The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionPro-life challenges change
Dynamics of advocacy shift with a new administration
Jan. 22, 2010
Sr. Carol Keehan speaks during a 2007 news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. Catholic organizations were calling for increased funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program during the Bush administration. (CNS/CHA/Jay Mallin)
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration and a Congress narrowly controlled by Democrats present both new challenges and new opportunities for Catholic pro-life advocates on Capitol Hill.
Sr. Carol Keehan, president and CEO of Catholic Health Association and a Daughter of Charity, said in an interview that pro-life advocates have faced different strategic challenges and priorities in recent Republican and Democratic administrations.
During Republican administrations, she said, “we find ourselves spending a lot more time” working to save, or to prevent cutbacks in, social programs that assist pregnant women, help them bring their child to term, promote adoption, and other programs that would reduce the pressure on young women to terminate their pregnancy.
When Democrats are in charge, the primary challenge pro-life advocates face is not so much to prevent erosion of social programs that assist pregnant women in poverty or provide infant and child support, she said; more energy has to be spent to prevent a relaxation of restrictions on public funding of abortion and to maintain effective conscience protections on abortion and related issues for health care providers.
Stephen Schneck (CNS/Courtesy of The Catholic University of America)Political science professor Stephen F. Schneck of The Catholic University of America told NCR that two new factors on the Democratic side have led to some changes in the dynamics of pro-life advocacy.
“One of the differences is that the Obama administration, much more forthrightly than anybody expected, has advocated an approach to reduce the demand for abortion in the United States. So that changes things a little bit, perhaps, in comparison with previous Democratic administrations,” he said.
“Another factor, I think, would be that the Democratic Party has become, here in Washington, more open to pro-lifers than it was in the past,” he said. He cited the emergence of groups such as Democrats for Life and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which is pro-life but Democratic-leaning.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
Also critical to that change, Schneck said, was the conscious decision of the party in 2006 and 2008, led by Rahm Emanuel -- now White House Chief of Staff, but then head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- to recruit pro-life Democrats in key states such as Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania to run for Congress.
Schneck, who is chairman of Catholic University’s politics department and director of its Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies -- formerly known as the Life Cycle Institute -- said those factors have created “a little more complicated picture on the left side of the dial.”
“On the right side, some people make the argument that the Obama administration, because of what’s viewed on the right as a very strident pro-abortion position, has actually worked to energize the right-to-life movement among conservatives. I think the jury’s still out on whether or not that’s true,” he said.
Along with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities USA, the Catholic Health Association has been among the strongest advocates of comprehensive health care reform legislation, while also insisting that any reform should retain long-standing prohibitions on the use of public funds for elective abortions.
“Sometimes these pro-life issues take the form of finding quality care for people who can’t afford it,” Keehan said. “Sometimes they take the form, ‘If you’re pregnant you don’t have to abort your baby because you don’t have any money, we will be there and we’ll find ways to get you care.’ ”
The association represents 624 U.S. Catholic hospitals and about 1,400 other health care facilities, by far the largest group of not-for-profit health care providers in the country.
“Working for pro-life is something that we’re always doing,” Keehan said. “But there are some areas where Republicans tend to put their efforts on pro-life more than in other areas, and some areas where Democrats tend to put their efforts on pro-life.”
As an example of how the battleground shifts from one administration to another, she cited the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, enacted under the Clinton administration in 1997. Over the next 12 years it provided federal matching funds to states for programs providing health insurance to more than 6 million children in families with modest incomes who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. In some states it was also extended to pregnant women.
During his two terms in office President George W. Bush twice vetoed legislative attempts to expand the program. In February 2009 President Barack Obama signed a bill that expanded the program to reach an additional 4.1 million children, including -- for the first time -- children of legal immigrants without the previously mandated five-year waiting period.
“You know how much effort we put into SCHIP, in spite of some pretty significant efforts [during the Bush administration] to get it not reauthorized,” Keehan said. “To us, SCHIP was clearly a pro-life program. I mean it clearly took care of the life and dignity of so many of our children and pregnant women. So that was clearly a challenge in a Republican administration.
“In a Democratic administration we find that not quite as big a challenge. But we find the ability to be sure that we don’t have abortion funding, that we don’t have an abortion agenda, much more of a challenge,” she continued.
“My great hope,” she added, “would be that some day we would have a really, truly comprehensive and all-encompassing pro-life agenda so that you would be looking not only at one piece or another, but you’d be seeing the whole as very important.
“We continue to believe that we have a responsibility to speak for life and to do that in whatever piece of the pro-life situation is missing,” she said. “In some administrations it seems to be -- in our judgment, in our opinion -- well, if you’re really pro-life, where are the services for them? And in others it seems to be not an appreciation of the fact that, wanted or not, intended or not, every baby is a child of God. So we have to be part of protecting every baby’s life, not just certain babies’ lives.”
John Gehring, media director for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, told NCR he saw signs of “a political and cultural climate converging now that recognizes what Catholics have long identified as a consistent ethic of life.”
“The terrain seems to be more fertile for the kind of legislative efforts that can potentially bridge the false divide between pro-life and social justice advocacy,” he said.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good was formed in 2005 as an effort to find a common ground between the antiabortion conservative and pro-choice liberal extremes by emphasizing the full range of Catholic social teaching, from the sacredness and dignity of all human life to the importance of social programs protecting the vulnerable and needy.
“A Catholic vision for the common good offers a unique ‘both-and,’ rather than an ‘either-or’ perspective,” said Gehring. “Passing health care reform, for example, will be a historic social justice victory that could also reduce abortions by ensuring women and families have access to critical social supports.
“The culture wars are still with us, but more elected officials are responsive to voters hungry for common-ground solutions,” he said.
[Jerry Filteau is NCR Washington corresondent.]
| Special Coverage for the National March for Life
To mark the 37th annual March for Life in Washington, NCR has prepared a series of articles that will appear on our Web site Jan. 21 and Jan. 22.
|
[The ... "Obama
[The ... "Obama administration, much more forthrightly than anybody expected, has advocated an approach to reduce the demand for abortion in the United States." There has been some talk, but what has actually been done? Same thing for the "common ground" and "robust conscience clause" - all talk; nothing done.
And Bush had 8 years & the
And Bush had 8 years & the Republican controlled Congress had as many or more years...and what did they do to reduce the demand for abortion? Certainly their leading us into near economic ruin created more reasons for abortion than fewer...did they introduce any legislation to ban abortion? to make abortions fewer in number? to support preganant women and infants? to help single mothers?
No, they didn't.
When the pro-life group
When the pro-life group argues for adequate funding for pregnant women and infants and services for single mothers, then they can make their cause. Until then they are neglecting the fruits of having fetuses survive through birth...
How about people and families
How about people and families take care of themselves? How about single women not have sex and therefore not get pregnant in the first place? Why is the libs' answer to everything a big, bloated government program?
How about single women not
How about single women not have sex and therefore not get pregnant in the first place?
Are there no men involved, single or already married??
The Pro Life movement argues
The Pro Life movement argues forcefully for adequate funding for pregnant women and infants and services for single mothers. Pro life does more than any other organization to provide such help and devotes a huge proportion of its funds and other resources to sustain the numerous crisis pregnancy centers throughout the country. Yes, I respectfully suggest they can make their case.
They have been fighting for
They have been fighting for mandatory ultrasounds for pregnant women for abortion--i.e. healthcare, but big abortion for some reason doesn't want to give women the choice of seeing their babies.
When the gov't STARTS
When the gov't STARTS adequate funding for pregnancy centers, and women and infants, and single mothers, as we have been PUSHING them for a while now, then THEY can actually call it "pro-choice" when they actually offer choices.
I wonder, why doesn't pro choice or anyone in this administration do that? or rather push against it?
NCR has been unsupportive for
NCR has been unsupportive for so long I wonder what you are up to, but I never let go of the hope that there may be a return to common sense.
“Another factor, I think,
“Another factor, I think, would be that the Democratic Party has become, here in Washington, more open to pro-lifers than it was in the past.”
I beg to differ. The facts differ. The highest cause of casualties is abortion. I hardly think that repealing the Hyde ammendment is a pro-life action, which is the FIRST thing Obama did. Silencing those who disgree with you, in their OWN turf (Notre Dame) and have them arrested on top of that is hardly "dialogue" and being open. Standing and literally PUSHING abortion is not pro-life, it is pro-choice....excuse me let me rephrase that for what it is:
Anti-life, pro-abortion, pro-promiscuity, pro-brutality, anti-family, anti-babies, pro-segregation, pro-discrimination, pro-irresponsability, anti-courageous, anti-ethical, anti-natural, and last but not least, anti-God.
The Catholic Church already has so many venues for help with the poor and the needy. We can't FORCE the women to go to women's help centers. All we can do is pray and wait with open arms for them to make the right CHOICE and not tyrant their will over their own child's life. How do you promote that people help other children but make it ok for a mother to kill their own child, because it was her decision and we don't know her circumstances?????????? Even if economy was bad, the fact remains.....a murder was commited. We al just pray that the US and the world stop acting on such brutality. Jesus, have mercy on us and on the millions we kill for no reason.
A lot of angry nonsense. For
A lot of angry nonsense. For one thing the Hyde amdt. has not been repealed nor has Obama even proposed repealing it.
Ok, ok I admit I made a
Ok, ok I admit I made a mistake. I meant to say that Obama repealed the GLOBAL GAG RULE or the Mexico City Policy, which funds for abortions in other countries.
NOT SMART that we give money to KILL people in other countries when we have enough of our own who are dying of hunger (as you guys say but don't feed them), in the womb, or outside the womb, AND in a recession?????
Of course it makes me angry! First, the hypocrisy and indifference towards the poorest of the poor (babies...indefenseless, no money, and naked)...Also, why wouldn't I get angry when people are so irresponsible as to allow a baby to die???? Don't you get angry when a child is mistreated or slaughtered??
"I'm not ready to be a parent"...You are too lazy, selfish, and a savage better said....
This is not a judgment, but so that people wake up from this la-la land they live in. They CAN do it....in the words of Obama...YES YOU CAN!
I admitted my mistake....When will all these pro-aborts admit theirs?
hardly think that repealing
hardly think that repealing the Hyde ammendment is a pro-life action, which is the FIRST thing Obama did.
When? Where? Obama can't repeal legislation...only Congress can. Or the Supreme Court.
Having read the article and
Having read the article and the comments so far, may I add a simple reality check.
Who have abortions?
Obviously women who are having babies are the people who have abortions. In my own experience I have never known a woman, who was not having a baby, go and have an abortion.
Why do women have abortions?
Simply because they are having a baby they do not want.
It's that simple.
The reality is that every abortion kills a baby yet to be born.
Birth is only a change of address. I was the same person the day after I was born as I was the day before I was born.
The sooner we stop talking nonsense and face the reality of abortion the sooner we will reduce the horrific death toll of our young sisters and brothers killed by abortionists.
President Obama would command my respect if he started talking about the reality of the horror and violence of a mother paying an abortionist to kill her child.
Until now his voting record and his rhetoric only proclaim him as an enemy of our little sisters and brothers.
Come on, Mr. President, stand up for the weakest and most vulnerable is our society.
Eugene Ahern
Let's not forget also that,
Let's not forget also that, as a candidate, Mr. Obama promised Planned Parenthood that the first thing he would do as a President would be to pass FOCA. Since it would have been too incendiary to pass FOCA whole, Mr. Obama, Ms.Pelosi and Mr.Reid have tried to include bits of it in the various "health care" bills.
Only the vigilance of some Blue Dog democrats headed by Rep.Stupak prevented the Hyde amendment to be scrapped from the bill(s), which would have allowed the biggest expansion of abortion "rights" since Roe vs. Wade.
So much for the Democratic Party being "more open to pro-lifers"!
What President Obama did do "first thing" is reverse President Bush's ban on sending funds overseas for "reproductive rights" especially in third world countries. Far from being more friendly to pro-life issues this administration is the most radical pro-abortion we have ever seen, with the closest ties to Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
I'm profoundly pro-life and I
I'm profoundly pro-life and I argue for adequate funding for pregnant women and infants and services for single mothers. There's no opposition here. The opposition is rather in calling our littlest brothers and sisters in the women "fetuses" so that we wash our hands of their sad plight.
What obfuscating nonsense!
What obfuscating nonsense! In the Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter, we almost had abortion forced down taxpayers' throats, till the Supreme Court upheld the Hyde Amendment. Clinton was so "pro-life" that the President insisted the rights of women were endangered if he did not veto a bill preventing doctors from thrusting scissors into the back of the skull of babies in the course of being born. Now we have Carter Redux who wants to give us taxpayer funded abortion, all the while--like his predecessors--babbling about "common ground" and "reducing the number of abortions" -- though he and his party have never seen an abortion they would prohibit. To pretend that this babble represents anything but an ersatz "pro-life" position fools only the useful idiots for whom Vatican II's teaching that abortion is an "unspeakable crime" is something to be soft-pedalled, nuanced, and--like the babies--eventually discarded.
True -- abortion is murder.
True -- abortion is murder. Anything that prevents or eliminates the possibility of murder, without harming individual(s), should be desirable. Basically, abortion is motivated by unintended, unwanted pregnancy. Preventing unwanted pregnancy eliminates the potential for follow-up abortion. Birth control helps prevent unwanted pregnancy. There is no theological basis for the Catholic church's anti-birth control stance. It is a man-made doctrine by a group of (theoretically) celibate males. It is hypocritical for the church to approve its "rhythm" system of timed abstinence while forbidding other birth control forms. All have the same intent -- to prevent conception. God has given us two appetites created to preserve the human species. One is the appetite for food to sustain life. The other is the sexual appetite to procreate and preserve the continuance of the species. The church does not deem it sinful to eat more than is required for sustaining life. e.g., its o.k. to overeat. But it tells a married couple they cannot enjoy sexual engagement for its own sake without risking unwanted pregnancy. A warm, loving, sex life is healthy. Excessive overeating for pure pleasure is not. Do the Roman redrobes limit the first because of their own celibacy vow but don't limit the latter because it would reduce their own pleasure. It would seem so considering the large number of overweight or obese priests, bishops, cardinals and (sometimes) popes.
At the bottom of virtually all the world's current and future-looming problems is over-population. The single, strongest promoter of over-population is the Catholic church. The only possible means of reducing the continuing spread of aids in Africa is widespread availability and use of condoms. Given the African culture regarding sex, suggesting abstinence as the solution is irresponsible and ridiculous. The church has stuck its neck out on birth control. All it has to do is discover that birth control doesn't take lives; it helps prevent murder. Its not hard. It eliminated Limbo. Do the same with birth control.
No theological basis for the
No theological basis for the rejection of contraception?
Try reading: Casti connubi, Humanae vitae, Familiaris consortio, Evangelium vitae, and three years of John Paul's catechesis on the body, coupled with the only 50-years old masterpiece, Love & Responsibility. No, the lack of theological sophistication lies on the side of those who have been pushing the Pill for 50 years, devoid of ANY theological basis (although they were quite content to wreck Roman Catholic moral theology to invent one).
Overpopulation? I live in Switzerland, surrounded by a burgeoning pool of elderly, like in most European countries that are busy dying because they found their justification for contraception (egoism).
Post new comment