By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
Ever since the Supreme Court made abortion legal in the early 1970s, I have had to live with a paradox. I deal with it by repeating the bromide about “consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds.” I don’t know it is a logically sound tactic in this instance, but I know of no recourse.
The paradox is that, even though I agree that it is not wise to be a “single-issue voter,” I nonetheless view abortion as a deal-breaker: I won’t vote for a “pro-choice” candidate over one who is pro-life, regardless of the other items on the platforms of the candidates.
Fortunately, this has never been a real-life dilemma for me. For nearly a half-century now, in every election where I have voted, pro-life candidates also agree with me on economic matters, law and order, and foreign policy. They tend to be conservative on these other issues. And “pro-choice” politicians tend to be not. I guess there are exceptions in local elections somewhere, but “pro-choice” candidates in national elections always sound like Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer: big spenders, soft on defense and illegal immigration.
But I have often wondered what I would do if faced with a choice between a “fiscally conservative” Republican candidate such as “pro-choice” Susan Collins of Maine, and a liberal Democrat such as Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, a Notre Dame graduate with a solid pro-life position, on everything from protecting human life from conception to natural death, to banning federal health coverage that includes abortion — but who agrees with the Clintons on just about everything else. Would I be willing to vote for someone like Donnelly, even if it meant giving the Democrats more power in Washington? If you sense that I am squirming in my seat pondering such a decision, you are on the mark.
The above dilemma is a hypothetical one for me. But liberal Catholics face a real and immediate one. Hillary Clinton has taken away much of the wriggle used by Catholics who vote Democratic. She favors repealing the Hyde Amendment, something liberal Democrats assured us would never happen — until now. The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, prohibited the use of taxpayer money to pay for abortions through Medicaid programs or at federal hospitals, except in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the life of the woman undergoing the abortion.
This was the Democrats’ way of securing the vote of Americans with moral objections to taking the life of an unborn child. Their pitch was that those opposed to abortion would not have to “actively participate” in financing the act; that all we were doing as a society was permitting women to “control their own bodies.” That became the mantra of “personally opposed, but. . . .” Catholics.
Many pro-life Americans suspected that the Democrats were conning us, waiting for the day when they would be able to gain sufficient popular support to push for full taxpayer funding for abortions. Those who suspected this were right. That day is here. Hillary is leading the charge. She has embraced the Democratic Party’s platform, which calls for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. The platform states specifically that the Democratic Party is committed to “overturning federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion.”
It should be noted that Hillary also openly opposes a ban on partial-birth abortions, calling such proposals an effort “to criminalize a medical procedure.” Think about what this means: If she is elected and gets her way on this issue, U.S. taxpayers will be forced to pay for partial-birth abortions.
Many consider Commonweal magazine to be the model of a “liberal Catholic” publication. I don’t think the editors of the magazine would object to that designation. It is also an intellectually honest periodical. They admit to the problem that faces them because of Hillary’s decision.
In an unsigned editorial (which is a publication’s official and strongest expression of its view on a matter, in contrast to the opinion of an individual editorial writer) entitled “Why Hyde Matters,” the editors called the Hyde Amendment “one of the more durable compromises in American political life,” one which recognized the need for “a line” to be drawn “to keep elective abortions from being funded by taxpayers,” a modus vivendi that “both pro-life and pro-choice Americans can support.”
Commonweal’s editors praised the amendment as a “straightforward way of acknowledging and respecting the deepest moral commitments of those citizens who are certain that abortion is the taking of human life.”
They go on to state that “when you fund something, you encourage it and make it more likely to occur.” Making “sure taxpayers do not pay for elective abortions is an important way to remind citizens of the gravity of the choice to terminate a pregnancy.” The Hyde Amendment “made it clear that, in fact, abortion is not simply a routine medical procedure.”
Can Commonweal’s editors point to a link between public funding and increased abortions? They can: “In the years between Roe and the introduction of the Hyde Amendment to federal spending bills, Medicaid covered the costs for around three hundred thousand abortions per year. After the Hyde Amendment took effect, that number decreased to just a few thousand.”
How many times have you heard liberal Democrats, most notably Bill and Hillary Clinton, announce in solemn tones that their goal is to keep abortion “safe, legal, and rare”? Commonweal calls their bluff: “Even many pro-choice Americans claim to want to reduce the number of abortions; keeping the Hyde Amendment is one modest way to do that.”
The Commonweal editorial ends by reminding us that “U.S. abortion law is unique in not imposing any meaningful restrictions on access to the procedure. Most European countries, for example, make it more difficult to obtain an abortion after the twelfth week of pregnancy.”
So, what’s next for Commonweal and its readers? We know it won’t be an editorial backing Donald Trump to ensure that the Hyde Amendment stays in place. Should Commonweal’s editors and those who agree with them be admonished for not taking the stand against Hillary Clinton’s candidacy that seems morally required after reading this editorial? I repeat: Hillary Clinton wants us to pay for partial-birth abortions.
I understand the plight of liberal Catholics facing this new reality. I have already admitted how difficult it would be for me to back a pro-life liberal Democrat. I also recognize that Donald Trump’s position as the Republican nominee makes it even more difficult for a liberal Democrat to consider crossing over. That said, Commonweal’s editorial draws a line in the sand, even if the editors themselves don’t see it yet.
Perhaps we should be grateful that Commonweal was willing to go as far as it did: The magazine cast a bright light on the stark and uncompromising nature of the confrontation with pro-life Americans chosen by Hillary Clinton and the abortion rights activists that surround her. They think they are closing in for the coup de grace.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress