The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionDolan, Abortion & NOW
by Michael Sean Winters on Jan. 10, 2011
Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York spoke at a press conference in Manhattan last Thursday about the outrageously high abortion rate in his see city. 39 percent of all pregnancies are terminated. Archbishop Dolan pledged the services of the Catholic Church to help any woman who did not want to have an abortion but felt compelled to do so by circumstance, economic or otherwise, noting that the Church has a vast network of social services to help women face crisis pregnancies. The interfaith event quite explicitly did not involve any political advocacy, not even a call for the overturning of Roe, but instead focused on the need to provide alternatives to abortion for women.
Outside the event, protesters from the National Organization for Women denounced Dolan and the other religious leaders gathered for the event. What exactly were they protesting? Their website notes that the Catholic Church opposes contraception, making the Church's opposition to abortion "hypocritical." Say what you want about Humanae Vitae, it is not evidence of hypocrisy! I am sure there was the usual cant about men, especially celibate men, having no right to tell women what to do with their bodies. Archbishop Dolan, I suspect, is not a burglar and has never been burgled, but he is permitted to oppose burglary, is he not?
In writing about the abortion issue, I make it a point to identify organizations the way they identify themselves. I know some on both the left and the right refuse such self-identifications, so that "pro-choice" groups are labeled "pro-abortion" groups and "pro-life" groups get named as "anti-choice" groups. Following my rule, I have always labeled NOW a "pro-choice" group. But, their protest outside Archbishop Dolan's presser raises the question: Are they really in favor of honoring a woman's choice or ar they now advocating for one particular choice? The Archbishop pledged the assistance of the Church to help women who choose not to have an abortion. How does that infringe on anyone's liberty? I am afraid NOW is dangerously close to becoming a "pro-abortion" group and not a "pro-choice" one.
One other point. In his comments, Archbishop Dolan noted that, among other things, the Church was involved with "lobbying on behalf of pregnant women, mothers and infants, support of life-giving alternatives." He may recal that the health care reform law that the USCCB opposed last year included $250 million for women facing crisis pregnancies. And, in his new post as President of the USCCB, Archbishop Dolan might want to ask his staff if they have any evidence of any abortion being paid for with federal funds under the new law. I understand that Archbishop Dolan will not overturn the stance taken by his predecessor Cardinal George. When the Church makes a change, the announcement always begins with the words, "As the Church has always taught..." But, he can begin to move away from the stance of opposition to the health care law that the USCCB embraced last year, and he can start by nixing any effort to lobby on behalf of this foolish "repeal" effort that is nothing more than a publicity stunt by the House GOP.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Archbishop Dolan is entirely right to be appalled by the latest statistics on the abortion rate in New York. They are truly alarming. And, he is right to pledge the full faith and credit of the Catholic Church to help women facing crisis pregnancies. We should put our money where our mouth is. These kinds of interventions in the culture, interventions that focus on helping women rather than changing laws, might do more to change the culture than all the lobbying in the world. We are right to insist that Roe was an unjust decision and to fight tooth and nail against a culture that acquiesces in its own solipsism was too easily. But, I wonder if the culture might not listen better if all of our methods were non-coercive, if we abandoned the effort to change the law and only concentrated on changing the culture? I repeat - I wonder. I could be persuaded either way. Unlike many other social attitudes, opposition to abortion has not crumbled and the culture might even be getting more pro-life, and the Church's steadfast opposition, the annual marches, the Rosary prayed at clinics, etc., all of that has something to do with the fact that societal attitudes have not changed on this issue. But, still, I wonder. Readers may recall this article from last year, in which I outlined an alternative pro-life strategy.
Michael - Thank you for this
Michael - Thank you for this piece. I think the problem with trying to change the culture is that you can't win. You may be able to change it for while, or in certain places, but not for good and not everywhere, so the people who want abortions will simply shop around. I appreciate your light-handed questions about NOW, but I think you'll agree that they've been peddling an ideology masked as concern, and they're not about to give up just because the Church points out the tragedy they've created. New York is not full of women who would be victimized by knitting needles if there were no clinics. It is full of people who won't take responsibility for their actions, won't practice safe sex or contraception, and don't care if they destroy lives in the process. I do agree that it's time for a well-reasoned theology that permits birth control without giving impetus to the "contraceptive mentality" that, in essence, is anti-life. And I wish the ghost of Cardinal Bernardin would show up and distribute seamless garment literature whenever bishops speak about moral issues. Thanks again. - Robert.
"I am sure there was the
"I am sure there was the usual cant about men, especially celibate men, having no right to tell women what to do with their bodies. Archbishop Dolan, I suspect, is not a burglar and has never been burgled, but he is permitted to oppose burglary, is he not?"
- NOW in the past has indeed indicated that anything a man says which is contrary to NOW's position on the topics surrounding or involving the body of a woman is nullified by their male gender.NOW forgets that it is life that is shared by both genders and it is shared life that allows each person to care for the other. Following, both genders also share life with the unborn child and thus both genders have an interest in the life of the unborn.
- Focusing on a life form, male or female or unborn, is easy because of differences. Focusing on shared life in political debate is harder because the common ground is so apparent, thus it is very hard to invalidate it as the basis for any decision regarding shared life or a particular life.
- NOW, when it invalidates another's point of view on the basis of gender, is taking an easy and thus invalid path.
The (secular) feminist
The (secular) feminist movement has always taken the view that the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion has more to do with keeping women "in their place" than with anything else! I certainly hope that Church leaders will continue to find ways to help and support women and their children, which will be MUCH more constructive than trying to recriminalise abortion, but I also wish that the Church hierarchy could bring itself to take the feminist critique of the Church much more seriously.
The bishops don't help
The bishops don't help themselves by insisting that problem pregnancies where the child has no chance of life be taken to viability rather than terminated, even through induction, as soon as possible.
This is a step in the right
This is a step in the right direction….
This is a compassionate offer for a compassionate action
I give props to the Archbishop here. If we really want to curtail the number
Of abortions in this country it will not happen via legislation or court rulings, it will happen through compassion and a genuine loving embrace of these lovely women who are with child . We have to let them know that we as a community love them and
Want the best for them and their baby. Unfortunately abortion is not a black and white issue and there are no easy solutions…. But loving and reaching out to women and letting them know that there is a community that will help is a step in the right direction!!
As you correctly note, it is
As you correctly note, it is difficult to accept NOW's self-selected descriptor "pro-choice," when the organization continues to lobby vigorously against more informed decision making. One of NOW's explicit legislative priorities is the defeat of state legislation requiring women to receive an ultrasound ( Link: http://www.now.org/organization/conference/resolutions/2010.html#protect )
When I had my wisdom teeth out, I was forced to look at X-Rays of my jaw and listen to the oral surgeon describe not only the procedure he would undertake, but the inherent risks attendant thereto. Even the most mundane medical procedure requires informed consent, so why should this particular one be the exception? My question to NOW is: isn't choice dependent upon adequate information to reach an informed decision? It seems counter-intuitive that we should suppress critical facts about the nature of the medical procedure itself for fear that they are an "undue burden" on the women attempting to make one of the most difficult decisions of their lives.
NOW's likely response would be that these ultra-sounds provide "biased" information, but that really leaves my head scratching. How can a sonogram possibly be biased? If the script read alongside the image is a standardized one derived from medical school textbooks on developmental biology, approved by a non-partisan panel of physicians, I struggle to see how providing this sort of information is antithetical to "choice."
While the abortion rate in
While the abortion rate in NYC as reported is pretty shocking, how is this figure being computed? It should be borne in mind that in 87% of the counties of the USA it is literally not possible to get an abortion. The abortion industry is concentrated in the large metropolitan areas. My point is that a lot of the abortions taking place in NYC might not actually be performed on residents of NYC. The large cities tend to be a magnet for the unsavory part of human life, especially illegal drugs.
The large metropolitan areas tend to be more liberal than the rest of the nation but I would be surprised if it is true that 39% of the pregnancies in NYC itself are ending in abortion. That percentage sounds out of whack with the national trend where the abortion rate has gone down at least marginally.
However, if this figure is actually true it gives the lie to NOW's claim that contraception which is easily available in NYC puts a break on abortions. The claim that the Church's opposition to contraception leads to abortions is a calumny. But what else can one expect from a group like NOW (Nation of Witches)?
You hit the nail on the head.
You hit the nail on the head. DC has the same issues.
About time that the bishops
About time that the bishops focus on providing resources to families to help them with their children. Quit wasting resources on gays and legal abortion. Focus on support systems for all types of families.
The medical costs of childbirth are often paid by Medicaid. Your reporters should research that question. When I was closer to the California system over half of new births were paid by medicaid. (California calls it Medical.) That would change with the new healthcare law and provide continued medical for the whole family.
We will never get rid of abortion but we can support things that reduce it. This is not just a woman issue but a whole family that includes the father and grandparents. Assistance that fosters a ring of support for the mother and child will help all of us.
Also, not for nothing, but
Also, not for nothing, but the statistics in New York (a staggering 60% of all black women terminate their pregnancies) are sufficiently disturbing that the New York Daily News has got an Editorial agreeing with Archbishop Dolan.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/01/10/2011-01-10_pregnant_pause...
The figures on economic class
The figures on economic class among black women would be telling. I bet the termination rate is highest for those on public assistance, whose benefits are no longer gauranteed - but were limited by welfare reform. I think Obama suspended this provision in the stimulus act, but word takes a while to get out and the expected decline in abortions takes a while to show up in statistics. Note that the Republicans put in those limits, which are hardly pro-life - though Clinton signed them. It is to Obama's credit that he took those limits away. Then again, he worked in Catholic Social Services in Chicago during the Bernadin era, so it should really come as no surprise.
"I am sure there was the
"I am sure there was the usual cant about men, especially celibate men, having no right to tell women what to do with their bodies. Archbishop Dolan, I suspect, is not a burglar and has never been burgled, but he is permitted to oppose burglary, is he not?"
A baby is not a piece of property and neither is a woman's body. This is an absurd analogy. Archbishop Dolan would be much better off insisting men keep their penises in their pants or support the resulting children when they don't. That too would have a great deal to do with lowering the abortion rate in New York. But for what ever reason, our celibate male clergy seem incapable of calling non celibate men to accountability for their sexuality--except the gay ones.
"A baby is not a piece of
"A baby is not a piece of property and neither is a woman's body. This is an absurd analogy. "
The analogy is not absurd; it obtains. I am not a woman, nor have I ever been (involuntarily) genitally mutilated, nor have I been party to such a procedure, and yet I have absolutely no qualms about condemning it absolutely and without qualification. Am I unqualified to do so? (WHO Factsheet on FGM - http://bit.ly/rU1U0 )
The point is that moral decisions may be evaluated even by those who have not themselves ever experienced the act in question. Essential to any assessment, however, is an appropriate dose of humility (that I could not possibly know what it is like to be a 16 year old girl in Harlem impregnated by a high school dropout that likely won't be in the picture as I struggle both to finish high school and support a family) and infused by authentic charity (that I earnestly want to help this young woman, and not merely wax self-righteous about the ostensible gravity of her sin).
If your suggestion is that the Bishops ought (in a spirit of humility and charity) do more to care for the well-being of their sisters and brothers, then I wholeheartedly agree. If, however, you mean to imply that they should keep their mouths shut because they are celibate males, I cannot concur.
Excellent article and
Excellent article and analysis of the situation on both sides of the issue.
I also wonder about the same questions. I am not sure that the methodologies being employed are the most effective in reducing abortions - just wondering.
It is good A/B Dolan is
It is good A/B Dolan is taking this step - but he needs to take one step farther and give free tuition to any teenage couple in a family way at both the high school and college level and make sure their living and day care expenses are met as well.
He should also pay families in his employ a living wage, meaning that if someone has a child, they get a $1000 per month raise to cover expenses (if not more, given housing prices in NYC). He should also lobby for tax policy so that the state and the fed each kick in $500 per month per child.
As for Roe being unjust - yes and no. It was surely unfortunate, but under the constitutional rules for who has protection and how they should get it, the ruling was absolutely just. Who is a person is a matter of federal jurisdiction, not state and until someone is a person, their interests are not to be considered in public policy (that's privacy). A constitutional amendment is not needed to do this, however caution is.
One cannot begin life at conception - or even gastrulation - and not consider what would happen to society if each person were given equal access to justice after that point (meaning that abortion would not be punished as a medical misdomeanor but as a felony with all concerned - including mothers - subject to punishment and that all failed pregnancies would be subject to some type of investigation - including natural miscarriage - as well as tort action - thereby denying care for anyone who has a pregnancy until the danger of miscarriage is passed (at the behest of insurers). An adult policy would take the paranthetical issues into consideration. It is not up to pro-choice Catholic politicians to come up with work-arounds and until the pro-life side does, pro-choice pols get a free ride.
As for NOW, they are pretty much pro-abortion - however, unless they had a draft of his speech, they protested because they expected the worst. It would take both the economic measures I mentioned previously, the ordination of women and a rethinking of how crisis pregnancies are dealt with - like in Phoenix and Brazil where the child has no chance of living and therefore no right to life - for them to stop their opposition to Church policy.
"Anti-abortion advocates have
"Anti-abortion advocates have done a good job of making their fellow citizens aware of the plight of the unborn. They have not done a good job of coming to terms with the concerns of women, or the complexity of abortion as a social problem. Legal reforms are necessary, but insufficient. Abortion was common enough before it was legalized, and outlawing it will not end the practice. It is a stubborn biological, legal, and moral reality that abortion is not just about the rights of the unborn. It is also about the moral autonomy, physical integrity, health and well-being of women. There is no other situation in which one human being is as dependent on another as is an unborn child on its mother. If abortion is starkly drawn as a battle of competing rights — of the rights of the unborn versus the rights of women — the unborn will always lose. We need a different approach, one that will promote the flourishing of both mother and child — an approach that recognizes that their individual well-being is inseparable."
Paul Baumann, After Tiller: Envisioning A Compromise, NPR.org, June 19, 2009 • http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105413931
"To be clear, the problem with current pro-life political strategies lies exactly here. We Catholics look at a two week old embryo and we see a child at a very early stage of development. Most pro-choice people only see a colony of cells. In order to end the practice of abortion, we have to convince people that life, even at its earliest stage, is worthy of respect. Shouting at them, distorting their position, calling them evil and comparing them to Hitler, these tactics are not likely to persuade them of the radical beauty and truth of the Catholic perspective."
Sean Michael Winters, America blogsite, 5-5-09 http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=36725928-3048...
Post new comment