Eduardo posted the news of the Democrats' planned proposal to reduce the number of abortions through "such preventive measures as funding for contraceptives and expanded sex education geared toward avoiding pregnancy as well as support for adoption and services to new mothers[.]" (That is, their proposal to appeal to "values voters" by re-packaging longstanding policy goals as efforts to reduce the number of abortions). He continues:
Let's also assume that these proposals by the Democrats would cause a substantial drop in the actual number of abortions.
With all due respect, I see no reason why we should make this assumption. And, there is, in my view, no reason to assume that this proposal would reduce abortions more than would, say, the Republican goal of (a) returning the matter of abortion regulation to the political process, with a view toward (b) regulating the practice of abortion to a greater extent than the Court, at present, permits.
It strikes me, also, that Eduardo's thought experiment needs to be revised, to factor in the fact that this proposal is (see Patrick's post) part of an overall program of (a) public funding for many abortions; (b) opposing any judicial nominees who might permit even moderate regulation of abortion; (c) opposing even those minor regulations of abortion (e.g., partial-birth abortion bans) that Casey might be thought to permit; (d) supporting proposals that would compel Catholic hospitals to provide abortions; (e) demonizing opponents of abortion as hostile to women's rights and civil liberties, and so on.
I have no doubt that Eduardo and I agree that abortion is immoral, and that we should do what we can -- wholly and apart from regulation -- to reduce them. But I cannot agree with him that, all things considered, the Democrats' position -- that is, their operational position, the position to which their political base and financial backers are committed, the position that will advance when the Democrats re-take the House -- is consistent with the view that abortion is immoral. (This is not to say that a faithful Catholic could not conclude that -- contrary to my own view -- a vote for a Democrat is, all things considered, more likely to promote the common good.)
Relatedly, Rob has a post about Senate-candidate Casey's address at Catholic University, where he voiced his support for "legislation that would work toward real solutions to our abortion problem by targeting the underlying factors that often lead women to choose abortion." There is much to admire about Mr. Casey. One might think, though, that there can be no "solution" to our "abortion problem" so long as it is the case that the Constitution is imagined to embody a commitment to a liberty to define the meaning of existence -- a commitment that disables us from reasonably regulating abortion -- and that any politician or judge who suggests otherwise is tarred as an extremist bent on "rolling back the clock", etc., etc. There can be no solution to our abortion problem so long as political leaders who say they want to reduce the number of abortions are willing to say plainly *why* we should want fewer abortions.
It is often suggested that President Bush's pro-life initiatives and statements are cynical ploys intended merely to ensnare well-meaning, faithful Christians into supporting his nefarious program. They aren't. But, putting that aside, couldn't one reasonably conclude that Casey's speech, and the Democrats' proposal (which, operationally, is entirely consonant with public funding for abortion on demand), are no-less-cynical ploys?
