Category: Abortion

From the Washtington Times . . .

On Jan. 23, 1973, the day after the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, the New York Times ran this headline: "Supreme Court Settles Abortion Issue." That was 32 years ago, and if the thousands who rallied yesterday in downtown Washington for the annual March for Life are any indication, then perhaps the NYT would now consider running a correction.

    "Settled" is how many pro-choicers considered the issue then — and still do — when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. For example, imagine if in 1986 — 32 years after the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, ending public school segregation — there was still a strong and growing segregationist movement in the United States. Imagine if segregationists were being elected to Congress, or that a segregationist held the White House. Rather, in a relatively short time, the sweeping changes decided by Brown came to be seen by the public as both constitutionally and morally right. The same cannot be said of Roe, a fact that says more about the decision than pro-choicers would care to admit.

If anything, Roe succeeded only in forming a coalition of otherwise politically disinterested voters that has significantly strengthened the Republican Party. For Democrats, Roe has become a political liability: If they aren’t sufficiently pro-Roe, their base will ignore them; yet if they are, they cannot hope to make inroads into red states. This has led to the untenable and absurd position held by many Democrats (and a few blue-state Republicans), who say that they are personally against abortion, but in favor of Roe.

READ MORE.

NORMA MCCORVEY (a.k.a. JANE ROE) ASKS THE SUPREMES TO REVERSE ROE v. WADE.

Unfortunately, the votes to overturn aren’t there yet.

But in four years, they could be.

What’s the American Nazi PartyPlanned Parenthood up to?

FIND OUT HERE.

Feddie over at Southern Appeal offers some analysis of this recent poll.

I think Feddie’s analysis is dead on: Americans’ support for Roe vs. Wade is part of a more general, narcissistic "culture of me," in his words, as well as a false (that is to say, one-sided) culture of sympathy and sentimentality that focuses on the visible (the ostensible harm to a mother’s interests) over the invisible (the actual harm done by killing an infant).

Feddie writes that:

Assuming that this poll accurately reflects the opinion of the American people, this finding disappoints me on two levels.

The assumption that any poll reported by the press accurately reflects the opinion of the American people is, of course, a whopping huge assumption that is not rashly to be made (as illustrated by the exit polls last Election Day). The chance of misleading wording and biased sampling are just too great (especially when, as in this case, the wording of the questions and the internals of the poll are not given).

But even making this assumption, I don’t know how disappointed I am. Of course, I am disappointed to see the lack of appreciation of constitutional law that the public displays, but then the media and the educational system have been systematically inculcating a totally irresponsible philosophy of judicial activism in the populace for the last fifty years at least. One can’t be surprised, therefore, that there is a shocking ignorance on this subject among the American populace.

But setting that issue aside, I think that what support may be found for Roe among the populace is likely to be overestimated. The support for the Evil Decision may be broad, but it isn’t deep in many quarters. While there are many die-hard abortion supporters (pun intended), there are many, many more who are soft supporters that don’t really understand what Roe says.

Indeed, many still think that Roe only allows for abortion in limited circumstances, as opposed to virtual abortion on demand from conception until birth.

Others are willing to voice a vague support for abortion–until you confront them with the reality of what abortion involves, at which point their support dries up and even reverses.

I’m not surprised, therefore, that we have a lot of public education to do on this subject or that we have a long fight ahead of us.

But it is a fight we are destined to win.

Pro-lifers inherently out populate anti-lifers, and therein lies longterm victory.

The present poll, to the extent it shows us anything about present opinion (an extent already noted to be extremely questionable), merely reveals for us the Roe we have to hoe.

Feddie over at Southern Appeal offers some analysis of this recent poll.

I think Feddie’s analysis is dead on: Americans’ support for Roe vs. Wade is part of a more general, narcissistic "culture of me," in his words, as well as a false (that is to say, one-sided) culture of sympathy and sentimentality that focuses on the visible (the ostensible harm to a mother’s interests) over the invisible (the actual harm done by killing an infant).

Feddie writes that:

Assuming that this poll accurately reflects the opinion of the American people, this finding disappoints me on two levels.

The assumption that any poll reported by the press accurately reflects the opinion of the American people is, of course, a whopping huge assumption that is not rashly to be made (as illustrated by the exit polls last Election Day). The chance of misleading wording and biased sampling are just too great (especially when, as in this case, the wording of the questions and the internals of the poll are not given).

But even making this assumption, I don’t know how disappointed I am. Of course, I am disappointed to see the lack of appreciation of constitutional law that the public displays, but then the media and the educational system have been systematically inculcating a totally irresponsible philosophy of judicial activism in the populace for the last fifty years at least. One can’t be surprised, therefore, that there is a shocking ignorance on this subject among the American populace.

But setting that issue aside, I think that what support may be found for Roe among the populace is likely to be overestimated. The support for the Evil Decision may be broad, but it isn’t deep in many quarters. While there are many die-hard abortion supporters (pun intended), there are many, many more who are soft supporters that don’t really understand what Roe says.

Indeed, many still think that Roe only allows for abortion in limited circumstances, as opposed to virtual abortion on demand from conception until birth.

Others are willing to voice a vague support for abortion–until you confront them with the reality of what abortion involves, at which point their support dries up and even reverses.

I’m not surprised, therefore, that we have a lot of public education to do on this subject or that we have a long fight ahead of us.

But it is a fight we are destined to win.

Pro-lifers inherently out populate anti-lifers, and therein lies longterm victory.

The present poll, to the extent it shows us anything about present opinion (an extent already noted to be extremely questionable), merely reveals for us the Roe we have to hoe.

SDG here with some potentially stunning news.

Almost three months ago, I blogged on this site complaining that the Democrats needed to stop stonewalling pro-lifers in their own ranks.

Now it looks like they may actually be starting to do so.

According to this CNN.com story, the shrunken Democrat minority, having lost its leader Tom Daschle, has done something that would have seemed unthinkable only a few weeks ago: They’ve elected a pro-life Democrat to be their leader.

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada replaces Daschle as the new minority leader. According to CNN.com,

With the exception of abortion rights and gun control, both of which he opposes, Reid’s recent voting record on major issues puts him in the mainstream of Senate Democrats.

Assuming Reid’s pro-life credentials hold up, this is incredible news — a sign, perhaps, that Democrats are beginning to realize that unless they start reaching out to pro-lifers they’re going to continue to be the party out of power.

This leaves me with one question for pro-lifers who voted for Kerry.

Suppose that there had been enough pro-lifers willing to regard abortion as negotiable and vote for Kerry over Bush to actually get Kerry elected. Had that happened, do you think there’s any way we could possibly hope to be seeing signs now of the Dems beginning to crack on abortion?

GET THE STORY.

Responding to my post on How To Make Amends, a reader writes:

Once again, you’ve accepted the claims of Frs. DiNoia and Cole where they contradict Mr. Balestrieri, and not addressed the conflicts between the statements of Fr. DiNoia and Fr. Cole regarding the delegation to reply to Mr. Balestrieri, nor the harm done to the reputation of Mr. Balestrieri by unnamed sources within in the Vatican according to CNS, nor how the CDF decided to help this American student with his homework with a carefully crafted letter in less than 10 days of his visit there.

It would appear that you do not understand the nature of the post on which you are commenting.

This post recommends a fundamental change in strategy on Mr. Balestrieri’s part. Following his receipt of Fr. Cole’s letter, he engaged in a pattern of behavior guaranteed to tick off the Vatican and severely damage his canonical complaint’s prospects of success. Following this turn of events, I decided to

(1) point out this fact in a vivid manner so that it would have the twin effects of

(a) forcefully making the point for Mr. Balestrieri’s benefit and

(b) forcefully warning the public of the problems just created for Mr. Balestrieri’s case and then to

(2) recommend a course of action that stood the best chance of getting his case back on track.

(1) was the point of How To Tick Off the Vatican and (2) was the purpose of How To Make Amends. That is the nature of the post on which you are commenting: It is not meant to provide continuing analysis of the debacle. It is meant to point to the most promising way out of the debacle.

The approach I recommended means not continuing the tit-for-tat, “he said/she said” game that Mr. Balestrieri was playing. There comes a point that, no matter how strongly one believes that one has been wronged, prudence dictates that one turn the other cheek and not continue to alienate those who you need not to alienate. Mr. Balestieri has done incalculable damage to his canonical case and to his career by the approach he took. I tried to point to a way he could staunch the bleeding and try to salvage both of these.

The approach I was recommending meant precisely not continuing to analyze who said what when and thus the post does not include the kind of analysis that you seem to expect it to.

The “application” of the letter as you put it to the case of not a libelous leap by Mr. Balestrieri as you suggest here.

I have not suggested that Mr. Balestrieri has committed libel. What I have said is that in his News Release No. 2 he grossly misrepresented what the Vatican did. That is unquestionable, as can be demonstrated by looking only at material he has placed on his own web site, not relying on anything Fr.s DiNoia and Cole have said elsewhere. See How To Tick Off The Vatican and Tunc et Nunc.

Rather, the substance of letter itself makes it clear it applies to the case of John Kerry and any Catholic politician who advocates an abortion right in defiance of Church teaching. The letter speaks for itself without any “spin”.

No, this is precisely the problem. The letter does not make it clear that it applies to the case of John Kerry. No matter how much I want it to do so, it does not. No matter how much you want it to do so, it does not. No matter how much Mr. Balestrieri wants it to do so, it does not. Kerry is not mentioned in the letter, and Fr. Cole appears to be addressing two situations that are not clearly and unambiguously a match for Sen. Kerry’s horrendous and ambiguous statements regarding abortion.

“Well by all means use it, no restrictions whatsoever.” Permission was given to make Fr. Cole’s 9/11 letter public. The “confusion” as you put it in your mock apology commenced with the CNS interview of Fr. DiNoia.

Two points:

1) “No restrictions whatsoever” doesn’t mean that one is free to represent the reply as something it is not. Permission to publish an informal reply from an individual theologian at the Dominican House of Studies does not entail permission to represent this reply as “formal,” “official,” “binding,” “decisive,” and from “the Vatican.”

2) Your above remark also appears to involve the same misunderstanding of the post How To Make Amends. What I wrote was not a “mock apology” but a serious proposal for the kind of things Mr. Balestrieri could say to try to get out of the mess he got himself into.

Finally, Jimmy, where do you stand?

I want to see pro-abort Catholic politicians slapped with severe canonical sanctions.

Do you dispute the Fr. Cole’s letter communicates the teaching of the Church?

No, I don’t dispute it. I would say that the final brief treatment of the civil right to abortion that the letter provides that does not make it fully clear what kind of support for this right Fr. Cole has in mind. He appears to be thinking of supporting such a right simpliciter–i.e., thinking that the existence of a civil right to abortion is of itself a good thing as opposed to something required by extrinsic circumstances per Evangelium Vitae 73.

Do you dispute that “if I obstinately deny by teaching and preaching, or doubt that abortion is not intrinsically evil, I commit the mortal sin of heresy”?

I don’t deny that the obstinate post-baptismal doubt or denial of the truth that abortion is intrinsically evil is a heresy.

I don’t think Mr. Balestrieri was “unfair” to Frs. DiNoia or Cole.

I have confidence that this is your opinion.

However, the facts say otherwise. He grossly misrepresented the letter from Fr. Cole.

I think somewhere Frances Kissling must be delighted that Catholics see fit to mock Marc Balestrieri in this week before the election.

I suspect that she doesn’t even know my blog exists.

I’m also not going to write off the use of irony as a way of making a point. Jesus was rather big on it.

Sometimes irony is even the kinder way to explain what a person has done compared to offering a blunt and flatly analytical dissection of it.

Excerts from NYT editorial by the good Archbishop:

Words are cheap. Actions matter. If we believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, we need to prove that by our actions, including our political choices. Anything less leads to the corruption of our integrity. Patriotism, which is a virtue for people of all faiths, requires that we fight, ethically and nonviolently, for what we believe. Claiming that “we don’t want to impose our beliefs on society” is not merely politically convenient; it is morally incoherent and irresponsible.

As James 2:17 reminds us, in a passage quoted in the final presidential debate, “Faith without works is dead.” It is a valid point. People should act on what they claim to believe. Otherwise they are violating their own conscience, and lying to themselves and the rest of us.

Schwing!

READ THE EDITORIAL (Evil NYT-noid Registration Warning).

UPDATE: BTW, I should mention that Archbishop Chaput’s last name does not rhyme with “kaput.” The T on the end of his name is silent and the U is long.

Having successfully ticked off the Vatican, one might decide that the odds of winning one’s already-difficult case are now so reduced that the most productive thing to do is to withdraw the case and move on with life, letting others find a way to canonically nail pro-abort Catholic politicians in the future. Barring that, one might try to minimize the damage by adopting a humble, loyal-son-of-the-Church tone and making amends. A press release like this (which may be used in whole, in part, or in modified form) could be helpful. . . .

PLEASE NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS A HYPOTHETICAL PRESS RELEASE THAT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED BY MARC BALESTRIERI. IT IS MEANT TO INDICATE THE KIND OF THINGS HE COULD SAY TO MAKE AMENDS. PLEASE DO NOT POST IT OR E-MAIL IT CLAIMING THAT IT IS AN ACTUAL PRESS RELEASE.

AN APOLOGY

I would like to apologize to all those mentioned in or affected by the press releases I issued this week. In particular, I would like to apologize to the Very Reverend Fr. Augustin DiNoia, O.P. and Fr. Basil Cole, O.P. In my eagerness to see Sen. John F. Kerry canonically prosecuted for his horrendous support of the abortion holocaust in America, I said and did things that were at times unfair to them and to others. Worse yet, I misrepresented the actions of these two great servants of the Church and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

I would like to make the following clarifications:

1. The Vatican has not said that Sen. John F. Kerry has excommunicated himself for heresy or that he is presently excommunicated.

2. The response I received from Fr. Cole was the unofficial opinion of an individual theologian on matters of principle. He did not apply and was not asked to apply these principles to Sen. Kerry.

3. It would be up to a Church tribunal to determine whether or not the sanction of excommunication applies or should be applied to Sen. Kerry.

I wish to express my profound regret for producing confusion on these points, and I apologize to all who I have harmed by leading them to think otherwise on these points.

Fr.s DiNoia and Cole were only seeking to help me by providing a personal commentary on matters of principle. I never asked them to apply these principles to the case of Sen. Kerry. I very much regret that their goodwill in this matter has been repaid with such controversy and confusion due to my actions. I specifically apologize to them for the offensive tone I have taken in some of my prior press releases.

I also hope that a way forward can still be found in the canonical action filed regarding Sen. Kerry with the Archbishop of Boston. The abortion holocaust in America has killed so many individuals, and Sen. Kerry has been so consistent in his support of this ongoing horror that I think it is imperative that the fundamental incompatibility of Sen. Kerry’s position with the Catholic faith be made clear to all. By taking the position he has, Sen. Kerry has inflicted tremendous damage on the faithful of America, and his actions have resulted in more babies being killed.

Only if the voice of Christ is clearly heard in this matter can the public be awakened to the unacceptability of the “Personally opposed but . . .” position. The abortion holocaust cannot be ended until that happens.