WASHINGTON — In a last-ditch effort to woo as many Catholic voters as possible, prominent Catholic Democrats are wrapping themselves, their party and President Barack Obama in pro-life colors.
Given that the Democratic Party has been committed for decades to a pro-abortion plank, and has highlighted its abortion-rights commitment throughout the current presidential campaign, this pro-life claim might seem hard to justify.
But during a panel discussion hosted by Democrats for Life during the Democratic National Convention Sept. 4-6 in Charlotte, N.C., political scientist Stephen Schneck, head of the Institute for Catholic Policy Studies at The Catholic University of America and a member of the Democrats for Life board of directors, declared that “the most powerful abortifacient is poverty.”
Schneck's underlying assertion that there is a proven link between anti-poverty programs and reduced abortions has been questioned. He received a challenge from academic critics, who insist there is no empirical data to support this claim, and Schneck has not responded to their requests for peer-reviewed statistical evidence. Other critics, meanwhile, have pointed out that Scheck's DNC remarks failed to acknowledge the Democratic Party's aggressive promotion of abortion during Obama's presidency.
In his speech to the Democrats for Life, Schneck's core argument was that the best way to be pro-life in contemporary American politics is to support generous government programs intended to alleviate poverty. And he insisted that a victory for the Republican ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan consequently would promote abortion because of the “shocking” cuts Schneck said they would make to social programs like Medicaid.
The Republicans’ promise to rescind Obama's signature health-care legislation, the Affordable Care Act, would be equally damaging, according to Schneck. He said “all the evidence” indicates the federal health-care law will reduce abortion, once its provisions to assist the economically disadvantaged come into full effect.
“We Democrats for Life understand the challenges facing pro-life voters in this election,” Schneck said. “But the Romney-Ryan ticket offers no pro-life guarantees and raises profound moral questions that pro-life voters can neither shirk nor ignore.”
Where's the Evidence?
After Schneck made his pro-life case for the Democrats, Patrick Fagan and Henry Potrykus of the Marriage and Religion Research Institute, a subsidiary group of the Washington-based Family Research Council, replied with a formal challenge. In a Sept. 25 letter to Schneck, they requested that the Catholic scholar either provide specific data to prove his claims or retract them.
Fagan and Potrykus cited several studies of the impacts of changes in equivalent state-level programs that indicate reductions in programs for the poor, such as Medicaid and housing supplements, would either have no impact or actually decrease the incidence of abortion. Much of the data they cited came from studies published in Family Planning Perspective, a periodical of the Alan Guttemacher Institute.
After Schneck sent a courteous but brief reply, defending his earlier arguments while declining to provide supporting evidence, Fagan and Potrykus repeated their challenge in an Oct. 4 letter that cited additional data in rebuttal of Schneck.
Wrote Fagan and Potrykus, “Your concerns are not founded in sound analysis; the weight of scientific evidence is contrary to your personal beliefs.”
In an interview with the Register, Fagan said Schneck is guilty of the same mistake both political parties have been making for decades: “believing that you can cure social problems by throwing money at them.”
Fagan also dismissed Schneck's comparisons in his DNC speech between the U.S. and other countries with generous social programs and lower abortion rates as pointless because “there are too many variables involved” to draw any meaningful conclusions.
“There is no silver bullet,” said Fagan. “In fact, the welfare system that both Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty of erecting is wrecking marriage and the family, which are the very institutions that do most in our inner cities to combat poverty and abortion.”
Another critique was offered by Michael Fragoso, in a commentary entitled “Poverty, Abortion and Budgets: Democrats for Life Need Better Arguments,” published on the Witherspoon Institute’s website. No causal link between poverty and abortion has ever been established by social science, Fragoso noted. But even if there were such a link, he said, Schneck's DNC claim that Romney would cut anti-poverty programs such as Medicaid by 40% was groundless, since the Republican candidate never made such a commitment. And even if Romney had, Fragoso continued, there is still no clear evidence that cutting poverty programs increases poverty, let alone abortion.
Democrats 'Double Down'
Despite the criticisms triggered by the 'pro-life' arguments offered by Catholic Democrats, they haven't been shy about repeating their case as the campaign draws to a close.
Schneck told the Register this week that he stands by his DNC presentation. Contacted while traveling in the Midwest away from his office, Schneck was unable to cite his sources, but he insisted that the abortion rate for the poor was three times what it was for those better off.
“In the U.S. and around the world,” he said, “what is not in dispute is the pattern associating the poorest countries and the poorest people with more abortions.”
Schneck did concede that the Democratic Party has handled the abortion issue “stupidly” in this election cycle by choosing to “double down” on their support for abortion.
“They haven’t been open at all to the third of their supporters that are pro-life,” he said. “And that’s a big reason why this election is so close.”
Additionally, Schneck asserted that his own pro-life position is not satisfied by health care and social programs: “I want to see Roe v. Wade overthrown. And I am in favor of the restrictions by state governments such as the one requiring [women seeking abortions first to see their baby via ] ultrasound. Anything that reduces abortions is good.”
Last week, University of St. Thomas law professor Douglas Reid picked up on the pro-life argument with an Oct. 26 entry at the Huffington Post entry entitled, “Catholic, Pro-Life and Voting Obama.” After listing Obama’s Catholic credentials, such as the fact his late mother worked for a Jesuit and that his community organizer office was located in a Catholic church in Chicago, Reid cited a book called America Undecided: Catholic, Independent and Social-Justice Perspectives on Election 2012.
The book was co-authored by three other pro-Obama Catholics — law professors Douglas Kmiec and Ed Gaffney and pediatrics specialist Patrick Whelan, one of the founders of Catholic Democrats.
Kmiec, the author of Can a Catholic Support Him?, a 2008 book which argued that Catholics and pro-lifers could support then-candidate Obama, was later appointed for a period as ambassador to Malta. The former ambassador recently elaborated on his support for Obama in an interview published Oct. 24 on the opinion page of the Los Angeles Times.
And the Democrats’ highest-ranking political Catholic, Vice President Joe Biden, released a TV ad in late October aimed towards his co-religionists. In it, Biden recounted how his parents and “nuns and priests” taught him “Catholic social doctrine,” which he said was exemplified by Obama's health-care law.
Clear Differences
Fragoso had harsh words for the pro-life claims of Catholic Democrats at the conclusion of his Witherspoon Institute commentary about Schneck’s DNC remarks.
“Nowhere in the speech does Schneck even mention the planks in the Democratic Party’s eye on health care — like the HHS mandate or even the removal of anti-trafficking funding from Catholic Charities, the threatened removal of Medicaid funds from Texas in retaliation for the state’s defunding of Planned Parenthood or the potential effects of the Independent Payment Advisory Board on end-of-life care,” Fragoso pointed out.
“In the end, when one looks past the posturing and the rhetoric, one sees that there are clear differences between the parties,” Fragoso added. “One favors publicly funded abortion on demand as a matter of law and has used its time in power to stifle the culture of life. The other favors the protection of the unborn by law and effects that goal to the extent possible. All that Schneck’s Democrats for Life speech tells us is that one should prefer the former if one thinks liberal social welfare policy is more important than abortion, because he does not provide any sound arguments that the two issues are related.”
Register correspondent Steve Weatherbe writes from Victoria, British Columbia.
Editor's note: This article was updated from the original version to include comments
from Professor Schneck that the reporter had inadvertently omitted.
Comments
Post a Comment
Truly you can’t be a Catholic and Pro-choice. It goes against all the Church teaches. The Catholic Church is not a smorgasbord. You can not pick and choose the teachings.
Why do the Bishops allow Catholic heretics and Catholic schismatics to teach at their Catholic University of America? Mark Touhey another Catholic for Obama sits on CUA’s Board of Trustees. Several Bishops sit on CUA’s Board of Trustees.
At the same time CUA does not require that the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” be a required student text for freshmen and/or sophomores.
Is it any wonder that our society is in such a mess?!?
IMPORTANT: To see the accurate differences between the DEMOCRATIC and REPUBLICAN Parties in their own written words - go to:
http://www.ewtn.com/voting.asp
or on the net search: ‘Voting and the Non-negotiable Moral Principles /EWTN”.
The future of our Country is at stake in this election.
May God Bless America.
Fifty million innocent unborn babies are dead. That’s 50,000,000!
The Democrat National Platform supports abortion on demand at all stages of pregnancy. Obama supports partial birth abortion - a totally barbaric act of cruelty against the defenseless.
No honest Catholic could ever vote for Obama and the Democrat party under any circumstance. Let’s not parade out in front of all of us those who are leftist Democrats first and Catholics second. We’re not stupid, you know.
Nobody is “pro-abortion”. Some people just understand the world is complicated and the solution is not always obvious. To think passing laws would bring down the number of abortions is like believing we have no drug problem because drug use is against the law. They key to abortion, and most problems, is doing something about the cause of those problems, which is poverty.
The Cardinals are not quite bright enough to understand this, but if they ask nicely the religious sisters can explain it to them
@Rick: But isn’t that exactly what Fagan was debunking? “No causal link between poverty and abortion has ever been established by social science.” Is that statement untrue?
We should always support the poor, but I think a better “key to abortion” isn’t money, it’s marriage. Over 80% of abortions happen out of wedlock ( http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0102.pdf )
If you look at your stance on abortion, and apply it to any other form of harm against a person, the problem with it becomes a bit clearer: “Nobody is ‘pro-spousal abuse’. Some people just understand the world is complicated and the solution is not always obvious. To think passing laws against abuse would bring down the number of beatings is like believing we have no drug problem because drug use is against the law.”
@Rick, oh if the Bishops were as bright as you (tongue firmly planted in cheek). If you actually read the article, Fagan sn Potrykus offered statistics while Schneck offered none. Lets count the 55 million abortions since 1973 (http://www.christianliferesources.com?5511). How is the “Great Society” working? While solutions are not obvious stopping the active SUPPORT of this murder by the Democrat Party, our President, leaders in Congress,is obvious. Abortion is evil. The laws that permit are immoral. The people who support a woman’s choice to kill another human is wrong. It is simple as that. The Bishops support social programs but have stated that all issues are not equal. By all means we must treat issues of poverty but giving Democrat’s a pass on this important issue is wrong and immoral.
Rick would have us believe that laws are ineffective. Why not, then, rescind all laws that have to do with robbery? Why not rescind laws that pertian to assault? That argument is intentionally meant to be evasive and once again muddy up the waters. No one is gullible enough to sit tight anymoe and listen to nonsense when it comes to abortion.
No, Obama and the Democrat platform need to go.
Rick, the 7 or 8 ‘nuns on the bus’ are heretics and schismatics (per definition in the CCC).
Apparently you did not read the link in which the DEMOCRATS voted upon and fully support abortion, contraception and homosexual marriage and are against freedom of religion.
They are actively trying to make us all pay for and therefore participate in these MORTAL SINS of others.
Some folks, like Rick and Professor Schneck, still don’t seem to understand Catholic teaching on intrinsic evil, not to mention the Magisterial authority of the Church in matters of doctrinal truth entrusted to our bishops, not to dissident “Catholic” nuns.
Efforts to help the poor with big government handouts have never worked. We must provide a HAND-UP with better jobs, education and more economic opportunity for Americans to escape poverty. Obama has failed miserably on all counts. Throw in his direct and unprecedented attack on the religious liberty of our Church and it is impossible to understand how any faithful Catholic can cast a vote to continue this madness.
Many bishops have courageously stepped up to the plate to defend Catholic social teaching with regard to this election. If only we had more courageous pastors willing to speak up from the pulpit. This election should be a landslide loss for the progressive agenda.
Mr. Schneck could be on to something, but the #1 alleviator of poverty is the traditional family (mom and dad married to each other) NOT generous government programs of which every one has failed, no matter what kind of fancy title or acronym that program is given.
I don’t understand the positions of “Pro-Life” Democrats.
1) Abortion is evil and should be tolerated under NO circumstances. our Founders (and yes, I know they had their faults, too - ie. slavery and all) recognized the sanctity of life in the Declaration - by recognizing the “endowed by their Creator to rights of life, iberty and the pursuit of happiness.” No rights exist without the right ot life.
2) The “Great Society” pushed forth by Lyndon Johnson in the 60s has not worked! How long does this failed experiment have to last? It is not the government’s role to redistribute wealth. It is the job of the citizenry to take care of those less fortunate. Government should find ways to ENHANCE the private sector’s ability to do this - not do it for them.
3) The Republicans and Conservatives are villified for the rich and successful. On the contrary, they want EVERYONE to have the chance to be rich and successful. More jobs mean a justifiable wage and means of living for anyone who wants to work. Most people do - is it so hard to figure out? In my own circumstance, with a layoff looming in my future, I want a job where I can work to provide for my own family - I don’t want the government to do it for me!
This Nation was founded on a belief of the inherent goodness of the citizenry and a heavy reliance on “Divine Providence” - when we strayed to think that we could do it ourselves, better than God could is what got us into this mess.
The current Democratic Party platform clearly paints abortion as a positive contribution to society more than a necessary evil that must be tolerated until justice is achieved in other realms. Mr. Schneck’s position is almost laughable. Even if he were right, the idea that government can eliminate poverty by brute force is running off the rails as we speak by mounting deficits and debt.
This is a message to Pope Benedict XVI and the USCCB: Please get these people out of our Church! For starters, may I suggest a Poster inside the vestibule of each Catholic Church with the pictures of public figures who may not receive Holy Communion: Joe Biden, Kathleen Sibelius, Stephen Schneck, etc. This could be followed up with a personal letter to each Faux Catholic (from you)expressing disappointment with their grave error, informing that they have been added to the International List of Faux Catholics, and they could have their name reinstated after going through 1) X number of hours of Catholic teaching on how to understand and weigh issues that are fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church as passed down by Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and 2)Publishing a retraction!
Rick,
No one is pro choice. They are pro abortion. To obfuscate the act of murder by slapping the word choice on it is really evil.
These so-called intellectuals really think we are stupid and gullible. Sadly, too many people are stupid and gullible.
Pray that Inauguration Day in January 2012 will mark the “End of an Error”.
The GOP is not “pro-life”; it’s at best “pro-birth.” As a pro-life Democrat, I’d like to see the Democratic Party open up to its one third pro-life members, who are truly pro-life. Pro-“life” means being willing to financially support—through taxes—pregnant women, new mothers, and families. The United States is an outlier in western Democracies in how we through families under the bus. I don’t marvel at how Catholics can vote for Democrats; what I marvel at is: (1) how Catholics can defend Ayn Randian social policy in the name of Catholicism, and (2) how Catholics can vote for any Republican.
Assuming his pretext that poverty is the greatest abortifacient is a self condemnation of the dems socialist agenda…!!! Redistributing wealth redistributes poverty because of lost capital…!!! JP,II had it right and so does Pope Benedict…They both saw the reality of socialism and label it the culture of death…!!! Real Catholics are truly PRO CHOICE, standing up for the denial of choice to the unborn…!!! Most dems are anti choice and anti life, just like Planned Parenthood and its founder Margaret Sanger (Hilary Clinton’s hero) proposed…!!! I invite all or any MALE parent to come forth and share how they were assisted by Planned Parenthood…!!!
In our secular society, divorce is becoming more prevalent. The destruction of the family and the moral values that should be learned there, are evaporating before our very eyes. If parents allow it,(you can opt out) their children are taught sex education by the state and given the means to practice what they are taught. This is fornication and the results are unwanted teen pregnancies, that end up in abortion, because the contraception fails. If parents follow the teachings of the Church, and instill in their children, that sex outside of marriage is unacceptable and against the will of God, and that marriage is between a man and a women till death do us part, then fewer divorces and teen pregnancies would be the norm. If at all possible, parents should home school their children. We did and the results have been amazing. I am in awe how simple God’s plan is for his people and the blessings he bestows, when people strive to do His will.
I have friends and family that have adopted children from foreign countries because of lack of availability in our country of children. We must stop abortion with our vote or suffer the consequences. “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right. “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” Abraham Lincoln
Mr. Obama has “Catholic credentials” because his late mother “worked for a Jesuit” and his office as a community organizer was “located in a Catholic church”? In what universe does mere proximity to a Catholic institution even count in terms of what it means to have Catholic credentials in any manner that is truly meaningful?
Surely, actual understanding and respect for what the Catholic Church truly teaches and why she teaches what she teaches matter far more. So who do these Democratic Catholics think they are kidding?
Any Catholic who has ever read the likes of “Rerum Novarum” isn’t going to fall for the usual rhetorical dirty trick that attempts to separate out social justice and “helping the poor” from the dignity due all human persons from conception to natural end. ...a dignity that prompts us all to think about where it even comes from in the first place. Democratic Catholic cant that tries to separate the two is intellectually dishonest and also a form of emotional blackmail—that “we’re” the compassionate ones; we “care” more than the other guys do. And it is intellectually dishonest, because this is not what the Catholic Church—which is CHRIST’s Church, not “your” Church—teaches. Claiming to be Catholic has certain logical consequences: something that every Catholic should know from publicly professing the Nicene Creed every Sunday Mass—namely, belief in the Incarnation and what it means to belong to the Body of Christ (namely, what it means to be in full Communion—can we really claim to have the faith if you are out of Communion with Christ?). Thinking that you can separate Christ the Head from His Body is a denial of the Incarnation (and incidentally, a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit). A well-formed Catholic conscience knows or should know, therefore, that a sense of “helping the poor” that tries to ignore who the poor are as human beings whose dignity comes from and is rooted in God, the Creator, risks being meaningless and always falling short: helping the poor and social justice must always be rooted in a true understanding of who and what man is. Poverty, therefore, isn’t just material. We in America suffer from a profound spiritual poverty as well, so we can’t just claim to solve problems by throwing money at them, as some here have rightly pointed out. And proposed solutions that have a very narrow and thus “less than” view of social justice, as I’ve described above, are signs of intellectual poverty, too. So let’s not jump the gun too quickly about whether our bishops are “bright enough.” Reducing compassion and helping the poor to sentimentality without any respect for the truth isn’t especially bright, either.
Messrs. Fagan and Potrykus touch upon something intriguing in their challenge of Professor Schneck and his personal opinions devoid of evidence: from what I’ve noticed from the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Melissa Gates, and Joe Biden, etc. I’ve noticed an awfully pervasive tendency among Democratic Catholics to personalize everything: it’s “my” Catholic faith this, “my” Catholic faith that, and “my” Catholic Church. No, it is not “your” Catholic faith, and again, it is not “your” Church; it is the faith of the entire Church throughout all ages, and is the truth of revelation that is handed down to us through Christ’s apostles and their successors. The Church is also built through, with, and in Christ, is conformed to Christ through the ongoing action of sacramental grace, and is His Church for His sake and His purposes. So you may want to think that x, y, or z is what “your” Church teaches, but that only avoids the far more interesting and important question: is this what Christ’s Church teaches? Yes or no?
And since we seem to run into this attendant and corollary problem as well, whereby Democratic Catholics think that they and their man in the White House get to define what is meant by Christian and “believing in Jesus Christ” (as in targeting Catholic voters with “how can you vote for a man who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ?”) what do we even understand by Jesus Christ, and who do we understand Him to be? Is He the second person of the Holy Trinity, or is he just some proto-hippie guru who can’t tell the decidedly marked difference between being good and being “nice”? Any claim to being a “devout” Catholic that can’t be bothered with any of that is meaningless for being logically incoherent.
Kevin, I believe you are wrong. Catholics can be whatever party they wish. I am a pro-life, Catholic Democrat. But for some reason people seem to think that a candidate’s personal beliefs are more important than their policy on an issue. Obama may be personally pro-choice, and Romney “pro-life,” but neither one of them can get abortions anyway (they are men, people). The real thing to pay attention to is how they are going to make laws/lead America on issues. Romney wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, which I don’t think would actually fix the problem: that mothers want to kill their children. People will resort to back-alley abortions because overturning a law does not overturn an attitude or a culture. Obama wants to provide better health care for women and strengthen the middle class. This will help women & men to become stronger financially, physically, and emotionally so they can make smart choices about their relationships and behavior so that they do not have to get stuck in a situation where abortion crosses their mind. By helping the poor and the vulnerable in society, Obama will reduce the amount of people who are getting abortions because there will be less poor, uneducated people (a group at high risk of getting abortions).
Also, since when did “pro-life” or “pro-choice” become the only qualification for whether someone is “Catholic” “Republican” or “Democrat”? Catholic social teaching says to take care of the poor, clothe the naked, and feed the sick. Love your neighbor as yourself. Aren’t those equally important commandments?
This Christmas and Holy Innocents Day, many parishes will invite Crib Offerings for pregnancy crisis centres offering practical help and support eg offering free healthcare for women and children, before, during and after birth. As well as housing, financial and other welfare support.
Have you ever contributed to a pregnancy crisis center?
Was it worthwhile or wasted?
Do you think charities who support pregnant women and children save unborn lives?
If you think these services save unborn lives then surely government action which promotes the above type of support or reduces the above support will probably have an effect on the abortion rate.
Romney has promised to reduce healthcare and welfare support for the above - is that likely to increase or decrease the demand/pressure for abortion?
Why do women have abortions? Why are black women 5 times more likely to have an abortion than the general population and hispanic women 3 times more likely?
Are black women just more evil than the average?
Or is it do do with poverty - especially of healthcare (family planning, the cost of an abortion being less than childbirth in a market system) and welfare?
According to the Guttmacher Institute and others about 1 in 5 US abortions are because the mother felt they could not afford another child.
The number of abortions are due to SUPPLY and DEMAND. Flip-flopping Romney might be able to reduce the legal supply - but no Republican president has and various Romney supporters say this won’t happen http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/norm-coleman-mitt-romney-roe-v-wade.php
Even if Roe vs Wade was overturned the question would revert to the individual states with abortion tourism to permissive states and internet imports of abortion pills.
I doubt that a Constitutional Amendment would last as long as alcohol prohibition while nearly half of all Americans consider abortion to be their moral right like bearing arms.
Reducing the DEMAND for abortion will, in practice, save more unborn lives. The biggest drop in abortion was during Clinton’s presidency and went up under Bush Snr
Massachusetts Romneycare (upon which Obamacare is base but Romneycare includes abortion funding) has seen a reduction in that state’s abortion rate.
Neither candidate is genuinely pro-life in both theory and practice, so it is question of choosing the lesser evil. The bottom line is the body-count of innocent unborn, those who will die prematurely because of a lack of healthcare, those who will die because of extreme weather due to human-caused climate change, global poverty and various unjust wars.
In the above areas Democrat administrations have usually done better.
Sources and further reading here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithfuldemocrats/2012/09/if-you-are-truly-pro-life-youd-vote-democrat/
Always interesting at election time watching pro abortion liberal Democrats twist themselves into all kinds of contortions trying to find a way that they can justify voting for pro abortion Democrats.
Posted by Judy on Monday, Nov 5, 2012 10:02 AM (EST):@Rick: But isn’t that exactly what Fagan was debunking? “No causal link between poverty and abortion has ever been established by social science.” Is that statement untrue?”
*******************************
In one way it becomes true when abortion clinics are invariably located in poor or minority neighborhoods.
Here is what the bishops are saying in regard to abortion and voting. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/04/catholic-bishop-in-iowa-abortion-most-important-voting-issue/ and here http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/28/Wisconsin-Bishop-voting-Democrat and here http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/01/Peoria-bishop-tells-priests-to-condemn-Democratic-party and here http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/04/Pennsylvania-Catholic-Bishops-call-for-voting-against-leftism Again I quote our 16th president, “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” Abraham Lincoln
Our Catholic faith is being attacked by the state in the form of Obamacare. If it were not the Church would not be suing our government over its mandates. It was not implemented as a form of social justice, it was instituted for control of the people by the Democrats and it will destroy our health care system which is predominantly provided by Catholic agencies.
I, like many of the people commenting on this page, am a Catholic, pro-life, Democrat; I have been since Mr. Humphrey ran for President in ‘68 (I was ten years old then). I know that Catholics can make their views known on issues pertaining to party matters; as a young person I alligned to caucus with the pro-life delegation to the party and have sat down when asked to support views that do not match my own (i.e., gay marriage rights, abortion, etc). But I believed then, and still believe today, that 1)the best way to change a view of a party is to continue to work on the inside, and 2)we need to ensure that each and every baby born has parents with health insurance and jobs that support a growing families’ needs, world class education and job preparation, food, clothing, and other essentials for living. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a true pro-life agenda. I have an autistic daughter and personally am very frightened about her life in a Romney administration (and she is too!)
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/
Let me quote the 2012 DEMOCRATIC Party Platform: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal ABORTION, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” THAT’S IN THEIR OWN WORDS. THAT’S PRO-LIFE?
Pope John Paul II’s Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae 73) states that, regarding laws that allow abortions, it is “never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it.”
So I won’t be going to sheol: all “pro-choice” please note
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
And clever in their own sight!
It is a disgrace that these traitors are being rewarded with well-paying cushy employment in Catholics colleges. If the colleges won’t clean out their messes then the bishops must. No wonder so many of our kids are lost.
The problem for Democrats here is that there’s a public record. Anybody can check votesmart.org, ontheissues.org, and the House and Senate websites to see how their candidates voted on abortion issues.
For all you single issue voters, we had bush for 8 years and we still have abortions. But he left us with two wars, 10 trillion in deficits and a financial crisis. Romney won’t stop abortions and he’ll leave us in worse shape than bush.
Regardless of what is Schneck’s bona fides as a prolifer, his serving as a national co-chair of Catholics for Obama makes him a very “useful idiot” for his master.
cthlc12345, The Democratic party never said it was against abortion, so why are you surprised? Pro-life can have many different meanings, and while the Democratic party is not going to overturn “Roe v. Wade” it is going to do other things to stop end and prevent abortion. If all of these unwanted babies are born, where are they going to go without a healthcare system, social security, equal pay for equal work, etc…?
I realize that this evidence is merely anecdotal. However, I volunteer with a network of three Pregnancy Clinics. The first is located in lower-middles class to poor city, the second in a more middle-upper class city and the third in an upper class area. Of the women that come in for tests, the lower the socioeconomic area in which they live, the more likely they are to carry their child.
Curious thinking: legalize abortion; promote abortion; pay for abortion = pro-life presidency. I wonder what’s next: war is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength?
Correction, Prof. Schneck: the most powerful abortifacient is a college education. Choose your flavor.
You can call yourself “pro-life” all you want. Just like the president who says one thing and does the opposite. The proof is what you actually do, not what you say. You can pretend you are helping the poor when all you do is put in policies that make it harder for the poor to escape poverty. Neither party is the best party but the Democratic party has paid lip service to the poor for decades and look where the poor are, not just poor but now without fathers, without stability, many without dignity. As Catholics we need to fight for the Non-Negotiable issues that our society is based on, shown beautifully in this video Test of Fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiG9NMkPhus&feature=plcp Life, protection of marriage and religious liberty. Last time I checked the Democratic party was not too supportive of any of these.
@Matt B who said “the most powerful abortifacient is a college education”
Black American fetuses are 5 times more likely to be killed by abortion. 21% of women who have abortions say it is because they can’t afford a child.
If you contribute to a pregnancy crisis center - what do you think you are helping towards? healthcare, food, clothing, housing, money? What do you think will happen if a government adds or reduces support in these areas?
@Judy is like all leftist Democrat “Catholics”: when all the arguments to support pro-abort Dems are shot full of holes, they talk about ‘single issue voters.’
Guess what, Judy, I am a ‘single-issue Catholic”: my whole aimis to get to heaven and I ain’t going to succeed by voting Democrat (and neither are you).
“It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” Mother Teresa
Kathy Wilmes ,
I’d like every baby born in America to have all those things you’ve listed, but whose responsibility is it to provide them?
“Single-issue voters” is what some of them call those of us who believe that first, you don’t target the infant in the womb.
It’s a coded way of saying, “Abortion bothers you? Get over it and get with the program or get off the bus!”
What the abortion supporters call a “single issue”, I call a “red flag”. A red flag that’s there for a reason.
Back in the 1930s in Germany the National Socialist Party promised jobs, a sound economy, and a glorious German future for all. But numerous German voters didn’t like the way the new party denounced the Jews, and for that reason refused to support them.
In turn, these people were mocked as “single-issue voters,” not able to see the big picture: a triumphant future for the new Reich. But for these Germans, the anti-Semitic denunciations of the Nazis were a red flag - something that pointed to the fact that something just wasn’t right.
Sometimes a “single-issue” issue warns us that in spite of all their heady promises and all their boasts, those who support evil and call it good can hoodwink some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all the time.
Called a “Single issue voter” by those who want you to stand still while the whirlwind overtakes our country? Think of yourself who sniffed the air and smelled “something rotten in the state of Denmark.” Wear that name as a badge of honor!
the stupidity & evil nature of liberalism/leftism means that many more innocents will die, and many families will be destroyed financially and morally - thanks dems - guess we have to hit rock bottom before the 51% realize their idiocy
One of the greatest problems facing the Catholic Church is we have allowed so many anti-Christian demons like Mr. Schneck educate our young, impressionable college children. They teach justification for the evil they espouse. Again, where are our Catholic leaders?
Too bad the Catholic church won’t support birth control, a factor that would actually reduce the number of abortions.
Oh wait, Catholics do support use of birth control. Catholics have been using condoms and BC since their invention. It’s just the old white guys of the church, trying to make the rules for the people. That’s what a lot of you seem to misunderstand, the church is not the building, or the guy going through the motions up front, it’s THE PEOPLE that make the church.
Christians made a step backwards in moral/ethical thinking with the promotion of the idea that a heart starts beating at X days after birth. Trust me, we all understand the potential of human life contained inside a fetus, we just disagree on how the situation can be handled in an adult manner. I’m not advocating late term abortions - I’m just adamantly opposed to drafting legislation which dictates it’s okay to abort a baby after 20 days, but not after 21 days, because that’s when some researchers have concluded babies feel pain. Likewise, anesthetizing a mother to prevent fetal pain during an abortion only increases the risk for loss of life.
Furthermore, let’s be practical here. What have “pro-life” presidents, such as George Bush done to stop abortions? If you are voting in order for a president to elect a conservative judge, in the rare probability that Roe V Wade legislation would be reformatted, you’re really wasting your vote.
Regards,
Recovering Cathoholic
Dan,
It’s not us you have to defend your advocacy of contraception and abortion up to day 20 to. You ought to be rehearsing your argument for the Just Judge.
Oh and by the way, some of your facts are just plain ‘not facts at all.’ Like when fetuses experience pain. It’s much later than 21 days. But who’s worrying about pain when you have your whole future life ahead of you secure in the protective safety of your mother’s womb? NOT!
The woman’s title is actually Monica Williams. The 43-year-old single mom of 3 misplaced her work as a private school primary last year. By using it she misplaced her $82,Five hundred yearly income as well as continued unemployment. With this came all the cut-backs and past due bill payments that have become typical in post-Great Economic downturn The united states.
After that she became a member of the grms <a >borse louis vuitton</a> due ranks of people who, following a work reduction, chose to try to be their own company.
Six years ago, only about one out of Ten people who began a company did so simply because they discovered themselves unemployed. However by This year, whenever Williams started her dessert and brownie operation called From Momma’s Kitchen area, that quantity had almost bending, according to the survey of small-business proprietors conducted through Influx Sales.
“When you are laying on the floor and you have seeds inside your hand associated with anything wit ords5.txt,1,S] hin you that’s when you grow them,Inch Williams said.
Talent and generate happen to be the tools of her transition from instructor in order to business owner. However despite her powerful faith, Williams’ development has been difficult. Such as almost half of small-business proprietors, according to Influx Accounting’s summer time 2012 study, she’s hardly making ends meet.
Nevertheless, Williams does not regret her choice in order to rely on the woman’s flair with regard to baking as well as, more importantly, her belief.
Motivation arrives
In The month of january This year, during the time of her very first week-long, water-only quick, Williams, involved 6 months right into a stint as primary associated with Celebration Christian School within Mexico.
“Every morning your woman was out trembling fingers, meeting mother and father,” said John Haley, overseer associated with procedures with regard to Celebration throughout Williams’ time as principal. “The mother and father loved the woman’s. The actual teachers were energized to become better.”
She started at Special event throughout trying times, subsequent a good exodus of students brought on by the last principal’s departure and tuition increases. Watts <a >Louis Vuitton Outlet</a> hen Williams showed up, just 17 students remained on the lineup, nicely under a 3rd of the school’s target quantity, she said.
Your woman released a hostile advertising campaign as well as, by the time college began, the administration had <a >borse louis vuitton</a> added 30 much more youngsters to the comes.
“It was just pretty amazing exactly what she do for that academy,Inch Haley said. She introduced a new degree of knowledge towards the school, he said, because of her earlier Fifteen years within Howard Region Open public School classrooms.
It was in the midst of this particular difficult college 12 months which Williams decided to try a long fast. About the fourth day, a good insistent tone of voice grew to become caught in Williams’ head.
“I got this recurring thought to get up and go make brownies,Inch she said. “It grew to become a desire which i couldn’t manage enough where I had holes streaming down my personal encounter.”
Your woman fought against it. Your woman visited bed and attempted to rest aside thoughts associated with brownies cooking within the stove. However the desire became as well great as well as Williams transpired to the kitchen in the center of the night time.
She made a batch of the soft goodies as well as packed all of them up.
Your woman did not eat a crumb.
@Deacon Ed Petler
My point was not to advocate birth control, although I admit my bias showed forth. My point is there are all these Catholics that claim “you can’t be a TRUE Catholic if you support the choice of abortion.” Actually, it’s quite the opposite - you can’t force your views on another person while still remaining Christian.
Let’s see if a little satire can bring light to the problem. Swap pro-choice on abortion with pro-choice on condom usage. “You can’t be a TRUE Catholic if you support the choice of condoms.” I’m positive it’s against Church dogma to use condoms; most members promote use of condoms or even use condoms themselves, yet no one is shouting at them for being anti-Catholic. To me this screams RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITE.
By the way Mr. Deacon, I never claimed I was using factual evidence with my day 21 reference. My point rings true whether it be the day after conception or the day before birth. It was a Christian mindset that promoted ideas akin to “my heart started beating 6 days after conception” - probably an attempt to humanize the fetus. The fact is that when with each abortion performed, a potential life has been squashed out of existence (it shouldn’t matter which day the act is performed on). In reality, my assumption would that the longer a mother carries her pregnancy, the less fear she will have in birthing it, and the greater the chance of delivery. Warning to the Christians - this is the same mindset that promoted the idea that masturbation was immoral because sperm was going to waste, only to later declare it was immoral because it has the potential to dehumanize real life people/relationships (as opposed to the million or so quasi-real babies that potentially could be conceived from a glob of sperm). At least they got it right the second time around?
Now imagine a man, let’s call him Dan.
Dan does three things.
1) favors Roe v Wade / is “pro-choice”
2)never participates in unprotected sex, or other activities that could lead towards an “accidental” conception
3) promotes stuff that reduces the eliminated the need for abortion (research into new forms of birth control, sex education, promoting adoption).
Methinks you’re the type of person who says 1) and 3) are mutually exclusive - “a person can’t support Roe V Wade and promote ideas that would reduce the number of abortions!” Well then, who am I?
Maybe you’re not satisfied with the results that people like me are driving ? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/21/usa-abortion-rate/1719583/
Oh and Deacon Ed, you might want to focus more pressing issue- you attendance rates are steadily declining, going hand-in-hand with an increase in US citizens declaring themselves “nonbelievers”. Where shall we place the blame - the clergy, the parishioners, or the God?
@Deacon Ed Petler
My point was not to advocate birth control, although I admit my bias showed forth. My point is there are all these Catholics that claim “you can’t be a TRUE Catholic if you support the choice of abortion.” Actually, it’s quite the opposite - you can’t force your views on another person while still remaining Christian.
Let’s see if a little satire can bring light to the problem. Swap pro-choice on abortion with pro-choice on condom usage. “You can’t be a TRUE Catholic if you support the choice of condoms.” I’m positive it’s against Church dogma to use condoms; most members promote use of condoms or even use condoms themselves, yet no one is shouting at them for being anti-Catholic. To me this screams RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITE.
By the way Mr. Deacon, I never claimed I was using factual evidence with my day 21 reference. My point rings true whether it be the day after conception or the day before birth. It was a Christian mindset that promoted ideas akin to “my heart started beating 6 days after conception” - probably an attempt to humanize the fetus. The fact is that when with each abortion performed, a potential life has been squashed out of existence (it shouldn’t matter which day the act is performed on). In reality, my assumption would that the longer a mother carries her pregnancy, the less fear she will have in birthing it, and the greater the chance of delivery. Warning to the Christians - this is the same mindset that promoted the idea that masturbation was immoral because sperm was going to waste, only to later declare it was immoral because it has the potential to dehumanize real life people/relationships (as opposed to the million or so quasi-real babies that potentially could be conceived from a glob of sperm). At least they got it right the second time around?
Now imagine a man, let’s call him Dan.
Dan does three things.
1) favors Roe v Wade / is “pro-choice”
2)never participates in unprotected sex, or other activities that could lead towards an “accidental” conception
3) promotes stuff that reduces the eliminated the need for abortion (research into new forms of birth control, sex education, promoting adoption).
Methinks you’re the type of person who says 1) and 3) are mutually exclusive - “a person can’t support Roe V Wade and promote ideas that would reduce the number of abortions!” Well then, who am I?
Oh and Deacon Ed, you might want to focus more pressing issue- you attendance rates are steadily declining, going hand-in-hand with an increase in US citizens declaring themselves “nonbelievers”. Where shall we place the blame - the clergy, the parishioners, or the God?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.