Jeffrey Miller

How do you tell the difference between a
pro-life Democrat and a pro-abortion one concerning presidential
politics?

Well if you have any kind of test let me
know since I can’t find one.

Catholic and “pro-life” Senator Bob Casey
Jr. has come out in support
of Sen. Obama.  Funny I thought the support of infanticide or
for someone whose greatest regret was that Terri Schiavo did not die
earlier was not exactly pro-life.  You learn something new
everyday.

As Todd M. Aglialoro noted at
Inside Catholic a major piece of irony.

Casey was quoted as saying he
favored Obama because the Illinois senator “thinks we shouldn’t be deaf
to the voices of the next generation.”

But there is no  lack of people
for who party trumps everything else.  There were the pro-life
Catholics who thought that Rudy Giuliani was da bomb and of course
Casey’s predecessor Sen. Santorum decided to support Sen Specter over
an actual pro-life candidate.

Now I am sure that Senator Casey would
explain himself using some variation of the seamless garment argument.
 Though I think for accuracy sake this should be renamed the
shameless garment argument  since many people who use it are
quite shameless in how they justify supporting pro-abortion politician
and measures.  Democrats who manage to see infinite shades of
gray for most moral issues see life issues as one solid color and
minimum wage can be of equal value as protecting the unborn.
 If hospitals treated people like the shameless garment
argument then people who stubbed their toe would be as likely to get
immediate attention as someone who had already lost near a gallon of
blood.  What we need is triage when it comes to the pro-life
cause and the unborn come first.

Deal Hudson writes:

If I had to decide who was more
pro-abortion, Obama or Clinton, it would be difficult since they each
have a 100% NARAL rating. I guess I would nod toward Obama since he
described his biggest “mistake” in politics voting to allow the parents
of Teri Schiavo to have their daughters case reviewed in court.

I suppose Prof. Doug Kmiec, who also endorsed Obama, will applaud the
decision of Sen. Casey, and offer to join Casey and Obama on their bus
trip across Pennsylvania.

They can write “Pro-Life Catholics for Obama” across the side of the
bus! That might provoke some laughter from even the starchiest of
Pennsylvanians.

Well the reality is that they have thrown
the pro-life cause under the bus.

In related news a special “Mass for Democrats”
to be celebrated at San Jose diocesan cathedral for a group called
“Catholic Democrats of California” whose web site specifically supports
abortion “rights”.

From the America blog:

… But, it has gone largely unremarked
in
analysis of the upcoming Pennsylvania primary that Clinton does have
one group of political activists to whom she is especially indebted.
Pro-choice groups like NARAL, NOW and Emily’s List have been the base
of her fundraising and organizational support. They have sent emails
and placed phone calls to voters in key primary states questioning
Obama’s commitment to Roe v. Wade. And, the generational cleavage among
women � older women tend to support Clinton by significantly large
margins than younger women � is also related to the abortion issue. For
older women, Roe was part of their emergence on the national political
stage, a process that they see coming to fruition in Clinton’s bid for
the White House.

Cleavage among women?

In heavily Catholic Pennsylvania, it is
curious that so little
attention has been paid to Clinton’s dependence on these groups. Her
campaign is built largely upon her experience during her husband’s
tenure in office, and few pro-life voters will forget that it was Bill
Clinton who vetoed the Partial Birth abortion bill. Did she advise him
to do so?

There has been some indication that she
did indeed do so. Regardless though she voted against the partial-birth
abortion ban and does have a 100% NARAL voting record.

Clinton should find an audience in
Pennsylvania where she can distance
herself from some of the more extreme pro-abortion arguments. She could
say that the Democrats need to move beyond simply defending Roe and
find alternatives to abortion or new ways of preventing unwanted
pregnancies in the first place. She could repeat her husband’s mantra
that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” and point to ways that
might make it more rare.

The effort would cost her nothing. The older women who are Clinton’s
base know where she stands on the issue, and they are never going to
abandon her. But, she could usefully position herself as a more
moderate candidate for the general election, and strengthen what
remains as her most credible claim to the nomination: the ability to
attract moderate swing voters, many of whom are Catholic and many of
whom have continued to deliver large majorities for pro-life Democrats
in Pennsylvania.

I do find this odd advice from a Jesuit
magazine (well at least I wish this was odd advice from  a
Jesuit magazine).  That basically Hillary should just
“position”
herself with no mention of actually wanting to reduce abortion. Just
repeat her husband’s mantra about abortion. It doesn’t matter if she should actually ever do such as thing and of course if she was actually
President she would veto any pro-life legislation  and her
court picks would certainly not be the types to restrict abortion.

I also wonder what the writer considers
“extreme pro-abortion arguments?” From a Catholic perspective what
would be a moderate pro-abortion argument.