Wisdom in the midst of fog

Abortion's Foes -- on Both Sides of the Aisle

By DAVID GIBSON
September 12, 2008; Page W11

If the 2008 campaign has established one indisputable fact, it is that Nancy Pelosi is no St. Augustine. Nor is Joe Biden another Thomas Aquinas. The two Democrats -- and Roman Catholics -- invoked both those church heavyweights recently on separate "Meet the Press" appearances, responding to a question from Tom Brokaw as to when life begins and what that means to their support for abortion rights.

Mrs. Pelosi, the speaker of the House, boldly, if unwisely, tried to frame her stance in theological terms, arguing that the church has been debating the issue since Augustine in the fourth century. She got hammered by conservatives (liberals averted their gaze), and was schooled by a few bishops who, with varying degrees of charity and bluster, pointed out that the church -- the old Augustinian debates about "ensoulment" notwithstanding -- has always held that abortion is wrong. The speaker quickly amended her position, noting that while "Catholic teaching is clear that life begins at conception," she wants to work to reduce abortion through social policy.

Associated Press

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stands in the Catholic balcony of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.

Mr. Biden, the Delaware senator and now Barack Obama's running mate, has a more sophisticated understanding of Catholic tradition, as well as a mixed record on abortion rights (opposing public funding and late-term abortion, for instance), and he was better prepared when he sat down to face Mr. Brokaw last Sunday. Yet after reiterating his agreement with Catholic teaching on when life begins, Mr. Biden couldn't resist the temptation to cite Aquinas's view that "animation" did not take place until 40 days after conception. Oops. It seemed like the senator was implying that St. Thomas would be OK with legalizing abortion.

The so-called communion wars -- the quadrennial intramural Catholic feud over who is in a state of grace -- had broken out yet again. Mrs. Pelosi's misstep jarred the start of the Democratic convention, and Mr. Biden's comments came just as John McCain's surprise pick for running mate, Sarah Palin, was wowing fellow evangelicals with her pro-life persona. By week's end, the usual storyline was playing out -- secular pro-choice Democrats versus godly pro-life Republicans, with millions of unborn lives in the balance.

Obscured by the polemics and theologizing, however, is the hard reality that abortion rates in the U.S., and legalized abortion, will not soon yield to restatements of the catechism or the notion that abortion is a violation of "natural law." Such arguments have not yet proved persuasive to the American public, and minds are not likely to be changed by judicial fiat, even from the Supreme Court.

That means that abortion today is primarily a political challenge, and in that context Democrats have been embracing a more effective strategy than the GOP. In an interview with ABC last week, Mr. Obama wisely noted (a month after his "above my pay grade" gaffe) that the theological question was one "I don't presume to be able to answer" for everyone else. "The better answer," he said, "is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child."

Mr. Obama's argument has won some surprising converts, most notably the former Reagan official Douglas W. Kmiec, whose switch has infuriated his erstwhile allies in the conservative movement. While Mr. Kmiec still strongly opposes abortion, he also believes that the status quo will be perpetuated by a McCain-Palin win. As he notes, Republicans have dominated the White House and Congress for nearly 30 years, and appointed most of the Supreme Court justices. Yet little has changed. (Abortion rates in fact dropped under Bill Clinton and are leveling off under George Bush.)

Mr. Kmiec also argues that Roe v. Wade is effectively settled law, and while the high court has a mostly Catholic conservative majority, only Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia would consider overturning Roe -- and not for moral reasons, but because they believe it was based on a flawed reading of the Constitution.

In any case, even overturning Roe would not end abortion. It would only turn the matter back to the states, most of which are not likely to eliminate the right to abortion. Moreover, new research sponsored by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good shows that "social and economic supports for women and families dramatically reduce the number of abortions" -- a strong argument for a broad-based approach like Mr. Obama's. As Mr. Kmiec told the New York Times, "the better question is how could a Catholic not support Barack Obama?"

Many will find a way. But when Catholic leaders make opposition to Roe a prerequisite for being a Catholic politician, it can work to the detriment of the antiabortion cause. It both limits the political elbow room for abortion foes inside the Democratic Party and leads both sides to fall back on old, polarizing habits.

For example, the Obama campaign released an ad after Mrs. Palin was picked that renewed his support for Roe while ignoring abortion reduction. Catholic leaders have also given Republicans an easy out. For all their pro-life pieties, the Republicans at this year's convention, while asserting their opposition to Roe, dropped platform language that invited "all persons of good will, whether across the political aisle or within our party, to work together to reduce the incidence of abortion."

Meanwhile, a double-standard seems to be emerging as Catholics like Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Biden are grilled about their faith and their voting records while Mr. McCain's and Mrs. Palin's assertions go unexamined. The Republican presidential nominee, for example, backed embryonic stem-cell research, which would create the human life he says he wants to protect for the express purpose of destroying it. How does that work?

Mrs. Palin, on the other hand, says she is against abortion and is hailed as pro-life for bearing a child with Down syndrome and supporting her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy. Yet while running for public office in Alaska she also said she would not pursue antiabortion policies if elected.

So what would a McCain-Palin administration mean for abortion in the U.S.? Good question, and maybe one day the GOP candidates will provide answers. Then again, we may discover that John McCain and Sarah Palin are simply struggling believers and conventional politicians, trying to square the circle of their faith with public life -- and get elected. Sort of like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Gibson blogs about religion at Beliefnet.com.

Living Out Loud

Oh, so this is what breathing feels like in the blogosphere! I figured it was time to join in the fun of sharing views, ideas, beefs, dreams with friends and anyone who might care to read this.

Hang on for the ride!