<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:verdana,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:#794a72;"><table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center"><tbody><tr><td height="200" bgcolor="#f2fff2" background="cid:1222040643236@dclient.mail.yahoo.com" valign="top"><table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center"><tbody><tr><td width="10"> </td><td valign="top"><table width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td height="10"> </td></tr><tr><td><font face="verdana, helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" color="#794a72" style="font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12;color:#794a72;"><div style="text-align:undefined;">http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1169<h2><a href="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1169" class="ft_title" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to Misreading Cardinal George">Misreading Cardinal
George</a></h2>
<p class="author">By <strong>Richard W. Garnett</strong></p>
<small>Monday, September 15, 2008, 8:08 AM</small>
<div class="entry">
<p>My friend and former colleague, Prof. Douglas Kmiec, opened his September 9, 2008 <em>Chicago Tribune</em>
op-ed (“How Catholics can oppose abortion, back Obama”) with an
endearing expression of respect for Chicago’s cardinal archbishop,
Francis George. He then continued with his ongoing, tenacious effort to
convince Catholics that a vote for Sen. Obama is, notwithstanding his
unswerving and emphatic support for expanding abortion rights, actually
a pro-life vote. Unfortunately, in so doing, he appears to have
misunderstood the cardinal he so admires.</p>
<p>On September 2, Cardinal George reminded Chicago Catholics that “one
cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for
the common good.” He said this out of concern for the fact that
“matters of public policy that are also moral issues sometimes are
misrepresented or are presented in a partial or manipulative fashion.”</p>
<p>The cardinal also wrote: “Our present laws permit unborn children to
be privately killed. Laws that place unborn children outside the
protection of law destroy both the children killed and the common good,
which is the controlling principle of Catholic social teaching.” “The
unborn child,” he emphasized, “who is alive and is a member of the
human family, cannot defend himself or herself. Good law defends the
defenseless.” That last sentence is worth reading again: “Good law”
does not merely permit us to hope that the defenseless will be well; it
“defends” them.</p>
<p>Now, Sen. Obama not only supports, but is enthusiastically and
entirely committed to protecting, our “present laws”—that is, the laws
that “permit unborn children to be privately killed.” Prof. Kmiec knows
this; there is no denying it. That is, Sen. Obama believes—as a matter
of principle—that the law <em>ought</em> to “place unborn children
outside the protection of law.” Now, we should take him at his word,
and assume that he would prefer that fewer abortions take place. Still,
on the basic point addressed by Cardinal George, Obama’s position is
clear: Unborn children <em>ought not</em> to be protected by law, and the choice for abortion <em>ought</em>
to be legally protected. Indeed, Sen. Obama is, at this moment, running
swing-state advertisements warning voters that the election of Sen.
McCain and Gov. Palin would undermine the current near-absolute
abortion license.</p>
<p>And yet, in his op-ed, Prof. Kmiec suggested that it’s only
“Republican partisans” bent on “demonizing” their political opponents
who say that Obama supports “the legal status quo on abortion.” Sen.
Obama, Kmiec insisted, believes that “there are alternative ways to
promote the ‘culture of life,’ even given the law’s sanction of
abortion.” That Sen. Obama believes there are such “alternative ways,”
however, does not change the fact—and, to be clear, it is a fact—that
Obama “favor[s] the legal status quo on abortion”.</p>
<p>Having reworked Cardinal George’s exhortation, and pronounced it “exactly right,” Prof. Kmiec suggested to readers of the <em>Tribune</em>
that Sen. Obama has no quarrel with it. After all, he said, Sen. Obama
“seeks to extend a helping hand (increased funding for prenatal care,
maternity leave and less cumbersome and expensive adoption) with an
astute understanding of how closely economic circumstances and abortion
are related.” Of course, Sen. Obama’s “astute understanding” of this
asserted relation has nothing to do with the matter addressed by
Cardinal George, namely, the fact that our abortion laws exclude unborn
children from their protection. “Good law,” remember, “defends the
defenseless.” It does not settle merely for trying to put in a better
economic position those who hold the fate of the defenseless in their
hands.</p>
<p>For all of Sen. Obama’s professed desire to “extend a helping hand,”
there is no denying—though Prof. Kmiec does not mention—that he also
supports public funding for abortion, a repeal of the ban on
partial-birth abortion, a pro-<em>Roe v. Wade</em> litmus test for
judicial nominees, a dramatic expansion of federally funded research
involving the destruction of human embryos, and the elimination of
legal protection for the conscience rights of health-care professionals
and hospitals that object to participating in abortions. How these
positions—indeed, they are not merely “positions,” they are, Obama has
said, priorities—would (in Kmiec’s words) “strengthen a culture of
life” is unclear.</p>
<p>Prof. Kmiec concludes with the suggestion that a vote for Obama is a
pro-life vote because studies suggest that abortion rates decline in
times of economic wellbeing. Let’s assume they do. But again, Cardinal
George’s point had to do with the “legal status quo on abortion,” not
with necessarily risky predictions about future ambient economic
conditions. One can assert—certainly, Prof. Kmiec did not and cannot
demonstrate—that the economic wellbeing of women facing unplanned
pregnancies would improve significantly under Sen. Obama. And, one can
hope—I’m sure that Prof. Kmiec does—that such an improvement would
result in fewer abortions, though such hope would seem hard to sustain,
given Obama’s support for the “Freedom of Choice Act.” In any event,
such assertions and hopes do nothing to change the fact that Sen. Obama
is squarely committed, as a point of pride and principle, not only to
preserving the current <em>legal </em>regime, which puts unborn
children outside the law’s protection, but also to rolling back the
gains that pro-life citizens have managed to secure in recent years.</p>
<p>Prof. Kmiec referred, in his op-ed, to Cardinal George’s “thoughtful instruction.” He should read that instruction again.</p>
<p><em>Richard W. Garnett is professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. </em></p>
<p><u>References</u></p>
<p><a href="http://www.archchicago.org/cardinal/letter/letters_2008/letter_090308.shtm">Pastoral Letter</a>, Francis Cardinal George, September 2, 2008.<br>
“<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped0909kmiecsep09,0,3069072,print.story">How Catholics can oppose abortion, back Obama</a>,” Douglas W. Kmiec, <em>Chicago Tribune</em>, September 9, 2008.
</p>
</div><div> </div><div><div><div><font color="#0000bf"><em><font face="comic sans ms"><div><em><font color="#0000bf" face="Comic Sans MS">Like a deer that longs for running waters so my soul longs for you, O God.</font></em></div></font></em></font></div><div><font color="#0000bf"><em><font face="comic sans ms">Ps 42:1</font></em></font></div><div><em><font color="#0000bf" face="Comic Sans MS" size="1"></font></em> </div><div><em><font color="#0000bf" face="Comic Sans MS" size="1"></font></em> </div></div></div><div><br></div></div></font></td></tr><tr><td height="10"> </td></tr></tbody></table></td><td width="10"> </td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div><br>
</body></html>