Can pro-life voters reasonably support pro-choice candidates?

Not all voters who hold a pro-life position plan to vote for pro-life candidates for public office in the Nov. 6 election. As in 2008, some pro-life Catholic and evangelical protestant Christians are undecided or expect to vote for "pro-choice" (pro-legalized abortion) candidates in contests between pro-life and pro-choice options, such as in the presidential race between Mitt Romney, who supports protection for human beings in the womb, and Barack Obama, who supports unlimited abortion.

Some of these voters simply don't know (yet!) where the candidates stand. But some do know and plan to vote for pro-choice candidates anyway. Public examples include evangelical figures like Jim Wallis and David Gushee and Catholics like Doug Kmiec, Charles Reid and Stephen Schneck. Does this make sense? Here are a number of (often-overlapping) explanations, some of which I have heard from ordinary pro-lifers and some of which are offered by academics and commentators. I respond to each. I also respond to pro-lifers who plan to either sit out the election or vote for third-party candidates.

(1) Abortion isn't the only issue. There are many important issues, and I'm not a single-issue voter.

As Scott Klusendorf notes, abortion isn't the only issue today any more than slavery was the only issue in 1860. But if the pro-life position on the ethics of abortion is true—as those I am addressing here believe—then abortion is a uniquely important issue, as slavery was a uniquely important issue in 1860. First, abortion is a question of basic justice unlike any other issue or concern in American society today. In no other area is a class of innocent human beings placed outside the protection of the law and allowed to be killed for any or no reason. At stake is the principle of the equal fundamental dignity and right to life of every member of the human family, irrespective not only of race, gender, religion and social status, but also of age, size, ability, stage of development and condition of dependency. Human equality is on the ballot. Second, abortion is the leading cause of human death (at 1.2 million unborn children killed annually in the United States), and the candidates we elect will affect our laws and policies in ways that will influence the incidence of abortion. Lives really are on the line. Even if a pro-life voter agrees completely with a pro-choice candidate on every other issue, it is difficult (if not impossible) to see how voting for that candidate can be reasonable given the moral gravity and scale of what is at stake regarding abortion.

None of this is to deny that there are many important political issues. It is just to say that some issues are more important, and more foundational, than others.

The moral confusion of Joe Biden

In yesterday's debate, Vice President Joe Biden said that, as a Catholic, he accepts the position of his church regarding the ethics of abortion, then added:

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and -- I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman [Paul Ryan].

I -- I do not believe that -- that we have a right to tell other people that women, they -- they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court -- I'm not going to interfere with that.

This is the cop-out of all cop-outs. If abortion is what Biden says he accepts it to be -- namely, the unjust killing of an innocent human being, as pro-lifers argue using the facts of embryology and sound moral reasoning, and as the Catholic Church unambiguously teaches -- then abortion is precisely the kind of act that only an anarchist would deny should be prohibited by law as a matter of basic justice. Because surely the proper role of government includes securing fundamental rights and protecting people from lethal violence. It is not difficult to connect the dots.

Biden would have no trouble "imposing" his view that suicide bombing is wrong, or that rape is wrong, or that child abuse is wrong. It would be understood as shocking moral confusion, or cowardice, or insanity for him to speak only of the imposition on the perpetrator in arguing that the act, though wrong, must be legal, ignoring completely the actual victim on whom brutal violence is truly "imposed." Yet that is what he does with the issue of abortion.

Biden once strongly opposed the use of taxpayer funds for abortion, and he voted to ban partial-birth abortion and for other modest pro-life legislation. Now he defends an administration that has encouraged the taxpayer funding of abortion at every turn -- here in America and around the world -- and accepts no limits whatsoever on the practice of abortion on demand, even opposing a bill this year to stop the killing of unborn baby girls simply because they are girls. Biden used to hold positions that Barack Obama (in his breathtaking abortion radicalism) considers not just wrong but unconstitutional (e.g., support for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act).

Paul Ryan served as a refreshing contrast. He said in the debate that he holds his pro-life position "not simply because of my Catholic faith" but also "because of reason and science." He continued:

You know, I think about 10 and a half years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born for our seven-week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. Our little baby was in the shape of a bean, and to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child, Liza, "Bean."

Now, I believe that life begins at conception. ... I understand this is a difficult issue. And I respect people who don't agree with me on this. But the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

What troubles me more is how this [Obama] administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they're doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic Charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. Our church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious liberties.

And with respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they want it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding, taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized or wouldn't second-guess their one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That, to me, is pretty extreme.

After a follow-up question, Biden argued:

The court -- the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That's how close Roe v. Wade is.

Just ask yourself: With Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for -- for Mr. Romney, who do you think he's likely to appoint? Do you think he's likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court, far right, that would outlaw Planned -- excuse me -- outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen.

Biden is correct that the fate of Roe v. Wade might be at stake in this election, and that the Obama administration will do everything it can to preserve that decision (it has already effectively saved Roe with its two Supreme Court appointments thus far). But he is wrong when he implies that overturning Roe would outlaw abortion. And Justice Antonin Scalia himself is clear that he doesn't think the Court has the constitutional authority to prohibit abortion. What overturning Roe would do -- and what Scalia would do, and what Mitt Romney and Ryan want to do -- is allow the people, through their elected representatives, to once again determine their own abortion policies. Obama and Biden are instead dedicated to ensuring that the Court, with no constitutional warrant, imposes a nationwide policy of abortion on demand whether the people like it or not.

As Ryan put it last night: "We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision; the people, through their elected representatives and reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process, should make this determination."

Joe Biden would rather impose unlimited abortion on the states. And impose abortion funding on pro-life taxpayers. And impose death on the most vulnerable members of the human family. For them -- those he says he acknowledges to be living human beings -- he will do nothing but sit back and help facilitate their destruction on a massive scale. And then he will boast about his moral superiority.

'A politician who has never once lifted a hand to defend the most helpless and innocent'

Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan, speaking on Friday:

President Obama likes to say, "We're all in this together." ... -- it has a nice ring. For everyone who loves this country, it is not only true but obvious. Yet how hollow it sounds coming from a politician who has never once lifted a hand to defend the most helpless and innocent of all human beings, the child waiting to be born.

Giving up any further pretense of moderation on this issue, and in complete disregard of millions of pro-life Democrats, President Obama has chosen to pander to the most extreme elements of his party.

In the Clinton years, the stated goal was to make abortion "safe, legal and rare." But that was a different time, and a different president. Now, apparently, the Obama-Biden ticket stands for an absolute, unqualified right to abortion -- at any time, under any circumstances, and even at taxpayer expense.

When you get past all of the President's straw men, what we believe is plain to state: These vital questions should be decided, not by the caprice of unelected judges, but by the conscience of the people and their elected representatives. And in this good-hearted country, we believe in showing compassion for mother and child alike.

We don't write anyone off in America, especially those without a voice. Every child has a place and purpose in this world. Everyone counts, and in a just society the law should stand on the side of life.

We the People

Last night, President Barack Obama said:

We, the people, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only, what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense.

As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together ...

America, I never said this journey would be easy, and I won't promise that now. Yes, our path is harder, but it leads to a better place. Yes, our road is longer, but we travel it together.

We don't turn back. We leave no one behind. We pull each other up.

"We the people." "Bound together." "Leave no one behind." What the president did not mention is that there is a raging debate in our society today about the scope of "we," "us," "the people" -- about who counts as a member of our human (and, more particularly, American) community, bearing basic dignity and rights, and who or what instead may be discarded or used instrumentally for the benefit of those who do count. Obama once said that this foundational moral and political question is "above my pay grade." But the question of who is one of us and who may be killed by us is not above the pay grade of the president of the United States. A confident answer to that question is a prerequisite for the job, and our president flunked the test.

In fact, though, Obama has taken his stand, and done so with great zeal. He is committed to the proposition that unborn human beings -- members of our species at the earliest developmental stages -- merit no moral regard or legal protection and may be dismembered and killed for the convenience of the older, the stronger, the smarter, the independent. "We the people," for President Obama, does not include the unborn. Our "commitment to others" does not extend to the smallest and most vulnerable. And as we "leave no one behind," Obama is not counting the millions of young human beings for whom he wishes only death. He will not turn back.

"[W]e cannot go on forever feigning agnosticism about who is human," one of Obama's opponents, Paul Ryan, has written. "Now, after America has won the last century's hard-fought struggles against unequal human rights in the forms of totalitarianism abroad and segregation at home, I cannot believe any official or citizen can still defend the notion that an unborn human being has no rights that an older person is bound to respect."

But that is the Obama position. His is one of exclusion, discrimination, and the use of violence against the most innocent and defenseless in order to get what we want for ourselves. His opponents, Mitt Romney and Ryan, embrace a position of inclusion, equality, and respect and protection for every human being simply because they, like you and me, are human.

This utterly important question -- who are "We the People"? -- is a big part of what is at stake in the November election.

MCCL Federal PAC endorses Mitt Romney for U.S. President

The following news release was issued today, Sept. 5.

MINNEAPOLIS – With the goal of securing the protection of unborn children for decades to come, the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) Federal PAC today endorsed Mitt Romney for President of the United States. The MCCL Federal PAC is the state’s oldest and largest pro-life political action committee.

"On pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark contrast. As the country's most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda," said Scott Fischbach, MCCL Federal PAC. "It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled and the elderly, we must win."

Romney has taken a strong pro-life position and is committed to implementing policies to protect the unborn, the medically dependent and disabled, and the elderly. Romney opposes abortion and has called the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision "a big mistake." Romney has expressed his support of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion.

Romney has also stated he believes the Obama health care law should be repealed. The Obama health care law would open the door to federal subsidies for abortion coverage and rationing of lifesaving medical care. He has also stated that, if elected, he would reinstate the Mexico City Policy, which prevents federal dollars from going to organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas.

In contrast, since taking office in January 2009, President Obama has been an outspoken advocate for abortion and has worked unceasingly to expand funding of and access to abortion. He rescinded the Mexico City Policy, and threatened to veto the entire federal spending bill—forcing a government shutdown—rather than accept a provision cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. Obama also threatened to veto the Protect Life Act, which would repeal the abortion-expanding provisions of his health care law, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which would permanently prohibit any federal program from funding elective abortions. Earlier this year he even opposed a ban on sex-selection abortion, when abortion is chosen solely because the child's gender (almost always female) is not desired.

Additionally, Obama championed the so-called Affordable Care Act while opposing pro-life amendments in the Senate. As enacted, the law will result in federal funding of health plans that pay for elective abortion, and will lead to large-scale rationing of lifesaving medical treatments.

Romney also has been endorsed by the National Right to Life Political Action Committee. The MCCL Federal PAC urges all Minnesota citizens to vote for Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

"We are extremely gratified that Mitt Romney holds strong pro-life convictions and has not shied away from expressing them during the campaign," Fischbach added. "We look forward to Romney’s election as our next pro-life president on November 6."

Where does Paul Ryan stand on abortion, the right to life?

Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is Mitt Romney's running mate, the Republican candidate for vice president in the Nov. 6 election. Where does he stand on the right to life?

Ryan is fully committed to respecting and protecting the dignity and right to life of every member of the human family, including the unborn. He told the Weekly Standard's John McCormack, "I'm as pro-life as a person gets." He wrote in a 2009 op-ed, "I remain committed to restoring the value of human life and fighting for the rights of the unborn. ... Most importantly, we must ensure that the most vulnerable among us—both unborn children and mothers struggling with unplanned pregnancies—are afforded the compassion and opportunities they need to choose life."

According to National Right to Life, Ryan has voted 78 times in favor of the pro-life position and zero times against it—a 100 percent pro-life voting record through his entire tenure in Congress. These include votes to prevent approval of the abortion drug RU486, ban partial-birth abortion, cut off federal funding to abortion giant Planned Parenthood, ban human cloning, prevent federal funding of embryo-destructive research, stop taxpayer funding of abortion, prevent abortion funding overseas, protect unborn children capable of experiencing pain, and repeal Obamacare.

Though he is known for his economic and budgetary expertise, Ryan has rejected Republican calls for a "truce" on "social issues" (such as abortion) in order to focus on economics: "You're not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they're unavoidable, and I'm never going to not vote pro-life."

Ryan has further explained:

Healthy debate should take place within the Republican Party on specific policies, but it is a false choice to ask which natural right we should discard: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not a menu of options. All planks—economic liberty and limited government; keeping our nation secure; championing America's founding truths and the dignity of every human person—are rooted in same timeless principles, enshrined in our Founding and the cause of our exceptionalism.

Indeed, Ryan penned an article in 2010 titled "The Cause of Life Can't Be Severed from the Cause of Freedom," in which he wrote:

Now, after America has won the last century's hard-fought struggles against unequal human rights in the forms of totalitarianism abroad and segregation at home, I cannot believe any official or citizen can still defend the notion that an unborn human being has no rights that an older person is bound to respect. I do know that we cannot go on forever feigning agnosticism about who is human. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time." The freedom to choose is pointless for someone who does not have the freedom to live. So the right of "choice" of one human being cannot trump the right to "life" of another. How long can we sustain our commitment to freedom if we continue to deny the very foundation of freedom—life—for the most vulnerable human beings? ...

[G]overnment must uphold every person's right to make choices regarding their lives and ... every person's right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature—the "law of the jungle"—the determination of who "qualifies" as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right.

"The pro-life Romney-Ryan team stands in sharp contrast to the avowed pro-abortion administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden," concludes National Right to Life President Carol Tobias. "With the election of a Romney-Ryan ticket, America, and her children, will be in good hands."

Mitt Romney offers pro-life contrast to Obama

"In the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than
a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America."

A version of the following ran in the May/June issue of MCCL News.

Mitt Romney is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to challenge Democratic incumbent Barack Obama in the Nov. 6 election. The former Massachusetts governor and businessman takes a pro-life position that contrasts sharply with Obama's pro-abortion record.

Romney once did not favor laws against abortion (though he had repeatedly said that he personally opposed the practice), but he changed his position in 2004 when studying human embryology, stem cells and cloning as governor.

"The Roe v. Wade mentality has so cheapened the value of human life that rational people saw human life as mere research material to be used, then destroyed," he later said. "What some see as a mere clump of cells is actually a human life. Human life has identity. Human life has the capacity to love and be loved. Human life has a profound dignity, undiminished by age or infirmity."

Romney compiled a pro-life record during his tenure in office, vetoing a pro-cloning bill and a bill to redefine the beginning of life (as later than conception) and receiving an award for political leadership from Massachusetts Citizens for Life. "I publicly acknowledged my error, and joined with you to promote the sanctity of human life," he explained in a 2007 speech to the pro-life group.

Romney believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned and has promised, if he is elected president, to nominate judges who "adhere to the Constitution and the laws as they are written, not as they want them to be written." Romney says he will take pro-life executive actions, including restoring Ronald Reagan's Mexico City policy and denying funds to the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund.

He says he will support pro-life legislation, such as bans on federal funding of abortion and federal funding of Planned Parenthood. And he advocates the complete repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which (if not repealed) will lead to government-subsidized abortion coverage and the rationing of lifesaving health care.

In all of these areas, Obama has taken the opposite view—he has promoted abortion and undermined the dignity of unborn human life at every turn.

"Let me be clear: Mine will be a pro-life presidency," Romney pledged in a February speech. "I will reverse every single Obama regulation that attacks our religious liberty and threatens innocent life." The stakes in this contest are clear.

NRLC criticizes media coverage of abortion issue

The following statement was released yesterday by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

WASHINGTON -- "The mainstream news media is once again demonstrating its eagerness to use any excuse to portray a Republican presidential ticket as out of the mainstream on abortion, while ignoring the truly extreme positions taken by the pro-abortion candidate -- this year, President Obama," said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

The mainstream news media is again busy ginning up stories exploring the outer parameters of the abortion-related policy positions of pro-life Republican candidates, even where this involves remote, theoretical scenarios -- while demonstrating a near-total disinterest in putting the spotlight on the outer parameters of the "abortion rights" positions embraced by President Obama, even on matters under current legislative consideration.

The current media focus is on the position of the Romney-Ryan ticket on prohibiting abortion in cases of rape or incest. Governor Romney has been quite clear that he supports rape and incest exceptions to a law providing general protection for unborn children. ...

According to a 2005 study published by the Guttmacher Institute, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions," one percent of the women who were surveyed while seeking abortions reported having an abortion because they were victims of rape. Legislation to prohibit early abortion in cases of rape and incest is not under consideration in Congress. Indeed, since 1993, Congress provided federal funding for abortion in cases of rape and incest. ...

Despite the remoteness of these matters from any legislation currently under consideration in Congress or likely to be considered by the next Congress, the mainstream news media finds them worthy of sustained attention. Yet there is little interest by these journalists in performing a symmetrical exploration of the outer parameters of President Obama's policy positions on abortion -- even with respect to bills that are under active consideration in Congress.

For example, recently NRLC brought it to the attention of Congress that currently, in the District of Columbia -- a federal jurisdiction -- abortion is legal for any reason, until the moment of birth. (This is because the "District Council," utilizing delegated congressional authority, repealed the entire abortion law.) On July 31, 2012, by a solid majority of 66 votes (220-154), the U.S. House of Representatives voted for a bill (H.R. 3803) to overturn this policy, and replace it with a ban on abortion after 20 weeks fetal age (the beginning of the sixth month), except to save the life of the mother. At the same time, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) filed the same measure as an amendment to cybersecurity legislation (S. 3414) -- a White House priority -- that was pending in the Senate when the August recess began.

So, what is President Obama's position on the pending legislation that has already commanded a substantial majority in the U.S. House, and that is at least technically still pending in the U.S. Senate? Good question -- but the mainstream media has been almost entirely uninterested in asking it. At the July 31 White House press briefing, one desultory question was posed to Jay Carney about the bill, to which Carney responded that he had not spoken to the President about this particular bill (although it had 223 cosponsors, and was to be voted on later that day in the House). There was no follow up.

Another example: On May 31, 2012, the U.S. House took up the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541), a bill to prohibit the use of abortion for purposes of sex selection in the United States. Only one organ of the mainstream news media showed any interest in ascertaining what President Obama's position was on the bill: ABC News' Jake Tapper pressed for an answer, and obtained it the night before the House vote -- President Obama opposed the bill. His reason? "The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way." But aside from one-time, low-profile coverage on the ABC News blog, Obama's position on this legislation has gone virtually unmentioned in the news media -- although the bill commanded a substantial bipartisan majority (246-168) in the U.S. House on May 31. A recent poll found that 77 percent of the public (80 percent of women, 74 percent of men) favors banning the use of abortion for sex selection.

Thus, while consumers of the mainstream news media are likely to view and read countless stories that affirm that Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan have expressed opposition to abortion "even in cases of [fill in the blank]," they are likely to see far fewer reports that President Obama supports allowing legal abortion "even when used for sex selection," or exploring President Obama's position on whether abortion should be allowed "even up to the point of birth" in the nation's capital. For the mainstream news media, the "even in cases of ..." knife only cuts in one direction.

"For the most part, the mainstream news media prefer to characterize President Obama's position in terms of hazy generalizations, avoiding specifics such as his actions to allow unrestricted abortion for sex selection and late abortions," said NRLC President Carol Tobias.