Our aim is to conform our beliefs to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church under the patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Pro-Life Movement Represents Real Change, Abortion Backers are Conservative

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]



by Richard John Neuhaus
January 2, 2009

LifeNews.com Note: Richard John Neuhaus is one of the top Catholic pro-life thinkers and the editor of the journal First Things. "Father Richard," as he is known to President George W. Bush and many others, is a Catholic priest and the president of the Institute on Religion and Public Life.

Whatever else it is, the pro-life movement of the last thirty-plus years is one of the most massive and sustained expressions of citizen participation in the history of the United States. Since the 1960s, citizen participation and the remoralizing of politics have been central goals of the left.

Is it not odd, then, that the pro-life movement is viewed as a right-wing cause? Reinhold Niebuhr wrote about “the irony of American history” and, were he around to update his book of that title, I expect he might recognize this as one of the major ironies within the irony.

These are the issues addressed in a remarkable new book out this month from Princeton University Press, The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, by Jon Shields, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College.

The book is by no means a pro-life tract. It is an excruciatingly careful study, studded with the expected graphs and statistical data—but not to the point of spoiling its readability—in the service of probing the curious permutations in contemporary political alignments.

The Port Huron Statement issued by the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1962 called for a participatory democracy in which, through protest and agitation, the “power structure” of the society would be transformed by bringing moral rather than merely procedural questions to the center of political life.

Almost fifty years later, Shields notes, “some 45 percent of respondents in the Citizens Participation Survey who reported participating in a national protest did so because of abortion. What is more, nearly three quarters of all abortion-issue protesters are pro-life, an unsurprising fact given that the pro-life movement is challenging rather than defending the current policy regime.

Meanwhile, all other social issues, including pornography, gay rights, school prayer, and sex education, account for only 3 percent of all national protest activity.”

Shields says there are three categories of pro-life politics: deliberative, disjointed, and radical.

Representative of the “deliberative” are Justice for All (JFA) and the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR), which have trained thousands of young people to engage in nonconfrontational pro-life persuasion on college campuses.

The “disjointed” politics includes innumerable and loosely organized activities such as sidewalk counseling, prayer vigils, marches, demonstrations, and counter-demonstrations.

The “radical” includes what he calls “the broken remnants of the rescue movement,” focusing on civil disobedience and the closing of abortion clinics. “In many respects [the radical] is the exact opposite of deliberative politics, except for the fact that it too is highly coordinated and organized.”

He cites striking instances of the campus efforts of groups such as JFA and CBR meeting with frequently vicious hostility, often led by faculty members. The truth is that such hostility reflects vehement opposition to civil deliberation and argument about abortion.

Pro-life students eager to engage others in serious discussion find this very frustrating, but it is not entirely surprising.

Shields writes: “Such frustration is fueled by NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, whose leaders discourage their campus affiliates from debating or even talking to pro-life students. NARAL’s ‘Campus Kit for Pro-Choice Organizers,’ for example, gives this categorical instruction: ‘Don’t waste time talking to anti-choice people.’”

The campus organizer for Planned Parenthood told Shields that she “discourages direct debate.”

Feminists for Life has had more success on campuses, mainly because its members shake up conventional notions on the “woman question.” As leaders of the organization put it, the goal is not to “fit into a man’s world on men’s terms,” which means above all not “troubling employers with their fertility problems.” As they repeatedly assert, “Women deserve better than abortion.”

But pro-abortion intolerance of discussion or debate is sometimes given dramatic expression.

In San Francisco, the city and county board of supervisors unanimously declared January 22, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, “Stand Up for Choice Day” and officially declared San Francisco a pro-choice city. Supervisor Bevan Duffy declared that pro-lifers were “not welcome in San Francisco.”

Supervisor Tom Ammiano complained about the audacity of pro-life activists who “think that they can come to our fair city and demonstrate.” The head of the Golden Gate chapter of Planned Parenthood was outraged that activists “have been so emboldened that they believe that their message will be tolerated here.”

The Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in the mid-1960s has come to this.

The pro-life movement is a movement for change, indeed for what some view as the radical change of eliminating the unlimited abortion license. “Meanwhile,” writes Shields, “the pro-choice movement is a conservative movement defending the status quo.

Pro-choicers have little to gain from engaging their opponents and from the deliberative norms that facilitate persuasion.” And, of course, they have the establishment media massively on their side.

The head of New York State Right to Life explained to Shields that “a major part of her work is simply trying to convince journalists that pro-life activists are ‘normal.’ It is hard to imagine a pro-choice leader describing her work that way.”

“The current demographic makeup of the pro-life movement,” writes Shields, “also confounds the politics of motherhood.”

The conflict is often depicted as one between housewives and career-oriented women. But a striking percentage of pro-life women are university educated, and many have given up professional careers to do pro-life work full-time.

Although Shields does not mention it in this connection, it is also striking how many female leaders in the pro-life cause had one or more abortions, an experience that helped turn them against the current license.

He does note that surveys indicate that pro-life citizens, men and women, “are only moderately less likely to be ‘very concerned’ about women’s rights” than pro-choice respondents.

“The pro-life movement,” he writes, “is actually quite diverse, and abortion politics more generally does not [as some claim] pit working-class Catholic housewives against professional, career-oriented women.” In short, it has over the years increasingly stretched credulity to claim that the pro-choice cause is a “woman’s movement.”

Read the rest of Father Richard's column at:

Peter Paul

Fr. Neuhaus was one of my heros. He passed away last week. Crying or Very sad Please pray 1 Hail Mary for him.

Last edited by Peter Paul on Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:12 am; edited 1 time in total


Mine too, he will be missed...

Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with Thee, blessed art Thou among women, blessed is the Fruit of Thy womb Jesus; Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen signofcross

Linda praying

Peter Paul

He was perhaps the most eloquent defender of the Catholic faith of the last decade. He took on Catholics who misrepresented the teachings of the Church on abortion. Here is a snip from Meet the Press when he debated Sr. Chittister. The transcript doesn't do it justice. Sr. Chittister was completely flabbergasted and stumbled over her words when he said he uses the catechism as his guide vs. her mere opinions. It was incredible to watch! He said "ah" and "oh" mockingly as she stumbled to justify her stance ...

Fr. Neuhaus:The senator or the congresswoman or congressman is in a very different position. They are there precisely to advocate what they believe is the course of greater justice and greater fairness, etc., in the society. So therefore, when you have, for example, a Catholic senator or congressperson who stands up and persistently, publicly, unapologetically, defiantly, again and again, says, “I do not believe what the church believes with regards to the moral imperative of protecting innocent, unborn human life.”

If you have a senator who says, or a congressperson who says, “Yes, I agree that the goal is and, as a Catholic, I am convinced in conscience that the goal is every unborn child protected in law and welcomed in life, but I disagree with the bishops as to how we might get to that goal,” that is a different thing and their the—his or her relationship with the church is not compromised or impaired. But when you have, as we do have, many Catholic political figures persistently defying the very teaching of the church, the most fundamental teaching of the church with regard to the dignity of the human person at every stage of development and decline, then you have a problem where the bishop is required, because the bishop’s a pastor, is required to say to that person, “Hey, we better talk, because you are compromising your relationship with the church.” It’s not a political issue; it’s a ecclesial issue. It’s an issue with regard to the integrity of the life of the church.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you agree with that, Sister?

SISTER CHITTISTER: I, I, I think the distinction is a good one. I don’t think that it’s, it’s totally accurate. Fact of the matter is that a legislator can work very, very hard for these issues that, that mean so much to, to all of us; at the same time, have to work, as Father said later, differently in that arena. At the same time, you, you have parallel situations where it’s not being applied. You have Governor Kaine from Virginia, who is a Catholic, who says that he is opposed to capital punishment, but he will maintain the law. That...

REV. NEUHAUS: But, you know, Sister, capital punishment and abortion are not at the same level of teaching weight.

SISTER CHITTISTER: Well, I don’t know that, see. I think that...

REV. NEUHAUS: Oh, really?

SISTER CHITTISTER: Yeah. I think they are at this...

REV. NEUHAUS: Oh I, I—consult the catechism.

SISTER CHITTISTER: I think they, I think that they are not at the same level of teaching weight. I’m saying I’m not sure why.


SISTER CHITTISTER: I’m not sure why they’re not at the same level of teaching weight.


SISTER CHITTISTER: Because either, either life is of value or it’s not of value. Are we saying get them all born, but you can kill them anytime afterwards and it won’t mean as much? I doubt that. I think that this is part of what I said at the beginning. These are new issues emerging. We need a lot of these good conversations, and we need a lot of awareness that, somehow or other, we’re, we’re growing into both a new country and, and a new religious network.

Last edited by Peter Paul on Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:07 am; edited 1 time in total


EWTN will HONOR Him tonight at 7:00 pm eastern time.

Our Father
Hail Mary
Glory Be

praying highprayer highprayer highprayer signofcross

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum