Religion & Law

Michael P. re-posted an op-ed by my sometime-blogging-colleague (at America) Michael Sean Winters.  Because, I confess, I am tired of blogging about Obama, abortion, Kmiec's follies, etc., etc., I will try to keep this response pithy:

MSW says that one of the "difficulties" with the anti-abortion statements of several American bishops is "that they did not persuade."  Is this fact really a "difficulty" with the various bishops' statements?  Does the fact an argument does not persuade always suggest an error on the part of the would-be persuader?

MSW writes, "[t]he pro-life movement has been carrying water for the Grand Old Party for 35 years and there has been no change in the law."  Sigh.  This is entirely wrong, and MSW -- God bless him -- should know better.  (What's more, the relevant law is about to get worse.)

MSW says that "Obama's ace in the hole, especially with young voters and independents, was his promise to end the slash-and-burn partisanship that had made Washington politics so bitter, not only in George W. Bush's term, but during the Clinton years as well."  Note to "young voters and independents":  Don't hold your breath.

Finally, MSW says, "the greatest problem is that these 'abortion-only' bishops are living in a parallel universe. In denigrating the Democratic Party and its nominee, the only conclusion is that the Republicans were the salvific choice."  In fact, none of these bishops is "abortion only."  Nor did any bishop suggest that Republicans are a "salvific choice."  Obviously, they are not.  They are, however, not fundamentally committed to the enshrinement in our Constitution and in our laws of a near-unlimited (and publicly funded) abortion license.