-255x255.jpg)
He’s known as the most passionate advocate for unborn children in Congress, leading the pro-life caucus in the House of Representatives.
Yet despite the challenges and struggles that have increased under the current administration, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J. remains undaunted in his defense of life in American politics.
In an interview with the Register on May 18, Congressman Smith discussed the controversy over pro-life Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who was recently criticized by more than 80 academics, including 30 Catholic ones, for his approach to budget cuts (they signed letters saying he had ignored his moral obligation to make protecting the poor a priority). Smith also gives his assessment of the current state of the pro-life movement in the U.S., the Defense of Marriage Act and the Obama administration’s relentless push to make same-sex “marriage” a key aspect of U.S. foreign policy.
Smith was speaking in Rome on the sidelines of a conference on combating human trafficking, a cause he has spearheaded in Congress for many years.
Congressman, what is your view on the controversy over John Boehner and the students and staff of Catholic University [they signed letters opposing an invitation for Boehner to give a commencement address there in May, claiming his approach to budget cuts showed he cared little for the poor]?
I think it’s very unfortunate. I’m no John Boehner; I’m not the Speaker; but I gave the commencement address to the law school once, and it is a privilege of the highest order. Knowing John Boehner, he’ll have seen that as a great privilege too. He’s very tough; he can take the hit.
But it’s very disappointing in the extreme for the students to give him a standing ovation after the fact and to have written that letter. We are facing the most monumental deficit: That is an economic tsunami that will undermine everything we do — our whole economic way of life. It has rapidly risen in the last six years, especially in the last three. It [the national debt] is now at $14.3 trillion, and it’s on course to reach $25 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2021. Just 10 years from today it will have doubled. That’s an exponential increase that is completely unsustainable. If [Ben] Bernanke [Federal Reserve chairman ] just prints more money, our currency will be devalued. Everyone’s 401k and home values, which are already eroding, will become a joke. A cruel joke.
Our administration is not taking seriously deficit reduction. He [President Obama] mouths talking points that sound good, as we saw with the resolution a few months ago. He was willing to risk a government shutdown to continue funding Planned Parenthood, which carries out one-fourth of all abortions in America. That was the issue. I know that as I talked to all the negotiators. So that was on the policy side; and on the money side we made a modest — and I mean modest with a small “m” — dent in the deficit on what we were able to achieve on the CR [Continuing Resolution]. You would think from some people’s perspective we were robbing from food stamps, assisted housing, veterans.
I used to be veterans’ [committee] chairman, so I watch that budget like a hawk, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Would you like the Church to speak out more about this, because it is a moral issue?
It is, but I think there needs to be a balance about what is achievable if we truly want to be responsible. I’d like to give all my money to this charity or that one, but I’ve got to pay for my two mortgages because I’ve got a house in both places; I have to pay my insurance. You just have to be responsible. It’s easy when all you have to say is: “How much do you want? I’ll write you a blank check.” So Boehner looks like he’s the heavy when he’s really fighting for those poor programs which will get cut. The only word I can say [about the university controversy], therefore, is that it’s disappointing; because here’s a man who led the effort on Obamacare to ensure it was pro-life. It’s not; we lost. But he tried. Here’s the man who believes passionately in Catholic teaching and cares about the poor — he really does. So does Eric Cantor, our majority leader. But you have to have the funds to do it. It’s just like Bush. He never got credit for his PEPFAR [President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief], malaria and tuberculosis programs. Obama comes in, and he pushes the Bush initiatives into the Global Health Initiative, and people are acting like it’s brand new. Yet these are all Bush initiatives. Ask the same people at Catholic University about the humanitarian work that was transformational that George Bush did. He is loved in Uganda, Tanzania and all these other places because of the work he’s done. So I wish there was a balance there. And what specifically are they talking about? Housing hasn’t been cut. We have to slow the growth and make hard choices. And when you make those hard choices, the other side — and I’m talking about members of Congress — is in the peanut gallery saying: “Oh look at this: You’re uncaring; you’re this and that.”
What is your assessment of the pro-life situation in the U.S. at the moment?
I’ve recently made two speeches about this. The pro-life movement has never been stronger. Never. I’ve been in it 38 years, and it’s never been stronger. Also, polls show our young people are trending. I see it at the March for Life every year. I see it in high schools where I speak. I used to be booed in the ’80s because I’d get a question about abortion. Now they break out into applause and come up and shake my hand. These are high-school students.
Would you say young people are leading the way?
They are really seeing it’s a violence issue — violence against children and mothers — and one-third of the kids in their schools are missing because of abortion. So maybe that somehow creeps into their thought processes as well. I’m a sponsor of H.R. 3 [No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act], and we had 227 co-sponsors on conscience and no taxpayer funding anywhere. If you “google” my name and put in “H.R. 3” or even “rape” in there, you’ll see how the left has attacked me with unceasing venom, which says to me, in an odd way, that we’re making progress. I wish it wasn’t like that.
Do these attacks sometimes get very personal?
The New York Times wrote an editorial [May 10] and used my name four times, which is unprecedented in one editorial. So I called them and asked if I could do an op-ed. I submitted it, and I’m waiting to see if they’re going to use it [as of May 25, they hadn’t]. I said: “You used my name. You attacked me by name. If you just talked about H.R. 3, you could say ‘get in line,’ but you made it personal.” So I hope it gets in. My opening line is: “The pro-life movement is stronger than ever.” The National Right to Life carried my first recent speech on the paradigm shift that I think has happened in the movement. It’s happened for a number of reasons: ultrasound, all the pro-life laws that have been painstakingly passed throughout the country, especially form of consent , parental notification, waiting periods, no funding, prohibitions and pregnancy-care centers (which are the greatest expressions of love ever because a lot of those women are post- abortive and helping women).
And then there is the Silent No More awareness campaign and other post-abortive groups of women telling their story. We think it’s why Justice Kennedy voted with us on the partial-birth abortion bill: the 2,000 or so (I forget the exact number) of women who told their stories. These stories are just beginning to come out, and I think they will continue to push the message that it [abortion] is not just bad for babies and is violence toward babies — it’s violence against women as well.
And regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), how is that playing out at the moment?
Not so well. It’s playing out well among my age group, but not so much among young people. There’s something of a disconnect, perhaps because of the way Hollywood has portrayed the homosexual agenda. Both Obama and [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton are pushing the gay-rights agenda in all of our foreign policy. It is integrated into our human-rights reporting and human-rights data calls. It’s displacing in prioritization all the traditional human rights, like torture, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and all the others. [President Luiz] Lula’s successor in Brazil and Obama just signed an agreement to set up a special rapporteur within the Organization of American States to monitor homosexual rights. We have to push back what Obama did with the military, which was a huge step backwards. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” [policy] was a compromise, and it seemed to have been working.
How do you respond to liberal critics who would label you as homophobic because of your position on this issue?
I take the view of Mother Teresa: Hate the sin; love the sinner. There’s no animosity. I get so tired of people who say that if you’re against that agenda you’re homophobic. There’s nothing further from the truth. I hear it from members of Congress, but it has nothing to do with it. It’s about reverence for marriage and the importance of marriage. Look at what’s happening in D.C., where Catholics have been forced out of the adoption business; ditto in Massachusetts, where if you refuse homosexual adoptions you’re out; you can’t do it. So it is very serious.
Yet, in spite of all of this, do you remain optimistic about the future?
Stay tuned on that one. I think we’re going to win the right to life globally. Ultrasound, science is on our side. The Church, especially John Paul II and now Benedict XVI, although he has not been around as long, have been strong with their culture of life versus the culture of death. They have really given a magnificent defense, and that gives hope to all: lawmakers, policymakers, and especially to women who might be contemplating abortion. And who provides the love and a path to reconciliation? It’s not Planned Parenthood; it’s the Catholic Church, the other Christian churches, and the ministries they have created.
Edward Pentin writes from Rome.
John Zmirak: We Are All Islamists Now
Matthew Warner: Why the world doesn't take Catholicism seriously
Comments
Post a Comment
We can’t continue to expend resources on the same-sex marriage debate. It is inevitable that same sex marriages will be recognized equally as traditional marriages. This is simply the next step in the evolution of marriage.
It is fantastic that US has Mr Smith and other members of Congress and Senate to actively try to protect unborn children and their parents from abortion.
We in Croatia have no members of parliament who would speak on defence of unborn. We have still in force communist law from Year 1978., but we reduced a number of legal abortions from over 40.000 yearly (in country of about v4 and half million people ), i year 1987. 48.000 to about 4.500 a year in last several years. What is more important we increase number of families with three or more children.
All, that with widespread, intelligent educational efforts which beside religious arguments, use arguments of justice,scientific information, joy of parenthood, value of each human etc.
If I am well informed many people in US do not know that in US is legal to terminate life of unborn through all nine mo0nths of pregnancy.
At Dezember human rights meeting in Vienna I mentioned that fact and representatives of governments and NGO many did not know that.
I think that You can embarrass US government by informing that only in US it is legal to kill a child of 4 kilograms even few days before date of birth, no legal consequences.
Informations, education, promotion of parental love makes difference and will ultimatelly help make better laws.
God bless America where all children are lovede and cared for.
My wife and myself have 6 children. With youngest son unmarried we have 18 visible and 2 temporary invisible grandchildren.
What a shame that he equates support of marriage equality with a lack of reverence for and a failure to appreciate the importance of marriage. Also note that Catholics were not forced out of the adoption business ... they just had to give up the public funding they enjoyed if they chose to discriminate.
Contrary to Rep. Chris Smith’s claim, increasing acceptance and support for Gay people among younger Americans has little to do with Hollywood portrayals, and more to do with the fact that Gay individuals and couples are living their lives openly, honestly, and with integrity and humility.
30 years ago, most Americans didn’t know of any friends, family members, or co-workers who were Gay. Today most Americans DO, especially young people, and they have simply come to the conclusion that the only real difference between a Straight couple and a Gay couple is the gender of the two people in the relationship. And especially in the age of Facebook, the proverbial “closet” has been rendered completely obsolete.
Mr. Smith trots out the tired, threadbare aphorism, “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” He needs to ask himself why Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing ... yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a bad thing. How is this a good value judgment? In my opinion it ISN’T, and I think most younger people agree with me.
I don’t know if Representative Smith knows any Gay individuals or couples personally. I suspect he doesn’t, otherwise he probably wouldn’t view us with such disdain. My suggestion for him, in his dealings with Gay Americans, would simply be to follow The Golden Rule, and to treat them as he would have them treat him. If he is incapable of doing this, then the young people who are the voters of tomorrow will see him as utterly irrelevant in the 21st Century.
It is good that there are people sticking up for marriage and pro life. My esperiences with homosexuals are negative. When it comes to sex homosexuals don’t take no for answer. I had a homosexual supervisor once and he seemed to be ok. Wouldn’t be confusing to children about male and female relations to have two parents of the same sex. On Opra one show the was a celebrety homosexual to discussing raising children. The homosexual celebrety asked her child a girl if she wanted a dady and the child said no. It seems that child is confused person because two same sex parents.
Rather than make gay rights a popularity contest, lets ask America’s best experts on family, mental health and children. They would not be biased, and they have a duty to base their policy statements on the best interest of America. From the American Psychological Asociation: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors. America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality. There is no further reason to discriminate, except ignorance or bigotry. SO WHY WOULD ANYONE FIGHT THIS?????? Think of what you would want for yourself or your your family, or for your gay relative.
Fantastic blog! The tiny minority of wealthy Batchelors who have chosen a life- style that is offensive and narcissistic. Get to run the course of diplomacy and politics. With their fanboys crying their praises, get to run the world. While petty man peep about their legs. Why is homosexual and gay always in the same breath? One is a psycho-physical affliction the other a choice and/or a dysfunctional behavior. Now we have la Clinton and the Barack promoting madness. At the expense of the poor and the disenfranchised! And all we like lambs. ...
How the hell can a gay union be the same as a traditional marriage between a man and a woman?
Wow. What a shame that the NCR is filled with trolls-all but 3 prior commenters.
Continue the good work Congressman Smith!! On the youth in the pro-life and marriage movement-being connected online works.
Hollywood is a large force behind the homosexual agenda but not all of it. The whole thing’s a slippery slope. Homosexuals needed to come out first. But now Glee, Pretty Little Liars, and other programs are sucking in kids to the homosexual agenda. Whether these shows are good or not is irrelevant. They are addicting; kids can’t wait for the next episode. This means they will get more exposure to a belief that is showing how homosexuality is good. I have a gay teacher, and I think the exposure to gays in the media is why the class is so overwhelmingly supportive of him. These same kids are also the most illogical bunch I’ve met when it comes to other issues of burning concern in our society. I don’t mean to disparage them, but logical fallacies are all over the place in their reasonings over nearly every issue. (It’s not just Hollywood, but so many other things. Though Hollywood doesn’t help)
Sexual orientation is like left-handedness: biological, unchangeable, innocent. We used to think left-handed was evil (Latin for left is “sinister”), force lefties to use their right hand, even though they never really changed handedness. Research reveals variable hormonal levels in pregnancy permanently affect child’s neural circuitry for sexual orientation and gender identity: a little more testosterone in fetal girls’ brains from the adrenals causes <50% to be lesbian, 10% to be transgender. Sharing the womb with a boy co-twin (amniotic fluid has some of his testosterone) causes <15% of girl co-twins to be lesbian. These girls also have the bone structure and physical coordination of boys, so they are good in sports, thus the stereotype.
Less testosterone for boys’ brains from mother’s blocking antibody from many older brothers causes <15% of boys to be gay. These boys have the physiology/verbal skills like girls, and excel in language and visual arts, thus the stereotype
Even the American Academy of Anthropology has issued a policy statement that access to civil marriage by same-sex couples will not harm our social order. Seriously, visit the websites of these professional societies, and read their evidencial basis for these policy statements.
If we are not listening to professional experts on this issue of family health and welfare, then we are simply voting our religious beliefs or personal bias into state and federal laws, and harming the families of gay and lesbian couples, especially those with children. Gay peoples’ families and children matter.
Dr. O’Hanlan, You as much as anyone should be aware of the political undertows that push the policy statements of organizations such as the APA. Your statement, “. . .lets ask America’s best experts on family, mental health and children. They would not be biased . . .” is either ideologically driven, or negligent in assessing the facts. The fact is—sadly—empirical evidence does not totally weigh in to these organizations’ beliefs. There are a whole variety of influences, funding being one of them. A simple example is the change in the DSM that eliminated homosexuality as deviant sexual behavior. Look at who was on the board, their sexual orientation, and look into the extraneous factors into the decision made in the 1970s. Solid research at the time pointed to keeping the DSM unchanged. Heck, to point out another unrelated example, look at the drug companies and their “research” on osteopenia! What was the deciding factor there? Hint ($$)
It is sad what the democratic party has become, I know I speak for many when I say I didn’t leave the democratic party, they left me. God bless Congressman Chris Smith and Speaker John Boehner…....
One of the reasons, I suspect, that so many professional organizations support homosexual actions is that we’ve lost a sense of the importance of philosophy. To put it another way, science, in general, has overstepped its boundaries and presumed to produce moral or philosophical answers with its tools. Mortimer Adler’s “The Four Dimensions of Philosophy” treats this handily in the preface and first chapter or two.
If conditions in the womb lead to homosexual tendencies or behaviors, then science has presented a *cause*. A physical or psychological cause is not the same as a moral reason for or against. If a social, physical, or mental disease that we all agree is UNwanted has its root in conditions in utero, most would agree to treat the condition, rather than argue for its acceptance. If we can explain something chemically, that does not automatically make it right. This backtracking from biology to morality happens selectively. The absence of chemical X leads to mental disorder Y that we don’t like? Treat the disorder! The absence of chemical A leads to condition B that we do like? It’s how they were born.
Let me give a different example. If my son sneaks a piece of cake, he did something wrong. I may find, on investigation, a compelling reason for how the decision came about. I forgot *I* was supposed to make him lunch today, and it’s 2pm. Or perhaps we never taught him that was wrong. Or perhaps he saw Daddy sneak a piece of cake before dinner yesterday and learned a bad lesson. Or perhaps he has a physical disorder that’s suddenly manifested and his body craves the sugar. Any of those would mitigate his guilt for doing something wrong, and I would correct him differently in each case. None of them, however, changes the house rule that sneaking cake isn’t allowed. A social, psychological, and physiological explanation doesn’t lead *necessarily* to moral acceptability.
Science gives us lots of hows but no whys, and worse, it leads to the current situation where most people don’t realize there’s a difference.
@Joe—the identification of biological factors in determining sexual orientation has a lot of relevance to Constitutional questions regarding the granting of benefits/rights/protections to same-gender couples under the 14th Amendment. But it is not the main basis for promoting acceptance or tolerance of same-gender relationships. That has much more to do with research showing that such couples typically live very healthy, normal, productive lives, can make great parents, and are tangibly harmed by the discriminatory status quo. Or to put it in Natural-Law terms, it’s about seeking good and avoiding evil, where good and evil are objectively viewed in terms of health, well-being, and good for the social order.
Steve, you cannot be serious suggesting that the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, National Association of Social Workers, and even the Stanford Medical School Faculty Senate have all been taken over by homosexual activists who then endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples. Also the National Council of Adoptable Children, and the Children’s Defense League who endorsed adoption by qualified parents without regard to their sexual orientation. Come on. Visit their websites and READ UP on the topic.
Joe, you clearly have a good heart, but you do not understand that all sexual orientations are determined during gestation as a result of UNKNOWN and uncontrollable androgenic chemicals in the blood. As such, all orientations are innocent, unchangeable, and definitely not contagious. An orientation is the innate direction of ones sexual urge. Everyone has an urge, but the direction to one gender, the other gender, or softly to either, is set in the fetal neural circuitry during the first twelve weeks. There is no prenatal determination or treatment for any orientation. You cannot change yours, but neither can a gay person change theirs, nor SHOULD they.
What is deeply immoral is to make a gay young person feel spiritually or mentally defective by teaching that gay folk should be celibate, or not want to experience the fullness of love in civil marriage and family that most every human desires.
If I may, please
Regarding genetic or educational causes of homosexual inclinations we in Croatia came to very effective answer, to which promotors of homosexuality are silent.
Several years ago I was invited to TV taped debate with main media promotor of homosexual behaviour.
I came with three main points, devastating for them, and US owned commercial TV never emitted our debate.
My first point was that homosexual behaviour is wrong because by it a person refrain from greatest creativity available to perso - parenthood, but I immediatelly continued that heterosexual promiscuous behaviour is much worse, because by it person misuse parental capabilities, often become parent, some children kill, some abandon and only with serious change of heart accepts and cares for some.
With that point we make unimportant and baseless confrontation between so called homosexuals and heterosexuals, rather there is cionfrontation between honest and just and dishonest and unjust.
Second point was that every healthy person is capable to behave homosexualy, some people decide to behave that way. A person is author of its behaviour. Person decides according to which inclination will act according to which inclination wil refuse to act.
By that point it became unimportant is inclination to behave homosexualy genetic or educational. I argued that if I have inclination to insult a person I diusacuss or to be violent to him, I decide to attack him or not regardless are ma inclinations genetic or educational.
Third main argument was, that we who have several children, despite judge homosexual behaviour wrong and negative, we do not only love them but also care for them, often more then their collegues care for them.
We have six adult children who all work. In CRoatia three working people provide funds for two retirement pay. Three of my children pay for retirement of me and my wife, and three of my children pay for pensions of two persons of our age who have no children, some of them because of homosexual behaviour.
We print brochures with these arguments with no comment from their associations.
We write in our brochure that we respect every person regardless how she or he behaves, but do not accept and respect wrong behaviour. We are against ridiculing, humiliating or ironising persons who behave wrongly, but we ridicule, ironise and do not agree with their wrong behaviour.
Are homosexual inclinations genetic or educational is irrelevant similarly like it is irrelevant if someone inclinations to insult or be violent, or steal are genetic or educational.
Person decides according to what inclination will act or behave and according to which inclination will not act or behave.
Person is author of its behaviour.
Same with homosexual behaviour.
@Marijo
Your argument assumes a lot of culturally influenced factors and a lot of false premises.
Firstly, nobody chooses to ‘behave homosexually’. Most gays go through a period of denial and attempts to convert themselves into heterosexuals; none (or incredibly few) so far have actually succeeded. Sexuality is complicated, but I would never presume it possible to expect a heterosexual to behave ‘homosexually’ - especially not for his/her entire adult life - and vice-versa.
When society marginalizes gays (as does Congressman Smith) and discourages open relationships between homosexuals, it naturally creates a sub-culture of promiscuous sex, particularly for men. In particularly homophobic countries (such as Croatia or Russia, even Lebanon and the UAE), this is still seen today. It was also the case in much of the US before the ‘90s or so. In such societies, people very rarely come out of the closet, while many others spend their lives unattracted to their spouses.
As a result, older generations are more easily convinced that gays are naturally promiscuous and are psychologically ill (that is at least the official Catholic belief - drafted entirely by old people). Younger people in Western countries come out of the closet more often and live more openly. And thank God in many places they can get married and raise families.
Congressman Smith’s claims about Hollywood influencing young minds are insulting. When you actually know a gay person, all this abstract banter about genetic conditions or protecting our families is irrelevant. The person exists, has a personality, creativity, dreams, potential, which you have no right to limit. And fortunately men like Congressman Smith are a dying breed, at least in the United States, but elsewhere (such as Croatia) homosexuals face persecution on a daily basis with little hope for a better tomorrow. It’s only fitting to include them among the ranks of the marginalized around the world.
Oddly enough, Catholics are more likely to support gay marriage than protestants - probably because most of them realize that the Church has a pretty bad track record on the subject of ‘coming to terms with reality’.
I suppose that Rep. Smith would also “have no patience for” suggestions that those who opposed equal rights for Catholics in the US a century ago or oppose equal rights for Xtians in China today were/are anti-Catholic or anti-Xtian? Give me a break!
“...including 30 Catholic ones.” The word *Catholic* should be in quotation marks.
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.