Obama watchers have been forwarding to me hat-tips and expressions of growing dismay about the various appointments to the new administration, particularly for what these choices say about the assurances we had received from Catholic supporters of the Obama campaign that the new administration would not be as unfriendly as past Democratic candidates and officials toward the claims of the unborn. A new era, we were told, was about to dawn. We need not fear major setbacks in human rights for the unborn -- or so we were promised.
Unfortunately, the record thus far confirms that NARAL and Planned Parenthood have been the farm teams for the Obama administration's domestic policy personnel choices. And openness to pro-life views appears to have ended on election day.
As examples of Obama appointments to domestic policy positions:
* Dawn Johnsen as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice (which establishes legal policy for the administration). She was the Legal Director for NARAL and part of ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. (This is the central post in the Department of Justice held by Doug Kmiec during the Reagan Administration and by Antonin Scalia during the Ford Administration.)
* Eric Holder as Attorney General. He has been a longtime supporter of "abortion rights."
* Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff. He had a 100 percent NARAL voting record as a member of Congress and a reputation as an aggressive pro-choice politician.
* Melody Barnes as Chair of the Domestic Policy Council. She has been a member of the boards of directors for both Planned Parenthood and Emily's List.
* Tom Daschle as Secretary of Health & Human Services. He is a long-time "pro-choice" Catholic and recent fundraiser for NARAL.
* Ellen Moran as White House Director of Communications. She is the current executive director of Emily's List.
* Harold Varmus, Co-Chair of White House Council of Advisors on Science and Technology . He was Director of the National Institutes of Health when it published a report calling for funding of all forms of embryo research, including the creation of embryos solely for the sake of research and work on embryos up to 21 days of development.
No word yet on appointment of anyone with pro-life views to any meaningful policy position in the forthcoming Obama administration. And also no word that any of the prominent Catholic supporters of the Obama campaign has had any positive influence on appointments in a less pro-abortion direction or has expressed disappointment about the growing trend. Heavy sigh.
Anne Hendershott’s WSJ article, How Support for Abortion Became Kennedy Dogma is well worth reading.It tells the tale of what should now be seen as an infamous meeting in 1964 of Catholic theologians and Jesuit priests with members of the Kennedy family at their Hyannisport compound during which they formulated a strategy for Catholic support for abortion rights.
As the article points out, we now see the legacy of that fateful meeting not only in Senator Ted Kennedy’s near perfect pro-choice voting record (see here and here and his website here which refers to abortion as among “the cherished liberties granted by the Constitution”).We also see this legacy in the promotion of his niece Caroline Kennedy’s pro-choice views as a credential that serves to qualify her for Hillary Clinton’s senate seat.(See NARAL’s positive take on Kennedy’s possible appointment here).
We can, I think, all be proud of the fact that the Catholic bishops in this country were among the first groups to denounce abortion with a prophetic voice and to suggest practical strategies for how it might be avoided.(For example, see their initial Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities in 1975 here and their most recent plan from 2001 here).
The bishops were decidedly less resolute in responding to the statements and actions of Catholic politicians who served to advance the legal regime of abortion and to make it a fixture in our culture.That is, they did not challenge the moral and religious integrity of politicians who claimed to be Catholic (and so presumably had at their disposal the moral and philosophical patrimony of the Church) but who nevertheless supported the legal protection of abortion – a deliberate act which science tells us brings about the dismemberment and death of a developing human being.
One cannot help but wonder, however, how law and politics – and in particular Catholic legal and political culture – might have developed differently if the bishops had taken a more forthright stand with respect to the pro-choice stance of Catholic politicians in 1974, 1976, or even 1980.By 1984 vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro could confidently proclaim – and without any trace of irony in the minds of many professed Catholics – that “the Catholic position on abortion is not monolithic.”Indeed, many, including Ms. Ferraro, were bewildered and offended by the challenge to her position put forth by Archbishop John O’Connor and others.That is to say, a little more than ten years after Roe, the idea that Catholics could or should oppose legal abortion was verboten.Not only was it viewed as an illicit attempt to undermine the Constitution and impose a set of sectarian beliefs on an unbelieving public, in some circles it was seen as simply bizarre.Didn’t the bishops know that calling the integrity of Catholic politicians into question was out of bounds?
One cannot help but wonder what our political parties would look like today, what Catholic law schools would look like today – indeed, what conversation we would be having today – if the bishops had confronted this scandal before it became the norm.
Those of us who were raised in our youth to admire the members of the Kennedy family for their conspicuous Catholic faith and commitment to public service know in our middle age that our parents’ heroes did much to undermine that faith.We have also come to know that the service they provided, laudable in some respects, came at a terrible price – a price for which, as the next Kennedy likely to enter politics demonstrates – the bitter wages still pay.
On February 3, it will have been five years since the launch of this blog. (Here's Mark Sargent's opening post.) We are very grateful to our many thousands of readers, both regular and sporadic, and correspondents. MOJ is not Instapundit or Althouse . . . but it's doing pretty well.
Two quick requests (of readers and bloggers): First, tell your friends (real and Facebook) about Mirror of Justice. Next, drop a line to one (or more) of us, and share your thoughts about our enterprise, what it has (or has not) achieved, and what it should (and should not) be doing and addressing. You might, for example, take a look at Mark's initial post, and see if you think we've measured up, and how we might have fallen short.
Reading Patrick Deneen here, one cannot but feel grave about where "we" are and where "we" are going next. But there are signs of hope, if not about the economy then about whether we should should distinguish as a matter of law between life birth and death. It now seems that only nine percent of Americans would favor the regime that the FOCA would make a reality.
Emilie Lemmons died of cancer just before Christmas, leaving behind a husband and two small children.Although we are fast approaching Ordinary Time, her words from Advent, filled with a wisdom gained by fully embracing reality, are worth reading any time of the year.Here is a snippet:
“On a recent Sunday morning at Mass, I was glancing at the program and saw an invitation to participate in the Advent liturgy with ‘a joyous heart, mind and spirit.’
Immediately, I became angry. How on earth can a person with stage 4 cancer that is progressively getting worse feel joyous, I thought. My resentment seethed, and I sat like a hard stone all through Mass.
When the intentions mentioned those who are ill, I identified myself immediately and felt like such an outsider — just like the homeless people and other people on the fringes with whom I was lumped in the same intention. I felt miles away from normal, and it was hard to accept.
***
I burst into tears as soon as I opened the package. And while I knew they were tears of joy, they felt as if they were coming from the same place deep inside me where my sorrow dwells. It was as if joy and sorrow were intermingled in an intense response to life.
Maybe that is what Rachel Naomi Remen means when she writes, ‘Joy seems more closely related to aliveness than to happiness.’
Maybe I am capable of experiencing joy after all. Maybe I don’t need to approach joy with resentment. Maybe that message is what my Advent light is illuminating. I pray that I can enter into the lesson God is trying to teach me."
. . . to vote (again?) for Mirror of Justice, at the ABA's "best law blogs" site. (We're under "Professors"). At present, we're number 2, behind Turley's blog (but who are we kidding . . . he can plug his blog on TV).
"First, I have no problem if X president wants to have Y prayer at the Inauguration. I agree with your earlier point: if Lieberman wants to have a rabbi, so be it.
For those who have a problem with a Christian prayer (non-believers; believers of a different stripe), I don't think your Leviticus sentiment mollifies.
Don't get me wrong; it's a nice sentiment. The problem comes from who is calling who an alien, and who gets to decide that.
The non-believer/person-who-is-upset would say, I imagine, the following: "Who the hell are you calling me an alien? This is MY country. This is MY country's celebration of the installation of its new leader. I'm not an alien here; quit praying on me, over me, about me and making me feel like I'm an alien, like I'm somehow different. Quit saying I am somehow less than fully American b/c I do not grow out of your western/Chritian tradition you claim undergirds the whole gov't/enterprise."
The public invocation of God -- it just doesn't do much for me. I'm Catholic, attend Mass nearly daily. I see the public invocation sometimes just as lip-service, it seems. I could do without any prayer, any "God Bless America", at our public events. That's just me.
But if folks want to have it, that's no big deal to me, either.
But to those who are upset, they are going to stay upset -- just their perspective. And calling them an alien in our midst at their own country's celebration -- well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
. . . check out this NYT article, discussing an upcoming report in the Psychological Bulletin of research finding that "religious belief and piety promote self-control." According to one of the researchers, Dr. Michael McCullough: “Brain-scan studies have shown that when people pray or meditate, there’s a lot of activity in two parts of brain that are important for self-regulation and control of attention and emotion . . . . The rituals that religions have been encouraging for thousands of years seem to be a kind of anaerobic workout for self-control.”
And just being "spiritual" instead of "religious" doesn't seem to have the same effect:
In one personality study, strongly religious people were compared with people who subscribed to more general spiritual notions, like the idea that their lives were “directed by a spiritual force greater than any human being” or that they felt “a spiritual connection to other people.” The religious people scored relatively high in conscientiousness and self-control, whereas the spiritual people tended to score relatively low.
“Thinking about the oneness of humanity and the unity of nature doesn’t seem to be related to self-control,” Dr. McCullough said. “The self-control effect seems to come from being engaged in religious institutions and behaviors.”
So, the NYT reporter ponders, "So what’s a heathen to do in 2009? Dr. McCullough’s advice is to try replicating some of the religious mechanisms that seem to improve self-control, like private meditation or public involvement with an organization that has strong ideals."
I suppose actually engaging in the most significant "religous mechanism" -- prayer -- rather than trying to replicate it, is not an option for the heathen of 2009. Oh, well, at least the rest of us MOJ bloggers and readers can take some comfort in this research as we draw up our resolutions tonight!
