Partisanship separate from Church ideals
Letter to the Editor | Thursday, October 30, 2008
In response to the Letter “Non-Partisan?” published on Oct. 28, I would like to call attention to a few points.
The writers of the article say that the focus on abortion at the NDVotes event on Oct. 14 “demonstrates a lack of understanding of the holistic nature of Catholic social teaching.” They forget, when they assert that “larger” issues such as immigration and discrimination were ignored, that the Catholic Church also teaches that not all issues carry the same weight, that life issues are of supreme importance and that abortion is a non-negotiable issue.
They may also forget that we attend a Catholic university, where many students take the Church’s teaching on weighting these issues seriously, especially when voting. No one has ever accused NDVotes of being anything but fair until this Letter, and, as far as I know, the authors’ complaint has been the only one.
I believe there is an explanation for this; please keep reading. I would like to point out that many people, including the writers of the Letter, seem to be in denial of Barack Obama’s actual stance on abortion and the effect his proposed policies would have on the number of abortions performed in the United States. Politicians and advocates of Obama, not to mention Obama himself, have used elusive and eloquent language to water down the facts. It would have been irresponsible for NDVotes not to make sure people at this event knew the facts and what is at stake in this election.
The authors of the Letter say that “Many argue that Obama’s social policies will reduce the need for abortion.” Firstly, it is erroneous to say that there was ever a “need” for abortion. Secondly, this statement is simply false; Senator Obama’s policy propositions cannot possibly do anything but cause a spike in the abortion rate, as Professor Carozza pointed out.
If anyone doubts this, please research the following topics: the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion and which Obama opposes, the ban on partial birth abortion which Obama opposes, and especially the Freedom of Choice Act, which would abolish literally all restrictions on abortions, including mandatory waiting periods, parental consent laws, informed consent laws and conscientious objection laws allowing doctors, nurses, other state-licensed professionals, hospitals and other healthcare institutions to refuse to perform or participate in abortions.
Obama has pledged to make this the first bill he signs into law as president of the United States. To those whom these facts seem “skewed” toward a particular agenda, I would suggest re-examination of support for your candidate.
Christine M. Romero