A Further Response to Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec (Part 3) –The Empty Hope of Transcending the Culture Wars

As noted in my prior post, there are many parallels between the fight to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson and the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. Like Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall and the other lawyers who battled racial segregation, pro-lifers came to the fight over abortion expecting a tough slough – a bare knuckled brawl in which opponents of abortion have often been confronted with knives: the sharp points and blades of obfuscation and deceit. Still, plenty of pro-life legal advocates have the stomach for such a fight even if others don’t.

Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec seem not to appreciate this fight for what it is. Indeed, they seem uncomfortable with the language of struggle. Their language is reminiscent of the political rhetoric that characterizes Obama as a transformational figure. They say he is “erasing” the “old battle lines” of the culture wars.

In fact, however, it is either appallingly naïve or simply disingenuous to suggest that the culture wars are a thing of the past or that they can be overcome by a single political figure. Indeed, Obama’s record shows that he isn’t someone who transcends the culture wars. During his time in the Illinois Senate he was a partisan who spent his time reinforcing the barricades – voting against restrictions on partial birth abortion and measures that would require medical treatment for children who happen to survive an abortion. His Catholic supporters talk of peace in the culture wars, meanwhile Obama has promised the use of a new and devastating weapon – the Freedom of Choice Act. Indeed, the unwillingness of Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec to address Senator Obama’s promise to sign this legislation by itself shows how surreal their depiction of Obama as a transcendent, non-partisan figure in the culture wars truly is. To acknowledge this reality is not to subscribe to a kind of “Rambo Catholicism” as Kaveny has suggested in the past, but to engage in the very realism to which she and her co-authors purportedly subscribe.

To be sure, seeing this fight for what it is shouldn’t prevent advocates on behalf of the unborn from collaborating with others where working together will not compromise the integrity of the pro-life message, and where the possibly of saving the lives of some unborn children will do not endanger the lives of others. In this regard, however, Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec have failed to seriously address the likely increase in both the abortion rate and the shear number of abortions that the policies of an Obama administration will bring about, even when the ostensible benefits of greater social assistance to women in crisis pregnancies are taken into account.

Near the beginning of their essay Cafardi, Kaveny and Kmiec fault Weigel for criticizing “the emergence of serious pro-life Catholics supporting Obama.” In the end, however, their unwillingness to face up to their candidate’s radical support for abortion rights seriously calls into question the accuracy of this statement as a self-description.