What does it mean to be “pro-choice”?

  Parsing the 5/10 statement, my question is, what do the Catholic members of Congress mean when they say “pro-choice?”  Is it the same thing as what the Bishops mean?

  Here is their re-iteration of the Statement of Principles: 

“Advancing respect for life and for the dignity of every human being is, as our church has taught us, our own life’s mission.  As we said in our Statement of Principles, ‘We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion – we do not celebrate its practice.  Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term.’  That is precisely what some of us are doing with our initiative ‘The Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act’ – which includes policies that promote alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, improve access to children’s healthcare and child care, as well as encourage paternal and maternal responsibility.”   

  That strikes me as a deeply “pro-life” statement.

  Granted there are some (although I think few) people who do in some sense “celebrate” abortion as a ticket to women’s “freedom” and full participation in society.  But I think that when many Catholics, including many Catholic lawmakers, describe themselves as “pro-choice” they are not “celebrating” abortion, but are expressing that that having a hard time envisioning the practical implications of making abortion illegal.

  I wonder if we might step back from the pro-life and pro-choice labels, and starting from the Statement of Principles above, focus on those really hard questions of what it means to concretely build a culture of life.

  As many of you know, I’m on the record with a critique of how current rhetoric fails to acknowledge that abortion is a profound human and moral tragedy.

  I think it’s important that Kennedy’s opinion in Carhart included this graphic testimony from a nurse who had described the “procedure” in these frank terms:

“Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... . The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.  " 'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp... .He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”

  Abortion is the death of a baby, and as we wrestle with the policy implications, I believe we need to have that always before us. 

  So I agree that the last paragraph in the Catholic Members statement:

“The fact is that religious sanction in the political arena directly conflicts with our fundamental beliefs about the role and responsibility of democratic representatives in a pluralistic America - it also clashes with freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution.  Such notions offend the very nature of the American experiment and do a great disservice to the centuries of good work the church has done.”

is deeply problematic—because, as the Bishops said, of course it’s appropriate for the Church to speak out against the destruction of innocent children.

  But looking at the statement as a whole, in light of the Statement of Principles, I wonder if we might look between the lines and give this a generous read.  Could it be that their core concern is that anyone who asks those deeply difficult practical questions—what exactly should we do about this problem in our society—finds themselves misunderstood and labeled? 

  We undoubtedly need clear and courageous statements that abortion is a grave moral and social evil.  But we also need careful and thoughtful reflection about the complex legal and policy choices that will practically and effectively reduce abortion in our society.  Currently these two dimensions of the political conversation appear as opposite ends of the spectrum with advocates on either side in a mutually suspicious stand-off. 

  The Statement of Principles was a step in the right direction.  Why can’t we go the extra mile in reaching out—and use that as a springboard to create relationships of trust in which Catholics with differing views might begin to see themselves as potential partners in the same project?  I think that those relationships of trust will then serve as the most promising vehicle for fostering a more complex and complete understanding of the role of religion in a democracy, and particularly as it might inform the decisions of elected officials.

Amy