Life matters. From conception to natural death, it matters. This is a principle Catholics must carry with them into the voting booth.
But it is not a simple binary equation. It is not an either/or proposition. In the end, determining which candidate better serves the interests of life is a prudential judgment. A simple promise to overturn Roe v. Wade does not automatically make one the pro-life candidate.
In my estimation, Barack Obama is the more seriously pro-life candidate in this year's presidential contest. Voters should not forget his early connections to the Catholic Church. He attended St. Francis of Assisi Catholic School in Jakarta for three years. His mother, Ann Dunham, assisted Fr. A.M. Kaderman, S.J., in managing an English-language training school during this time. When Barack Obama worked as a community organizer in the middle 1980s, he did so out of the rectory of Holy Rosary Catholic Church on the South Side of Chicago, where he helped to coordinate the efforts of eight Catholic parishes and numerous other religious organizations to improve the lives of unemployed steel workers and others whom the financialized economy was leaving in the dust. He still considers the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago an inspiration. (On this background, see the wonderful new book by the Catholic legal scholars Douglas Kmiec and Ed Gaffney, and the Harvard Medical School Professor of Pediatrics, Dr. Patrick Whelan, "America Undecided: Catholic, Independent, and Social Justice Perspectives on Election 2012.")
Kmiec, Gaffney and Whelan stress that there is no more powerful abortifacient in this country than poverty. It may be difficult for the comfortable, upper-middle class conservative Catholics who support Mitt Romney for "pro-life" reasons to associate with this reality. But imagine for a moment a young woman, 18 or 20, 25 or even 30 years old. She comes from a broken, impoverished family and has little real economic future. She's gone through a bad relationship or two, and faces a soul-crushing existence being nickel-and-dimed through a series of dead-end jobs in America's service economy. She is poor, desperate, alone and maybe even threatened by her boyfriend. The jobs are so haphazard, the poverty so shattering, that family formation is impossible. A powerful description of the plight of women who lead these lives of invisible suffering can be found in Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel-and-Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" (2001). Conditions have only grown more acute in the decade since Ehrenreich wrote her book.
In fear, in humiliation, in aching isolation, she seeks an abortion. This bleak portrait depicts the tragic dimensions of the abortion crisis in America. It is a crisis born not of the selfish pursuit of the glittering baubles of American materialism, but of the panic-stricken sense of having nowhere to turn. And it is fed at the top by politicians who prize Randian individualism and the unfettered quest for riches above every human value.
The Netherlands and Germany have abortion rates less than one-third of the United States. Why? Because those nations address the cause of abortion at its root -- poverty. They provide pre-natal and post-natal care, and a social system that genuinely assists the new mother who chooses life.
President Obama's Affordable Care Act represents a small, measured step in the direction of maternal assistance for women in crisis. It does not go nearly far enough, in my judgment, but in our present political environment it is probably the best that can be achieved. It is grounded on the basic premise of Catholic social thought, reiterated time and again by the popes, from Leo XIII to Benedict XVI, that health care is a fundamental right. It is the indispensable starting point of a seamless ethic of life.
The Affordable Care Act legislatively recognizes this fundamental moral right. Among its provisions, the ACA creates a Pregnancy Assistance Fund. Specifically on the issue of crisis pregnancy, this fund assists in several ways. It can cover the salary of counselors who point young women in the direction of social services. It supports parenting classes and aids with day-care costs at colleges and universities. It teaches and supports and, in sum, helps equip panicked, pregnant young women to become responsible, future-directed young mothers.
The Affordable Care Act helps save unborn lives in other ways as well. It increases tax credits for adoptions, making this loving alternative more affordable and more readily available. It recognizes that Medicaid currently pays for one-third of all live births in America and promises to maintain adequate funding for this vital service. Abortion is a serious wrong, but it is better, as the proverbial saying goes, to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
And what do the Republicans, that ostensible pro-life party, offer in return? They deny that health care is a basic right, describing it instead as a matter of "personal responsibility," thereby repudiating a foundational principle of Catholic social thought. They promise the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, including presumably the Pregnancy Assistance Fund and the adoption credits. They solemnly pledge to slash budgetary allocations to Medicaid, thus fueling the ever-deepening desperation of the pregnant poor. And in life's final years, the Republicans will voucherize Medicare, putting at risk the health and well-being of millions of senior citizens.
Well, one might retort, perhaps the Republicans will at last reverse Roe v. Wade. The reversal of Roe v. Wade has been a part of every Republican platform since 1980. Hasn't happened yet. Catholics who cling to this thin reed should prepare for disappointment. The Supreme Court will perpetually be one vote short of reversal.
A recent poll shows that Catholics prefer candidates who give attention to the poor than abortion (see Chicago Tribune, "Catholics Want More Focus on Poverty Than Abortion, Survey Finds," October 24, 2012). In reality, it is not one or the other. Fight poverty, and you fight abortion. So, I am voting for life -- Obama-Biden 2012.
Rev. James Martin, S.J.: Don't Vote for the 'Better Catholic'
Michelangelo Signorile: Why Does Paul Ryan Have a Debate Coach Who Promotes 'Anti-American' Values?
Rev. James Martin, S.J.: Found: The Perfect Catholic Convention Speaker
Carol DeChant: Are Catholics in the Pews Like Pew's 'Catholic Voters'?
i wonder why the double standard. god is a murderer, pure and simple...that's if you believe he exists.
1. He voted 3 times to allow the doctor to "finish the job" when a baby survives an abortion attempt. That is nothing less than an indefensible position.
2. It is poor logic to assume that repealing a very poorly constructed Federal take over of the healthcare economy is the only way to achieve pro-life objectives. Repealing Obamacare does not mean nothing in it's place.
3. The primary planks of the Democratic platform are so intensely pro-abortion rights on demand - it makes little sense to call this man pro-life
4. The end-of-life position for the Democratic party is not pro-life in Christian terms
With the election looming, Fr. Sammie Maletta delivers a powerful and thought-provoking homily on the moral truths that we as Catholics are called to defend as citizens in in a free society.
He argues that Catholic teaching is neither Democrat or Republican -- but, that does not mean we are free to vote as we wish. There is a hierarchy of moral truth that must inform our vote.
Fr. Maletta's homily is a stirring call-to-action in the face of a world increasingly dominated by secularization and a world in which our religious freedom is increasingly threatened.
THIS INSPIRATIONAL HOMILY IS WORTH YOUR TIME -- IT IS THAT GOOD!
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2012/10/inspirational-election-homily-fr-sammie.html
It really doesn't make sense to have a president outlaw abortion, and make it harder for lower income women and families to live with decency. After all, those born need protection: from the crucible of poverty, disease, and preventable, 'life' threatening conditions.
I guess the term 'prolife' should be expanded to include all humans.
It also require great sacrifice. For my grand sons, it requires three adult for the two healthy boys to participate in normal activities, due to the middle son's circumstances. One adult always in the home; not everyone has such support.
Then there is the matter of learning enough about the condition, treatment plan, and emergency plan to be useful help. There is a lot more to "life, liberty, and happiness than being born with a huge disadvantage.
This I write from an empiric view with a challenged child, rather than a popular view.
you summed everything up ! for us for me for a poor mother who has seen a lot !
REALLY??? in the estimation of all sensible women I know that FOCUSING is working out to Romney's benefit !
WHY THE DEMOCRATS underestimate and TRY TO CONFUSE THE AMERICAN WOMEN?AMERICAN WOMEN ARE SMART AND THEY KNOW THIS:ROMNEY/RYAN HAVE TO, AND WILL FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW, !!Their personal believes are just THEIR PERSONAL BELIEVES !!
OUR Constitution guarantees 'freedom of choice' and it is a woman's RIGHT to apply that to her private life. It is between HER and her conscience and her GOD. It is no one else's business to tell her what to do.
If she practices a religion that asks her to preserve life, then it is HER decision to follow or NOT.
It is NOT the role of government nor public pressure to make those decisions for her. THIS IS SO SIMPLE. What is all the FUSS over this, anyway?
People must be very bored with their lives to carry on about this the way they do. Move on and get a life.THE AMERICAN WOMEN VOTE WITH THEIR SMARTS. PERIOD !
THEIR TARGET IS A STRONG ECONOMY !
Romney/Ryan ARE the ONLY " KNOW HOW " TEAM !
Who is more Pro-Life is a strange argument. You either are or you aren't Pro-LIfe. Defending either party on this issue is a hopeless endeavor. This is what the culture of death is really about. Our culture pervades our politics. Both parties represent different parts of the culture of death, but stand fully behind it.
How do you vote then? Well. You vote with a prayerful conscience for whom you think is the better candidate for the country. But disavow yourself of the notion that your vote is more righteous than another. You will not find righteousness in the voting booth.
How do you define poverty in America? Do you want us to be like India, Somalia, Bangladesh, Sudan, etc? I prefer the Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Dutch, English, and Canadian examples of governments which use their resources to help all citizens not just the greedy wealthy elites.