RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

What Makes Liberals and Conservatives Angry? Abortion Reduction

by John Gehring and Simone Campbell 03-25-2009

When both the Left and Right begin sharpening their knives, it means you are on to something. This new threat raising the hackles of liberals and conservatives still hunkered down in culture-war bunkers? It’s a movement focused on comprehensive strategies to reduce abortions by providing economic supports for vulnerable women and preventing unintended pregnancies. A chorus of critics across the ideological spectrum has lined up to malign these common-ground efforts with all the righteous zeal of those who make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Liberal bloggers slam Catholics and evangelicals working on this approach as radical “anti-choice” hardliners cozying up to the Religious Right. Religious conservatives denounce the effort as a betrayal of faith and question research that finds abortions decline when women have quality health care and access to robust social services. The National Right to Life Committee starkly dismisses common ground on abortion as the “burial ground.” The Pro-Life Action League mocks it as a “sellout.”

While these reactions run the gambit from the predictable to the absurd, they share a scorched-earth rhetorical style and an absolutist devotion to hardened agendas. If politics is the art of the possible, these common-ground naysayers seem more comfortable defending turf and demonizing opponents than seizing a unique political moment when pro-choice and pro-life public officials are finally doing more than exploiting abortion as a “wedge issue” to divide voters and win elections.

Indeed, the time is ripe to end the abortion stalemate. President Barack Obama has made abortion reduction a priority of his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In Congress, pro-life Rep. Tim Ryan has joined pro-choice Rep. Rosa DeLauro to co-sponsor the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. and Sen. Lincoln Davis introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act, legislation that helps expectant mothers with prenatal health care, nutrition support, and other critical programs. At a time of grave economic crisis, it’s more essential than ever that we reject the false divide between social justice and pro-life advocacy. Policies that help put Americans back to work, ensure families have affordable health care, and strengthen fraying social safety nets also lower the abortion rate, which is more than four times higher for women living in poverty than for women earning 300 percent above the poverty line.

Citizens weary of abortion politics as usual are hungry for a breakthrough. A post-election poll conducted by Public Religion Research found that most voters — including 81% of Catholics and 86% of white evangelicals — believe elected officials should work across party lines to increase economic support for vulnerable women, expand adoption opportunities, and prevent unintended pregnancies. While these are positive trends, hard work remains. Secular progressives who view access to abortion as a fundamental right and many religious Americans who believe it is a profound threat to the sanctity of life must still reach across bitter divides with courage and humility.

Winning hearts and minds in a democracy demands more than fiats or fist-shaking. As Roman Catholic Bishop Blase Cupich of South Dakota cautioned his fellow bishops at a national meeting, a “prophecy of denunciation quickly wears thin.” Religious Americans can maintain a prophetic spirit that speaks truth to power while at the same time engaging in dialogue and responding pragmatically to social and political realities. Those who make an idol of “choice” as the ultimate virtue must recognize that choice without responsibility is a false freedom. In an instant-gratification culture that objectifies women and divorces sex from loving relationships, pro-choice advocates can also acknowledge that cultivating greater reverence for the dignity of sexual intimacy is as important as promoting contraception. It’s also a mistake to dismiss all pro-lifers as reactionary fundamentalists aligned with conservative political orthodoxy. This only perpetuates stereotypes, undermines potential alliances, and alienates the majority of religious Americans who recognize that the moral wisdom of faith traditions defies easy political labels. If those on opposing sides of this polarizing issue embrace a spirit of greater humility, compassion, and critical introspection, enemies become potential allies and old assumptions fade away.

Comprehensive efforts to reduce abortions are a cause for hope that the pro-life and pro-choice communities should embrace. After more than three decades of political paralysis and legal gridlock, the time has come to break new ground.

John Gehring is a senior writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

Simone Campbell, an attorney and Sister of social service, is the executive director of NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.

Categories: Abortion
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • rothgar
    I don't know which Pro-Lifers you are speaking of. The ones I've spoken with are admanant that it must be illegal. Problem is that making abortion illegal will NOT end the practice just condemn women to third class status.

    Not only will illegalization even come close to ending abortion, I firmly beleive that within a generation of the Pro-Life movement's success in making Abortion illegal (and I feel you will be successful since you won't stop) the Church will fade into obscurity. At best it'll be a social event like in Revolutionary times or in old-line catholic countries.

    It'll take Generations to recover from this success. Generations that will have been effectively denied access to the saving message by the anger generated by this success. I for one do not want to be held to account for all those souls.
  • So let's take an example that wasn't actually a free market with a sound monetary foundation, and use it to beat down an idea that hasn't really been tried since the early 1900s, if before that. Reagan did not give us a truly free market, especially by running deficits and permitting corporate capitalism to run rampant. So your example really only proves that an economy where the politically well-connected are favored doesn't work. Thank you for reminding us free marketers of something we have been preaching on for decades.

    Now, since you've proven that the 1980s didn't work, let's talk about the past decade or so. That wasn't a free market, either. It was a mixed economy, where government influence and manipulation of the money supply, the dot-com bubble, and the housing "boom" caused the crash we're dealing with now. Well, gee, a mixed economy doesn't work, either!

    There are two types of economic thinkers: those who believe the free market works unless it yields results they don't desire; and those who believe the free market never works except when it yields the results they do desire.

    Government programs do not provide capital, because capital cannot be created out of thin air.
  • "Look, I have another idea"

    Not your idea. I think God invented the idea of freedom and love your neighbor. The Left tends to believe they can force everyone to love neighbors as long as that neighbor does not possess much in terms of material wealth.
  • "It takes money...to keep a family together."

    Could you elaborate? I'd love to hear a more cogent explanation of this. I'm sure money plays a big part in things, but I'm not sure your conclusions hold true in all cases (well, I suppose you would concede that part as true). People will stay married and in love no matter how much money they have; indeed, many more well-off folks who were previously poor often humorously reminisce about how they were happier when they had less. I'm not saying the breakdown of the family is not affected by this, but I would like to hear more from you on this.
  • BillyStrain
    Sadly, Sister marie, I think you're right. While the developments cited in this article give some cause for hope, we've seen (especially from contributions made farther down this list) how many in the pro-life movement still view any cooperation, even as a short-term strategy for progress, as tantamount to heresy or a compromise of principle. How does one reason, let alone cooperate, with that? I fear that any progress made on this issue will have to be independent of both of these factions. Still, let Wallis and others give it a shot....then no one can say they didn't try.
  • In many cases, however, the breakdown of the family is directly due to economic issues; that is definitely the case in the African-American community. It takes money -- hopefully earned by the man of the house -- to keep a family together, and when the father/husband isn't pulling his weight for whatever reason he loses his authority as head of the household.
  • Nathan Bedford
    What is really interesting to me is that this debate is dominated by two opposing religious groups. On the one side you have those who believe that Catholics are heretics who are condemned to the fires of hell and who also maintain that "God doesn't hear the prayer of a Jew."On the other side are those who subscribe to the doctrine that the edicts of a human being are infallible and who have conveniently looked the other way when its clergy have abused young boys.

    What both of these opposing groups have in common, however, are their hypocritical view that once the child is born, we can simply ignore the quality of that life or we can simply take that innocent life in wars. They would adopt a set of laws that would ban abortion in every case, outlaw birth control pills, IUDs, patches, prophylactics, etc. To them, there is no such thing as a "middle ground" and compromise is no different than surrender. They have taken over the Republican Party and will employ a "take no prisoners" approach to obtain their goals. Vote our way or we'll deny you communion; it's my way or the highway.

    This is not the first time that writers at this site have made an honest attempt at dialogue, and each time it has encountered the stone-walling, no compromise reaction. My advice to Wallis and others is cease further attempts - you're just going to get sh** upon.
  • I have another idea that we should all be able to agree on because all we want is to have the abortion rate drop: we abolish all government programs. Unleashing capitalism will create wealth at unprecedented levels, lifting women out of poverty so that they won't need abortions. Why would anyone object to that?

    Nonsense. We got a taste of that in the 1980s -- the poverty rate actually increased despite the implementation of "trickle-down economics" because the "capitalists" actually jimmied the system to make sure nothing like that would happen. See, some government programs provided capital for folks to start businesses and others for educational and job-training opportunities, and when that dried up due to complaints about "big government" ... well, you can fill in the rest.
  • squeaky
    OFF TOPIC ALERT
    Hey everyone--please take a moment and e-mail Giannii Calvert to let him know the comment section on this site is difficult to navigate. I've been conversing with him off and on, but he asked for others to do the same. He isn't seeing the problems we are.

    giannii@disqus.com

    Thanks
  • TopDawg
    So using the logic I am reading here, we could say the following about drunk driving:

    1. It shouldn't be illegal because it will happen anyways
    2. The reason for drunk driving is because the poor can't afford cabs so we should instead use our resources on taxpayers paying for cabs for the poor.
    3. If you have compassion on someone who is killed from someone who is drunk driving you are just a right wing fanatic who is divisive and has no love for the drunk drivers.
    4. As tragic as killing someone from drunk driving, you can't impose your morality on someone who wants to drink and drive. It's their body after all.
    5. I wish I had an analogy for a President who claims to want to reduce abortions, but signs legislation that makes it easier and more accessible not only here but abroad. There isn't an anology for that kind of hypocrisy.
  • neuro_nurse
    I got ya beat - I finished my undergrad degree a few months before my 44th birthday.

    If I can finish these two papers, I'll complete my masters a few months shy of my 47th.
  • Well, I got my undergrad when I was 36, so ...
  • Here's the problem: That kind of rhetoric didn't get abortion banned in the first place. In fact, it was the "liberals" that did back at the turn of the last century in response to sexual exploitation of women that was common in that day. And in fact, there became such an outcry that anti-abortion sentiment represented majority opinion. Times have changed, obviously, and it's clear that simply supporting an exclusive "anti-abortion" mentality just doesn't work.
  • neuro_nurse
    I hope you meant to include college students who aren't 'kids' in that assessment!

    (taking a quick break from my malaria paper)
  • neuro_nurse
    Okay, I’ve read Fletcher’s book and wrote a report on it in an ethics class, so I don’t need to be told what situation ethics is, but I need you to explain to me how situation ethics is relevant to my comment.
  • Considering the costs of a college education plus the soft job market, I would think that college kids are indeed working harder than ever before.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    *Sigh*

    Look, I have another idea that we should all be able to agree on because all we want is to have the abortion rate drop: we abolish all government programs. Unleashing capitalism will create wealth at unprecedented levels, lifting women out of poverty so that they won't need abortions. Why would anyone object to that?

    Well, because some of you don't think that free markets are the answer to every problem. So amazingly conservatives are not impressed when the left proposes that we just implement All The Stuff They Always Wanted To Do Anyway, especially when any abortion reduction that results from their program is so modest as to be indistinguishable from statistical noise.

    And of course, we can't have All The Stuff They Always Wanted To Do Anyway while passing any meaningful restrictions on abortion itself because, well that would just ruin the entire thing. Somehow.

    "Oh, but there are a couple of lefty bloggers who are angry -- that proves we're really making big compromises!" Yeah, right. There are 300 million people in this country, you can find a couple of crazy people who will say just about anything.

    Sorry, there's no new way here, just new packaging on the same old lefty program, and a few lefty bloggers who didn't get the memo. Talk to us when you're ready to make some substantive compromises. Until then you're just wasting our time. And having one's time wasted can be a bit aggravating.

    LV
  • thinkagain
    Common ground - how disingenuous. Let's see, the Left says, "Let's, of course, keep murder (of the unborn) legal, but we're all into fewer murders of the unborn (though we don't even believe it's murder)." Why reduce abortions if one believes that abortion is neither taking a life, nor is it hurting the mother (and abortion is both the taking of a life and the wounding of the mother's soul - not to mention the physical effects on her body)? For these uncaring folks, there is no sincere reason for wanting fewer abortions -- except to look as if they actually did care for the unborn baby (that “non-person” – the tissue in the womb) or actually did care for the mother. They simply want others to perceive that they are reaching out in a "caring" way for some common ground with those who actually believe abortion is murder. But it’s just a farce.

    When one believes that the baby is simply tissue, and that the mother is not hurt in any way from the abortion (save her own self-inflicted emotional or physical pain), they’re actually saying, “Sure, we’ll throw you a bone – we’ll say we’re for LESS destroying of tissue for you crazies who think that the baby is a real person and who think that moms are effected by anything else but their own self-inflicted diseases or trauma. There – we’ve found common ground.” When someone starts with “I’m for legal but less killing” there IS no common ground. The problem is the disrespect for the Image Bearer in the womb.

    We need to raise our voices for the unborn until these precious Image Bearers get the same protection as you and I. As we restore laws to protect the unborn, (and by doing so save our country from God's severe discipline), the new common ground will be to, together, find ways to help women with the adoption process if they’re not wanting to keep the child, as well as teaching men to not use women in any dishonoring, disrespectful way. That's the Common ground view of devote Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims. Hopefully, we will wake up before it's too late.

    Consciences are seared,
    evil is mirror'd,
    jump out of the spin,
    let Christ come in,
    The Shepherd, Creator,
    who forms us in the womb, says,
    "protect my little ones,
    and protect yourself from doom."
  • Which Calivinism are you attempting to question?

    "Innocent life" and theological "sin nature" are not identical concepts. Innocent life means they did nothing to bring this upon themselves. the "conceived in sin" has to do with the nature of the human being.
  • "part of that has to do with college students hunkering down with their studies"

    and people tell me I'm out of touch with reality!

    No, seriously, you are in many ways right, I just thought that particular description was a bit humorous. Most college students I know don't "hunker down."

    (I wasn't critiquing you, just having some fun!)
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008