Michael Sean Winters relates his thoughts about Cardinal Sean O'Malley in the Vigil for the March for Life. You can read this thoughts here: http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/cardinal-omalleys-sermon Here are mine:
There is enough nakedness to go around to talk about (indeed, you could call it the streak for Life) - starting with the strategy of the pro-life movement to get Republicans elected, even if it means ousting pro-life Democrats. May I add the fact that embracing the rather novel dream of overturning Roe on jurisdictional grounds (essentially sending the and equal protection issue back to the states in violation to the 14th Amendment) seems sure to both fail and keep GOP coffers full (although the Church does not like equal protection much - especially regarding women and homosexuals).
There is also the bit about the Church's teaching that a problem fetus who has a condition that won't let it even survive to pregnancy has a right to life greater than its mother (whose health is served by as early a termination as possible - eve if only an induction).
The biggest bit of naked emperors is the fact that many in the GOP wing of the Right to Life movement (most of it, in other words) are vehemently against increasing either tax or direct subsidy benefits to make all abortions economically unnecessary. That is when they start talking about personal responsibility (which they will never give to the woman). - which explains the lack of applause, by the way.
The other streaker in our March for Life is the general condemnation of sex - especially among teens bound for Catholic College (who are encouraged to adopt). Instead, embrace and celebrate their sexuality and celebrate it with a marriage. Nothing will make teen age boys stop wanting sex than making it easy for them to marry their pregnant girlfiends and still go to college.
As far as scripture, the better citation would have been Jesus own pregnancy. Had Joseph insisted on standing on the law, Mary would have forced to drink the bitter herbs to terminate the pregnancy. He did not. Now THAT is a witness to life. One wonders if in the story cited by His Eminence if the reason the Pharasees were stoning the woman is the fact that they had already forced an abortion on her - or wanted Jesus to say something about how it should or should not be done according to the Law? In either case, the choice seems to be Life and the care of the mother. Nor OR, but AND. O'Malley gets that, which is why I am surprised they did not boo.