Today's News & Views
March 2, 2006
 
Another Futile Effort At Diversion

As a non-sectarian organization, NRLC stays out of any denomination's intra-mural debates except to the extent that what's at issue directly affects our mission of helping to save unborn babies and the medically dependent elderly. When this is the case, a few observations are not only permissible but obligatory.

It did not receive a ton of attention, but a couple of days ago 55 Catholic Democrats in the House of Representatives released a "Statement of Principles." While it is quite true that not every signer was pro-abortion about four-fifths of the signers were.

The ringleader--or at least the public face for this statement--is Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Ct.) The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights argues that "perhaps the most convincing evidence that this statement is a sham" is that Rep. DeLauro "is the point person for this effort."

"There has never been an abortion she couldn't justify, including the killing of an innocent child who is 80-percent born,"

The Catholic League's statement goes on to say. "Indeed, she previously served as the executive director of EMILY's List, the richest pro-abortion organization in the country." [EMILY'S List supports only pro-abortion female candidates.]

The Catholic League concluded, "So with her at the helm, the 'Statement of Principle' is nothing more than a 'Statement of Politics.' Thus, the Abortion Albatross remains securely in place."

Fr. Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life, was also sharply critical. "This statement tries to soften the contradiction between creating a just society and tolerating legal abortion," Fr. Pavone said. "To fail to protect the unborn, and then to say that you are 'committed to…protecting the most vulnerable among us' is a blatant contradiction."

I will likewise focus only on what the statement says--or doesn't say--about abortion. First and foremost, while there is who-can-disagree language about "reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies," there is not a whisper in the entire document that commits these Democrats to ending the regime of Roe v. Wade, putting a stop to such ghastly abridgements of human rights as partial-birth abortion, or changing (or even ameliorating) the National Democrat Party's militant defense of abortion on demand, for any reason or no reason.

Second, are we actually supposed to believe this "Statement of Principles" has no context--that it just appeared out of nowhere, like spontaneous combustion? Aren't we allowed to even suspect that there might be a less noble motivation than "express[ing] the signers' commitment to the dignity of life and their belief that government has moral purpose"?

Please!

The "Statement of Principles" includes this pivotal section. It follows references to abortion, the acknowledgement that these legislators "accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas," AND the declaration of the "primacy of conscience."

Read it and ask yourself what it says, what it connotes, and what it implies:

"As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties."

This is so vague and subject to so many different interpretations, it's hard to draw hard-and-fast conclusions. But if you had a chance to question them, I'd ask this.

You say we all can practice our faith--for policymakers, it can even "inform our public duties." But are you also intimating that if Catholic legislators vote to prohibit the taking of unborn life, this would violate the separation of church of state? Are you suggesting that would this be failing to "preserve" the Constitution--and therefore threatening religious freedom? Is the inference that voting pro-life would, ironically, threaten Catholics' own freedom of religion?

If someone of another faith voted to save the unborn, would they also be failing to preserve the Constitution? Is it possible to oppose abortion for reasons that are not explicitly tied to religion? Is it not possible for atheists to oppose abortion? And what happens if what your faith teaches you-- that it's wrong to treat fellow human beings as slaves, for example--coincides with your vote to oppose slavery?

I ask these questions and offer these hypotheticals because over and over and over again I have heard these offered as reasons people of faith should stay away from the abortion issue.

In fact, of course, the thrust behind the "Statement of Principles" is as obvious as the nose on your face (or the outcome of recent elections): attempting to reduce the importance of abortion--to make it just "one among many" issues, of no more importance than any other.

DeLauro spilled the beans in an interview with Religious News Service. "This is about the whole notion that the Catholic purpose is not defined by one issue," she said in an interview, "and what we wanted to try to do was instead of other people defining us, we needed to try to define ourselves."

If you have questions or comments, please send them to Dave Andrusko at dandrusko@nrlc.org.