America's Pro-Life Movement Gaining Steam

There is little doubt that abortion is a complex and multifaceted issue. With divergent viewpoints and a muddled “middle ground," it is common for public opinion polls to yield seemingly contradictory results.

Despite the perceived difficulties in definitively determining abortion perspectives, recent developments expose a public that is steadily growing warmer to the pro-life point of view. If this trend continues, there will be intriguing social and political implications, especially considering the surprising stance Millennials are taking on the issue.

One could argue that the nation's ongoing abortion debate re-fueled and intensified following President Obama's controversial speech at the University of Notre Dame in May 2009. Since the widely publicized event, journalists and researchers have attempted to qualify recent polls that corroborate an increase in pro-life sentiments. In May 2009 Gary Langer, the director of polling at ABC News, wrote, abortion is “a highly fraught subject—and one of those on which a single polling number does not begin to describe the complexity of Americans' attitudes.”

Langer says that the majority of Americans are actually pro-life and pro-choice simultaneously. For instance, some people may believe that abortion should be legal, but only in specific cases (i.e. rape or if the woman's life is in danger). In this case, the stance calls for legal abortion (pro-choice sentiment), but only in very specific circumstances (pro-life sentiment). In either case, an individual who subscribes to these beliefs is essentially aligning him or herself with both poles of the abortion debate—albeit, to different degrees.
Interestingly, Langer is not alone in his conclusions. In May 2009, New York Times journalist Dalia Sussman urged readers to be cautious when jumping to the conclusion that America may actually be embracive of pro-life tenants. According to Sussman, “[Asking if someone is “pro-life” or “pro-choice”] creates absolutes, when in reality, abortion really represents an issue in which there aren’t any absolutes for many (if not most) people.”

While this may be a valid argument in terms of recognizing complexities in perception, it is entirely possible that a slight majority of Americans are still avoiding absolutes, while sliding, albeit slowly, toward a more pro-life world view. Statistics from multiple sources corroborate this notion. One does not have to be “absolute” in a belief to lean more in one direction than another.

Imagine a line on which one charts his or her support on a scale from zero to 10 (10 being “extremely favorable” of abortion rights). Now, picture millions of people plotted along this continuum. While individuals may hold diverse beliefs on the subject, chances are that a majority would find itself on either end (this is to say before or after the five, or middle ground, placement) of the spectrum. For instance, an individual who opposes abortion, yet thinks that it should be legal in cases of rape, may choose a three on the continuum, instead of a zero. Here, this person clearly opposes abortion, while possessing some sense that it should be permitted in select circumstances. Even though his or her opinion isn't an extreme (a zero or 10), the individual still leans more in favor of pro-life sentiments.

Despite resistance from some journalists and researchers who cannot fathom a reduction in support for pro-abortion arguments, public opinion polls continue to reflect a collective, albeit slow, movement away from pro-choice-ism. In Oct. 2009, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life was one of many reputable sources to recognize a drop in support for abortion. Pew found that, while abortion supporters outnumbered foes in 2007 and 2008, the two sides are now equal in number. Additionally, Pew wrote that “there have been modest increases in the numbers who favor reducing abortions or making them harder to obtain.” And most surprisingly: “Less support for abortion is evident among most demographic and political groups.”
Perhaps most intriguing is the closure in the generational gap. According to Gallup, those Americans aged 18 to 29 and 30 to 49 were most supportive of abortion rights in the late 1970s. This pattern has evolved since 2000, with all age groups aside from seniors (65 and older), sharing similar views on abortion. Not surprisingly, seniors remain the “least likely to favor legal abortion.”

Now for the bombshell:

Gallup found that between 2005 and 2009, among those individuals who are 18 to 29 years of age, there has been a nine-percentage-point increase in the belief that abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances.” This essentially means that young Americans are nearly tied with seniors in their belief that abortion should be eradicated.

Interestingly, this group is also frequently pointed out by the left to be strongly in favor of more liberal social and political policy. However, young people appear to be moving more in line with conservatives on this issue, further corroborating the notion that Millennials may not be sold on progressive policies.

Make no mistake, opinions about abortion have not shifted radically on the whole. That said, public perception appears to be sliding in the pro-life direction. In 2001, Gallup asked respondents if they saw abortion has morally acceptable or morally unacceptable; 42% said that abortion is morally acceptable, with 45% stating the contrary. In 2010, this same poll found only 38% claiming that abortion is moral, with 50% stating the opposing view, that abortion is immoral.

Abortion will continue to be a highly controversial topic in American political and social circles, as both sides argue in support of their respective stances. With Millennials poised to inherit future leadership posts, the generation's less-favorable abortion perspective offers an intriguing conundrum to the left. In the end, it is the Millennial generation that will create the laws and monitor the policies that govern this highly contentious subject.

WRITTEN BY: Billy Hallowell with original article at Human Events available by clicking on the title of this blog entry

Obama and the 'Real' Catholics

Passionate debates over doctrine, identity, and the boundaries of “communion” have been a staple of the American religious landscape for centuries: Trinitarians vs. Unitarians in 19th-century New England; Modernists vs. Fundamentalists in early 20th-century Presbyterianism; Missouri Synod Lutherans vs. Wisconsin Synod Lutherans vs. Other Sorts of Lutherans down to today. Yet never in our history has a president of the United States, in the exercise of his public office, intervened in such disputes in order to secure a political advantage.

Until yesterday (Saturday, May 16th), at the University of Notre Dame.

The principal themes of President Obama’s Notre Dame commencement address were entirely predictable; indeed, in some offices I know, betting pools were forming last week on how many of the Catholic Left hot buttons Obama would hit. In the event, he hit for the cycle several times over, mentioning “common ground”; tolerance and reconciliation amid diversity; Father Hesburgh; respect for those with whose moral judgments we disagree; problem-solving over ideology; Father Hesburgh; saving God’s creation from climate change; pulling together; Father Hesburgh; open hearts; open minds; fair-minded words; Father Hesburgh. None of this was surprising, and most of it was said with the president’s usual smooth eloquence.

What was surprising, and ought to be disturbing to anyone who cares about religious freedom in these United States, was the president’s decision to insert himself into the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic conviction in the public square. Obama did this by suggesting, not altogether subtly, who the real Catholics in America are. The real Catholics, you see, are those like the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who are “congenial and gentle” in persuasion, men and women who are “always trying to bring people together,” Catholics who are “always trying to find the common ground.”

The fact that Cardinal Bernardin’s undoubted geniality and gentility in bringing people together to find the common ground invariably ended with a “consensus” that matched the liberal or progressive position of the moment went unremarked — because, for a good postmodern liberal like President Obama, that progressive “consensus” is so self-evidently true that one can afford to be generous in acknowledging that others, less enlightened but arguably sincere, have different views.

Cardinal Bernardin gave a moving and powerful testimony to Christian faith in his gallant response to the cancer that finally killed him. Prior to that last, great witness, however, the late archbishop of Chicago was best known publicly for his advocacy of a “consistent ethic of life,” in which the abortion issue was linked to the abolition of capital punishment and nuclear arms control. And whatever Bernardin’s intentions in formulating what came to be known popularly as the “seamless garment” approach to public policy, the net effect of the consistent ethic of life was to validate politically the intellectual mischief of Mario Cuomo’s notorious 1984 Notre Dame speech and to give two generations of Catholic politicians a virtual pass on the abortion question by allowing them to argue that, hey, I’m batting .667 on the consistent ethic of life.

The U.S. bishops abandoned the “seamless garment” metaphor in 1998, substituting the image of the “foundations of the house of freedom” to explain the priority to be given the life issues in the Church’s address to public policy — and in the consciences of Catholic politicians. The foundations of the house of freedom, the bishops argued, are the moral truths about the human person that we can know by reason. Those truths are embodied in law in what we call civil rights. Thus, the life issues are the great civil-rights issues of the moment. This powerful argument did not, however, sit well with Catholics comfortable with the Cuomo Compromise (“I’m personally opposed, but I can’t impose my views on a pluralistic society”), for these good liberals and progressives had long prided themselves on being — like Father Hesburgh — champions of civil rights.

So the “seamless garment” went underground for a decade, only to be dusted off by Douglas Kmiec and others in the 2008 campaign; there, a variant form of the consistent ethic was used to argue that Barack Obama was the real pro-life candidate on offer. As casuistry, this was risible. But it worked well enough that Catholic Obama-supporters on the Notre Dame board saw their chances and took ‘em, arranging for the president to come to Notre Dame to complete the seamless garment’s dust-off and give it a new lease on life by presenting the late Cardinal Bernardin — “a kind and good man . . . a saintly man” — as the very model of a real Catholic in America. Not the kind of Catholic who would ever criticize Notre Dame for bestowing an honorary doctorate of laws on a man determined to enshrine in law what the Catholic Church regards as a fundamental injustice. Not the kind of man who would suggest that, with the life issues, we’re living through the moral equivalent of the Lincoln/Douglas debates, with Barack Obama unhappily choosing to play the role of Stephen A. Douglas. Not a man, in other words, like Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, Cardinal Bernardin’s successor, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and one of the most articulate critics of Notre Dame’s decision to honor a president who manifestly does not share what Notre Dame claims is its institutional commitment to the Church’s defense of life.

Whether or not President Obama knew precisely what he was doing — and I’m inclined to think that this politically savvy White House and its allies among Catholic progressive intellectuals knew exactly what they were doing — is irrelevant. In order to secure the political advantage Obama had gained among Catholic voters last November, the president of the United States decided that he would define what it means to be a real Catholic in 21st-century America — not the bishop of Fort Wayne–South Bend, who in sorrow declined to attend Notre Dame’s commencement; not the 80-some bishops who publicly criticized Notre Dame’s decision to invite the president to receive an honorary degree; not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which explicitly and unambiguously instructed Catholic institutions not to do what Notre Dame did. He, President Obama, would settle the decades-long intra-Catholic culture war in favor of one faction — the faction that had supported his candidacy and that had spent the first months of his administration defending his policies.

At the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore in 1849, the U.S. bishops petitioned the Holy See to grant the archbishop of Baltimore the title of Primate of the Catholic Church in the United States (as, for example, the archbishops of Québec City and Mexico City are the “Primates” of their respective countries). The Holy See declined and, ever since, the archbishops of Baltimore have had to settle for being the ordinaries of the “premier” see in American Catholicism. Barack Obama at Notre Dame was not so modest. Rather like Napoleon taking the diadem out of the hands of Pope Pius VII and crowning himself emperor, President Obama has, wittingly or not, declared himself the Primate of American Catholicism.

What the bishops of the United States have to say about this usurpation of their authority will be very interesting to see. Whether Obama’s Catholic acolytes will recognize a genuine threat to religious freedom in what they are already celebrating as their Notre Dame victory over the pro-life yahoos and reactionaries will also be instructive.

WRITTEN by George Weigel for the National Review and published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center on May 18th, 2009. As always, the title of this posting is a link to the original article

Behind the Angst at Notre Dame

It might be hard for alumni, sports fans and fundraisers to admit but, at the end of the day, not every educational institution matters. Few are unique; most are redundant and easy to replace.The University of Notre Dame, though, is different.

This is not merely because of past (and, we can hope, future) football success, a catchy fight song and savvy merchandising. Notre Dame matters because it aspires to be something different and interesting: a great research university that is excellent precisely because it is meaningfully and distinctively Catholic.

This project is not about nostalgia, heritage, school spirit or "branding." Instead, Notre Dame's aim is to achieve genuine excellence, and thereby to engage and improve the world through — not despite — its Catholic character. This character is to be pervasive, animating and enriching, not merely a decoration or garnish, a little "something extra" sprinkled on top of an otherwise standard-issue enterprise.

Notre Dame's project is challenging and vulnerable, but it's also exciting and important — and not just to Catholics. We all have a stake in its success. Conversations are made deeper and richer, and the diligent search for truth is helped by the presence of diverse, distinctive — sometimes dissenting — voices. Institutions, like individuals, provide these voices.

Peter Parker's Uncle Ben was right to say, "With great power comes great responsibility." Similarly, institutions that matter carry a burden. This is why Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama with an honorary law degree is so controversial. Most graduation speeches, of course, are entirely forgettable hodgepodges of Dr. Seuss, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Starbucks-cup quotations.

This year, however, Notre Dame's commencement speaker on Sunday could hardly be more prominent or memorable. And yet, the choice has divided sharply not only the Irish Nation but Catholics generally and has prompted many of us who love Notre Dame and embrace its mission to ask: Is Notre Dame's decision consistent with the character and commitments that make it distinctive? That make it worth caring about? That make it matter?

To understand what the controversy surrounding Obama's invitation is about, it is important to understand what it is not about.

Most important, the issue is not, as some commentators have suggested, whether Notre Dame should welcome, engage, debate and explore a wide range of viewpoints. Of course it should. It was, after all, a central message of the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council that "nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo" in Christians' hearts, and the same can be said for the work of a Catholic university. Such a university has nothing to fear from — indeed, it has the best possible reasons to welcome — inquiry, investigation, argument and testing. And so, no one could reasonably oppose inviting the president to Notre Dame for discussion and dialogue on immigration, education, health care — or even abortion.

The question on the table is not whether Notre Dame should hear from the president but whether Notre Dame should honor the president. A Catholic university can and should engage all comers, but in order to be true to itself — to have integrity — it should hesitate before honoring those who use their talents or power to bring about grave injustice. The university is, and must remain, a bustling marketplace of ideas; at the same time, it also has a voice of its own. We say a lot about who we are and what we stand for through what we love and what we choose to honor.

The controversy at Notre Dame is not about what should be said at Catholic universities, but about what should be said by a Catholic university.

It is also a mistake to frame the controversy in terms of academic freedom. Obviously, this freedom, properly understood, is central to the mission of any great university.

Even so, no one is proposing limits on what can or should be discussed, debated, taught, studied or written by students or scholars. The American Association of University Professors is right to insist that "the opportunity to be confronted with diverse opinions is at the core of academic freedom," but wrong to imagine that this principle requires a university to be indifferent to the messages it sends through the honors it confers.

No university is entirely neutral; every university makes decisions about what to affirm, through its policies, as good or true. One can (and should) affirm the right (and duty) of scholars at Catholic universities to be true to their scholarly vocations while still asking whether Notre Dame is being true to itself.

Next, some have suggested that it threatens the separation of church and state for Catholic bishops to express regret and criticism regarding Notre Dame's decision. This suggestion is badly misplaced. A Catholic bishop who calls on a Catholic university to be true to its Catholic character is exercising, not undermining, religious liberty.

Finally, the reason some say that an authentically Catholic university — even one that appreciates fully President Obama's appeal and the historical significance of his election — should not honor him with a ceremonial law degree is not because he rejects "Catholic" views on abortion. The worry, instead, is that Notre Dame will send the wrong message and say something that is inconsistent with its Catholic character and with its commitment to human rights by honoring — at this time, anyway — a president whose record so far on abortion and embryo-destructive research is glaringly in conflict with that commitment.

The Catholic view on these matters, after all, is that there is no specifically or narrowly "Catholic" view. The church affirms that human life is sacred, and that every human being, at every stage of development, should be welcomed in life and protected in law. This affirmation rests on the same foundational principles of human dignity and equality that animate the Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, principles that were celebrated not only by Pope John Paul II but also by Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln.

The president's error is not failing to submit to "Catholic" authority — why should he? — but aggressively and consistently promoting policies that are unjust because they deny the basic equality of every human being.

To doubt that a Catholic university should honor Obama at this time, and to worry about the message such an honor sends, is not to engage in partisan or "single issue" politics or to deny that there are many things to be celebrated and admired about our new president's life, campaign, election and vision. Indeed, these things make it all the more regrettable — tragic, really — that he is so badly misguided on such a fundamental issue of justice.

WRITTEN by Richard W. Garnett for USA Today and published on May 11th, 2009