Another Major Pro-Life Scholar Endorses Obama Citing Pro-Prevention Policies

A second major pro-life scholar is coming out in strong support for Sen. Barack Obama, specifically citing Obama's pro-education and pro-prevention agenda to reduce unintended pregnancies. According to The Boston Globe:

Nicholas P. Cafardi, a law professor and the former dean of the Duquesne University Law School, is an establishment Catholic figure -- he is a leading expert on canon law, he spent 13 years as the general counsel for the Diocese of Pittsburgh, he spent three years on the board of the Canon Law Society of America, and he was appointed by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to the first National Review Board advising the church on its response to clergy sexual abuse. He authored an analysis of the bishops' response to clergy sexual abuse, "Before Dallas,'' that was published this year by Paulist Press.

Writing for the Religion News Service and appearing in many publications including the National Cathiolic Reporter, Cafardi's article is entitled "I'm Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Abortion, and Support Obama."

There's another distinction that is often lost in the culture-war rhetoric on abortion: There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions, and has consistently said that "we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion." He favors a "comprehensive approach where ... we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children." And he wants to ensure that adoption is an option for women who might otherwise choose abortion.

Obama worked all of that into his party's platform this year. By contrast, Republicans actually removed abortion-reduction language from their platform.

What's more, as recent data show, abortion rates drop when the social safety net is strengthened. If Obama's economic program will do more to reduce poverty than McCain's, then is it wrong to conclude that an Obama presidency will also reduce abortions? Not at all.

Professor Doug Kmiec, Ronald Reagan's constitutional lawyer as head of the office of legal counsel for the Department of Justice, has been a vocal supporter of Obama and has been part of private meetings Obama held with faith leaders, where many came out declaring Obama "more centrist" on issues of reproductive health. Kmiec has been denied communion because of his endorsement.

It defies all logic that these staunchly pro-life luminaries of Catholic legal scholarship would take these positions if the ludicrous charges about Obama supporting "infanticide" were in any way true. These repeatedly debunked charges have been recycled since 2004 and are being made in emails, featured in videos, and are motivated by self-promoters like Jill Staneck and lobbying groups like the National Right to Life Committee that rely on perpetuating divisive abortion politics. The charges are also appearing in television ads supported by one multi-millionaire who profits from federal grants -- paid with your tax dollars -- creating failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

This shift among leading pro-life Catholic scholars is also supported by leading conservative political writers and thinkers like David Frum, Mickey Edwards and others who have written about the need for conservatives to change their approach to abortion politics. But the McCain-Palin platform, as Cafardi points out, calls for a ban to all abortions, and they have promised to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade. While some suggest undoing that Supreme Court case will simply return the matter to the states, it also opens the door to a Congressional fight for a federal ban on abortion and would begin another generation of divisive abortion-related politics creating more gridlock in Congress and state legislatures.

Progressives in Congress led by pro-choice Democrats and Republicans, as well as pro-life Democrats, have consistently supported policies like the Prevention First Act, the Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act, and the Responsible Education About Life Act only to be blocked by the same old divisive anti-choice politics that defined the social conservative Culture War for the past 30 years.

This article originally published on RH Reality Check

Comments

[PDidy]

The comments here all prove the point that abortion is another form of birth control. If you didn't completely escape the responsibility of sex b/c your birth control failed, why, then go have an abortion. What a great reaction. Don't blame me for having sex....blame my kid! And better yet, abort the kid for having the audacity to be conceived! Stubborn kids these days.

[RobinSeattle]

Please stop using "pro-life" to describe those opposed to abortion. Call them what they are: forced procreationists.

[PDidy]

Right. They force you to have sex. Nice try but your conclusion is laughable.

[SandraL]

I am very pro choice and feel it does not conflict with my being Catholic. i grew up in a strong family that instilled in me that a life is precious, and that includes my respect for my own body and the fact that it can create life. i grew up knowing of this huge responsibility and have never been in a position to have to choose. Knowing myself and my family I actually have the choice to consider keeping the baby or even considering adoption. But what of women, who are very poor, with little support, and having a baby could only mean the CHOICE of being unemployed, asking for public assistance because of that, or if you are very young, there is no such thing as a pregnancy leave or time off from work. It is also a crime to abandon a baby. It is a very complex issue that should be decided by the woman. Not by the religion and upheld by the laws of this country.

[PeaceOnEarth62]

Pro-Choice should be all about providing women with affordable, accessible health care to help them make informed decisions about their bodies, their reproductive health, and reproductive decisions. I've never supported the idea of abortion as being a form of 'family planning'. I would never judge another woman on her choice to have an abortion but would hope that someday she wouldn't have to make such a decision due to unfavorable circumstances or "mistakes". The goal is to provide women of all ages healthcare support so that unwanted pregnancies are someday completely avoidable.

Because of this "pro-life" sector, it causes women to doubt their own morals about pregnancy, birth control, and what it all means in the big picture. The doors need to be open so all of us regardless of our religious or moral upbringing realize this is more than morality or being a good or bad person. It's about being able to prevent pregnancies if we so choose as well as to be able to have healthy pregnancies and healthy babies.

[jdmba]

I agree that this should be front page.

I don't believe in abortion. I could never personally have one.

But I also have a supportive family, and access to numerous birth control methods. So, it's really easy for me to say that I would never have an abortion. The latter reason is why I'm pro-choice.

I appreciate the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. Why Rethugs want abstinence only education boggles my mind. It's just a form of control, and keeping women "in their place." Considering the staggering numbers of STDs in today's teenagers, then perhaps it's about some form of social control, too. I don't know.

[lilacmess]

I tried to provide this link a little while ago, but I think my post was eaten.

I stumbled across this article about a month ago while researching Sarah Palin's stance on abortion. It discusses a frightening possibility should abortion ever actually be made illegal. Certainly solidified my pro-choice position!

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/09/04/an-open-letter-gov-palin-womens-rights

[lilacmess]

The Catholic high school in my town organizes bus trips every other weekend to the only abortion clinic in our area about an hour's drive away. The kids protest with signs, songs, and prayers . . . and, of course, shouts of damnation. It's a fun weekend outing for a Catholic kid. I've often wondered. What's the real victory of such a protest? Is is the woman or girl who turns around on her way into the clinic, having changed her mind about having an abortion? Or is it the much longed-for chance to loudly degrade and humiliate that same woman or girl as she walks out of the clinic after having had the abortion?

[JillQ]

Too bad these every-other-weekend bus trips aren't to facilities that help unwed, pregnant teenagers. Do they volunteer at their local adoption agency or foster homes? Perhaps they are Big Brothers or Big Sisters? No, they spend their energy, time and money "protesting." My Catholic faith is based on helping "the least of my brother." My Catholic school and church have become a cult of hypoctrits.

[longislandlol]

Also-- watch the Reagan Democrats embrace Irish Catholic Joe Biden as one of their own-- Joe has caught on big time with these reagan dems---they love his family values and Joe goes to Mass weekly with the whole Biden brood!

[aliceinthewater]

I feel that the best the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice movements can do is find common ground and work together. I feel that both groups want fewer abortions and fewer unplanned pregnancies. The best decision is to leave the extremes to duke out their own silly talking points. If both groups are willing to take a pragmatic approach to the issue, I think they'll find a way of cutting the number of abortions in the country in half.

I think this issue has divided the country long enough.

[IHIRB]

A question that has been on my mind lately is this: hypothetically, what if there was Federal ban on abortion? What would the pro-lifers do with their time at that point? Refocus their energy toward charity work for children born into poverty? Working toward social justice? Or would the pro-lifers go after contraceptives, determining that using hormonal birth control is murder because it prevents the creation of human life?

I understand the sanctity of life. Abortion is a choice I never wanted to make. And I would never ever make it again. But to demand an end to choice, and then only teach abstinence-only sex ed programs (which clearly do not work)... how can conservative women stand for that?

[Scott Swenson - Huffpost Blogger]

Actually, the far-right ideologues in the Bush Administration are already trying to make contraception more difficult to obtain and would make it illegal if they thought they could get away with it. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/08/21/hhs-releases-new-version-provider-conscience-regulations

Oh yes, and don't forget the man funding the 527 behind the ads discussed above, Raymond Ruddy, profits from federal grants paying him to promote failed abstinence-only programs. One could argue that his profit from these tax payer funded federal grants is now buying TV time to influence the election so that he could continue to profit from your tax dollars. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/09/16/as-wall-street-plunges-more-culture-war-ads-funded-abonly-profiteer

[lilacmess]

I have often wondered the same thing. It seems to me that, if the purpose of the pro-life movement truly is to prevent abortion, then pro-lifers must realize that they would lose the ability to achieve their goals if abortion were made illegal. Abortion, certainly, would go on and perhaps not even as the dreaded "back-alley" abortions we hear so much about because of two things: 1) We have a highly trained community of medical professionals who also, because of the persecution they have experienced, lean toward a radical pro-choice position. These medical professionals would continue to perform abortions even if abortion were made illegal as a matter of protest if nothing else. 2) The internet now provides even illegal businesses and services the ability to advertise and organize almost without fear of prosecution since tracking down the authors of such internet advertisements is extremely difficult. So . . . abortion would go on even if it were made illegal but it would do so quietly and under the cultural radar. As such, pro-lifers would no longer be able to identify women involved in crisis pregnancies, i.e. women considering abortion. As such, pro-lifers would lose their ability to protest and counsel.

[AmericaIsAwesome]

It's actually a misnomer to use "pro-life" vs. "pro- choice. These people aren't pro-life - they are anti-choice.

Real Christians don't live by the sword. One cannot claim to value life and then support policies and practices (war, inadequate social policies) that are detrimental to life.

[lilacmess]

I agree with you absolutely; however, I continue to use the term "pro-life" because I believe all people have the right to be called what they choose to be called. People opposed to reproductive rights prefer the label "pro-life." So that is the label I use when I refer to them. Having said that, I do wish they would show me the same respect and refer to me (and others like me) as "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion."

[deirdref]

good article--should be front page.
I am very pro-life and very pro-Obama.
He embodies for me a man who has worked and will continue to work for common good in our country and throughout the world.
I'd rather work towards a society where fewer women and men choose abortions, where we have fewer wars, where the poor and elderly live a life of dignity.
Let's talk to each other about our concerns and values more--and shout at each other less.
To quote a bumper sticker I just saw of a puppy and this message: "Bark less. Wag more."

[roshni]

Excellent article.
Pro-life people are usually pro-fetus. Once the child is born they are ready to be pro-war and pro-death penalty.

[CAPlatt]

You are exactly right. Many, many pro-lifers don't understand the difference between the right to be born and the right to live. There is no quality of life element to their thinking, much less the idea that once the government intervenes to require life, the government then takes on certain obligations with respect to those lives, such as health and mental care for crack babies, etc. It would be interesting to know how many of the pro-lifers have actually adopted children as opposed to those who favor the right to choose. I am willing to make a heft bet that the statistics would once again put the lie to the faith-based scam.

[justobserve]

Exactly right! They use pro-life to be a wedge issue politically, not because they are REALLY for life. PALIN-McCAIN, THE MAVERICKS: impulsive and reckless judgment, contradictory and questionable actions. DO WE NEED MAVERICKS AS OUR PRESIDENT and VP IN THIS TROUBLE TIME?

[Luigi53102]

Well put. There is the old saying that many in the pro-life camp believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth. Funny, in a very sad way.

[JSM222]

LOL, Kmiec hasn't even read the act, he claims temporary life is no life. What an idiot
CALLING ALL CATHOLICS: DO NOT FALL FOR OBAMA'S NEW TRICK TO FOOL AND PERSUADE US TO THINK THAT IT IS RIGHTEOUS TO VOTE FOR ABORTION AND INFANTICIDE
...............................OBAMA NEEDS YOUR BLOODY VOTE: http://www.catholicvote.com/

Obamacrats have employed a Catholic lawyer/professor to try to convince you to vote for abortion and infanticide. "BEWARE OF THOSE THAT COME BEFORE YOU, IMPERSONATING ME."



Kmiec: ignorant of IL law by stated, "[T]here isn't a county recorder in the country who would record a live birth" of a "temporarily alive" child.

On the contrary, the state of IL requires that all babies born alive, no matter what gestational age and no matter how fleeting their lives, be issued legal birth certificates....

According to Kmiec, very premature babies are not legal persons. If this were true, bashing them over the head to expedite the end of their "temporarily alive" status would be legal....

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76642



Here is the truth: http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-and-born-alive-babies.html

[Scott Swenson - Huffpost Blogger]

Readers and voters can choose to believe the distortions or they can choose to believe the facts. FactCheck.org has looked at this issue, and the ads the commenter links above, several times and found them to be distortions at best. The rant above is typical of the extremists on the far-right that use the outrageous argument they can find to distract people from the issues at hand in an effort to ban all abortions, take away contraception, and only fund abstinence-only programs. The charges have been around since 2004 and the Alan Keyes race against Obama for the US Senate seat.

Here is a well researched article about the facts: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/09/25/nrlc-born-alive-obama-infant-protections-attacks

Here is FactCheck.org debunking the far-right on this: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_alive_baloney.html and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

[SaltySaltillo]

I don't know what sort of religion or logic drives your views on abortion but you don't know a thing about Catholic doctrine on abortion or Obama's intellectual and academic position on abortion and it shows. In 1974 and again in 1987 the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith established as a matter of faith and doctrine that procured abortion is a moral evil for those who seek it and those who perform it. But Ratzinger when he was Prefect of the CDF in 1987 made a mistake I think by equating moral prohibitions with legal prohibitions and calling for an absolute criminalization of abortion as the only acceptable public policy that Catholics can tolerate. The public policy goals of Catholic voters and legislators should be the minimization of such morally evil acts. Criminalization is not always the most effective means of minimizing an action - just ask people that have been trying to prevent marijuana use in the US over the last 50 years. We need a thoughtful public policy that targets the root causes of unwanted pregnancy. Criminalization is not necessarily the solution.

[silverball]

...now isn't EVERYBODY happy that obama doesn't make decisions based on his "gut feeling"...or a discussion with god....gee..inclusive in decision making...thoughtful...practical...bi-partisan...talking to your "enemies" and inviting them into the tent for pondering and resolving issues....sounds a lot like one of our greatest presidents (lincoln - read "team of rivals" by doris kearns goodwinl, if you want a better understanding of how GREAT leaders make decisions!!!)...