Politics, Part I

It has been very hard for me to decide to publish this series of posts. I really hate politics and the anger that enters into most political discussions, and most especially I hate the way it polarizes people and fosters judgment and disdain. However, I have very strong feelings on society and the role of government. I believe political participation is an important way that we, as Americans, can take the poor with us. It might be the most influence we have on the world at large, and to refrain from active participation is unthinkable.

However, I do not have typical Catholic sentiments towards politicians and government. I say "typical" to mean that my opinions are not usually in line with those others who attend services with the same frequency as I do, or hold to the teachings of the Church as rigidly as I do (as defined by polls which cover these things.)

Voting, in general, causes me a great deal of anguish and emotional strife. I am writing these posts in part to be honest about my struggles, but also in an attempt to work out the direction of my political involvement. Writing is the best way I know to sort my thoughts, and this forum allows me to solicit the input of like-minded believers, which I value.

So, let's get right to the most contentious bit.

Part I: My Objection to Voting Pro-Life

I live in Colorado, which had on its ballot this past week the following amendment to the State constitution:

"An amendment to the Colorado Constitution applying the term 'person' as used in those provisions of the Colorado Constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law, to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

This is the second time such a measure appeared on the ballot. In 2008, "biological development" had further language that made personhood apply from the moment of fertilization. The measure was roundly defeated in 2008, and reappeared this year with the modified language.

The following is part of the text from the Colorado Conference of Catholic Bishops regarding this measure, written in 2008:

"While the Church respects those promoting this personhood amendment, the Catholic Bishops of Colorado decline to support its passage because it does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortions in Colorado."

This brings me to my biggest problem with voting pro-life. Despite the best efforts of pro-life politicians and faithful Catholics involved in pro-life ministries, there has been no significant decrease in abortion rights over the last 40 years. What we are mostly fighting over is taxpayer funding. While it's true that rampantly pro-abortion presidents (such as Clinton) caused great harm to the pro-life cause, it is not the case that pro-life presidents (such as Bush) have done much to help it.

While I am pleased that people of faith haven't given up on the abortion issue, I'm not convinced that the actual power of a given pro-life candidate outweighs the possible harm they could do on other issues. The anti-life culture is so ingrained in our society that politicians, no matter how well-intentioned, find it very difficult to pass any legislation that significantly alters abortion rates or rights. The more fervent and passionate a candidate is on the pro-life issue, the harder it is to get him elected.

I am pro-life. I consider our country's abortion rate a tragedy of epic proportions. There is NO EXCUSE for a country as prosperous and educated as ours to have no room in our hearts for a million little children. As a faithful Catholic and pro-life woman and mother, it pains me every time I think of the wasted lives and the gross injustice perpetrated on these innocents every single day. I argue against abortion with everyone in my life, even with my staunchly pro-choice family, even at the dinner table, even hours after the conversation has stopped moving forward and I am close to tears. They refuse to acknowledge the truth: that a baby, even unborn, is a person with the right to live. That bearing a child already conceived, even if it delays your graduation or promotion, is your responsibility as a human being. That we should be doing everything in our power to promote motherhood, adoption, and pre-natal care.

The bishops statement on the personhood amendment also declared:

"...lower federal courts interpreting this amendment will be required to apply the permissive 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is also likely that the Supreme Court, given its current composition, will either decline to review such a case, effectively killing the state amendment, or worse, actively reaffirm the mistaken jurisprudence of Roe."

In other words, the bishops affirmed not only the uselessness of any attempt to overturn abortion at the state level, but the actual harm it might pose in creating even more case-law that supports Roe v Wade. The way the Supreme Court works, any decisions it makes must be reinforced by the lower courts, and subsequent Supreme Court cases can rely on those lower judgments in their later decisions. In other words, everything builds on itself, and once a decision has been made at the Federal level, it is much, much more difficult to overturn it than it was to come to the decision in the first place.

How could the bishops refuse to support this amendment on the basis that it is unrealistic and could cause harm, yet insist that I cannot vote for a pro-choice politician based on the same argument? I do not take voting lightly. I do not make my decision on simple partisanship. Since 1970, we have had pro-life Presidents, a majority pro-life Congress, and pro-life state governors and state legislators multiple times. However, not a single pro-life President has issued an executive order banning abortion. Why not? BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. It would be immediately overturned by the legislature or the Supreme Court and the people would riot.

The most we've been able to accomplish is to impose regulations that get in the way of quick, cheap access to abortions. While this is laudable, and an important step, the long and short of it is that we've made abortions more difficult for those who are in the most need of support during an unwanted pregnancy: unwed mothers and low-income families. 60% of women who have abortions already have children, and 75% of those who have an abortion state their reason is financial, either that they cannot afford another child, or that having a child would interfere with their school/job/ability to care for other children.* Unless we are providing assistance to these women in the form of pre-natal care, maternity leave, and affordable child care, we are perpetuating the myth that children are a burden and abortion is necessary to prevent poverty and unemployment.

Two more things I want to mention here. Roe v Wade was decided by a majority conservative court appointed by Republican presidents. The closest we came to overturning it was 1986, with

Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. 7 of the 9 justices had been appointed by Republican presidents, and were told by the current President (Reagan) that they should revisit and overturn Roe v Wade. Instead, they voted 5-4 to uphold the right to abortion. There are many reasons to have conservative Supreme Court justices, but the likelihood of them overturning Roe v Wade is remote, even if they ruled as we expect, which they rarely do.

And the personhood amendment that appeared on our ballot this week? Despite my vote, it was defeated 70% to 30%. It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of our country (even in a heavily Republican state like Colorado) is against the overturning of Roe v Wade or any sort of real limitations on abortion. It doesn't make sense to me that I should put aside all the other issues and ignore reality to vote for whichever candidate is against abortion, even though that is the clear message of the Church.

I write this only to say that I am very conflicted each time an election comes around, and I find the phrase "vote your conscience" to be incredibly insulting. My conscience doesn't allow me to support any candidate in any race at any time, because there is no "faithful Catholic" party. Every line I drew on my ballot this year went AGAINST my conscience, no matter which party I supported. I will never be proud of my vote, nor will I ever be happy that a certain candidate has attained office. The entire process is riddled with guilt, doubt, frustration and disappointment from beginning to end.

I cry when I vote. And I don't wear the cheery little sticker.

*Statistics on induced abortion from the Guttmacher Institute

Picture credit.

Freedom Does Not Mean Lawlessness

In the wake of Tiller's murder, we've all seen a host of debates, comments, blogs and articles that suggest the killing is the fault of the pro-life movement. The underlying premise seems to be that people who espouse pro-life principles are hypocrites because they "only care about people until they're born" or because their inflammatory language promotes hate-crimes such as the one that killed Tiller.

Unfortunately, both of these accusations are absolutely true of some people who claim to be pro-life. They are not, however, characteristic of the vast majority, and certainly not of the pro-life movement as a whole.

The pro-life movement is committed to protecting the dignity of life in all its forms. The myriad pregnancy centers, post-abortive counseling centers, and adoption agencies demonstrate that the pro-life movement cares about moms AND their babies. In addition, the movement's consistent support for families and the poor, and its opposition to domestic violence, stem cell research, capital punishment, and euthanasia, as well as the compassion with which most protesters treat the pregnant women they encounter, illustrates a firm interest in the welfare of humanity as a whole. In the wake of the Tiller murder, almost every branch of the pro-life movement, from the Bishops of the Catholic Church and the National Right to Life, to individual bloggers and citizens, have unequivocably condemned the murder of Tiller and disavowed any sort of violence to effect their position. The very few who have spoken about their joy in his death have, in that very statement, placed themselves outside the movement.

Yet the animosity towards the pro-life position continues. Theresa Bonapartis has written an elloquent and beautiful article for Catholic Online addressing the idea of what constitues a "pro-life extremist." She writes:

When our military recruiting station was attacked this week, and Private William Long was killed and another wounded, the word terrorist was never used to describe the murderers. I have not heard Obama speaking publicly against them, or Eric Holder asking for additional security for our recruitment centers. Are the anti war demonstrators or Code Pink responsible for this act of violence?

A firm belief in the truth and a committment to pursuing it does not qualify as extremism, nor does it either promote or condone violence. Much like those who want to brand faithful Catholics as "fundamentalists" because we hold to the teachings of the Church in their entirety, this sort of blanket statement obfuscates the reality of the issue by framing it exclusively in the context of personal freedom vs. religious-based tyranny.

The crux of the argument (embodied by our President's statements on the issue) is that the decision to have an abortion is an extremely personal one, and that the only individual suited to make that decision is the woman herself. Any legislation to limit abortion would impose an outside (government sponsored) approval that should not be necessary. A woman has the right to make her own choices.

Except that she doesn't. For some reason, abortion is the ONLY circumstance in which our society believes a woman's personal beliefs should supersede the rule of law. A woman does not have the right to kill her husband if he is abusing her. A woman does not have the right to embezzle funds from her place of work if she thinks her salary is too low. A woman does not have the right to refuse to hire an African American because she believes they are dangerous. In all other cases, what the woman decides as right or wrong must fall within the boundaries of what society deems right or wrong.

Sometimes, this means the woman has to endure suffering. It means that a woman in an abusive relationship has to go to the police and fill out a detailed report and submit to photos that may cause her acute embarrassment. She may have to move to ensure her safety, uprooting her family and possibly staying for some time in a shelter. She may have to go to court, losing days of work to appear in person and file for divorce or press charges against her abuser. In some of the worst cases, she may be made the victim twice over, when the courts refuse to render a judgment that stops the abuse, or worse, when a technicality allows the abuser to come after her or her children.

Why do we put women through this, when clearly they are suffering? Why do we force them to increase their suffering rather than allowing them the more simple solution of shooting their husband in the head while he sleeps?

The answer is obvious. We force the woman to take difficult steps because those steps make our society into a civilized one where the law, not the individual, is the arbiter of justice. Even when the law fails, as it does on occasion, a woman cannot decide to pursue vigilante justice and take matters into her own hands. Despite her suffering, despite the wrongness of the situation, we still hold that the greater good is being served by having a process determine when an abusive situation is in evidence, and requiring that any punishment take place through the citizen-appointed system that exists for that purpose. We can still, as a society, show an abused woman compassion while simultaneously insisting that she submit herself to the higher authority of the law, even when that means the greatest burden of its implementation will, by nature, fall upon her.

No matter how much thought someone puts into it, no matter how difficult it is, or how wrenching, no matter how moral or thoughtful or careful a woman is, she does not have the right to make the decision whether her child lives or dies. That decision is NOT between a woman or her family and her doctor. It is God's alone, and always will be.

Photo credit.