I realize that I am something of a broken record on this point, but so long as the charge is made, I'm going to keep disagreeing with it. Rob links to Jack Balkin's claim that:
[P]erhaps most importantly, the President did not use this opportunity to call directly for overturning Roe v. Wade. If he was really serious about protecting the sanctity of life as he sees it, he would do more than nibble about the edges with makeweights like the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: he would state, clearly and forcefully, that Roe v. Wade is legalized murder and demand that it be overturned immediately. But he has not done so. Indeed, throughout his political career George W. Bush has always appealed to pro-life voters but has always stopped short of advocating the policy that they actually seek -- the overturning of Roe and the criminalization of abortion. The reason is that he knows the achievement of both of these would be a disaster for the electoral prospects of the Republican Party. Clearly some things are far more important than protecting the sanctity of human life.
In my view, the charge grows no more plausible through repetition. Now, let's agree that reasonable people could think that the President's commitment to the sanctity of life is muddied by his Administration's positions on war, the death penalty, and interrogating detainees. (Of course, those same people should consider whether the human-dignity commitments of those who -- quite rightly -- abhor maltreatment of prisoners is muddied to the extent they are unswervingly dedicated to preserving constitutionalized abortion-on-demand.)
That said, it does not follow from the fact that President Bush "knows the achievement of both of these [i.e., overturning Roe and criminalizing abortion] would be a disaster for the electoral prospects of the Republican Party" that "[c]learly some things are far more important than protecting the sanctity of human life." This is because saying what Professor Balkin thinks the President should be saying would not simply hurt the Republican Party; it would do nothing to "protect[] the sanctity of human life." It would, however, hamstring badly the ability of the President and his Party to do things -- real things, not merely, "nibble[s] around the edges" -- that make the best of a bad constitutional and political situation, and it would empower those who oppose all regulation of abortion, support public funding for abortion, and are uninterested in the free-conscience rights of medical professionals who oppose abortion.
UPDATE: Hadley Arkes sends in the following thoughts, in response to this post:
Rick . . . misses something quite important on two levels:
(1) For the president to call for the overthrowing of Roe shifts the attention back to the courts, and sustains the convenient notion that the work of dealing of abortion falls entirely to the courts. As I've been arguing in First Things, that attitude diverts the political class from taking their own responsibilities and dealing with the matter with the instruments they have in hand. Quite regardless of what the Court does in the case on partial-birth abortion, the President can move along the paths I've suggested in memos to the White House staff -- He can propose that we remove all federal funding from hospitals and clinics that house partial-birth abortions or the "live birth abortions" that were banned in the Born-Alive Infants' Protection Act. That would generate, for the Democrats, tensions and divisions that would be utterly crippling. He could raise the question of whether the formulas of the Civil Rights Acts apply: If a person walks into clinic where people are receiving Medicare or Social Security checks, or a refund from the IRS, is the whole place a recipient now of federal funds? That too would subject the Democrats to tensions hard to handle.
(2) [Rick] rather misses the powerful lever that the Born-Alive Act has, totally within the hands of the Administration, if the Administration would use it. I've already pointed out the application of the Bob Jones case. There was no real public policy in that case, barring racial discrimination in the private choice of partners in sex and marriage. But there is indeed a law now that bars the live-birth abortions. The Administration could move through the IRS to remove tax exemptions from the hospital in Morristown and certain Providence hospitals in California, where these abortions are "performed." But beyond that, the Administration could finally get serious about enforcing the Born-Alive act in the clearest case that has been brought before it--the case from Morristown, with a brave nurse coming forward to offer testimony. . . .
Over at the Evangelical Outpost, Joe Carter wonders why President Bush was eager to speak up for protecting human life to a crowd of pro-lifers at yesterday's March for Life, but failed to mention the issue when addressing the entire nation tonight. He captures the State of the Union in this graphic:
From the other side of the political spectrum, Jack Balkin is a wee bit skeptical about the President's annual statement to the pro-life marchers. An excerpt:
[P]erhaps most importantly, the President did not use this opportunity to call directly for overturning Roe v. Wade. If he was really serious about protecting the sanctity of life as he sees it, he would do more than nibble about the edges with makeweights like the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: he would state, clearly and forcefully, that Roe v. Wade is legalized murder and demand that it be overturned immediately. But he has not done so. Indeed, throughout his political career George W. Bush has always appealed to pro-life voters but has always stopped short of advocating the policy that they actually seek -- the overturning of Roe and the criminalization of abortion. The reason is that he knows the achievement of both of these would be a disaster for the electoral prospects of the Republican Party. Clearly some things are far more important than protecting the sanctity of human life.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
This past weekend I had the opportunity to view the film “John Paul II” starring Cary Elwes (as a young JPII) and Jon Voight (as an older JPII). There were a number of scenes particularly in the first half of the film in which the Polish faithful are seen attending religious gatherings, while government officials or their collaborators are present photographing those attending the Mass or other liturgical celebration. Recently I was talking with someone who mentioned to me that at some of the various pro-life marches that coincide with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade those participating in these marches have also been photographed by persons not participants in the march. I suppose that it is possible that these photographers desired keepsakes that would record an important event, but I suppose it is also possible that the pictures could have been taken for other reasons similar to those depicted in the film on John Paul II.
I was then reminded of something Christopher Dawson said back in the 1930s: “The sphere of action of the State has grown steadily larger until it now threatens to embrace the whole of human life and to leave nothing whatsoever outside its competence.” Perhaps the photographers seen at the pro-life marchers were not agents of the state but simply citizens of a democracy keeping tabs on their fellow citizens with whom they disagreed on the abortion question.
And then I came back to John Paul II who in Evangelium Vitae had this to say: “the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes.” Perhaps being mindful of the two totalitarian systems under which he lived and that were portrayed in the film I recently viewed, he also said: “In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism” and “when freedom is detached from objective truth it becomes impossible to establish personal rights on a firm rational basis; and the ground is laid for society to be at the mercy of the unrestrained will of individuals or the oppressive totalitarianism of public authority.”
As in the film on John Paul II, there is much to celebrate about the witness of those participating in the pro-life marches. And, as was the case of the photographers depicted in film, there is much to lament in the motivations of some of the photographers whose pictorial skills have been noticed at the pro-life marches. RJA sj
A couple of us discussed, a few days ago, the Cully Stimson fracas, and the question of lawyers' moral responsibility for the clients and causes they represent. Prof. Neal Katyal and Ted Olson -- who were on opposite sides in the recent detainees cases in the Supreme Court -- have weighed on the matter with this op-ed.
Several of us have blogged often here at MOJ about the whole "religious groups at universities with anti-discrimination policies are excluded because of insistence that religion matters for membership" issue. The same issue, for what it's worth, is front-and-center in the U.K. Here is a story from the University of Exeter:
Christians at the University of Exeter have vowed to continue their high court action against the student guild in an escalating row over equal opportunities, alleged discrimination and religious freedom on campus.
The case began last year when the Evangelical Christian Union (ECU) had its funds frozen and its guild privileges - such as the use of campus facilities - withdrawn, following a complaint by a student that the union was not inclusive.
The ECU requires its members to declare their faith in Jesus Christ "as their saviour, their Lord and their God", and requires those who want to sit on its committee to sign a doctrinal basis of faith declaring, among other things, that the Bible is the infallible word of God and the "supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour". . . .
Tim Diaper, the president of the Christian Union at the University of Essex, said of his student union: "The action of the student union is an attempt to deny us as a body of followers of Christ, the ability to ensure that our leaders must be Christian, living a godly life that is guided by the truths of the Christian faith."
But the debate has not received the universal backing of all who profess a Christian faith.
Peter Ellender, a Christian student at King's College London, fears things have got out of hand. "I'm surprised it's blown up to the point where people are throwing legal threats. That's where you need to stand back and say: 'Hold on, I think we're being a bit silly here. Isn't there a way this can be sorted out through rational dialogue?' ". . .
The Telegraph reports that "Burma 'orders Christians to be wiped out.'" Note to self: Avoid Burma.
