 |
||||
about
us/weekly Mass readings
In hope we are saved--NEW papal encyclical |
The
Catholic Democrat view: “From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable policies and solutions arises. It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific political solutions – and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one – to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person.” —Doctrinal Note on some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Nov 2002. “Extremely sensitive situations arise when a specifically religious norm becomes or tends to become the law of a state without due consideration for the distinction between the domains proper to religion and to political society. In practice, the identification of religious law with civil law can stifle religious freedom, even going so far as to restrict or deny other inalienable human rights.” -- John Paul II, Message for the World Day of Peace, 1 Jan 1991 By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible. —Doctrinal Note on some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Nov 2002.
Taking a position on abortion Perhaps Governor Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has said it best in his speeches this year to audiences across the country: "I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion." Virtually every Democrat in public life believes that we should be working together to significantly cut the number of abortions performed in the United States. In fact, it is not widely appreciated that significant progress was made under President Bill Clinton's Administration: the number of abortions fell from more than 1.6 million each year during the first Bush Administration to under 1.3 million now. Like our Bishops, we feel that people across the political spectrum should be working hard to support women and to help bring every baby into the world. Pregnancy and parenthood are no cake walk, and the real question is whether we as a society value women and the extraordinary sacrifices that motherhood requires. To this end, we have advocated across the country for a platform of positive measures that could further impact this significant problem. Democrats for Life have made an important contribution with their legislative initiative to actually do something to help women avoid going through this ordeal. For more information on adoption options, we can strongly recommend a website created by a Catholic couple, Paulette and Jim Joyce in Pittsburgh, called ChooseAdoption.net.
Justice Sunday II: Catholic Democrats of Nebraska:
2. His public position may be best characterized by his statement in the third debate: “Surely there are ways we can work together to reduce the number of abortions: continue to promote adoption laws - that's a great alternative to abortion. Continue to fund and promote maternity group homes. I will continue to promote abstinence programs." Then he concluded, "All of us ought to be involved with programs that provide a viable alternative to abortion." This stance is virtually indistinguishable from that of his opponent in last year's election, Senator John Kerry. 3. The “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003” passed by Congress and signed by Mr. Bush in November that year indicates that this undefined procedure affects fewer than 0.2% of all abortions. Implicitly acknowledged is the fact that this law, had it taken effect, would not have altered in any way the number of abortions performed in the United States (since the other, more prevalent method, would simply replace it). Consequently, Mr. Bush erred when he stated in the third Presidential debate, “"I believe reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that will help reduce the number of abortions. Take, for example, the ban on partial-birth abortion." The "partial birth abortion ban" would actually have no effect on the total number of abortions performed, were it ever to take effect. Click here for more details. 4. The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" signed into law in April 2004 was cited by Mr. Bush in the second presidential debate as a measure that would decrease the number of abortions. However, the law makes no reference to abortion, and has not been construed as a measure that restricts abortion. The law relates only to a narrow set of circumstances in which a pregnant woman is injured, for instance during a federal crime such as a terrorist attack or drug-related shooting, or for crimes committed on military bases or federal lands. 5. The Republican Platform for 2004 called for a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. But the advocacy of illegality alone does nothing to decrease abortion. For example, as noted above, during the Reagan Administration the number of abortions rose significantly and peaked during the first Bush Administration. In contrast, during the Clinton Administration the number of abortions fell significantly, and were performed at a significantly earlier stage in pregnancy. CDC data on abortion in 2001 shows that abortions have not decreased in number during the current Bush Administration. In fact, rates of teenage abortions rose in the first year of the Bush Administration for the first time in many years. 6. From a practical standpoint, outlawing abortion would result in changing a surgical procedure that is safe for the mother into an illicit drug problem with a predictable and substantial incidence of birth defects and potential maternal death. Misoprostol is widely available in other countries, costs pennies to make, and potentially could be sold for hundreds of dollars if the substance was illegal. 8% of misoprostol treatments fail to induce abortion, and have a relatively high incidence of induced birth defects. Moral
scorecard: 2. Bush Administration social policy has led to increases in joblessness for the first time since the Hoover Administration, in a loss of disposable income for families, and in a substantial increase in the number of women without health insurance. In the limited data available, all these factors have been identified as potential contributors to the number of abortions in the United States. 3. Although Mr. Bush has not publicly advocated the illegality of abortion, confining one’s abortion opposition to advocacy for illegality is an excuse to do practically nothing to stop abortions anytime in the next 50 years. 4. Many "pro-life" advocates are fond of using the term "murder" when referring to abortion. Even so, most of them recoil at the prospect of actually punishing pregnant women, and indeed few women in American history have been directly punished for seeking abortions. Perhaps these advocates recognize subconsciously that imprisonment could never be considered the Catholic solution to any moral problem. The opportunity costs of imprisoning hundreds of thousands of pregnant women would mean tens of billions of dollars in costs to state and local governments that would not otherwise go to healthcare, homecare for the elderly, and education. 5. Practically speaking, no one can predict that abortion will ever become illegal in the United States, even were Roe v. Wade to be overturned. But those states that sought to make it illegal would likely convert abortion into an illicit drug problem, causing maternal death and substantial levels of misoprostol-related birth defects. With 40% of American teenagers having acknowledged marijuana use, the Federal Government has an awful track record in limiting the use of illicit drugs. The government’s ability to limit illegal abortion is likely to be similarly (and severely) limited. 6. Since any illegality for abortion in the future would mean dealing with a new illicit drug problem, there won't be many doctors to hold accountable. Who will be punished under such an illegality scheme in states like Mississippi? Half of all women seeking abortions have other children who would be forced into foster or relative care if their mothers were the only ones available to hold accountable. Advocates of illegality must explain how these fully foreseen consequences would be compatible with the compassion implicit in the Catholic world view. 7. Mr. Bush
stated at the signing ceremony for the “Unborn Victims of
Violence Act” that, “The moral concern of humanity extends
to those unborn children who are harmed or killed in crimes against
their mothers. And now, the protection of federal law extends to
those children, as well.” He has however expressed no remorse
for, or even awareness of, all those women and unborn babies who
have been killed as a result of his policies in Iraq.
|
|||
