is not the police who will stop abortions, but womens' families and friends. The same is true in the U.S." ---- I find that 100% true in my own life and I see my daughter and her pro life stance being slowly adopted by her friends who were formerly knee jerk choice teenagers. Like I tell my daughter, one mind at a time.
But I think George goes awry when he says:
"Therefore, this debate has little to do with stopping abortions. People with Catholic convictions are being cynically used to support a right-wing ruler and his conservative allies."
The debate is largely based on not increasing the latitude of abortion --- monies, laws, judges, etc. Kerry will, by his own admission and voting history, use taxpayer monies to fund abortion here and overseas, vote for any law loosening any restriction on abortions, work against parental notification of minors seeking abortions and appoint only pro abortion judges to the supreme court. I cannot, ever, vote for a candidate for any office who will have the power to accomplish those things.
PS. I see a pampered publicity hound over the hill, gossip mongering, overdressed 'author' who panders to the lowest common denominator. While Bush may not be a pro-life movement's dream (far from it) he at least has a record of either keeping the status quo and in some cases, actually doing good - pba and tax funded oversees abortions as a couple of examples. He sees the connection between embryonic stem cell research and abortion as well.
Posted by: Colleen at Oct 13, 2004 12:49:47 PM
al:
I'm sorry, but your quote doesn't prove your point. No one doubts that some are so depraved that they must be restrained by "force and fear" because they are not "easily amenable to words." But this is an argument for effective criminal law, not an argument for the criminal law's "teaching function" even if it is never effectively enforced.
I don't question that the criminal law may have a "teaching function." But I do question that a teaching function would either exist or would alone justify a criminal law that is neither effectively enforced nor enforceable. The criminal law is fundamentally a blunt instrument meant to hurt people for bad things they've done and keep them out of the way. It teaches no one if it cannot or does not fulfill this crude function. An anti-abortion criminal law that doesn't result in women and/or docs in the slammer will end up as a bad joke played on prolife movement and unborn children, not as a moral teacher.
Are you suggesting that the prolife movement might simply walk away from the abortion issue, satisfied of victory, if it manages to enact criminal laws against the practice . . . no matter that such laws are hardly, if ever, effectively enforced? I would argue that this would be an absurd and even perverse end of what should be a movement to save young human beings, whether through the criminal law or other potentially effective means.
Posted by: T. Marzen at Oct 13, 2004 2:23:06 PM
T. Marzen,
I suggest you read the article in its entirity. It sets out to prove that human law is necessary not only for the purpose of restraining malefactors, but is intrinsic to the instillation of virtue.
Now obviously the instillation of virtue is a function of teaching (habituation) since were it simply the product of coercion directly, it wouldn't be virtue at all, but rather coerced behavior. This is a principle evident throughout the Thomistic tradition on law, and if you'd like something that indicates that this account is a trustworthy one, I have a 40+ page compendium of Papal endorsements of St. Thomas which should suffice, in addition to the repeated references to this account and these principles in the Catechism and writings of JPII. . . QED
As for your statement "criminal law that is neither effectively enforced nor enforceable" this is by no means demonstrated. Clearly the state laws against abortion prior to Roe did a good job interdicting it. And who said anything about making it illegal being the only remedy? Certainly not I. So that's a red herring.
Rather, it seems self evident that most people equate legality with liceity, or at least not quite gravely sinful--as the sodomite marriage efforts indicate. Clearly this (as well as the effort against Sodomy laws) are aimed at removing the sanction that illegality occasions. And did/do anti sodomy laws, some of which prohibit even normal sexual behavior, cause widespread anarchy? I think not.
Posted by: al at Oct 13, 2004 3:10:23 PM
"some of which prohibit even normal sexual behavior"
Sorry I didn't mean normal. I meant perverse heterosexual behavior.
Posted by: al at Oct 13, 2004 3:26:32 PM
The Krazy Kerry Kampaign
For those who still don't get it...
It's pretty clear that John Kerry would enthusiastically endorse the following position:
- I'm personally opposed to abortion. It goes against everything I believe in. But as president I can't impose my faith on others. I believe the decision of whether or not to have an abortion is a choice that should be left to the woman and her doctor. As president I will only nominate judges that support the right of women to choose to have an abortion.
- I'm personally opposed to racial discrimination in employment. It goes against everything I believe in. But as president I can't impose my faith on others. I believe the decision of whether or not to discriminate in hiring is a choice that should be left to the employer and their accountants. As president I will only nominate judges that support the right of businesses to hire whoever they choose.
Which is more important? The lives of over 1.5 million innocent people per year who are killed by abortion, or the right to fairness in hiring? For a Catholic, there is no comparison.
Posted by: Matt at Oct 13, 2004 4:14:37 PM
al:
Well, then you (and we all) should be anxiously militating to make all forms of lying, lack of charity, detraction, parental neglect, masturbation, and endless stream of other forms of sinful conduct subject to (toothless) criminal laws in order that the law's teaching function might be fulfilled by discouraging "habituation" to sin. Pardon me if I suggest that this is an absurd interpretation of the Tradition, conflating the moral law with human law without meaningful qualification and imputing to the State an Orwellian mission to root-out human evil. Yikes.
I have not said that the criminal law lacks a teaching function. I do state that it is preposterous for the prolife movement to spend the time and energy on enacting a constitutional amendment or overturning Roe v. Wade, then passing what criminal laws it can in what states it can for the sole purpose of Making a Statement . . . especially when it might be doing more effective, immediate things to reduce abortions.
As for the effectiveness of pre-Roe abortion anti-abortion laws, there is in fact considerable controversy over how many abortions were actually being performed pre-Roe. (It is certainly performed very widely, apparently as widely as in the U.S., in many South and Central American countries where it is technically illegal). Moreover, recall that pre-Roe, many states (including NY and CA where almost half of all U.S. abortions are and were performed)had already legalized abortion. In any event, it certainly cannot be assumed that anti-abortion laws would be as effective post-Roe as they were pre-Roe (and the such laws wouldn't be enacted anyway without considerable value changes in the population unrelated to the presence of criminal law).
This is not to say that we shouldn't strive to enact criminal laws. Of course we should. But, as Catholics and prolifers, we have come to a pitiful end if we simply equate our obligation to protect human life with empowering the State to preach a version of the Gospel of Life that threatens punishment and imprisonment for failure to listen.
Posted by: T. Marzen at Oct 13, 2004 4:25:14 PM
Well, then you (and we all) should be anxiously militating to make all forms of lying, lack of charity, detraction, parental neglect, masturbation, and endless stream of other forms of sinful conduct subject to (toothless) criminal laws in order that the law's teaching function might be fulfilled by discouraging "habituation" to sin.
This ground has been covered endlessly on St. Blog's. The Church attaches positive obligations on Catholic politicians and citizens to criminalize abortion because of the unique depravity of the act.
The Magisterium does not attach the same sort of obligations other than to "negatively" avoid the things you list above.
You surely know this. Why continue dragging your heels?
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Oct 13, 2004 4:40:44 PM
I second Rich's response. You understand the difference. Merely restating a position that I've explicitly denied above, and provided a source for--that all moral sins should be made criminal acts indiscriminately--is not a serious argument.
Posted by: al at Oct 13, 2004 5:04:43 PM
Rich and al:
I never denied some obligation to criminalize abortion (though the nature of the penalties to attach to whom under what circumstances is open to question). I support criminalization!
But criminalization should not trump other means to reduce abortion that may be as effective or more effective in doing so. Surely, the proper use of the State here is to reduce the number of abortions, not to make a mere symbolic statement through a secondary "teaching function" of a form of law intended primarily to punish wrongdoers. The mere teaching function of law could be fulfilled by a Congressional Resolution declaring life begins at conception and abortion is bad without resort to jailtime.
Given a choice between a politician who proposed to reduce abortion by demonstrable means other than through the criminal law and a politician who proposed to reduce abortion by passing a criminal law that would have no effect on actual practice, you gentlemen seem to argue that the politician who supports the criminal law must be preferred although more children would die if he were elected than his opponent. If so, this suggests a morally preposterous, talismanic attachment to the power of the State to punish at the expense of the lives of unborn children.
Posted by: T. Marzen at Oct 13, 2004 6:46:22 PM
Surely, the proper use of the State here is to reduce the number of abortions, not to make a mere symbolic statement through a secondary "teaching function" of a form of law intended primarily to punish wrongdoers.
By characterizing your obligation to outlaw abortion as a mere "symbolic statement" you undermine that effort with your lack of enthusiasm.
And, yes, it does "trump" other methods of reducing abortion since none of those measures come with the positive duty that outlawing abortion does.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Oct 13, 2004 11:03:31 PM
