Mark McKenna on abortion, Roe, and the election

My friend and colleague, Mark McKenna, sent in these thoughts, regarding some recent posts by Greg Sisk, me, and others:

Rick, on your response to Tom, you write:  “The problem with Roe . . . is not just that because it facilitates wrong choices by private persons; it is also, and fundamentally, at odds with our constitutional structure and with democratic self-government.  As long as Roe is the law, We the People are not allowed to write into law the conviction — assuming that it is or becomes our conviction — that the unborn child ought to be protected from lethal private violence.”  Of course that’s precisely what constitutional provisions do, and what they are designed to do – to prevent people from writing into the law convictions that are contrary to the constitutional provision.  So, for example, we are not allowed to write into law a conviction, if we have one, that guns should be banned entirely because their availability inevitably leads to the destruction of innocent life.  The only question is whether or not we think the constitutional principle is a legitimate one (i.e., whether we accept that the 2^nd Amendment protects private gun ownership unrelated to militia membership).  In the abortion context, the issue is whether the constitution in fact protects a right to privacy, and whether that right encompasses the right to choose an abortion.  The answer to that question may well be “no” (I think it probably is “no”), but it seems clear to me that it’s a question that can’t be answered except by application of some method of constitutional interpretation.  Unless you’re suggesting (and it doesn’t seem to me that you are) that Catholics must adopt a particular interpretive methodology, then the Roe question, I think, is not a “Catholic” question at all.  That doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate question, just that the Catholic thing really shouldn’t be brought into the discussion.

On the broader point about what the best approach to abortion should be (aside from Roe), I think the best possible answer is that we would BOTH create the sort of social-welfare programs that (assuming this study is valid) seem to demonstrably reduce the incidence of abortion AND have the sort of symbolic statement you suggest.  But the fact is that neither party is offering both.  So, as voters, we’re left to determine what matters more, symbolism or reduction of the number of abortions.   [To be clear, there certainly are things the Democrats could do – things short of banning abortions – to reduce the number of abortions even more than the social-welfare programs would.  I have in mind here rejection of public funding, etc.  I think it’s deeply regrettable that the Democrats haven’t seen clear to this, though I do think it important to note that the study is about net effects, even accounting for some of the things you mention in your post, like public funding, etc.].

Greg, on the “personal witness” point:  I’m with Obama on the Bristol Palin story – it is, and should be, off limits.  Nevertheless, I think many of Palin’s supporters have been pretty hypocritical about this.  It seems obvious to me that Palin’s political salience derives primarily from her personal witness and not anything she’s done in public life – and indeed many of her supporters have focused on her personal witness when expressing their support.  That may be fine, but it sets up a real issue.  If personal witness matters, and should matter, in the sense that we should be attracted to her candidacy because of her choices regarding her youngest child, then one can’t be surprised if people suggest that her daughter’s pregnancy ought to be counted in the evaluation of her personal witness.  You can’t have it both ways.