Professor Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University School of Law and Professor Robert George of Princeton engaged in a public discussion of what is the right response by pro-life citizens to the Obama administration. The event was moderated by Professor Mary Ann Glendon and hosted by the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law at the National Press Club.
Professor Kmiec is a Catholic and assures us he is unfailingly pro-life. He was an ardent supporter of Barack Obama during the presidential campaign and continues to praise President Obama. Professor George is also an unquestionably pro-life Catholic but finds much to criticize about the Obama administrations policy with regards to the sanctity of life. It was a fascinating ninety-minutes watching each of these men justify his position.
A video of this event is posted on the Catholic University web site. I encourage you to watch it. Note that this was not presented as a debate. It was meant to be a discussion. The buzzword for the dialogue was “common ground”. Professor Glendon introduced the discussion with an outline of its purpose. The goal of evening was to promote informed discussion, outline the proper response of the pro-life citizen, and seek common ground.
Professor Kmiec spoke first. Unfortunately, his initial presentation offered little towards the goals put forth by Professor Glendon. His focus was on the presidential campaign and not on the current state of policy. He asserted that Catholics who did not support Obama were relegating themselves to the sidelines to talk among themselves rather than engaging the opposition. He also claimed that Obama’s campaign priorities of addressing climate change, the Iraq war, poverty, and health care justified support from Catholics even if they did not agree with his position on abortion or embryonic stem cell research. He also spent a great deal of time criticizing Catholics, especially priests and bishops, whom he said used mechanisms of intimidation to advance their position. He assailed the denial of Communion to pro-abortion Catholics as an act of intimidation. He ended with the statement that it is wrong to make justice the enemy of love.
In contrast, Professor George spoke very specifically about how a pro-life citizen should respond. He first outlined the multiple initiatives of the Obama administration that were opposed to the sanctity of human life from the moment of its conception. He said the pro-life citizen must vigorously oppose the Obama agenda that aims to kill unborn life. In light of the president’s party enjoying a majority in both houses of Congress, this is a difficult task. However, the difficulty of the challenge does not diminish our responsibility to make such a challenge.
Professor George also made a very significant point: Unlike Biden, Pelosi, or Kerry, President Obama does not say he is personally opposed to abortion. He is not opposed to abortion at all. Abortion is not a tragedy. The circumstances that cause a woman to seek an abortion may be a tragedy. The abortion is a welcome solution. Professor George continues by pointing out that President Obama admitted at the University of Notre Dame that his views and the views of those who consider abortion an intrinsic evil are irreconcilable. This makes it nearly impossible to find common ground since he views as good what pro-life citizens view as evil.
Following the introductory remarks by each of the participants, Professor Glendon challenged each with a question about their remarks. She asked Professor Kmiec how enacting the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) or increasing funding for abortions at home and abroad would decrease the number of abortions? He never answered her question. Instead he waxed eloquently about how some iteration of FOCA had been around for twenty years and was never going to be passed.
Professor Glendon asked Professor George what he would say to those pro-life Catholics who said they supported President Obama because they liked what he said about the economy or health care. Professor George stated that justice and the common good must be the foundation for our votes, not our own self-interest. When one looks at the issue of abortion and of destructive embryonic stem cell research one sees that an entire class of human persons, the unborn, are being denied basic human rights. The scope and magnitude of this injustice gives it primacy over economic issues. He also reminded us that Cardinal Bernardin who developed the idea of a “seamless garment of life” was concerned that some were using this concept to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians. Cardinal Bernardin felt this was an erroneous application of the seamless garment of life principle.
George also took the opportunity to challenge the notion that denial of Communion was an act of intimidation by noting that in 1962 Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated three prominent Catholic politicians for their support of continued segregation. They New York Times lauded this action. However, when current bishops withhold Communion from pro-abortion politicians, the New York Times considers this meddling in politics. What is the difference?
Another significant point made by Professor George is that pro-life citizens can support an incremental strategy. If President Obama will not accord human right to an embryo at conception, will he do so in the second or third trimester? Will he support parental notification? Will he support a ban on abortion for sex selection? Professor George asserts that President Obama’s unwillingness to entertain any limits on abortion belie his call for common ground. There is no common ground when President Obama feels the equality of women demands an inequality of unborn children and an unfettered access to abortion at any time for any reason.
Tonight’s discussion truly presented a sharp contrast in approaches to pro-life issues under the current administration. Professor Kmiec believes that since Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, the oppositional strategy of the pro-life movement has been ineffective. Therefore, we must join President Obama’s team and seek to reduce the number of abortions through economic and social initiatives. Kmiec treats the personhood of the unborn as a matter of faith rather than a matter of natural law therefore feels it cannot be imposed on those with whom we disagree. Professor George claims that it is a matter of justice to recognize the personhood of the unborn from the moment of conception. Failure to do so divides the world into human person with human rights and human persons without rights. History has shown the horrific results of such a division.
My impression is that contrary to Professor Kmiec’s accusation that pro-life citizens who do not embrace President Obama are relegating themselves to the sidelines, the truth is the failure to criticize President Obama’s anti-life agenda is what relegates us to the sidelines. How can we teach others the truth about the sanctity of human life if we remain silent when the lives of the most vulnerable humans are violently attacked? We cannot ignore this injustice in the hope that it will go away when the economy gets better. Hope is not a method.
UPDATE: Professor Robert George has published his introductory remarks here.
Comments