The Failure of Our Pro-Life Leadership

December 9, 2008 (InsideCatholic.com) - I recently attended a meeting of pro-life leaders from around the country, called in order to formulate a national strategy on how to defeat the promised Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). During the 2008 presidential campaign, President-elect Barack Obama infamously stated, to much applause, "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

The intent here is to codify the decision in Roe v. Wade, preventing future politicians (and courts outside the Supreme Court) from giving any more power to the states to place limits on abortion. In doing so, FOCA actually goes beyond Roe, calling abortion a "fundamental right" guarded by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution (and not just the illusory "right to privacy" created in Griswold v. Connecticut, with Roe being part of its progeny).

The call to action in the meeting was admirable, but in the final analysis, it spoke volumes about the pro-life leadership in our country today: It is a group completely on the defensive and has accepted Roe as a framework to work within, rather than a fight to overcome. Choosing to operate within Roe's strictures has proven to be a failed strategy, bringing us to the point where there is a real possibility of FOCA being visited upon our nation.

The parade of horribles (and they are truly horrible) that would follow as a result of FOCA include:

    * nullifying the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Act;
    * repealing the Hyde amendment;
    * allowing abortions at military hospitals;
    * nullifying informed consent laws, parental notification laws, waiting periods, and born-alive infant protection acts;
    * forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or close their doors;
    * ridding rights of conscience in various states; and much more.

Those concerned pro-life leaders from the aforementioned gathering -- as well as the bishops at the recent USCCB meeting -- are right to speak out loudly against the bill. But there remains a hitch: What we are most likely to see from Congress is not a clean bill, but one debated and compromised. That is what Congress does, and that's where the real danger is. Catholics who imprudently voted for the most pro-abortion candidate in history may also be fooled into supporting a "revised" FOCA.

For example, what if a revised FOCA has an exemption for religious institutions like Catholic hospitals? Would that make the bill more palatable? What about a FOCA that allows the Hyde Amendment or the Partial Birth Abortion Act to endure? Will there still be vigorous opposition if we come to see a compromised version of FOCA? Or will we hear the same tired claims made by some pro-lifers that a compromise FOCA may actually lead to fewer incidences of abortion (and since Roe is here to stay, they say, FOCA might be a good thing from the Catholic perspective).

No matter what form FOCA takes in its final version, it must be defeated. Retreat or compromise would only further cement the notion -- among the general public, and even many pro-life leaders -- that Roe is here to stay. In whatever form FOCA takes, it marks the end of the "incremental approach" to combating abortion that has been espoused by many mainstream pro-life leaders and organizations for the last decade or so as the only way to combat abortion. These are the same leaders who advised bishops against trying to overturn Roe, saying we did not have the votes on the Supreme Court. This "one way only" approach has led not just to the very real threat of FOCA, but to an incoming president who promises to fill our courts with pro-abortion judges. If this isn't the right time, the next couple of decades will surely be no better.

Pro-life leaders must reconsider the failed "incremental steps only" strategy that has done nothing to stop Roe. Their call to "wait" has produced the expected "never."

Brian Rooney is an attorney and spokesman at the Thomas More Law Center.

ari, I like your adoption idea. One problem I see with pro-life successes, when they talk women out of abortion thru sidewalk counseling or a crisis center or such, is we are encouraging a huge number of single-parent homes, with all the attendant problems.

Usually a woman going for abortion is single, with a boyfriend of some sort. Statistics show whether she goes through with the abortion OR changes her mind and keeps baby, the couple usually breaks up EITHER WAY. So, abortion is so traumatic, it destroys the relationship. Then you have a child being reared by a mom with all the accompanying economic, social and educational hardships, an no “father figure” yet many married couples with secure homes are dying for a baby.

I have a real problem that saving babies usually mean convicting them to lives without fathers. I’m not putting down single-moms, but it is a fact a child will generally do better in a financially secure, middle-class, two-parent home. If the mom really wants to keep her baby and can somehow do it, it’s of course her decision. But more incentives and emphasis should be put on adoption as one loving choice, for the baby’s sake. I realize each situation is unique, it is no doubt the greatest sacrifice, the most painful a woman could make, but in SOME situations surely it is also the best for her child.

You are correct, and the fact it was “stopped” a few weeks before the election only when it reached National MSM level is not particularly impressive on the part of the bishops. Catholics have been complaining, writing, and even organizing small grass-roots efforts for over TEN YEARS to get the bishops to STOP not just ACORN but all the CCHD BS, which most of it is.

And, I’m sorry to disillusion some good Catholics, it’s not just CCHD. Catholic Charities, Bishops Annual Appeal, many of these things with the fancy posters in the vestibule with pictures of starving kids or whatever, are almost as bad. YOUR MONEY HAS GONE DIRECTLY, via umbrella organizations, to pay for abortions, Democrat fundraisers, global warming causes, feminist groups, homosexual groups, free attorneys for illegals, heretical religious educational materials, consulting fees for “safe environment” classes conducted by groups that support prostitution, pornography, contraception....and more.

Caveat: this is not true in every diocese, but almost all. Burke, Bruskewitz, Vasa have cracked down on this stuff a while ago.

Spend a few hours following the links from your archdiocese, and you can discover this yourself. Call the peace and justice office and ask for their budget and a detailed list of what organizations they support. Then look up those organizations websites and get ready for a shock. Or ask for the prolife office (we don’t even HAVE ONE in our archdiocese) and see how much they are doing, what is the staff, the budget, the plans.

Catholics in good faith wanting to help the needy have contributed to these funds. Catholics and Protestants together with almost no church leadership have fought abortion from sidewalk protests to adopting babies. The average Catholic or prolifer is not to blame for the “failures” of the prolife movement, the failure rests squarely on the shoulders of the Bishops.

If they lead by education and example, and ordered their wayward priests to also get on board, Catholics, and then our protestant brethren (who instinctively respond to moral truths whatever theological differences), will join us.

But now it’s a disjointed effort of well-intentioned folks running in a hundred different directions. The bishops have the POWER, MONEY and PRESTIGE that if this was THEIR number one priority, all America would eventually be unable to stop avoiding the subject.

the adoption incentive would reduce abortion as well as the problem of kids raised by women who are simply not capable of being a suitable mother. It’s usually not their fault but it may take an incentive to get them to think: “wait a minute, what am I doing? This isn’t going to work out. I can’t afford to raise my baby properly. So I’ll give him to a family that is willing to adopt.”

The incentive is like an ad: “yes, there is such an option called adoption.” The word will get around as a result (where’s the best place to go for services, etc)

Newt wanted to encourage adoption the other way, by giving a tax credit to couples who choose to adopt. But that doesn’t really make a difference since they are already well off. It’s the poor pregnant girl that needs the money.

And not only money, follow-up medical of some sort, and friends and emotional support, maybe even a “support group” of women who have done this, if there were enough of them, which there certainly could be if abortion were not presented as the only option.

If half the girls going to PP had the adoption option fully explained, fairly as you suggest, I’m sure adoption rates would go up.

But also it’s important the mother has a say about the adoptive family.

A close family member of mine gave up her baby for adoption at age 17, very hard decision. It was thru a private Catholic agency to a young married Catholic couple whom she met beforehand.

It would have been monstrous to her to imagine her child being put in the care of two fags or lesbians. If she did not meet the parents, she never would have relinquished the child, nor do I think her parents would have let her. All agreed adoption was best, it was hard, but they got thru it with the assurance of a nice, safe, good home for the boy. This also was a comfort in later years, that she did the right thing.

“If half the girls going to PP had the adoption option fully explained, fairly as you suggest, I’m sure adoption rates would go up.”

The pro-life movement seems to be more anti-abortion instead of pro-adoption. We’re going to make all abortions illegal and throw women in jail and what they are doing is evil, etc.

That doesn’t really work with people who are young, scared and confused. So PP comes and says “don’t worry, we care about you. We’re going to save you from the mean old Republicans.” PP offers an easy way out so nobody is going to listen to anyone else, including those who offer adoption as an alternative. Remember, we have to tell them they have to wait 9 months and go into labor to give birth to a baby they won’t even keep. That’s not so easy.

“Catholics have been complaining, writing, and even organizing small grass-roots efforts for over TEN YEARS to get the bishops to STOP not just ACORN but all the CCHD BS, which most of it is.

Caveat: this is not true in every diocese, but almost all. Burke, Bruskewitz, Vasa have cracked down on this stuff a while ago.”

Please share me links on these activities and related info. I would like to learn more and figure out what can be done to respond, what groups if any are trying to fight this. I have a fight myself in our parish and I want to be well-armed with the facts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.