God, Intelligence, and the Mentally Challenged: "Wisdom Is the Knowledge of God's Will" - Robert Kennedy, Jr.

I happened to catch the following remarks on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," and am writing them down now (TiVo!). Robert Kennedy, Jr., talked about his Aunt Eunice Shriver and how her Catholic faith affected her treatment of her sister. Rose was born mentally challenged. Eunice often took Rose with her on travels here and around the world... Eunice also founded the Special Olympics. Here are some of Robert's comments:

I tuned in mid-sentence... I think Robert was in the midst of talking about Eunice and Rose's parents (Joseph and Rose Kennedy), who decided that Rose would live with them rather than be sent away. He begins here speaking in their voices:

"'She has just as much value as a human being as any other child in this family. Her intellect is absolutely meaningless in terms of the way God sees her, and we're going to keep her in this family.' During that experience, Rosemary flourished. They were never embarrassed, they were never ashamed. They took her in ski races, they took her in sailing races, they took her to meet the queen.

"Eunice at one point, in 1962 my uncle was in the White House, and she looked at this population [the mentally challenged]. There was more bigotry towards them, more prejudice, more disenfranchisement, more alienation than any other population, more vulnerability than any other population. And she decided to be their champion."

Andrea Mitchell comments, "I remember when I was a child, we had a neighbour who was quote 'retarded' and I was his babysitter often. . . but there was so much shame attached to the condition of these children."

Kennedy responds in a deeply Christian (and I would say pro-life) manner:

"She never felt that way about her sister. And I think a lot of that was her Catholic faith, that she believed that every human being has a soul, and every soul is beloved by God.

"Everybody has certain capacities. That first international Special Olympic Games... and I was there in South Bend Indiana in 1987. There was a child who was winning the race, a sprint, and the child fell. The person who was running second went toward the finish line, and just before he crossed the finish line, he stopped, turned around, and went back and picked up the boy who was going to beat him. And they both crossed the finish line together, and they were last and second-to-last. I think that was the spirit of the Special Olympics. And Rune Arteledge of ABC played that over and over again. I think it showed something about sportsmanship that you didn't see in the 'real' Olympics.

I think was something like, Wisdom is not the province of the intellectually gifted. You can have read every book in the Library of Congress and still not have wisdom. Wisdom is the knowledge of God's Will. And it is accessible to these people who are intellectually disabled on the same basis that it is accessible to the rest of us. This child knew right from wrong and he knew what compassion was and he knew what love was. And Eunice was able to see that and say that these children are not disabled in any real sense, it's the rest of us who are disabled for looking at them and looking at this as a disability."

Dialing It Back on Abortion: Jon Stewart & Mike Huckabee Set the Tone

The following guest post comes from Alise McCoy Wright, a cyber-friend of my wife's and mine.

When I was growing up, my parents (and especially my mom) were very involved in the pro-life movement. I believe my first pro-life march in Washington, D.C. was when I was in 7th grade (maybe 8th -- definitely before high school). At that time and through high school, it was a very black and white issue. Abortion was bad. No ifs, ands or buts.

Fast forward to 1997. I've just graduated from college and have my first job teaching in an inner-city school. I'm in a city where I don't know anyone and have only been married for 9 months. I've known for probably a week that I'm pregnant, but kept hoping that I was mistaken. I finally take a pregnancy test and confirm that I am indeed pregnant.

I wish my first reaction when I saw those two lines had been joy, but in reality, it was fear. I was not prepared for a pregnancy and certainly not prepared for a new baby. Fortunately, by the end of the day, I was feeling much better about it and by the time I told Jason, I was absolutely thrilled at the prospect.

But I don't think I've ever forgotten my initial reaction to the circumstance. I was someone who was in a happy (if young) marriage. We had two very supportive families who were able to help us. We were getting involved in a new church and Bible study. Overall, the circumstances were pretty good for us which made it much easier for me to move from fear to excitement. Not every woman has that luxury.

That's not to say that I'm not still pro-life. I still think that in almost all instances it would be better for the woman to choose to have her baby rather than to terminate the pregnancy. As I watch my beautiful daughter growing into an amazing young woman, I have no regrets about being that young mom. But that experience has also shown me that things aren't quite as black and white as I once thought. That there may be other events that play into a woman's decision to continue or end a pregnancy.

Sadly, much of the discourse surrounding this issue is very polarized and polarizing. People on opposite sides are painted with the most extreme brushes and rather than listening, they just shout past one another. Which was why I was absolutely astounded to watch the discussion between Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee on last Thursday's show. In a time when the major "news" networks do their best to get the most extreme voices on, The Daily Show was able to have a very calm, rational discussion. If you have about 20 minutes, I would strongly suggest checking out these three videos.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Despite these men having very different opinions on the issue, they manage to have a great conversation. And in a day where conversations seem to take a back seat to emotionally charged language and one group trying to out-argue the other, this was a refreshing change. I hope that maybe "the news" will take a cue from The Daily Show and maybe encourage people to talk for a change. I think we'd all appreciate that.

Abortion and the American Left

The below link should have been the first I posted on this issue of liberal pro-lifers. It offers some seriously thoughtful stuff, and is the home page of sorts for a few of the other links I have (or maybe will later on) offer up. One caveat... a lot of these articles seem rather old. I'll try to find some newer stuff as well.

Abortion and the American Left

Nat Hentoff on Abortion

A raft of articles by very liberal, very pro-life (atheist!), Nat Hentoff. As a liberal Christian pro-life advocate, also a feminist, I find his arguments very compelling and would hope to see many of my liberal compatriots consider them. While it is nearly impossible not to want to gag when dealing with Rightist "pro-life" groups who do in fact use the pro-life issues as a wedge in their anti-feminist agendas, I strongly urge feminists and liberals to read Hentoff's thoughts on this. There really is another way.

Nat Hentoff on Abortion

Doug Kmiec, Prolife Legal Counsel under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Campaigns for Barack Obama

This radio ad, now running in Ohio and possibly elsewhere, offers the views of Douglas Kmiec, professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University, head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and author of Can A Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama.

The Matthew 25 Network is funding this ad, and as someone involved with that network I'd like to suggest Evangelicals for Obama consider supporting their effort. See below the video for a link to do so.



Contribute to the Matthew 25 Network's ongoing efforts.

Uh-Oh! Reviewing Sarah Palin's "Pro-life" Position in Light of Couric Interview

I'm a bit ashamed of myself that I didn't catch this in the now-infamous Katie Couric interviews with Sarah Palin. We all heard the gaffs and soundbites... but what about some of the more substantial answers Gov. Palin did come up with?

Beliefnet's Steve Waldman suggests something startling: "Amidst Her Dodging, Sarah Palin Contradicts the Republican Platform on Abortion."

Waldman notes, in a number of cases during the fairly lengthy exchange on abortion between Couric and Palin, that the Governor seemed to actually hold a pro-choice position!

For instance, Couric asks: "If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion. Why?" Gov. Palin does not answer the "why" but she does offer this as her punchline: "I would counsel to choose life." The unavoidable conclusion one would reach there is that Palin supports choice, but counsels that choice be for life.

But there's more. Gov. Palin continues:

"I would like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to see taking it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life, and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country. But I want, then, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported for adoptions to be made easier. For more support given to foster parents and adoptive families. That is my personal opinion on this."

I would note this sounds stunningly similar to Barack Obama! There is not one mention of legislating abortion out of existence, of overturning Roe v Wade, and in fact her language -- "I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country" -- sounds almost word for word like Barack Obama (except with less finesse). Consider these comments by Obama, made April 13, 2008 at Messiah College. He is responding to a question on finding any common ground between pro-choice and pro-life polarities:

"I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

1. There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.

2. People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion." [italics added]

Back to Couric's interview with Sarah Palin:

Couric: So you want more support so women have more options, or girls have more options. But you also think it should be illegal, that there should be no punishment if a woman does break the law...

Palin: I would like to see more women given more support so that those of us who say, "You know, a culture of life is what we believe." Is best ... for human kind, you know, to respect the sanctity of every human life. And to understand ... that we live in a pretty messed up world sometimes.

When you consider what's going on in this world. The most promising and good ingredients in this world ... is a child. The hope that a child brings. And just understanding that. Being near and dear to my heart. I want to do all that I can to reduce the number abortions.

And to usher in that culture of life. And in my respect for the other side of this issue, I have not spoken with one woman who do, may disagree with me on, when abortions could or should be allowed, not one woman has disagreed, as we sit down and rationally talk about ... the common goal we have, and that is to see fewer and fewer abortions. And to provide more and more women support in this world.

Palin again seems to echo a Democratic understanding of the abortion issue rather than supporting the Republican Platform here. Gov. Palin keeps referencing a "culture of life," but remains within a paradigm of choice. That is, a culture where all involved seek to have more support for women and fewer and fewer abortions. Again, this sounds quite similar to Barack Obama.

Couric isn't done yet:

Couric: But, ideally, you think it should be illegal ...

Palin: If you ...

Couric: ...for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?

Palin: I'm saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in."

Waldman once again notes that again Palin is reiterating a pro-choice position here. I would suggest, for further clarification, that very few pro-choicers think abortion is a "good" choice -- rather, most would readily call it a "bad" choice, a last resort which (to them) might be necessary but is not frivolous nor painless (physically or psychologically) to the mother making such a choice. There is nothing in Palin's responses to Couric to contradict that sort of pro-choice reasoning.

The interview continues:

And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an ... abortion, absolutely not. That's nothing I would ever support.

Did Palin mean just the mothers who abort, or also the doctors? In light of her apparent inability to communicate clearly on many topics, she may have meant the former. But one is left with what at best is an ambiguous response. I'm left wondering if these responses are yet further evidence of a disingenuousness on the part of the Republican candidates. In short, I think the blurring of pro-life vs. pro-choice positions is being done intentionally by Gov. Palin here, for reasons entirely having to do with polling numbers and the McCain campaign's desire to draw in more women voters... many of whom are pro-choice.

But here, in an exchange over the "morning after" pill, is where Gov. Palin does in fact overtly contradict the Republican Party platform on abortion. It takes Couric three tries to get an answer to her very simple question, but she does finally get it:

Couric: Some people have credited the morning-after pill as for decreasing the number of abortions. How do you feel about the morning after pill?

Palin: Well ...I'm all for contraception. And I'm all for any preventative measures that are legal and safe and should be taken. But, Katie, again and we can go round and round about the abortion issue, but I am one to seek a culture of life. I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception. And I would like to see ...

Couric: And so you don't believe in the morning-after pill.

Palin: I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world. And, again, I haven't spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that.

Couric: I'm sorry. I just want to ask you again. Do you not support or do you condone or condemn the morning after pill?

Palin: Personally, and this is isn't McCain-Palin policy ...

Couric: That's OK. I'm just asking you.

Palin: But, personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception. It ...

Couric: Do you think it should be illegal?

Palin: I don't think that it should necessarily be illegal.

So, for all my fellow pro-lifers out there that feel so compelled to vote McCain/Palin due to the pro-life issue, I hope this is one more reason to reconsider that concept. And again, I thank Mr. Waldman for drawing my attention to this interview.

Getting Personal: Why this Pro-lifer is voting for Barack Obama, Part 2

I have given (in part 1) some of my history regarding both the pro-life movement and my journey toward what I would call a pro-life feminism. The journey is ongoing, but here are some reasons I feel no guilt at all as a pro-lifer for supporting Barack Obama in this election.

* First point, regardless of your supported candidate for President: I can give Evangelical Christians the formula for stopping abortion on demand right here, right now. But virtually none of you really care enough about this issue to stand up and be counted. You'd rather be part of a Republican / Evangelical nexus that has killed thousands of adults and children -- they don't count because they aren't Americans -- in a manifestly unprovoked war in Iraq. A war manufactured by Dick Cheney and George Bush... You'd rather be part of a political nexus that ignores Matthew 25 and the warnings of judgment against those who do not remember the poor, imprisoned, and oppressed. You'd rather be part of a nexus which rewards the wealthy and punishes the working poor, directly contradicting James' warnings about the rich man...

Oh, sorry. You want the formula I offered? Why? You won't do it. You really don't care about the unborn all that much, except when the Republicans yank your chain, say "Country First," and remind you it is time to vote for the usual suspect one more election cycle. The usual suspects being murderers and liars...

Here it is, though... the formula: This Saturday, nation wide, virtually every Evangelical Church in America gathers in front of their local abortion clinic. Prayerfully, silently, without any screaming at people or hostile actions or signs with dead babies on them or any other outward signifier, entire congregations simply sit down in front and in back of abortion clinic doors. Then, in a spirit of broken repentance, the Christians pray to their God for forgiveness for not really caring about either the unborn or the mothers of the unborn or even the doctors inside those abortion clinics. This takes place nation wide. This doesn't stop. Each congregation cycles church members in and out of the protests. Police may arrest people at first, but quickly jails will be overfilled, the earnest integrity and peaceful demeanor of the protest / repentance movement will capture the imagination of many Americans previously unsympathetic to the pro-life movement or unaware of just what abortion is.

But you see, we already did do this. Or tried. Sure, we had no Martin Luther King figure to lead our movement. But on one level, do we need a great leader to do a great thing? If every church did this, nation-wide, wouldn't we all be leaders? Operation Rescue died for a number of reasons. Randall Terry sold it down the river when here in Chicago in 1988 he aligned O.R. with the Republicans (an event I was personally present at, and where I, in a moment either surreal or prophetic, warned Randall to his face not to do it -- then watched him ignore me to do it anway). OR also died because it betrayed its non-violent roots and became a movement too close with those who murdered abortion doctors in the name of Jesus Christ. That horror and shame is unerased.

But mostly, OR in its initial form failed because Evangelicals are all about lip service. We don't really believe our own words about the unborn. We really think that voting for a President, solely with the hope that he might possibly get to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who is pro-life and would vote down Roe v. Wade, makes more sense than to use the one tool that will almost certainly work. Civil rights didn't happen for blacks primarily because of the Supreme Court rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education. Civil Rights came as the result of a mass movement -- a populist movement -- in America which was fueled by moral certainty aligned with non-violence.

So... there you are. And yes, I was arrested and jailed for participating in Operation Rescue. I've also been arrested for participating in an illegal occupation, along with our Alderwoman Helen Shiller and around 100 or more homeless people, of a vacant lot slated for public housing. Today, that housing is there. But -- unlike the homeless and my alderperson in that situation -- Evangelicals are overall not willing to ante up.

And yes, that does tic me off... so onward to points that non-involved Evangelicals deem "pro-life" whilst refusing to be pro-life themselves...

* What do we mean when we say "pro-life"? I'm not talking philosophy or theology. I'm talking pragmatic goals. Almost all pro-lifers would define "victory" in their cause as the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Thus, we keep voting in pro-life presidential candidates in hopes that we can get from it a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court. Very few pro-lifers seem to really know what is likely to happen afterward if such a thing occurred. Most, I suspect, think that abortion on demand would simply go away once Roe was overturned.

What is far more likely to happen is that defining abortion laws would go to the states. Some of them, I suspect few, would outlaw abortion. Others would allow it, but with more strings attached than Roe contains. And still others would pass state laws not differing much from Roe. In short, abortions would be lessened but certainly not stopped. Further, and we do have to admit the reality here, there would also come into being a covert illegal abortion industry.

I'm not saying overturning Roe is a bad idea from a protect-the-unborn point of view. But if anyone thinks abortion is going to go away if Roe does, think again. Hard.

* And... Is it likely that Roe v. Wade will in fact be overturned, even if we keep on electing allegedly pro-life Presidents? As Joe Biden says, "History is prologue." So let's review:

Since 1973, when Roe became law, how many years were spent under Republican Administrations?

Richard Nixon (left office in 1974); Gerald Ford (1974-76); Jimmy Carter (1976-80); Ronald Reagan (1980-1988); George Herbert Walker Bush (1988-1992); Bill Clinton (1992-2000); George W. Bush (2000-2008).

That comes out to:
Republicans: 23 years
Democrats: 12 years
Total: 35 years

Now, from 1980 to the present, when being pro-life turned into a major presidential election issue, the totals are even more striking:

Republicans: 20 years (Reagan 8, GHW Bush 4, W Bush 8)
Democrats: 8 years (Clinton 8)

Let's take this even further. What Supreme Court Justices did the pro-life folk put on the court? Seven of the nine Justices were appointed by Republicans. Does that startle anyone? Further, Justices appointed by Ronald Reagan (Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy) participated in voting down challenges to Roe v. Wade -- two such cases being Planned Parenthood vs. Casey and Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services.

George Herbert Walker Bush appointee David Souter also participated in defending Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, writing that to overturn Roe would have been "a surrender to political pressure... So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question."

What's my point here? Simple. If we think for a second that electing a self-proclaimed "pro-life" president will result in the overturn of Roe v. Wade, we are ignoring history. Much of the time, the Justices appointed are in fact not pro-life enough to vote against Roe v. Wade.

Further, we are using the wrong tool for the wrong job. Again, we have the tool to end Roe if we want to end it badly enough. But.... we don't want it badly enough.

* Roe v. Wade has become nearly overwhelming "legal precedent." That is, laws are a little bit like plants in a yard. My Dearling and I, for instance, planted a very small pine tree in our front yard. Puny, really. That tree at present is over ten feet tall and has a trunk at least a foot in diameter near the base. Its roots are, plant folks say, as deep underground as the top of the tree is above ground. In short, though I could have plucked that tree up within the first few months of planting it, causing minimal damage to surrounding growth or the yard itself, to yank it out now (requiring a tractor!) would leave a gaping hole in the lawn and almost certainly kill other plants in the yard.

A law is like that. Its roots sink deeply into the legal soil, and as it comes into relationship with older and newer laws -- even begetting laws requiring it as their basis -- to tear it out means reshaping the landscape.

All sorts of newer laws -- some likely far afield from the issue of abortion directly -- have shared root systems with Roe v. Wade. Pull up Roe v. Wade and one will also yank on various other laws -- many, many of them -- which rely on for their own existence. At present, I'm not defending those laws (as a non-lawyer/non-legislator, I don't even know which laws they are). What I am doing is pointing out that the bigger a legal "tree" gets, the more unlikely it is that any Supreme Court will actually tear the tree out by its roots. Trim it, yes... and in fairness, some of the Republican appointees did trim Roe v. Wade. But that is all. And truthfully, from a legal or legislative standpoint, it is unlikely to see that "precedent" of 35 years successfully undermined.

As pointed out in the preceding point, history itself lends some credence to these assertions.

* There is an increasing sense of disbelief among my Evangelical friends regarding the sincerity of the Republican Party regarding abortion. That's a nice way of saying we're very cynical toward the McBush folk on abortion, and frankly most other things. Some of this was fostered by the transparently manipulative and fear-mongering use of gay marriage during the 2004 election. In Ohio, the Republicans used the concept of a "marriage amendment" to rally Evangelicals to vote for George Bush. It worked. This same strategy, we realized, was being used on us regarding abortion. Even Ronald Reagan, for all his pro-life rhetoric, appointed non-pro-life Justices (as noted earlier) to the Supreme Court. Perhaps he couldn't have done differently, but the end result was the same. And today, with an avowed Evangelical in office who's lied to us and committed our troops in a horribly mistaken war (while all but ignoring the actual 9/11 offenders in Afghanistan), we Christians aren't quite a naive as we used to be. At least, I sure hope we aren't.

If we still insist on being naive, perhaps a good long hard look at Dick Cheney and the effect of Atheist Leo Strauss on the Neocons' worldview is in order. Google it.

* Are we really for the Republicans because of Roe v Wade (a decision made under a Republican administration and written by Nixon appointee and life-long Republican Harry Blackmun), or are we for the Republicans because our own values are screwed up and unbiblical? Consider the present economic crisis, which though complex and rooted in many mistakes as well as downright greed, has as its central issue the "deregulation" of real estate investment done by banks. In spite of warnings from many (including Democratic nominee Barack Obama), this Republican-led deregulation allowed banks to gamble with home mortages, selling and buying them in multi-million-dollar bundles with little or no regard to what would happen if real estate markets got depressed. Well, the market did get depressed, and the loans began failing, and the banks began foreclosures and everyone -- but most poignantly the homeowners who'd naively believed their bankers -- lost big. We Evangelicals, who are supposed to be defenders of the poor, the widows, and the prisoners, are instead found supporting a party which is big on defending wealthy corporations and corporate executives while tone-deaf to the cries of the poor most damaged by deregulatory policies.

Another example. In the early 1980s I was shocked to hear Cal Thomas of the Moral Majority outline in detail why good Christians had to in biblical principle support the idea of an ever-strengthening American military. This theme continues through today, with John McCain using his own military background to claim a greater ability to protect America. Even my own candidate, Barack Obama, makes me nervous on this point, as his platform is also far more militarily-based than I find either biblical or ethical. But it falls to the Christian Right to sacralize -- make sacred -- the concept of an ever-stronger military. It makes my cynical soul wish there was a Mark Twain around to scream his "War Prayer" into the ears of these violence-in-the-name-of-gawd people.

And just how the above is pro-life escapes me... unless we're talking about American life being more precious than anyone else's, even countries who've had nothing to do with attacks made upon us. Adding the word "Christian" in front of military policies favoring more guns, more bombs, more soldiers dying and being killed seems highly dubious theologically to me. Admit, without super-spiritualizing it, that a nation needs a military. But don't sacralize it with a Jesus sticker unless you want some serious theological push-back. N. T. Wright's comments on Empire come to mind... (see end of article for a few links).

* Barack Obama will continue supporting Roe v. Wade. Yet Obama's overall policies may even lead (as one pro-life, pro-Obama site suggests) to fewer abortions than under a McCain/Palin administration which has already pledged to massively cut spending (but not from the military). Where, then, will those cuts come from? We know from experience. I watched what happened when Ronald Reagan's economic programs kicked in during the early 1980s. Our homeless neighbor programs saw an exponential rise in both individuals and -- especially -- entire families. That's how Republicans cut spending.

Further, unlike some of his Democratic predicessors (both unsucessful and successful), Senator Obama sees significant value in making abortion an issue for bridge-building. Or, to quote him directly and at length from an interview done with Relevant magazine:

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.

Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn't provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.

Strang: You’ve said you’re personally against abortion and would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions under your administration. So, as president, how would do you propose accomplishing that?

Obama: I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that’s something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think the proper role of government. So there are ways that we can make a difference, and those are going to be things I focus on when I am president.

* Finally, one more personal note here... I do think that as Christians we have to remember that a vote for a candidate is not an unqualified endorsement of that candidate. We are salt, not sugar. If we do not bring God's Word and Heart to humankind (the prophetic) and also human words and hearts to God (the priestly) we fail our role as salty preservative.

I fully expect to be a critic of President Obama and Vice President Biden, as well as obeying the Word and praying for them. But I will not view them as leaders of a Christian nation. I view any leader of America as a leader in a multi-cultural nation of thousands (millions?) of differing beliefs. My function is not to bring about a Christian America, either of the mythical past (there never was such a past) or of the mythical future (such a future will not arrive). America is a great nation, and I'm glad to be a part of the whole. But I refuse to confuse a worldly nation which will pass away when that which Eternal arrives with the Kingdom of God, which is now being established and one day will be made Eternally Manifest. Neither will I participate in a world where the "good" people are us and the "bad" people are "them" -- however "them" is defined. In God's eyes, we are all lost, yet he seeks each of us to find us. That is the truth of love.

And going beyond even my own cynicism for a moment, imagine voting for Barack Obama as an act of faith. He will not bring God's Kingdom. But he might bring a better America, and I for one certainly think he'll bring a far better America than that we've experienced these past eight years.

A brief apology at article's end... I admit fully that I am still in flux on many of these issues. I continue to try and construct (we all construct, so get over it) a biblical feminism and biblical prolife vision. The tensions involved are real even for this white male, and felt more deeply the longer I continue in the task. I claim nothing for myself but a continued and total need for the power of Christ to be made manifest in this human sarx of mine.


Links on N. T. Wright and Empire:
http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/wright.htm
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Good_Evil.htm
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/03/easters-challenge-to-empire-by.html

Getting Personal: Why this Pro-lifer is voting for Barack Obama, Part 1

A good friend sat in my room, agonizing over his indecision regarding the Presidential race. "I loath what the Republicans have done in these past eight years," he said. "And I don't expect different from McCain and Palin. BUT..."

I knew what he was going to say. But what about abortion?

Since 1977, when I began writing for Cornerstone magazine (it ceased publication in 2003 after reaching an audience which peaked at well over 200,000 readers), I wrote what probably numbered in the dozens of articles supporting the pro-life cause. Some of those articles I now regard as overly simplistic, even shrill. But most of them I'd stand by today. I do believe that human life begins at conception -- a scientific fact which apart from all rhetoric really isn't debatable -- and I also believe that Roe v. Wade was the worst Supreme Court decision of my lifetime.

But I also remember being part of a writing staff rooted in intentional Christian community (Jesus People USA), and being both participant and fascinated observer as we together educated ourselves on the history (herstory) of women. Early on, we'd written shrill attacks on feminism, quoting Phyllis Schlafly and other far-right sources. But we began reading the feminists in their own words as well, rather than through the eyes of hostile interpreters. This led us to a more nuanced view, especially as we faced the reality of women's dehumanization throughout most of world history.

Yet we remained pro-life, even as we widened our view of it. Being pro-life had to include the mother, her well-being, her need of economic aid, housing, parental training, support from the church and even (more controversially) the government. Pro-lifers who ignored these factors, focusing solely on the unborn child, were to us the pro-life movement's worst nightmare. Yet even those who did include these things left me personally increasingly restless.

Why? Because I noticed there an underlying theological assumption. Assumed was that women were to be guided by men (I'm soft pedaling my own feminism here by not stating it as strongly as I felt and feel it), to be "covered" by men in marriage and in church, to not usurp alleged "roles" which only (it was said) men should fulfill. Obligatory bible passages were cited. Obligatory interpretations (which I later discovered to be highly dubious) were overlayed onto these verses, and any women suggesting that the Bible was a feminist book with a feminist message were immediately marginalized. (This is still going on -- the Southern Baptist Convention's all-out assault on women preachers, teachers, and missionaries, serves as the most draconian large-scale example.)

I found my sensibilities unable to engage anymore with the old paradigms I'd been taught. I remained fully convinced of the Bible's authority and power. But I no longer was convinced that the usual interpretations of Paul and others were correct. Ephesians 5 was just one startlingly egalitarian passage which had been pretzel-twisted into a hierarchical tract. Once I was exposed to egalitarian/mutuality theology -- some on my own, and much through my discovery of Christians for Biblical Equality [*], I found myself able to reconsider all sorts of things.

Nor was I alone. While the early Jesus movement, from which Jesus People USA (JPUSA) drew much of its beginning theology, did emphasize male authority, JPUSA differed in one respect. We did have women in leadership roles and, perhaps influenced by the charismatic movement, had no issues with women in the pulpit. One of our own pastors was female. In marriage, our journey was slower but became more and more egalitarian just as my own journey had.

This impacts my view of abortion. It can't help but do so. I compare it to a revolution in my thinking which happened since my teen years, when I became fascinated with black history in America. I read everything from Eldridge Cleaver's Soul on Ice to Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man, and as I did so, also began reading more deeply in the surrounding history of slavery, lynchings, racist pseudo-science (such as phrenology) and the like. I even began examining my own mental furniture, discovering links between the erotic and blackness which proved one thing -- I was not untouched by racially-based symbolisms myself.

But more than anything, I realized the gulf between reading about being black -- no matter the amount of empathy -- and actually being black. This was also true of my maleness in light of the historical and contemporary realities of being female. I could, in a limited sense, come alongside an indvidual who was either black, female, or both. But I could not in the deepest existential sense know what it is like to be them.

Yet, I must do the best I know how to try, even as I confess ahead of time my almost certain failure.

This is where the pro-life issue becomes one of the most painful issues for me. And, with this part one as a lengthy prologue of sorts, or background if you will, I will next offer my much less existential reasons for backing Barack Obama (an avowed supporter of Roe v. Wade) in this upcoming election.



* Christians for Biblical Equality should not be perceived to have any opinions on the Presidential race, nor about my opinions here in the larger sense of things. They're part of my history as I thought (and continue thinking) through these issues.

First Democratic Debate Shows Candidate Strength

There have rarely been as many strong candidates for one party's presidential nomination as the Democrats have this election cycle. The MSNBC-broadcast debate between (alphabetically) Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kusinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson. Sure, the names that lead the pack, Clinton, Obama, and maybe Edwards, look to be building their lead as opposed to the rest of the field. But what surprised me -- aside from the fantastic entertainment value of Mike Gravel (and he did say some true stuff regarding "politics as usual") -- was how unified the field was. It will be interesting to see how that unity does as the campaign wears on, considering that (after all) the candidates are trying to defeat one another while not being so mean about it that they leave potential Dem voters sick of the whole thing.

For this bluechristian, I found the big plus to be their relentless focus on Bush's stubborn, ill-advised, and lethal (for Americans and Iraqis) policies in Iraq and the so-called "war on terror."

The big minus? It is unavoidable, of course, but the chest-thumping by everyone (except Kucinich and Gravel) about how they'd be so willing to be manly men about pursing lethal means in response to any "terrorism" on American soil. Even my man Obama's worst moment was the one where he, too, joined the overall fray to be sufficiently warlike to achieve manhood. I groan.

My second beef? The Dems on abortion sound like a broken record. Once again, a complete lack of imagination on their part collectively. Heck, as Feminists for Life observed recently, a technological advance that allowed a pregnant woman to very early on become "unpregnant" yet also created an artificial womb-like environment to safegard the human fetus in question would completely reshape the abortion controversy. Pro-lifers -- the ones at least that, like their pro-choice counterparts, are without imagination -- would probably refuse to recognize the fact, much as many among them also fail to realize the fact of global warming. But pro-choicers, those who (quite properly!) often also promote solar energy, wind power, and other alternatives to the nasty petroleum / carbon nexus, seem completely unable to leave their "womens' choice equals legalized infanticide" box. Come on, people! As I say, a complete failure of imagination.

My third beef? This was provoked by MSNBC's commentators blabbing after the debate. I am SICK of hearing how Hillary Clinton comes off "sharply" in comparison to the other (MALE!) candidates. We have a serious double-standard here, folks. If she was a man, who would call her "sharp"? No one. What sexist idiocy. She has to play along of course, and the MSNBC commentators graded her performance sufficiently behaved "until near the end." Look, if someone wants to compare Obama's ease, communication skills, and overall "presence" to Hillary, fair enough. I think he is a magnificent orator as well as very fast on his feet. Hillary is also quick, but without that startling -- even to someone who as a Chicagoan is somewhat used to him -- Obama articulation. But lay off the sexism. Really.

It's early. And we'll soon get a look at the Republican crew, who I suspect will take a page from the Democratic playbook to target the Dems instead of one another...

barack obama, Democratic Presidential debate, hillary clinton, evangelical liberal, blue christian, Jon Trott

Supreme Court's Ban on "Partial-Birth" Abortion: A Pro-Life Liberal's Take

Score one for the Bushites. I cannnot do anything but rejoice over the the Supreme Court's decision to ban "intact D & E" (partial birth) abortions. And to be sure, that would not have happened unless President Bush had appointed Samuel Alito, Jr., to the High Court.

I am certainly not going, however, to further praise President Bush, the Christian Right, or other forces which, though right on this issue are wrong on a spectrum of others.

Rather, I would only point out that without the pro-life issue, which properly and contextually belongs within a liberal political platform rather than that of the right, President Bush would never have been elected in the first place. We would not be fighting a fraudulent war in Iraq. We would be enjoying the presidency of the most pro-environmental voice presidential politics ever produced, that of Al Gore. We would be working on a terribly complex, but utterly worthy, set of domestic issues involving feminist concerns, poverty issues, health issues, and the liberal distinctive protecting all human life, first and especially those lives at greatest social and economic risk.

Instead, we are over and over again stuck with the right wing because they -- rather than liberals and progressives -- "get it" regarding unborn human life. They may "get it" for a web of bone-headed reasons, including a luddite worldview in which women are viewed as having "roles" they are "meant" to fulfill and other "roles" they are not allowed to participate in. They may "get it" (or think they get it) because they hate feminism and all it has to offer, seemingly being ignorant of womens' history.

But the issue for pro-lifers seems fairly simple. It is an extremely bad idea to abort unborn children, unless the life of the mother is involved. The High Court's decision makes for grim reading -- a medical description of D & E (dilation and evacuation) procedures including both the now-banned variety as well as the form still legal.

Here's the Court's description of a "standard" D & E:

After sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence. The woman is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman's cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus. The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed. See, e.g., Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 465; Planned Parenthood, supra, at 962.

The Court describes the partial birth or intact D & E this way (WARNING - very graphic content):

Intact D&E gained public notoriety when, in 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell gave a presentation describing his method of performing the operation. Dilation and Extraction 110-111. In the usual intact D&E the fetus' head lodges in the cervix, and dilation is insufficient to allow it to pass. See, e.g., ibid.; App. in No. 05-380, at 577; App. in No. 05-1382, at 74, 282. Haskell explained the next step as
follows:

" 'At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).

" 'While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

" '[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

" 'The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.' " H. R. Rep. No. 108-58, p. 3 (2003).

This is an abortion doctor's clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

" 'Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus... .

" 'The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.

" 'The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp... .

" 'He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.' " Ibid.

Dr. Haskell's approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and "the process has evolved" since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced "so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through." App. in No. 05-380, at 41; see also Carhart, supra, at 866-867, 874. Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus' skull. Carhart, supra, at 858, 881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965.

Now. What portion of the above description sounds liberal? None of it does to me. It is about the taking of a human life which is often a fully viable one outside the womb.

I sometimes feel near-rage at being stuck in a country which has so littlle political or social imagination, which insists upon functioning within the same tired dichotomies. Why must the left be pro-choice even to the extreme that they would fight fiercely for the right to kill fully viable fetuses? And why must the right -- who for once gets it right at least in the narrow sense -- be so obtuse about feminism, the radical limiting effects upon one's future a single mother experiences, the increasing lack of housing for poorer women (Lord knows our Cornerstone Shelters make us all too aware of this disconnect), the gaps in health care for very poor women and children, and on and on?

I am sure this little broadside won't help much. But I believe I am a feminist, or if you will (being male) at least "pro-feminist," while also being consistently pro-life.

Sometimes, embracing ideals that cross the invisible politically accepted lines between blue and red will bring us to a point of great pain and stress. Frankly, the older I get as a human being and a Christian, the more I think it is at that point of pain and stress where the truth of things can often be discovered. We are where the reality of human pain, caused by our political over-simplifications, is most felt. We are with the poor mothers, the dispossessed non-sharers in the so-called "American dream," the unprotected unborn, the lives not reducable to political rhetoric. We are looking into the eyes of Christ.

Or so this hopelessly self-contradictory bluechristian sees it.

technorati tags:supreme court abortion, supreme court, pro-life, pro-choice, samuel alito, pro-life liberal, pro-life feminist, pro-life progressive, partial birth abortion, D & E