Response to Prof. Wertheimer

Thanks to Prof. Wertheimer for reading, and for writing in to Michael.  In her message to Michael P., she writes, "I am at a loss to explain, much less justify, any position that creates a greater risk of more unwanted pregnancies and, a fortiori, more abortions, no matter what other issues may be lurking under the surface."  Really?  No matter what?  I yield to no one in my conviction that, as she observes, abortion is a "great[] evil".  That said, it remains unclear to me why one would think that this observation renders inexplicable or unjustifiable the position that perhaps not every measure that holds out the prospect of contributing to a reduction in the "risk of more unwanted pregnancies" is, therefore, a measure that must, or even ought to, be supported by those who oppose abortion.

She also writes, "[i]ncreasing the cost of contraception thus contributes to the divide between the rich and the poor in our society, surely not a goal devoutly
to be wished."  We all agree that increasing this divide is not the goal.  I wonder, though -- I do not have the figures -- how much of the proposed subsidy would go to the poor and how much would simply involve a transfer from some middle-class taxpayers to some middle-class or well-off students?  Does this matter?

In addition, Prof. Wertheimer notes that "[i] is also perhaps worth pointing out that many of those who will suffer by reason of the price increase are not themselves Catholic."  Why does it matter -- given that the subsidy-reduction does not involve coercion or burden non-Catholics' freedom-of-conscience -- that non-Catholics, and not just Catholics, are affected by a reduction in the subsidy?

Finally, and all this being said, it seems that the divide on Michael's initial question -- i.e., "How would *you* vote" -- is inevitably going to reflect, in the end, different views about the tricky connections between law, policy, culture, and conduct.  Questions about these connections are, of course, really tough; they are also, it seems to me, really important and interesting.  For example:  Prof. Wertheimer suggested that "any position that creates a greater risk of more unwanted pregnancies" is, for that reason, difficult to justify.  It seems to me, though, that the failure to communicate to unmarried college students that they ought not to be sexually active, and the failure to attend to the messages and values transmitted in law and through culture to unmarried college students with respect to sexual activity, "create[] a . . . risk of . . . unwanted pregnancies" (and therefore of more abortions).  How can these failures be justified?  How could they be -- should they be?  may they be? -- remedied?