Comments from this weekend’s debate on abortion

There are two rationales for justifying limiting abortion. The one I fear most people are following is loyalty to Church teaching. In the United States, that is not an adequate reason. The obligation to impose Catholicism on secular countries was removed by Vatican II. Such matters of discipline and practice are not dogma so saying that the Church could not change such things at the Council is simly wrong. If the Church cannot force us to Catholicize the United States, it certainly can’t require that we adopt doctrine into law. Doctrine can inform us, it cannot compel us and it certainly cannot compel the national government. Even before Vatican II, JFK affirmed that a Catholic President is not required to do the Pope’s bidding. Mario Cuomo and the Catholic politicians who followed have affirmed the demands of pluralism. Of course, they do a disservice to the Church by not also explaining the constitutional law reasoning behind Roe and the other privacy decisions. It is incumbent on the hierarchy and Catholic advocates to listen to these explanations, else they are sowing discord for pride’s sake.

The hierarchy and the movement need education about just that point. You mention Dred Scott, (who was freed, by the way). The mistake of the case came not from changing the Court but enacting the 14th Amendment, which defined personhood and which, according to Roe, left out the unborn (even though abortion bans had started). Congress can alter the terms, sir. Put up or shut up.

Sin is a matter of conscience and I am not encouraging anyone to have an abortion. Nor are Biden or Pelosi. What takes courage is to go against Republican orthodoxy and do something about the issue beyond fundraising and volunteering for their candidates. Doing so in the name of the Church is scandalous. Enact that $1000 per month per child tax credit and I will reevaluate what I think about your motives.

Slavery was not just a matter of conscience, it was a function of the slave power. White people who dissented in the south were beaten and exiled, if they lived. Add you equate slavery with abortion then the amendment which at least attempted to give freemen rights was also used to justify legal abortion. In both cases, it was a question of state government power imposing moral choices on others. You are confusing moral scorn with freedom of conscience. The moral scorn that banned abortion and sodomy also abused blacks and Latinos and imposed the Slave Power on others in the antebellum south.
Support for the poor is socially decided, as well as individual. In a democratic country you don't get a right of conscience to avoid paying taxes for this. Don't elevate your preference for dine and dash tax policy to a moral viewpoint.

Cardinal McCarrick led a panel that decided no more using Eucharist as a political pawn. By the way, what happened to Sebelius, who was denied Communion, amounted to sedition because she vetoed a law that was unconstitutional on its face, which is her obligation as defined by her oath of office. For someone appointed by a foreign power at the recommendation of its ambassador to use their sacred offices to interfere with the constitutional operations of our government borders on sedition. It only is not because the Sedition Act expired. Of course, promoting abortion is excommunicated. Allowing it is not promoting it. You can allow driving without giving people free gas or cars. You are not talking about really doing something about abortion anyway. You are out to promote the Republican Party or are their fool. Either way, resisting Trump or the GOP (which is not God's Own Party is not a sin, nor is holding the contention that Roe is settled law. Congress can alter personhood, not SCOTUS.

Catholic politicians do not support abortion, it is a constitutional, not a legislative question. They do support the premise that it is not an issue that should be legislated at the state level but have not explained that well to the hierarchy, either publicly or privately. That is a shame. Not supporting mob rule by conservatives at the state level is not supporting abortion, it is opposing mob rule, even if the mob is led by bishops. They don't support the compromise legislation above because it helps their fundraising too, but I contend that they would do better to compromise than the GOP.

One of the reasons Obama won Catholics is that we made this argument online constantly. People got.it. Hillary did not. Now that you have a pro-life President and Congress, don't bother trolling every discussion on NCR. Show us your bill and tell us who will sponsor it and when the Judiciary Committee is holding hearings. If you can't do that, quit moralizing on our politics, trolling NCR and wasting our time. Or admit that the best Congress will do is the status quo and join me and others in fighting for a living wage for families, which will do more for the unborn than any bill I just showed you how to draft. Get the GOP to cooperate with you or quit damning us for supporting the other guys. Your serial calumny is no longer tolerable.

The right to abortion is about abortion but constitutionally it is not about rights at all, except the right to be left alone by the government. The real meat of the decision is and always shall be a limitation of the POWER of state government to impose moral choices on its citizens. I will argue limiting state power every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Slavery is another pro-life diversion. The 14th Amendment at least attempted to limit the Slave Power from reintroducing virtual slavery on Freemen. As long as federal troops were on hand, it stood. The rule of law is stronger now and we are taking down the monuments to that power. The last one is the racist immigration system. It will take an election, but we will do it.

Supporting abortion is a term of art. It is not just allowing abortion to be legal (as if Catholic politicians had a choice, even about judges, because vehemently pro-life judges are usually inferior legal thinkers). It is taking the position that abortion is a positive good that society should encourage. Some zero population growth Greens actually take that position, but it is individual, not a required party plank. The right to abortion is part of a larger right to engage in conduct that the legislature has no business regulating in a free society. Not wanting a theocracy, even a Catholic one, is not a requirement of the faith. Sadly, Pelosi and Biden have done nothing to educate the hierarchy on why Roe says what it says. Doing so publicly may alienate some Catholic voters, but probably not the amount they fear.

The second rationale is that the unborn are persons who need to be protected. This is the only rationale that meets consitutional muster. Abortion can no longer be related simply as a banned medical practice where doctors are fined and women seek the procedure clandestinely or self-induce (although self-inducing is easy with certain drug combinations that could be ordered from China if abortion is banned). The Supreme Court ruled that unless the personhood of the fetus (or embryo) is recognized, the states have no compelling interest to violate the rights of women to be left alone in this matter. In the United States, law is permissive (Amendment 9) and while states have sovereign power (Amendment 10) it is limited by due process and equal protection (Amendment 14).

There is no statute permitting abortion, no law that allows abortion to be repealed or supported or opposed by Catholic legisltors and politicians. As long as the pro-life movement acts as if there is such a law, we will laugh at them. The only way to limit abortion is to advance the pesonhood of the unborn into earlier in the pregnancy. Any regulation that follows from such a change in law must conform to the due process rules that apply to everyone. Rules applying only to abortion will be struck down. The Congress is the only competent forum for such a change in the status of the unborn. State have proven time and again their incompetence in this area and there is a string of decisions on racial and sexual matters that affirm this point.

An Amendment is impossible. There are too many pro-choice states that would block it's ratification.
Congress can restrict abortion under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Doing so would be considered a final compromise and would end the controversy and the ability of the Republicans to rally pro-life donors and volunteers.

Actually, regardless of discussion, you cannot pass a law if you don't do complete work and say how violators will be punished. Law is not a statement of societal values. Many of the pro-life movement seem to think it is. They want that pro-life label and are afraid that if we are not a pro-life nation, God the Ogre-will surely punish us. No. Jesus said when asked about the moral failings of the people killed by the fall of the tower of Siloam that this disaster was not punishment from God (neither were Katrina or Harvey).

If you want an abortion law, it must be federal. States cannot grant personhood, regardless of what libertarians believe, the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Congress has enforcement authority on who is and is not a citizen or because of Roe, a person. The first step is to accept the venue for argument. Should be easy, you might have the votes.

Now that we have the venue, Congress, and the question they can adjudicate, when are the unborn legal persons, we can answer that question, which includes penalties. Note that legal people who are killed by contract deserve that the killer and the person who ordered the murder both be brought to justice. Under equal protection, whether that person is a fetus or a 50-year old man, the penalties must be the same. If not, the discussion is over

There will be unique circumstances for the unborn. If the child is doomed due to genetic faults such that it would be stillborn, there should be no legal consequence for inducing labor for the health of the mother (the Church disagrees, but we are discussion civil, not canon law and the argument that one must follow the other is relativistic Catholicism). In general, a child 25 weeks into gestation can survive with assistance (although that cannot be mandatory either), so the child should be protected. Earlier it can't survive or will be sick.

That is the likely place the debate will end. We could state that all abortions after week 20 must be by induction only (no fetal pain need be treated). Anything before 20 weeks brings up the question of miscarriage. If a fetus or embryo is a person at a certain number of weeks, than all fetuses of the same age are persons. If you can write legal language that passes equal protection rules (as would be required if you tried to not punish mothers) that can recognize the personhood of those aborted but not those miscarried, than you can ban abortion i the first trimester. If you cannot, then you must cry uncle on the first trimester or even on up to week 20. Gone are the days when abortion was banned by sanctioning doctors for bad medical practice rather than taking a life. You are all in. Personhood or bust with murder as the charge and carrying the same penalties. If you want to keep asserting your point, write a bill or accept the status quo. All proposals must be constitutional.