Peñalver and Weigel on voting for Obama

George Weigel adds to the debate about whether one can vote for Obama in light of his pro-abortion stance. (I discussed this issue earlier here.) Meanwhile, Robert George thoroughly substantiates the claim (was anyone doubting this?) that

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.

George could have also pointed out that the Freedom of Choice Act, which Obama has promised to legislate, would probably dash the hopes of ever bringing judicial review to Roe v. Wade.

Eduardo Peñalver, like many of the Commonweal band, thinks Weigel's argument is false. He also believes Pope John Paul and Cardinal George were mistaken in asserting that the right of the unborn to not be murdered must be protected by law. Somehow he believes, like segregation, this issue just gets embroiled in a legislative and judicial quid pro quo: ideally, such laws would be superfluous, since no one would be doing these actions anyway. I wonder, in what society have laws against murder ever been unnecessary? Drawing the analogy with segregation, Peñalver claims, "the state may sometimes choose (for any number of valid reasons) not to interfere with private conduct, even though that means that some private parties might thereby be permitted to engage in racial subordination."

This is obviously false for both cases: the law does not prohibit private acts of segregation, but public ones. Furthermore, abortion is never "private conduct", which should go without saying, for similar reasons that polygamy isn't, and so on.

Peñalver also falls into the mistake of seeing abortion and war as equivalent evils. Even though the invasion and overthrow of Iraq was unjust, this does not mean it is equivalent with abortion, which is murder. The crime of waging an unjust war does not share in the same moral genus as murder, for a number of reasons. Now, if non-combatants are targeted and killed as a policy of war, or if the war is simply the murder of civilians (not really war) as Vikings would wage, that's different. One can see the evil that war brings, and the tragedy that the deaths involve, but as a teacher of the law, Peñalver should be able to judge that an unjust war is evil for reasons that are different than why abortion is evil. Furthermore, the tiff over evils as "intrinsic" is a red herring: masturbation is an intrinsic evil, but surely no one would say that once committed, both abortion and masturbation are simply evil, and we should be equally concerned about the occasions of each. Abortion is intrinsically evil, war is not, but that is not the issue: it is possible to weigh the proportion of an offense against the common good. And as John O'Callaghan pointed out (see post below):

Obama’s position is that our federal constitutional order can, does, and should exclude a class of human beings from the protection of law, while McCain’s position is that it should not. This is a difference of justice at the foundation of any social order; one position destroys the conditions necessary for the common good, while the other does not. It is difficult to imagine what proportionate reasons there are for ignoring a position that destroys the conditions necessary for the common good.

It is debatable whether we are even still technically at war with Iraq, or in fact now are just doing large scale police work for the new Iraq. Perhaps it is better to say, we are trying to hold together a nation constantly threatened by civil war and terrorism. Either candidate will have to deal with this fact on that level. Now it is true that McCain's militarism and imperialist zeal gives much cause for concern. But in truth, Obama has not separated himself that much from McCain in these matters, but seems open to the use of war as statecraft in not-altogether-dissimilar ways. Moreover, Obama will not be able to withdraw from Iraq immediately, nor is it certain that this would now, the situation being what it is, be the best thing. But even under the argument that Obama will get us out in one year, while McCain will leave us there for ten, let's say, there fails to be an equivalence with abortion.

Abortion is easily the greatest crime of modernity, if not history. Because of its hidden nature, it doesn't demand the emotional reaction that other visible atrocities possess, like the Holocaust. Certainly though, any faithful Catholic (or human being with a not-yet-dulled-conscience) after a bit of reflection should be able to grasp the enormity of this evil. Nonetheless, its consequences are not so hidden. It is a hinge in the culture of death. The disavowal of life which proves inconvenient, or facing the responsibility of caring for lives that depend on a true sense of solidarity, surely draws the lines in what the alternatives in cultures would offer.

The more difficult question is alluded to at the end of his article: the "likelihood of progress on abortion against the likelihood of progress on Iraq." I'm sure that the latter is more likely than the former. After the debate last night, with McCain's lameduck responses on abortion, and the reality of what a reformer president like McCain would do if given the chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in a Democratic congress, it is far from a sure thing that we will get a Roberts or Alito. But as a friend of mine pointed out, unlike Bork who was too honest, Roberts and Alito showed how a constructionist candidate can get through the hearings: say little, sound very smart on the law, smarter than the questioners, avoid direct answers on Roe, etc. Someone like that could get through again, it's possible. But would another Justice like those two be nominated again? Under Obama, never. Under McCain, perhaps.

But far worse, if Obama wins (which he probably will), and Congress passes and the president signs a bill like the FOCA, then the conservative Justices will probably respect the legislated law of the land, since none of them think abortion is in the constitution, either way. Well, at least we know that with Scalia.

In the end, a real serious consideration needs to be made: one candidate will surely do more than has ever been done before to instantiate abortion rights as a part of American law, and another may continue to hold together a weak status quo that is keeping that from happening, and may possibly give the Supreme Court the chance to send the issue back to States which would seriously decrease the abortions in this country. Is this issue so critical that it is a game changer, forcing a vote for faithful Catholics? On that, I'm not sure. It does seem clear however that is indeed a critical issue.

I'll conclude with a response Cardinal George gave to a question of John Allen's, just the other day:

Therefore, in your eyes it’s not purely a matter of prudential judgment whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned?

It can’t be. If you’ve got an immoral law, you’ve got to work to change that. You’ve got children being killed every day. It goes on forever. That’s the great scandal, and that’s why there’s such a sense of urgency now. There’s no recognition of the fact that children continue to be killed, and we live, therefore, in a country drenched in blood. This can’t be something that you start playing off pragmatically against other issues.

not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea

Thus Pope Benedict began his encyclical Deus Caritas Est, speaking of the fundamental nature of Christianity.

Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

Rocco Palmo posted an address the Pope gave to the Bishops of Switzerland a couple years ago. In it he speaks of how too often being Christian is reduced to "being a good person," an ethical model, or the promulgation of moral laws. These subsidiary matters must never be mistaken for the central reaity:

what matters above all is... one's personal relationship with God, with that God who revealed himself to us in Christ. Augustine repeatedly emphasized the two sides of the Christian concept of God: God is Logos and God is Love - to the point that he completely humbled himself, assuming a human body and finally, giving himself into our hands as bread.

He later continues:

I think that this is the great task we have before us: on the one hand, not to make Christianity seem merely morality, but rather a gift in which we are given the love that sustains us and provides us with the strength we need to be able to "lose our own life". On the other hand, in this context of freely given love, we need to move forward towards ways of putting it into practice, whose foundation is always offered to us by the Decalogue, which we must interpret today with Christ and with the Church in a progressive and new way.

I often reflect on this in my job of trying to teach Ethics to high school Juniors. I often hear the response from students when I ask about the meaning of being Christian: it's about being a good person, doing the right thing, having a good intention. That reflexive response betrays the influence of a banal Kantianism (and perhaps, Protestant legalsim) in American culture (or maybe even a nominalist voluntarism if you want to go back even farther). Sometimes I hear: Christianity helps us become virtuous people, and if we are virtuous, we will be happy. Perhaps the influence of trickle-down virtue ethics, there. But not really the Christian life, as it in fact is.

An emphasis on the Decalogue has certainly become gauche in light of all the emphasis and ra-ra on virtue ethics in recent years. (Full disclosure: I have often been an advocate for such an emphasis.) Aristotle has been revitalized, and it is becoming more and more common to see teleological and virtue ethics emphasized in high school (and college) curricula.

But the Pope has an important point here. It is important to appreciate the discontinuity with Aristotle as well. The Pope did this himself in his encyclical on love:

The divine power that Aristotle at the height of Greek philosophy sought to grasp through reflection, is indeed for every being an object of desire and of love —and as the object of love this divinity moves the world—but in itself it lacks nothing and does not love: it is solely the object of love.

Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue and Dependent Rational Animals emphasized this from several other angles as well, particularly in regards to Aristotle's deficient appreciation of humility and the value of dependence on others in itself. Interestingly, an overemphasis on virtue ethics can sometimes have the same effect that liberal protestantism had: rendering sterile the Christian scandal, expunging it of the personal, of destiny and the cosmic, leaving it merely ethical in the end. (Certainly those such as Pinckaers seek to avoid this, and explictly locate a virtue ethics within a theological morality--but nonetheless, I feel the tendency remains, and metastisizes under less capable teachers.)

Fundamentally the problem amounts to this: even after I have understood Aristotle's Ethics, even if I am living and practicing the virtues as he explains, I find that the deepest questions in my heart, the most haunting problems in my life, remain unanswered. This is the same for my students. If we are simply teaching ethics, or rather, teaching Christianity as an ethical philosophy, the questions that really matter remain untouched. Questions like:

- do I have a personal destiny and call?
- is there a meaning and purpose in time, in the universe?
- can I find and possess real beauty?
- is there an end and solution to all this suffering in the world? a meaning to what seems senseless?
- what will happen when I die?
- will I find love? will I always be lonely in the end?
- will I always be condemned by the past? is real healing possible?
- why am I here at all, rather than not?
- what is this thing I call my self?

These are questions that transcend ethics; and they are questions that will remain unanswered if Christianity is left on the level of morals or social justice.

Christianity is fundamentally an encounter with an event, with a love that creates me and draws me and defines me, an enounter that truly takes life as you know it and radically alters it by virtue of a new horizon, a persepctive that comes in the radical surprise and gift of love, a love that the world has never before known.

Within the acceptance of Christianity, which is a surrender of love to a Person, and a new view of reality as now utterly charged and rendered through the speech of this Person, the set of moral commandments is transformed from the deontological to the interpersonal. These commands, previously seen as cold impositions or contstraints, are now revealed as invitations to love; in light of the Son, we know that obedience is the foundation for love of the Father. Not obedience in the sense of moral duty, but obedience in the sense of abandonment to an Other. Rather, it is the duty of vocation, to listen and discern and follow the will of God, a will that is manifested in very concrete, particular, and non-ethical commands. Not, when in this situation, do or don't do this; but, go here and do this thing now (i.e. marry this man; be a priest; prophesy to these people). The Decalogue thus becomes a reality of love and invitation for us in all those particular moments when we can respond to the invitation to love (i.e. the Good Samaritan, who otherwise broke many of the Jewish ceremonial laws as Samaritan).

The question of, what exactly are we doing when we teach high school religion, is a whole other problem, and a rather difficult one--but at the least, in the encounter with persons who have not yet known Christ, nomatter whom, the methodology and presentation must be: reflect on yourself; what are the deepest desires of your heart; what are the questions you burn to have answered, but never are; what are you seeking? And in the dialogue the interlocuter (teacher, missionary) has the same role: to help clue the person onto what this answer must look like, what it must be in order to be the kind of answer that really satisfies, and then, either to wait for an apostle to present that news that an answer has been given, or in fact to be sent as an apostle and communicate that good news of an answer to this person, waiting. (That distinction contains within it the whole difference between the religion teacher, and the actual apostle sent by the Church, by the way.)

And in the end, it must always be, the introduction or awakening to a Person who loves me more than I could have ever anticipated or expected, who spared nothing, even to the point of giving everything, for me.

what they say now: what they will do then

In the post below, I wrote at some length why I find it difficult to justify voting for a candidate for the executive office who vigorously supports abortion rights and has promised to expand those protections. This is not to say there are not any issues on which Obama has taken a superior position.

Whispers in the Loggia has a story about African Archbishop John Onaiyekan, who just opined how he would vote for Barack Obama, arguing that it would be no sin indeed:

“Of course I believe that abortion is wrong, that it’s killing innocent life,” he said. “I also believe, however, that those who are against abortion should be consistent.

“If my choice is between a person who makes room for abortion, but who is really pro-life in terms of justice in the world, peace in the world, I will prefer him to somebody who doesn’t support abortion but who is driving millions of people in the world to death,” Onaiyekan said.

“It’s a whole package, and you never get a politician who will please you in everything,” he said. “You always have to pick and choose.”

This seems to be the central claim of more than a few Christians supporting Obama: "true, Obama supports abortion, but in reality, McCain is not going to do much to really change the status quo, and perhaps Obama won't either (if we're lucky). Besides, McCain's pro-imperialism and enthusiasm for armed conflict as diplomatic means equates to driving millions in the world to death."

Not to slander a bishop, but that's a bit exaggerated. And the fact remains: millions ARE driven to death under the guise of a medical operation, every year. We might not be so lucky either, with the question of Obama not doing much to further abortion.

But there is a fundamental insight beneath all this:

throughout this election season it has been tempting to wonder, what indeed will they do when in office. The implication is, the campaign is a lot of show and flourish, but campaign promises (and positions) often remain on the dust heap of campaigns. Presidential agendas change and are influenced by the vicissitudes of unforeseen conditions. Indeed, all truisms.

But I can't help thinking that with either McCain or Obama, there is much left undiscovered. Perhaps more than any election I know of, we've witnesses two candidates who say so much without really saying anything; candidates who change positions, move from one policy idea to the other, all in order to respond to the uber-sensitive publik who capriciously dictates from the poles.

Honestly, I think we don't know what either candidate will really do. We know what they are saying now, but it seems since they will say nearly anything to get elected, once they get there, they'll have to do something, and except for threats of a legacy and an eventual re-election campaign, as for what they might do, we don't really know. The best indication for this is probably what the candidates did, said, stood for, BEFORE the election craziness got going, back when they were just senators (although they've both always had stars in their eyes).

On that basis, we know Obama is very liberal, policy-wise, and very pro-abortion. On the flip side, we know McCain is relentlessly an opportunist, victim to whatever pseudo-reformist high-horse he deems fashionable. We also know he is even more neo-conservative (that is militaristic-imperialist) than Bush, and far less grounded (for what it's worth) in any coherent set of Christian principles or worldview.

Despite what they say now, we must judge them on what they did and said in the past--despite any of their protesting. After all, epistemologically, there is no other way to get a accurate gauge on what if anything these two stand for. Surely the uber-Machiavellian nature of the modern elective campaign process puts up a nearly insurmountable obstacle to knowing and judging whether what they are promising now will bear any relation to what they will do then.

disingenuous

Professor Douglas Kmiec continues his efforts to obscure what in fact seems rather clear.

On the one hand, more bishops preach about the difficulty, if not outright impossibility, of voting for a pro-choice candidate. On the other, the ranks of prominent Catholics advocating a vote for Obama despite his pro-choice laurels, remain.

Michael Sean Winters over at the America Magazine blog is steadfast in his support. With Winters however there is no note of turning, of regret toward a failed and decrepit GOP; he, along with many others, seemed to embrace Obama immediately upon arrival. Certainly there are many "Catholics" in the public square for whom the Church's teaching on sexuality, inter alia, has fallen by the wayside. For that wandering throng, "thinking for yourself" and freely choosing what beliefs make sense, and discarding those which do not, demonstrate the absence of true Faith in any theological sense, as faith properly speaking is an assent to propositions by definition beyond understanding (i.e. these Catholics are no different than classic liberal Protestants). At least with Winters and those who share his ken, right belief is not dispensable, nor does free thinking come before religious assent.

Yet with Winters, and a number of other prominent writers and public figures, despite having affirmed their adherence to Church teaching and that they are indeed believers first, voting for anything but the Democratic party is beyond the pale. I take it they are genuinely convinced that the DNC's platform will bring about a just social order and work for the common good, within the classic models of national politics, legislation, and executive promulgation. F.D.R. remains the model par excellence, and a vigorous governmental advocate the best insurer of the common good. I do not mean to be dismissive here: think Daniel Patrick Moynihan. But the means are not far from governmental socialism. The GOP (nor anything within the broader Burkean conservative tradition) could never be a serious alternative.

What is newsworthy is that a number of conservative Catholics (notoriously more reliable on matters of orthodoxy than the left side), whom the GOP used to be able to resolutely depend on, are beginning to turn to Obama. Kmiec is the most notorious (probably because of his Republican background within the Reagan administration), but former Franciscan University board member (and also law professor) Nicholas Cafardi recently penned his apology for Obama at the National Catholic Reporter. It includes such confident affirmations:

I believe that abortion is an unspeakable evil, yet I support Sen. Barack Obama, who is pro-choice. I do not support him because he is pro-choice, but in spite of it....

Despite what some Republicans would like Catholics to believe, the list of what the church calls "intrinsically evil acts" does not begin and end with abortion. In fact, there are many intrinsically evil acts, and a committed Catholic must consider all of them in deciding how to vote.

Last November, the U.S. bishops released "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," a 30-page document that provides several examples of intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war....

Obama's support for abortion rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That's a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle -- permanently. A vote for Sen. John McCain does not guarantee the end of abortion in America. Not even close.

Let's suppose Roe v. Wade were overturned. What would happen? The matter would simply be kicked back to the states -- where it was before 1973. Overturning Roe would not abolish abortion. It would just mean that abortion would be legal in some states and illegal in others. The number of abortions would remain unchanged as long as people could travel.

Now then, there are a number of interesting things going on here. It seems more than a bit incongruous to slide from "unspeakable evil" to "support". One wonders how much Cafardi thought about that concession. It is hard to imagine G.E.M. Anscombe, for instance, allowing such a "despite". Nonetheless he continues with a list of "intrinsically evil" acts: "abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war."

True enough--all evil. Nor can the prudential decision to vote for a candidate rest on one issue disregarding many. However, Cafardi never seems to consider the question of proportionality. The magnitude of the crime of abortion far outweighs the other crimes mentioned in the list. For anyone genuinely interested in subscribing to Catholic social teaching, the crime of abortion--how long it has grown, how many are killed, the intrinsic relationship it bears on the culture of death in many other ways--manifests a character no other crime (save perhaps mass murder on the scale of genocide or world war) can match. There is a basic fact of proportion owed consideration here. Instead, Cafardi thinks Obama can be supported thanks to a neat trick: although he is resolutely pro-choice, he will reduce abortions:

There's another distinction that is often lost in the culture-war rhetoric on abortion: There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions, and has consistently said that "we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion." He favors a "comprehensive approach where ... we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children." And he wants to ensure that adoption is an option for women who might otherwise choose abortion.

Obama worked all of that into his party's platform this year. By contrast, Republicans actually removed abortion-reduction language from their platform.

Cafardi might want to do his homework as to Obama's consistency here. Consistent since when? As Mark Stricherz over at the America Election Blog pointed out:

Take the issue of abortion. For all of the talk about Obama’s interest in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, he has not stood up to the abortion industry a single time; he always gives in to their requests and demands. Obama’s lack of moral courage was most evident in his votes, as an Illinois state senator, against the born-alive infant protection act. As Steven Waldman, the pro-choice founder of Beliefnet, wrote of Obama’s record on this issue,

The episode does show him to be a down-the-line pro-choice legislator. In fact, the charge that Obama is the most pro-choice candidate in years may well be true (though the other Democrats were pretty pro-choice too). When I read through the legislative history, I came to believe that Obama's general impulse was: when it doubt, side with NARAL. If you're ardently pro-life, you are absolutely justified in being scared of Obama for that reason alone, without having cast him as a serial killer.

When in doubt, side with NARAL: that impulse shows as much moral fortitude as always siding with the neighborhood bully or far worse.

Others have referenced Obama's (or rather his supporters) duplicity on this matter, as when he spoke in January of this year on the anniversary of Roe:

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it’s never been more important to protect a woman’s right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women’s health. With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.

Throughout my career, I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president. . . .

But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman’s right to choose; it’s about equality. It’s about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons. And so to truly honor that decision, we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves, and their children, from violent relationships; so that a mom can stay home with a sick child without getting a pink slip; so that she can go to work knowing that there’s affordable, quality childcare for her children; and so that the American dream is within reach for every family in this country. This anniversary reminds us that it’s not enough to protect the gains of the past–we have to build a future that’s filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.

The Dean of the Notre Dame department of Philosophy, John O'Callaghan, recently put forth a rebuttal to Kmiec's argument whether a Catholic can vote for Obama, clarifying the importance of proportionality:

The question isn’t whether a Catholic “can” support Obama. The Church has made it clear that a Catholic can, as She has made it clear that a Catholic can support any pro-choice candidate for office, even one with as absolute a pro-abortion position as Obama’s, so long as the support is not directed at the pro-choice position, and one has proportionate reasons for tolerating the evil of the pro-abortion position. In arguing that a Catholic “can” support Obama, Kmiec is adding nothing to what the Church has already made clear.

The question is whether a Catholic “should” support Obama. And Kmiec has for a while been deploying several arguments to convince Catholics that they “should” support Obama over McCain....

Decisions and choices are defined by their objects—what are they about? Obama’s position is that the decision to have an abortion is a legitimate moral choice made by an individual that must be protected from any interference by any governmental entity. The relevant choice that he is “pro” with respect to is the beginning of an act of abortion. And Kmiec understates the point when he says that Obama’s position is not “fully compatible with” Catholic teaching—it is fully incompatible with Catholic teaching....

Obama’s position is that our federal constitutional order can, does, and should exclude a class of human beings from the protection of law, while McCain’s position is that it should not. This is a difference of justice at the foundation of any social order; one position destroys the conditions necessary for the common good, while the other does not. It is difficult to imagine what proportionate reasons there are for ignoring a position that destroys the conditions necessary for the common good.

Obama's polity "destroys the conditions necessary for the common good" because it excludes a whole "class of human beings from the protection of law." This is indeed the basic logic behind the Catholic Church's advocacy over the years against Roe in this country. And it is the logic, have no doubt, that continues to inspire Bishops to write letters strongly cautioning against voting for a pro-choice candidate, lest one be complicit in sin. There is no equivalence between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party here: this is no algebraic equation where one can cross out like terms in order to find an answer. One cannot so comfortably support Obama in light of this. The objections of the Bishops (and other Catholics) can be summarized by saying: if one supports a candidate defending an "unspeakable evil", one should appear suitably agonized over having to therefore support an "unspeakable evil." Perhaps there remains a confusion here over intentions: as one learns studying the classical analysis of double (or side) effect, one cannot simply direct intentions. I cannot close one eye and vote for Obama, oblivious to his resolute defense of abortion rights, merely intending to vote for him on the basis of more supportable issues.

On that note I want to return to a line Cafardi mentioned:

Obama worked all of that into his party's platform this year. By contrast, Republicans actually removed abortion-reduction language from their platform.

This is ignorant at least, disingenuous at worst. I looked up the respective platforms of the two parties. I shall not need to identify which said what.

The [...] Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The [...] Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family
planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

The [...] Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring
access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

--------
--------

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed [party] legislative initiatives.

In case there is any doubt, here is what Obama has stated clearly in his Blueprint for Change:

Obama has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving a women’s right to choose under Roe v. Wade a priority as president. Obama also supports expanded access to contraception, health information and preventive services to reduce unintended pregnancies.

And even more ironically, he proffers this concession on his website:

Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Cafardi, Kmiec, and others, as O'Callaghan points out, simply ignore the fact that both Obama and the DNC resolutely support and advocate a pro-abortion agenda, and notably, desire to expand abortion rights with the Freedom of Choice Act. Respecting the nature of abortion as an "unspeakable evil", and the most destructive constitutive element of the culture of death, it indeed continues to remain doubtful that a faithful Catholic could support a candidate advocating such an agenda.

[And in order to prevent any confusion: this is not a defense for voting for McCain, or Republicans for that matter, but only an argument for why one cannot vote for a strongly pro-choice candidate for president. I do not think the former simply follows from the latter. In fact, I believe one should not vote for McCain, for different reasons; and I think the Republican Party has its own problems that places it fundamentally at odds with the Catholic worldview. But that is a post for another day.]

I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing.

The quote is from George Orwell, "Why I write".

I have decided to return to blogging. Faith, politics, art, the quotidian, and the rest, shall all be considered for review.