https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/abortion-extremism-will-yield-more-laws-new-yorks
Last time I checked the history of abortion legalization in America, New York was one of the first states to legalize the procedure pre-Roe. Overturning Roe would have no impact on it at all. To put the new law in context, for a long time the Republican dominated New York State Assembly was a continuing criminal enterprise. It no longer is and the pro-choice organizations that helped with the change wanted payback. The assembly gave it to them.
They probably should not have, since it gave the pro-life side, including the bishops, permission to breathe. Corey Robin demonstrated in his book, The Reactionary Mind, that without some form of radical progress, reactionaries have nothing to react to. They really still don't. Partial Birth Abortion is still illegal under federal law. States are still not a competent jurisdiction to change that (although some did pile on after Gonzalez v. Carhart, but that meant nothing for the unborn and this law changes nothing in the federal law or the decision to uphold it.
Lest we forget, the Partial Birth Abortion Law was not passed because of a spate of such procedures and certainly because women were having them because they were bloodthirsty, nor do doctors relish the thought of doing them. Late term abortions are always medically necessary and tragic for any family. They are not done because a diagnosis of Downs Syndrome has been made,those occur in the second trimester. Often, such procedures are done because the child has no chance of living until its birthday and it is better to end the pregnancy sooner for the life of the mother. Catholic doctrine disagrees because they think this would make God angry. The fact that they consider God an Ogre says more about them than a desire to save innocent life.
This law was passed as a stalking horse to overturn Roe v. Wade. It failed because, while Kennedy objected to the procedure because he considered it infantice, he found justification for it in the Commerce Clause and Chief Roberts and Justice Alito agreed (I had counseled the Respondents to use the Fifth Section of the 14th Amendment and the fact that it was not cited to rule the law invalid, but they did not agree because it would become a tool to ban abortion later).
They were not about to bring back Plessy v. Ferguson, which would have made the Church happy by throwing out federal protection for gay rights to marriage and sodomy and abortion and contraception. Scalia excoriated them for it and Thomas relied on the power of the Court to change the terms of citizenship. He was correct. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 gave the Court enforcement power in this area, however the other justices would no go along either. As Kennedy acolytes, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (and anyone who went to law school or took civil liberties in a poli-program in the 80s know the logic of Roe and state power, as well as privacy, which is not secrecy but the right to be protected from the whims of state legislative power. That provision ended all debate in legislatures, although Congress could pass laws affecting when life begins. It has not.
President Obama promised to revisit partial birth abortion and all late term abortion procedures (which are grisly), but the Republicans in Congress did not want to discuss any kind of compromise. They knew and still know that compromise would end both the pro-life and pro-choice movements, which are essential for turning out voters. The myth that Roe will be overturned if we get two more Republican justices is responsible for keeping voters engaged on each side. Solving it or dealing with the reality that there are likely 8 pro-Roe justices and when Thomas dies, there will be 9. The Court cares little for this debate and it is clear that Plessy will come back any time soon, nor will there be any compromise in Congress to end the debate.
In this environment, Cuomo signed a bill that simply codified the status quo as payback. Predictably, Albany Bishop Edward B. Scharfenberger and the Catholic Conference in New York opposed the bill. Cardinal Dolan, however, rejected calls to excommunicate the governor from Bishops outside of New York. He hit back, which was a bit graceless, given the fact that the Cardinal had stood up for him. Governor Sebelius was not so lucky, when her local Ordinary denied her Communion for signing a bill that was blatantly unconstitutional. Doing so would have violated her Oath of Office. Reacting to her action was the wrong thing then and would be the wrong thing now. It is essentially putting a finger on the scales for the Republican Party.
This was a teachable moment for the Church that Cuomo missed. Instead of explaining why Roe was rightly decided, he He was correct not wrong to sign the bill, because regardless of the passage of the bill, it does not change the status quo. States simply don't have that power. While his father was correct in claiming that it was not his place to impose his Catholic beliefs on the masses, a provision that also comports with Dignitatis Humanae from Vatican II, it was no profile in courage. Catholic voters don't like attacks on the Church, and an explanation of Roe would have been seen as rebellion. Given the response to the younger Cuomo, including from Michael Sean, maybe his father had a point.
Governor Northam and others support parents to have the option to not resuscitate a child with birth defects that had little chance of survival, with others supporting similar messages (as State Senator Obama did in Illinois). As doing so would come under the heading of extraordinary measures, Catholic doctrine supports this stance. It is extremism on the right that sees this as somehow murderous.
Attacking Democratic candidates over Partial Birth Abortion is based on the falsehood that this is an issue. Then candidate Trump raised it in the debate and Clinton, instead of rebuking him for bringing up an issue that was already settled by Congress and the Courts, opted for supporting her base, which was both unnecessary (they were going to vote for her anyway) and stupid because it activated the other side.
In 2007, I counseled her (and she agreed) that the best option on this issue was to call the Pro-Life movement out as being a Republican scam for money and support. The attacks of the Susan B. Anthony Fund against Catholic Pro-Life Democrats who supported Obamacare shows how partisan the issue is. For the record, they and some bishops lied about what the bill did.
In 2008, the word in the Obama campaign was not to justify abortion, but to attack, through surrogates, the Republican involvement in the issue. I know this because I left a message for Alice Germond, formerly of NARAL, that this would work. She got the message. A press aid there confirmed that they transmitted it and it worked. Catholics voted for Obama as readily as anyone. I do not apologize for upending their usual scam and THEIR extremism on the issue.
My question, which Robert Mueller may answer, is how did the Trump campaign know that Clinton was vulnerable on this issue. It is as if someone had hacked the campaign. Imagine that. That the bishops seemed ready to pounce is troubling, although more so for the bishops themselves if they were involved in this effort. It certainly was the other factor in pro-life voters rejecting her. Worse, it gave us Donald Trump as President. The bishops involved will have to answer to God as well as Robert Mueller.
This argument is extremism and a lie. That the GOP milks an already decided issue (which most voters do not know is decided) and that the bishops go along with them in doing so is a scandal.
Note that America Magazine also addresses this issue, although in a more measured way. See their site for my comments, as well as their Facebook page.
No comments:
Post a Comment