The National Tickets and the Message on Sanctity of Human Life: A Final Response (For Now)

Rick Garnett noted a few days ago that “[o]urs is not primarily a politics blog,” which is a reminder that probably applies to me more than any other. For that reason, this will be my last contribution on this particular thread about which of the presidential tickets offers the strongest witness for the Culture of Life. (However, I may well return to the general subject a time or two before election day arrives two months hence.)

In his latest post, Tom Berg argues that the contrasting positions of the McCain and Obama candidacies on protection of unborn human life are not actually as “one-sided” as I and others have sought to portray. Now, despite the Obama campaign’s atrocious position on the sanctity of human life and its dreadful proposals for public funding of abortion, strengthening the legal guarantee of abortion on demand, and overturning regulations on abortion providers at state or federal level on abortion, one might conclude that Obama’s positions on a host of other issues so strongly outweigh this serious defect as to justify holding one’s nose and casting a vote for him (an unwise and harmful choice, I argue, but not an irrational or impermissible one). That being said, I do not think that we can plausibly contend that the specific positions on the question of human rights for the unborn are not about as one-sided as they could be. The messages and witnesses offered by the two candidates are as different as night and day.

When the Catholic Church teaches that the sanctity of unborn human life is the greatest human rights issue of our time, a primary goal is to save lives, that is to reduce the number of unborn children who lose their lives. Just as importantly, the Church bears witness to the dignity of each person, born or unborn, and seeks to restore a Culture of Life. In my view, the pro-life cause cannot afford to compromise that witness and be distracted by promises of more government spending on programs that we like and that may truly assist those in need, when those promises are offered as enticements by politicians who otherwise continue to proudly speak to, eagerly accept money from, devote their political agenda to, and loyally offer promises of unwavering support to the very organizations who deal death daily to thousands of unborn children.

To begin with, if the Democrats prevail nationally, I do not believe, and I note that Tom Berg previously expressed serious doubts as well, that an increase in certain social spending programs would reduce the numbers of abortions at a greater level than they would be increased by the promised reinvigoration of abortion on demand by new Supreme Court appointments and national legislation, the nationwide elimination of such modest legal protections as informed consent laws and prohibition of partial-birth abortion, and especially government funding for abortion. But I am even more concerned about the long-term effects on the culture, as well as on human behavior, by granting increased political power to an uncompromising pro-choice agenda. Even if the balance were likely to fall toward reducing the net number of abortions in the short-term, the longer term cost of embedding destruction of the unborn as a super-constitutional right and one deserving of direct government endorsement as a positive good through public funding makes the bargain not at all worth the very steep price.

The question before us is not the sincerity of or the good faith intent of my friends on the Mirror of Justice who find merit in programmatic promises and believe those justify a vote for the pro-choice candidate who offers them. I know that they mean well. Instead, I am troubled by what such a compromise would mean for the clarity of our witness for the sanctity of human life. How wise is it for those who share a commitment to protecting unborn human life to broadcast such a confusing and mixed message?

To make my argument concrete, let me offer the following for consideration (and you can watch most of these messages in video for the candidate's own words):

One of the national tickets offers the following message:

We need to change the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn. And I will continue to hold that view and position. (Sen. John McCain on Meet the Press: Watch it here)

[When asked “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?] At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as President of the United States, I will be a pro life president and this presidency will have pro life policies. That’s my commitment, that’s my commitment to you. (Sen. McCain at the Saddleback Civic Forum: Watch it here)

That same national ticket offers the following personal witness:

Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed. (Gov. Sarah Palin, statement made upon birth of youngest son, months before being selected as Vice Presidential candidate)

And that same national ticket makes the following programmatic promise:

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. . . . The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. (McCain-Palin web site)

The other national ticket offers the following message:

With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. And that is what is at stake in this election. . . . On this fundamental issue [the right to abortion], I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield. . . . The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. (Sen. Barack Obama speaking to Planned Parenthood: Watch it here)

[When asked “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?] Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. (Sen. Obama at the Saddleback Civic Forum: Watch it here)

And the following programmatic promise:

Under certain statistical models, an increase in federal government spending on social welfare programs may result in fewer women choosing abortions which thus may reduce the number of abortions by a greater figure than the number of abortions will increase by Senator Obama’s promise of federal funding for abortions, elimination of informed consent laws, and national implementation of pro-choice policies that override any state regulation of abortion providers, such that, assuming those statistical models are accurate, that current projections remain constant, and that the impact of pro-abortion legislation proves more minimal than many fear, should result in a net overall reduction in the number of abortions. (My paraphrase of Tom Berg’s earlier post about social welfare spending programs versus abortion legislation that likely would be implemented by Obama)

Now I ask my friends on and readers of the Mirror of Justice to honestly consider: Which of these two messages bears the strongest witness to the Culture of Life? Which message constitutes a ringing affirmation of the pro-life cause? And which message, whatever its intent and even its potential short-term effect, sounds like a rationalization to vote for a pro-choice candidate? Which message, were it to prevail in this national election, is most likely to change hearts and shape culture in bringing greater respect to unborn human life?

Greg Sisk

Postscript: Lest anyone have any doubt about the messages being sent by the campaigns, here’s an account from CBS News of the latest Obama campaign ad featuring a nurse with the abortion provider Planned Parenthood who warns that McCain opposes Roe v. Wade and wants “wants to take away our right to choose.” So now the Obama campaign is calling on the abortion industry itself to formulate its message about how Obama values (or fails to value) unborn human life. One would be tempted to laugh at this as self-parody were it not so very, very sad.