Rougeau's essay

Thanks to Michael for posting my colleague (and MOJ alum) Vince Rougeau's recent essay in America magazine.  I am, for what it's worth, as confident -- after careful reflection in light of the full range of Catholic teachings -- that a McCain Administration would have been -- all things considered, and on balance -- better for the common good than the Obama Administration will be as Vince is that the opposite is true.  Still, I believe that there is much in Vince's essay for all of us, and particularly for Catholics who made the same choice I did, to take very seriously.  He is absolutely right that a Catholic in America has to appreciate -- and, I should say, I do -- "the political and cultural concerns of African-Americans and Latinos." 

Now, I worry a bit -- perhaps, defensively -- that he paints in places with a bit-too-broad of a brush, seeming to equate statements like mine (above) with blanket refusals to admit that any reflective Catholic (or "real American") could possibly have voted for Obama.  Certainly, I hope, notwithstanding the strong statements in his essay about Republican failings, he believes that reflective Catholics could have made the choice I did.  All that said, I was struck in particular by this:

Let us consider for a moment the reality of abortion in the United States. Abortion rates (which, by the way, have been in a steady decline for some time) are highest in communities that are disproportionately poor. This means African-American and Hispanic communities, which have poverty rates three to four times those of white communities. What does an all-or-nothing strategy toward criminalization of abortion say to women in these communities, women who are also routinely vilified for having too many babies? Rather than being offered hope through support for the creation of a society in which poor mothers could envision futures of solidarity and participation for their children, they are told that more of them need to be prosecuted as criminals.

Barack Obama’s simple presence in the Oval Office will probably do more to reduce abortions than any possible further restriction of the abortion laws that might have occurred during a McCain-Palin administration. For the first time in American history, women of color can look at their children, particularly their sons, and say with conviction that American society sees them as full, dignified members of the community for whom anything might be possible. Why isn’t that something worth voting for?

Starting with Vince's last question:  It seems to me that it *is*, without a doubt, "something worth voting for."  For me, it was not enough, but the fact it was not enough does not prevent me (and other Catholics who voted the way I did) from recognizing this particular good result of Pres. Obama's election. 

The claim that Pres. Obama's "simple presence" will do more to reduce abortions than anything that could have occurred during a McCain administration is, in my view, not persuasive, if one includes in the calculation the effect of increased public funding for abortions.  Yes, the Born Alive Infact Protection Act does not save many unborn children -- though it does, this horrifying story suggests, save some.  But there was every reason to believe, on Election Day (and today) that the election of Pres. Obama, combined with a Pelosi-Reid Congress, would result in substantial increases in public funding for abortion.

But put all that aside.  I hope that Vince is right, and that the number of abortions goes down during the next 4 (or 8) years.  What was (and is) of more concern to me, though, than the number of abortions was the fact that we have (incorrectly) constitutionalized a gravely unjust and anti-democratic rule (i.e., the Roe-Casey regime), a rule whose premise is that some human beings deserve less protection against private violence than do other human beings.  It would have been wonderful -- and more consistent -- if a vote for Obama, one that reflected a commitment to equal justice and the worth of all, had also been a vote that made more likely (rather than much, much less likely) the possibility that our constitutional law might reflect that commitment again. 

And so, what people like me argued was not so much that no reflective Catholic could ever conclude that Obama was, all things considered, the better choice, but instead that it was a mistake to think that (as Doug Kmiec, for example, seemed to), with respect both to the number of abortions and the justice of the legal regime regarding abortion, the election of Obama would result in improvement.

The issue is not (as I see it), in Vince's words, to tell women that "more of them need to be prosecuted as criminals."  This is not a fair representation of the pro-life argument (at least, not of the argument that moved Catholics who voted for Sen. McCain).  The aim of those of us for whom hoping that social-welfare programs will reduce abortion is not enough is not to "villify", or even to "punish" -- it is to bring about a state of affairs in which our Constitution permits us to give expression, in law and elsewhere, to our commitment to the full and equal dignity of all human persons.