Prudence, abortion, and Casey

Some thoughts in reply to Michael's quick response . . .

First, I am perfectly happy to agree that responding legislatively to abortion in a just way would -- if the Supreme Court would permit such a response -- involve "prudential judgments," about which reasonable people (including faithful Catholics) could disagree.  (I'd be surprised if anyone denied this.)  And, I would be overjoyed if we ever reached a day when We the People could try to craft a just, workable, honest, and faithful response to what Michael and I agree is the tragedy of abortion.  (Note that we are permitted by the Court to have such conversations about capital punishment.) 

Second, neither the (I think uncontroversial) observation that responding legislatively to abortion would involve such prudential judgments nor the suggestion that criminalization of early-term abortions would, all things considered, be unwise provides any support for the view that the absolutist Roe / Casey regime should be maintained.

Third, and unfortunately, Bob Casey has made it clear -- in order to secure support from the abortion lobby -- that he will oppose judicial nominees who indicate a willingness to undo Roe's error.  That is, notwithstanding his expressed pro-life views, Senator Casey would be committed to preventing us from ever exercising the kind of prudential judgment that Michael and I agree the tragedy of abortion calls for.  So, it seems to me that if one holds the Perry / Kaveny / Langan view, one ought to oppose strongly candidates -- like Casey -- who are committed absolutely to preventing democratic deliberations and prudential judgments about the best legal response to abortion.

Fourth, Sen. Santorum's view on capital punishment seems to be moving in a direction that Michael and I both endorse.  I will pray for similar growth from those Catholics in the Senate who persist in holding and promoting wrongheaded positions on school choice, religious freedom, and abortion.

Responding to Steve's (important and challenging) questions -- it is not at all clear to me that one who (correctly) regards abortion as a grave moral wrong and an attack on the dignity of human life is therefore required to treat abortion like murder.  For all kinds of good reasons, we do not categorize or respond in law to all homicides in the same way.  No one thinks (I assume) that we are hypocrites for not responding the same way in law to negligent homicide and malicious torture murders.   

But again . . . I cannot wait until Steve's are the questions that we are permitted, as citizens and as a political community, to address.  Unfortunately, neither the current Court, nor any Court that Senator Casey's superiors in the Senate would ever permit, will let us tackle these questions.