Many thanks to Rick for taking notice of my earlier request, and of course it's altogether understandable that it might take a while to reply fully: 'Christmas-and-kids-stuff' is surely the best and most apt stuff right now!
For when there is more time, though, let me shorten and clarify my request for guidance from Rick.
(1)
I really am seeking Rick's guidance -- and as I said before, I don't mean this ironically. I'm genuinely trying to work out a workable mode of ethical assessment, suitable for conscientious Catholic lawyers and indeed citizens more generally, of proposed legislation that bears effects upon the incidence and what might be called 'public meaning' of abortion even while directed at ends that have nothing to do with abortion. I am hoping for guidance from Rick because I take him to have such a mode of assessment, either well developed or partly developed or inchoate, while also being possessed of a clear head and a clean heart (probably clearer and cleaner than mine), and hence truly believe that I (and of course others) will benefit from his thoughts on this matter. I take Rick to have such a mode of assessment, in turn, because he has opined about the pending health insurance reform legislation in part on the ground of what he suggests to be its effects upon the incidence and public meaning of abortion. The problem for me, thus far, is that I do not yet know precisely what Rick's mode of assessment here is, and I hope to learn it in order that it might inform -- if not indeed even become -- my own.
(2)
In his most recent post, I take Rick to be providing at least a hint of what his mode of assessment is when he says, 'focusing (for now) only on the question whether or not the proposal facilitates and entrenches the unjustified exclusion of unborn children from the protection and solicitude of the law -- it seems to me that the answer to this question is "yes", and I'm comfortable holding the view that this answer provides a sufficient reason to hope the bill does not pass.' The problem for me is that this hint thus far still remains too open-ended for me to ascertain what Rick's method of assessment is. And that is partly because I am still unsure of the sense in which Rick believes the current Senate bill 'facilitates and entrenches the unjustified exclusion of unborn children from the protection and solicitude of the law.' I promise I am not trying to be coy or cute or ironic or anything of the sort when I say the I just do not know by virtue of what feature or features of the bill Rick thinks it to do these things.
This is perhaps also the best place at which to offer a similar observation in response to Rick's reply to my first query in Sunday's post. Rick says, 'Does Bob disagree with my view that the Senate proposal moves "dramatically in the wrong direction when it comes to protecting unborn children in law and even when it comes to the (different) goal of reducing the number of abortions?" How is my (initial and revisable) diagnosis mistaken?' I must not have been clear in my post Sunday, for, truly, I did not mean to suggest that I find Rick's diagnosis mistaken. I wanted to know, rather, on what basis Rick thought this. I do not have an opinion yet as to whether Rick's diagnosis might be mistaken, or spot on, or partly right while nevertheless in need of some refinement, or [choose any number of predicate terms or phrases]. And that is because I do not yet know the diagnosis. Without a 'how' or a 'which direction' here, I'm just not able to form an opinion about the 'wrong direction' claim, let alone about a 'dramatically' wrong direction claim.
So I am still hoping, genuinely, that Rick will supply these details when there's time. And there certainly will be time in which reaching the truth here still can be useful, given that the Senate bill, assuming it passes this Thursday, will still have to be reconciled to the much different House bill.
(3)
Finally, back now to the 'hint' that I mentioned in the first paragraph under (2) above, there seems to me at least a suggestion in Rick's words that a bill's effect on the abortion regime in the US might of itself be a sufficient criterion on which to favor or oppose it, irrespective of what else the bill would effectuate. In other words, there is a hint that the abortion effect of any proposed piece of legislation might be lexicographically prior to any other effect of that piece of legislation when it comes to assessing it with a view to whether it ought to be supported or opposed.
But there are of course certain extreme understandings of lexicographical ordering in this context that I would presume -- correctly? -- Rick would not wish to endorse. To recur to an example I mentioned Sunday, for instance, if it turned out that, circa 1952, we could predict with great confidence that significantly more abortions would be procured by various individuals thanks to the construction of an interstate highway system that enabled people in abortion-prohibiting states more readily to cross into abortion-permitting states, would that fact alone provide sufficient reason to hope that a bill providing for an interstate highway system not pass? How about electricity? Etc. Etc. Etc.
Now as I say, I doubt that Rick would embrace such results as those, and so my question is, again, what should our mode of assessment be? I proposed one on Sunday which seems to me at least a good start, and I'm still eager to hear from Rick and others whether they think it workable, improvable, misguided, or what ever.
(4)
Let me close with two final points:
First I will quickly interpret, under the rubric of my proposed mode of assessing legislation that bears effects upon the abortion regime and the incidence of abortion in the US, the words of Rick I have quoted above: Rick suggests, recall, that the Senate bill currently 'facilitates and entrenches the unjustified exclusion of unborn children from the protection and solicitude of the law.'
If by 'facilitates and entrenches' Rick means that people who propose, draft, or support the legislation are aiming at excluding unborn children from the protection and solicitude of the law, then such people would fail the first limb of the DDE-inspired 'test' I've proposed, and our question would then be the empirical one of whether Rick is correct in the claim that he makes of these people. And as I noted above, I for my part still have to ascertain the sense in which Rick thinks supporters of the bill are aiming to do that facilitating and entrenching. So far as I can tell thus far, the aim of those supporting the current Senate legislation -- including, notably, Senators Casey and Nelson -- is to get health insurance coverage to 30 million of the 46 million now lacking it, and to begin to get a grip on still skyrocketing health care and health insurance costs, in a manner that is as unlikely as possible to cause more people than presently seek abortions to seek abortions.
If I am right about this innocent intention, then the next question is whether the likelihood of the bill's attaining the aforemetioned aims is sufficiently high, and the aims themselves sufficiently laudable, as to trump the possible harm that might be more abortions procured by newly insured persons whose individual decisions would amount in effect to morally relevant intervening causes of those abortions. As I mentioned Sunday, I'll attempt a preliminary calculation along these lines later if I'm not in the interrum convinced that this DDE-inflected approach to the question is misguided.
Second let me briefly reply to Rick's final paragraph: Rick there asks, 'Why does it seem to matter so much to the Democrats in Congress that abortion-funding increase?' Two things to say to this.
The first is that, were the premise of the question correct, then it would suggest that these Democrats Rick mentions fail of the first limb of the DDE-style inquiry I propose. The second, however, is that I don't know that this premise is correct. The question strikes me at this point as being uncomfortably reminiscent of the old 'is it true you've stopped beating your spouse?' question.
Rick of course knows that Stupak, Casey, Nelson, and many other Dems in Congress are actually quite eager to see abortion itself outlawed, let alone unfunded. But even in the case of non-pro-life Democrats, I think it assumes much too much of an uncharitable character to claim that they are seeking to increase abortion-funding. I think we owe it to most if not all of them to take them at their word when they say they seek not to increase abortion-funding, but to increase insurance-funding.
If that latter as an incident yields more abortion-funding, it seems to me there's an excellent way short of Stupak to prevent that, and thus retain abortion-neutrality of the sort required to enable us to pass badly needed reform without having to attempt to reargue Roe or Hyde or any of the other historically fraught abortion-related controversies in the present inapposite venue. It is the way I proposed a week ago this past Friday: Simply require that all insurance companies offer a counterpart abortion-excluding plan to any comprehensive abortion-including plan that they offer.
Put the onus, in other words, on the insurance companies rather than the poor, whose insurability is otherwise held hostage by the abortion-covering insurers themselves. Why is it that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are suggesting this obvious solution to the 'abortion-neutrality' problem afflicting the health insurance reform debate?
I'm late taking the bait laid out by my pal Michael, not because I've been busily drafting, but because of, well, Christmas-and-kids stuff.
As for the views of "the Princeton economist and Nobel laureate" Paul Krugman . . . I have nothing useful to say. Krugman, in my view, is an entirely predictable partisan. His understanding of the common good is, on many important points, not mine.
With respect to Bob's request for "guidance" . . . I certainly would not presume to provide "guidance" to Bob regarding the Senate's plan. (Oh, all right -- it costs too much, and does too little good, and too much bad).
I'm not sure how to respond to Bob's first query. Does Bob disagree with my view that the Senate proposal moves "dramatically in the wrong direction when it
comes to protecting unborn children in law and even when it comes to
the (different) goal of reducing the number of abortions?" How is my (initial and revisable) diagnosis mistaken?
As for the second query, it seems to me that there are plenty of things about the proposal that could "suffice to underwrite a justifiable hope that the legislation not pass" (see supra). But, focusing (for now) only on the question whether or not the proposal facilitates and entrenches the unjustified exclusion of unborn children from the protection and solicitude of the law -- it seems to me that the answer to this question is "yes", and I'm comfortable holding the view that this answer provides a sufficient reason to hope the bill does not pass.
A question for Bob, and Michael, and Krugman: Why does it seem to matter so much to the Democrats in Congress that abortion-funding increase? Should the importance they seem to attach to abortion-funding (it would be much simpler -- wouldn't it? -- to help the poor get decent healthcare if they were to settle for not-too-shabby prize of current legal regime) call into question the genuine-ness of their professed commitments to human dignity and well-being? Given all that we were told during the recent presidential election, why hasn't the President made clear to Congress, and to the country, his desire that his party put aside its desire for increased abortion funding (and decreased regulation of the practice) in service of the more important goal of providing (at a reasonable cost) decent healthcare to more Americans?
This news of the providence of Steve's happy spiritual connection to Myles Connolly quite took my breath away, and reminded me of this, the last paragraph of the Breslin introduction/foreword to Mr. Blue: "In 1954, when Connolly was in his late fifties and the father of five children, he backed off a bit from the message of Mr. Blue in a foreword to the book's silver anniversary edition: 'I feel that Mr. Blue, like Thoreau, failed to make the deeply important distinction that what is sauce for the bachelor may not be sauce for the married man and father at all.' Wiser? Sadder? Perhaps just older, which is why Jesus always insisted that the kingdom of God belonged by natural right to the young and the poor. The rest of us are allowed in on sufferance."
Patrick and others might be interested to know that Myles Connolly (also a writer of screenplays and a producer) was my godfather. I remember him as a very sweet man - at least to me. Unfortunately, he died in 1964. He has not been around to keep me straight. But he left behind a wonderful legacy of literature and film.
I think many MOJ readers will be interested in and even engaged by this essay, in yesterday's NYT, by the chief of pediatric cardiology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The (inartful) title of the essay, here, is "When Does Death Start?"
I worried yesterday when I posted about film that my colleagues at MOJ would think, Why is he taking up space here with something so bereft of relevance to "Catholic legal theory"? So imagine my surprise and delight as I've discovered over the course of today the posts by Elizabeth, Patrick, and Bob. I read Mr. Blue oh so many years ago--and was captured by it. (Think of, in addition to Dostoevsky's The Idiot, Shusaku Endo's Wonderful Fool.) And I am an ardent fan both of Mike Leigh's films and, thanks to Happy-Go-Lucky, of Sally Hawkins. Ms. Hawkins has a brief cameo--no more than a minute or so--in this year's much discussed An Education. Seeing her for that moment reminded me of her brilliant performance--like Mo'Nique's in Precious, a flawless performance--in Happy-Go-Lucky.
Thanks very much to Elizabeth, Michael, and Patrick for their holiday film and book recommendations. It occurs to me that I've been of a mind to recommend something contemporary in this connection too -- thought I might be a bit (characteristically) late: The Mike Leigh film, 'Happy Go Lucky,' which I viewed about this time last year (so maybe it almost counts?) was just an utterly beautiful film. Doubtless you all know the story by now. An (at first) apparently ditzy, irritatingly happy person sort of waltzes and bops through a couple of weeks of her life, at first annoying most of those she meets but inexorably winning just about all of them over in time with her all round cheerfulness and deep, patient kindness. You're at first tempted to think her a bit 'thick,' as the English might put it, or relentlessly superficial -- and 'happy' for that reason alone. But in the most wonderfully subtle ways, Leigh makes you gradually come to realize just how very deep and decent this young woman is -- so much so as to leave you feeling almost guilty and inadequate in comparison, all while determined to be this decent yourself. In particular, any time that Mr. Leigh focuses upon Ms. Hawkins's face, as she gazes intently and silently through a window, or into the face of a child or a homeless man, you just about shiver with awe at the sheer mystery and love and ... I don't know, indescribably facticity of this in the end inexplicable, just blessed soul. In a way, I think Mr. Leigh provides a very nice contemporary version of a wonderful and long-familiar archetype -- that of the 'jongleur de Dieu,' or perhaps 'Holy Fool.' I've often thought that what's demanded of me as an unjustifiably fortunate fellow is to move steadily from being a sort of Ivan Karamazov, as I was when quite young, to being a sort of Alyosha Karamazov (perhaps somehow both at once?) -- or maybe equivalently a Prince Myshkin or St. Francis or ... now, thanks to Patrick ... Mr. Blue. Ms. Hawkins's fantastic example in 'Happy Go Lucky' provides one more roadmap of how to get there. (Please watch especially carefully the scene with the homeless gentleman under the overpass -- it will give you shivers it's so beautiful!)
Michael P.'s and Lisa's welcome discussion of movies and culture reminds me of something I've been meaning to mention here since Bob Hockett introduced, maybe two months ago now (I haven't looked back), the issue of spiritualities such as the Franciscan, Ignatian, Carmelite, etc. The thing I would like to mention is Mr. Blue, a short and wonderfully rich book by Myles Connolly. Maybe lots of folks already know about this book, but it was new to me when I discovered it on the shelf of a very fine Christian book store. Originally published in 1928, it's now out in a fresh edition that begins with a preface by John Breslin SJ, which includes this: "Blue . . . was a uniquely American personality. As Myles Connolly wrote him, J. Blue was the man whom the ambitious Jay Gatsby might have become had he steered by a higher truth than the sound of money in Daisy Buchanan's voice." Blue is a contemporary St. Francis figure. When he inherits a fortune, "he exchanged money for everything possible. He exchanged it with the poor for their delight. He exchanged it with the helpless for lighter hearts. I thought at one time he was setting a bad example for other plutocrats. But the fear was unfounded. Nobody imitated him." (p. 9) There is reason to believe that Connolly wrote Mr. Blue after reading Chesterton's life of St. Francis. Anyway, it's a delightful picture of what it might look like to take Christianity seriously, in the Franciscan way, in the modern world.
Just a quick thanks to Michael for the references to Krugman. I'd actually not seen these yet but will look for them today. I might note as well in this connection that I had a nice chat with our friend Steve Shiffrin yesterday after mass, during which he admonished me that I, like Howard Dean (a flattering comparison indeed!), might be letting my idealism get the better of me in expressing the frustration I was then expressing about what the health insurance reform legislation is becoming. I've since cooled my heals a bit and am trying to be as calm and sensible as possible -- which is rather more than I've been, though quite possibly still rather less than I ought!
Let me hasten to add that this comment does not address the questions Bob has posed to Rick Garnett. While Rick is drafting his response to Bob--which I, like other MOJ readers, eagerly await--I want to note that Paul Krugman, the Princeton economist and Nobel laureate, addressed Bob's wavering support for the current version of the Senate's bill, in his NYT column this past Friday. Bob, no doubt, has read the column. (I wonder what Bob thinks about Krugman's argument.) I'm posting because I thought other MOJers might like a link to the column, here.
This morning, Krugman begins another, related column with these words: "Unless some legislator pulls off a last-minute double-cross, health
care reform will pass the Senate this week. Count me among those who
consider this an awesome achievement. It’s a seriously flawed bill,
we’ll spend years if not decades fixing it, but it’s nonetheless a huge
step forward." The rest of the column is here.
