Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Should Bristol Palin be celebrated (or stigmatized)?

By Rob Vischer

Today's local paper carried a story about the impact of the Bristol Palin media coverage on other teenage mothers.  As with the coverage of Jamie Lynn Spears, this cultural phenomenon could send questionable signals on the wisdom of teenage pregnancy and motherhood to an audience whose behavior is especially susceptible to being shaped by media.  Palin and Spears have the economic and family resources to support themselves and their babies; many (most?) teenagers who become pregnant do not.  The article notes:

Today, fewer than 1 percent of babies born to never-married U.S. women, including teens, are placed for adoption, according to the CDC. That's a sea change from the 1950s to early 1970s, when most pregnant girls mysteriously disappeared to give birth at homes for unwed mothers, their babies adopted out in closed adoptions.

I don't consider the birth of a child ever to be a "punishment," but I think it's beyond dispute that teenage motherhood is, in most cases, far from ideal for the mother's or the child's development.  So here's my question: Is the loss of stigma attached to teenage pregnancy an entirely positive development?  If not, are there ways that cultural norms (and law?) can stigmatize teenage sex without stigmatizing the results of sex -- i.e., discourage teenage sex while supporting and encouraging pregnant teenagers' decisions to give birth?  And if cultural norms suggest that the stigmatization of teenage sex is an unrealistic goal, should Catholic legal theorists oppose more narrowly focused efforts to stigmatize unprotected teenage sex?  When it comes to teenage mothers, should we be making more of a concerted effort to encourage adoption, not just instead of abortion, but also instead of keeping the baby?  Does social stigma play a potentially valuable role in any of this?

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Rich's Question Regarding the Role of History in Catholic Social Thought

By Russell Powell

There are numerous ways to understand the development of Catholic social thought within its historical context, and the materials listed by Rich are quite helpful. I tend to emphasize the following...

The Industrial Revolution

            Increasing wealth for many (particularly in the US and Europe), widening disparity between rich and poor, colonialism, urbanization, the rise of labor movements, the influence of socialist thought, and the emerging role of technology

The Great Wars of the 20th Century

            Massive mobilization of resources for violence and the disproportionate impact on the poor and vulnerable

The Great Depression

            Profound increases in global poverty, the call for principled responses, challenges to unbridled capitalism, and tensions between emerging economic models (e.g., Keynes, Hayek, and critical scholarship)

The Proliferation of Technology in the 20th Century and Beyond

            Shrinking of the world via advances in communication and transportation, homogenizing of the world via the media, increased possibilities for wealth and prosperity, consumerism, and technology as threat (e.g., nuclear weapons, unemployment, and environmental degradation)

The Transition of the Catholic Church from a Largely European Institution to a World Institution

            Rising importance of local language and practice, challenges to universality, massive wealth gap within the Church, searching for prophetic voices, and engagement with difference in culture, religion, and class

Correction: Obama Opposes Central Elements of the Pregnant Women Support Act

By Greg Sisk

Although I had promised my most recent post to be the last in this thread, readers have noted I made a significant error ( and one in Senator Obama’s favor) that should be corrected, lest other readers of the Mirror of Justice mistakenly believe that Senator Obama at least fully supports social welfare initiatives that would discourage abortion.

We’ve recently been discussing whether the pro-life witness should be upheld by supporting the presidential candidate (Senator John McCain) with a clear message to protect the sanctity of unborn human life or whether the pro-life cause would be advanced (or at least not undermined) by support for the presidential candidate (Senator Barack Obama) who has a pro-choice message but who supports social welfare programs that would provide greater health and welfare benefits for pregnant women who thus might not choose abortion. As that discussion began, my colleague Tom Berg highlighted the proposed Pregnant Women Support Act initiative supported by Democrats for Life as an example of what could be achieved during a Democratic Administration.

Mirror of Justice readers have contacted me pointing out that, even while arguing that the pro-life witness should not be compromised by accepting programmatic promises from pro-choice politicians, I had conceded too much by assuming that the Democratic Party in general or the Democratic presidential nominee in particular are genuinely supportive of such programs. Our readers have observed that Senator Obama has never co-sponsored or endorsed the Pregnant Women Support Act legislation and has strongly opposed key initiatives that are part of that proposal.

In fact, Senator Obama has voted against or directly opposed two of the central elements included among the foundational parts of the proposed Pregnant Women Support Act (see here). First, the proposed Pregnant Women Support Act would require health facilities that perform abortions to obtain informed consent from a woman seeking abortion. But Senator Obama has strongly and repeatedly endorsed and promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, legislation that would overturn informed consent requirements at the state and national level. Second, the proposed Pregnant Women Support Act would enhance health care coverage by allowing states to extend medical care coverage to an unborn child. When the same proposal was offered as separate legislation, Senator Obama voted against it.

In sum, assuming that Senator Obama as president would balance out his increasingly aggressive pro-choice message, administrative proposals, and legislative initiatives with support for programs that might incidentally reduce abortion is a thin reed upon which to justify support by a faithful pro-life voter.

Greg Sisk

Rick is Too Quick for Me!

By Michael Perry

I was about to post on David Frum's piece, when I noticed that Rick, in the immediately preceding post, had already done so.  So let me just quote these passages:

IN SHORT, the trend to inequality is real, it is large and it is transforming American society and the American electoral map. Yet the conservative response to this trend verges somewhere between the obsolete and the irrelevant.

Conservatives need to stop denying reality. The stagnation of the incomes of middle-class Americans is a fact. And only by acknowledging facts can we respond effectively to the genuine difficulties of voters in the middle. We keep offering them cuts in their federal personal income taxes — even though two-thirds of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes, and even though a majority of Americans now describe their federal income tax burden as reasonable.

What the middle class needs most is not lower income taxes but a slowdown in the soaring inflation of health-care costs. If health-insurance costs had risen 50 percent rather than 100 percent over the Bush years, middle-income voters would have enjoyed a pay raise instead of enduring wage stagnation. John McCain’s health plan, which emphasizes tax changes to encourage employees to buy their own insurance rather than rely on employers, is a start — but only the very beginning of a start. Some Republicans have brought great energy to this problem. In the Senate, Robert Bennett of Utah has written a bill with the Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden that would require employers to “cash out” employer-provided health care — and then midwife a national insurance marketplace in which employees would join plans that offered more price control and price transparency. Mitt Romney in Massachusetts put an end to the tax disadvantage that hammers consumers who buy health care directly rather than through their employers. Rudy Giuliani proposed a federal law to enable low-cost insurers in states like Kentucky to sell their products across state lines in high-cost states like New Jersey. But it remains unfortunately true that the Republican Party as a whole regards health care as “not our issue” — and certainly less exciting than another round of tax reductions.

Unlike liberals, conservatives are not bothered by the accumulation of wealth as such. We should be more troubled that the poor remain so poor. With all due respect to the needs of employers, Republicans need to recognize that the large-scale import of unskilled labor is part of the problem.

Meanwhile, the argument over same-sex marriage has become worse than a distraction from the challenge of developing policies to ensure that as many children as possible grow up with both a father and a mother in the home. Over the past 30 years, governments have effectively worked to change attitudes about smoking, seat-belt use and teenage pregnancy. Changing attitudes about unmarried childbirth may prove more difficult. Yet it is a fact that the only way to escape poverty is to work consistently — and that even after welfare reform, low-skilled single parents work less consistently than the main breadwinner in a low-skilled dual-parent household.

At the same time, conservatives need to ask ourselves some hard questions about the trend toward the Democrats among America’s affluent and well educated. Leaving aside the District of Columbia, 7 of America’s 10 best-educated states are strongly “blue” in national politics, and the others (Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia) have been trending blue. Of the 10 least-educated, only one (Nevada) is not reliably Republican. And so we arrive at a weird situation in which the party that identifies itself with markets, with business and with technology cannot win the votes of those who have prospered most from markets, from business and from technology. Republicans have been badly hurt in upper America by the collapse of their onetime reputation for integrity and competence. Upper Americans live in a world in which things work. The packages arrive overnight. The car doors clink seamlessly shut. The prevailing Republican view — “of course government always fails, what do you expect it to do?” — is not what this slice of America expects to hear from the people asking to be entrusted with the government.

It is probable that the trend to inequality will grow even stronger in the years ahead, if new genetic techniques offer those with sufficient resources the possibility of enhancing the intelligence, health, beauty and strength of children in the womb. How should conservatives respond to such new technologies? The anti-abortion instincts of many conservatives naturally incline them to look at such techniques with suspicion — and indeed it is certainly easy to imagine how they might be abused. Yet in an important address delivered as long ago as 1983, Pope John Paul II argued that genetic enhancement was permissible — indeed, laudable — even from a Catholic point of view, as long as it met certain basic moral rules. Among those rules: that these therapies be available to all. Ensuring equality of care may become inseparable from ensuring equality of opportunity.

Inequality and "conservatism"

By Rick Garnett

We've discussed, many times here at MOJ, the issue of economic "inequality".  Is it the existence of large gaps between the richest and poorest what matters, or the economic well-being of most people, or the economic well-being of the poorest (considered apart from the gap between the poorest and richest), and so on. 

In today's NYT Magazine, David Frum has an interesting piece on related questions and he suggests that conservatives (or, more specifically, Republicans) in particular might want to worry more about inequality, i.e., the gap between the rich and the poor, than they sometimes have:

My fellow conservatives and Republicans have tended not to worry very much about the widening of income inequalities. As long as there exists equality of opportunity — as long as everybody’s income is rising — who cares if some people get rich faster than others? Societies that try too hard to enforce equality deny important freedoms and inhibit wealth-creating enterprise. Individuals who worry overmuch about inequality can succumb to life-distorting envy and resentment.

All true! But something else is true, too: As America becomes more unequal, it also becomes less Republican. The trends we have dismissed are ending by devouring us. . . .

Equality in itself never can be or should be a conservative goal. But inequality taken to extremes can overwhelm conservative ideals of self-reliance, limited government and national unity. It can delegitimize commerce and business and invite destructive protectionism and overregulation. Inequality, in short, is a conservative issue too. We must develop a positive agenda that integrates the right kind of egalitarianism with our conservative principles of liberty. If we neglect this task and this opportunity, we won’t lose just the northern Virginia suburbs. We will lose America.

Now, Frum is not writing as a Catholic.  It is not even clear he is writing as a moralist.  His worry seems not so much that a hollowing out of the middle (or, perhaps, upper-middle) reflects injustice, but that it bodes ill for the electoral fortunes of Republicans (because the very rich and the very poor tend to vote Democratic).  Such fortunes (whether of Democrats or Republicans) are, of course, not a subject of direct interest to this blog.  What is such a subject, though, I suppose, is how we ought to think about the role of law in facilitating, or remedying, this hollowing out.

History and Catholic Social Thought

By Rick Garnett

Next week, the readings for my "Catholic Social Thought" class are about the Tradition's historical backdrop and context.  So, there's Michael Schuck's essay on Catholic Social Thought from 1740-1890; Russell Hittinger's contribution to the Witte & Alexander volume, "The Teachings of Modern Christianity on Law, Politics, and Human Nature"; and some stuff on the rise of nationalism in the later 19th c., including in the United States, and the Church's reactions to it.

So, here's a question ... what developments, ideas, events, or persons strike you as particularly important, and particularly worth emphasizing, if one is trying to understand both (a) why the content of the Tradition is what it is (b) what, considered in the light of the Tradition, is most salient about our own time and context?

Saturday, September 6, 2008

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

By Greg Sisk

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.

Something from a MOJ Reader

By Michael Perry

[UPDATE:  Check out this post, and comments, at dotCommonweal (here).]

A MOJ reader sent this to me.  I thought some other MOJ readers might like to see it.  (I had not known about the web site Catholic Democrats, here.)

Palin Attacks Catholic Community Organizing by Senator Obama; No Mention of Economic Distress Across America

Minneapolis, Minn. - Sept 4, 2008 - Catholic Democrats is expressing surprise and shock that Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's acceptance speech tonight mocked work that her opponent had done in the 1980s for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. She belittled Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's experience as a community organizer in Catholic parishes on the South Side of Chicago, work he undertook instead of pursuing a lucrative career on Wall Street. In her acceptance speech, Ms. Palin said, "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities." Community organizing is at the heart of Catholic Social Teaching to end poverty and promote social justice.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has operated the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, its domestic anti-poverty and social justice program, since 1969. In 1986, the Bishops issued Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the US Economy, which said, "Human dignity can be realized and protected only in community." Senator Obama worked in several Catholic parishes, supported by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, helping to address severe joblessness and housing needs in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods of Chicago.

"It is shocking that a vice presidential candidate would disparage an essential component of the Catholic Social Tradition with her condescending attack on urban community organizing," said Dr. Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats. "Her divisive rhetoric, repeatedly pitting small towns against urban communities, demonstrates not only a lack of charity toward the needs of some of the least among us but a fundamental disrespect for those who dedicate their lives to overcoming poverty across our country. Her sarcastic tone is also emblematic of the contempt that she and Senator McCain have shown toward actually addressing the economic distress that is gripping America in these difficult times. Economic issues, including extreme poverty, are among the most important to Catholics and other people of faith in this election."

"Why do Governor Palin and the McCain Campaign sarcastically attack efforts to organize unemployed Catholics and Protestants? Senator Obama has spoken warmly about his experiences as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago," said Lisa Schare, chair of Catholic Democrats of Ohio. "His work in helping people who were experiencing the real trauma of losing their jobs and livelihoods demonstrates an authentic Christian spirit and the real essence of Catholic Social Teaching, something strikingly absent from Governor Palin's remarks tonight."

Posted by Catholic Democrats Staff on September 4, 2008 1:55 AM |

Teenagers, Sex, Pregnancy, Abortion, and Sex Education

By Michael Perry

[UPDATE:  Check out this post, and comments, at dotCommonweal (here).]

I read this with particular interest, since I am the parent of two teenagers.  If you disagree with what Mr. Blow has to say, you may want to e-mail him.  His address is below.

NYT, 9/6/08

Op-Ed Columnist

 Let’s Talk About Sex

By CHARLES M. BLOW

 

Sarah Palin has a pregnant teenager. And, she’s not alone. According to a report published in 2007, there are more than 400,000 other American girls in the same predicament.

In fact, a 2001 Unicef report said that the United States teenage birthrate was higher than any other member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The U.S. tied Hungary for the most abortions. This was in spite of the fact that girls in the U.S. were not the most sexually active. Denmark held that title. But, its teenage birthrate was one-sixth of ours, and its teenage abortion rate was half of ours.

If there is a shame here, it’s a national shame — a failure of our puritanical society to accept and deal with the facts. Teenagers have sex. How often and how safely depends on how much knowledge and support they have. Crossing our fingers that they won’t cross the line is not an intelligent strategy.

To wit, our ridiculous experiment in abstinence-only education seems to be winding down with a study finding that it didn’t work. States are opting out of it. Parents don’t like it either. According to a 2004 survey sponsored by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, 65 percent of parents of high school students said that federal money “should be used to fund more comprehensive sex education programs that include information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraceptives.”

We need to take some bold steps beyond the borders of our moralizing and discomfort and create a sex education infrastructure that actually acknowledges reality and protects our children from unwanted pregnancies, or worse.

Britain is already taking these steps. London’s Daily Telegraph reported last month on a June study that found that “one in three secondary schools in England now has a sexual health clinic to give condoms, pregnancy tests and even morning-after pills to children as young as 11.”

Furthermore, a bipartisan group from the British Parliament is seeking to make sex education compulsory for “children as young as four years old.” In a letter to the paper, the group laid out its case: “International evidence suggests that high-quality sex and relationship education that puts sex in its proper context, that starts early enough to make a difference and that gives youngsters the confidence and ability to make well-informed decisions helps young people delay their first sexual experience and leads to lower teenage pregnancy levels.”

That may be extreme, but many Americans can’t even talk about sex without giggling, squirming or blushing. Let’s start there. Talk to your kids about sex tonight, with confidence and a straight face. “I’d prefer you waited to have sex. That said, whenever you choose to do it, make sure you use one of these condoms.” It works.

Response to Greg on Abortion, Biographies, etc.

By Thomas Berg

Greg, thanks very much for your response.  Mark McKenna has already made some good points about the risks of using personal biographies (along with the good, you have to take the bad that exists in all of us even pro-life politicians).  Look, let me reiterate that I think Sarah Palin's witness on Down's syndrome is great, as is Cindy McCain's adopting a child.  But I think that our debate about whether uses of personal biographies are "selective" ends up being parasitic, to a significant extent, on the debate about what policies are relevant to the abortion issue.  You say you're willing to consider that "new or expanded government programs and spending . . . may enhance the quality of life and thereby discourage more people from" aborting, but your arguments after that seem premised on ignoring the connection between supporting the poor and reducing abortions.

For example, you write that being a community organizer "says little about whether one is committed to protecting unborn [life]"....  Well, that's plainly true about Obama's subjective attitude, but it simply dodges the point that we who are pro-life should still commend work that empowers poor people, whatever the worker's motivation, because that work will reduce people's perceived needs to abort.  Thus to ignore such an element in a candidate's personal biography is still, even with respect to pro-life concerns, "selective."  Then you go on to suggest that for a pro-lifer to place a lot of emphasis on social-welfare support programs is to be willing to accept "money . . . to suppress a principle for political gain," although you also refer to suppressing pro-life principle in return for "potentially worthwhile programs."  I'm not sure which you think people would be suppressing principle for -- mere "political gain" or "potentially worthwhile programs."  But either way this dodges, again, the argument that wanting more social-welfare supports can actually be a way of serving pro-life principles, not of compromising them for other goals.

One might argue about whether social-welfare spending helps reduce abortion (although I think there's considerable evidence that it does if it's well targeted).  But I think that your post, while it never argues against such a connection and even allows that it might exist, ends up ignoring it.  And ignoring it, I think, leads you to treat the comparison between the two parties on abortion as more one-sided than it is (which, again, is not to deny the major faults in the Democrats' platform).

Previous Articles More Articles

Recent Posts

Categories

Monthly Archive