It's sad. The Republican Party has nothing to offer America but fear based upon irrational extrapolation and conjecture. Fear of The Other. Fear of change. Fear of unity. Fear of common goals. Fear of questions. Fear of equality. Fear that thinking Americans, including many life-long conservatives, are voting for Barack Obama because he is our beloved country's best hope for healing, for digging our way out of a deep neoconservative hole of intolerance, incompetence, arrogance and divisiveness.

The intelligent wing of the Republican Party will soon reject its lunatic fringe, the vocal "base" that's been showing up at the McCain-Palin rallies. Those wingnuts have sucked the life out of the Grand Old Party with their religious intolerance, rigidity, McCathyism and anti-intellectualism. The GOP will not be able to pull itself back up again while weighted down by the wingnut anchor.

Barack Obama will be an excellent president with a well-run administration. America and all Americans will prosper again after an eight-year drought under Bush. During President Obama's eight years in office, the GOP will have the chance to rid itself of the toxic far right (a devil to which the GOP sold its soul) and rebuild a new, improved brand that is not based upon fear. Let's hope the GOP does just that.

Finally, someone who sees what this election portends. Carl is happy with the prospect of the coercively utilitarian and eugenics-minded regime that stands in our future. It is not surprising that Carl should be so. Liberal Christians, Protestant or Catholic, have always embraced totalitarian socialism. In fact, it is they who have enabled its global advent.

But no Christian who values the liberty of the Church to govern her own institutions, or who values the legal protection of weak and vulnerable human life, or the social value of the natural family, can be so mindlessly, cruelly, and irreligiously sanguine. FOCA is everything that Zmirak says that it is. Its passage will be tantamount to a declaration of war against the Church.

To reduce this article of Zmirak's to Republican propagandizing is epically foolish. This is especially true given that Zmirak has been almost ruthless in his criticism of the Republicans.

I'm Barrak Obama and I approve Carl's message.

"...eight years of mismanagement, arrogance, constitutional abuse, and unjust wars..."

Yes, Mr. Zmirak, I too am relieved that America survived the clinton years. You can add two pro-culture-of-death nominees to the US Supreme Court to the offenses of clinton and those who voted for him.

The comment by Carl seems to be a canned response to any articles not supportive of Obama.

I like your second-to-last paragraph regarding immigrants. It is immigrants who built the church, and immigrants who will keep strengthening it. We should be doing what you propose anyway.

Question. In the draft of the FOCA bill on the NRLC site that you linked, it says that 1.3 million women obtained illegal abortions prior to Roe vs. Wade each year. Is that true?

We may become like the Amish. Sounds appealing right about now.

Let's remember that, no matter who wins tonight, all is not lost. The political fight must go on.

Even if it does not get this bad (I hope that it does not, although I do fear that it could), if Obama is elected it is very clear that the pro-life movement will suffer a setback. I have confidence that a new, true pro-life coalition will mobilize for the fight. What I want to know is, will all those so-called "pro-life Democrats" who voted for Obama "in spite" of his deadly platform recognize that they are not welcome in the Democratic "tent"? Will they hold their Democratic leaders to their pseudo-promises to "reduce the number of abortions"? It will be clear rather quickly that the Dems' platform is to elevate abortion, not prevent it. Will it mean the end of so-called "pro-life Democrats," or will they continue in the collosal self-delusion that they are more than just a hired vote?

John,
Good post. I think that the Church should have taken your advice years ago. We should focus our efforts on evangelization and culture. We should focus our political efforts on liberty -- supporting anyone who wants to shrink the state. Catholics are a minority in this country. We survive -- and have survived -- at the indifference of the majority. Once the majority (which is hostile) turns their attention to us, it will not be pretty.

My grandmother, infamously pessimistic, is fond of the rather trite, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I cannot support infanticide, I cannot even rationalize it. I do not understand how Sen. Obama does so – he seems an intelligent, caring man, a dedicated husband, father, and public servant. I would vote for him, if not for his endorsement of child murdering. Perhaps his motives are good. I cannot know. I only know that murdering innocents is objectively wrong – it is always wrong, in all times and in all places. How can it ever be reasonable? Moral equivocation is not a slippery slope; it is a trap-door that drops you in an instant. I am not condemning Sen. Obama nor shilling for his opponent whom I do not support. I feel utterly alienated in this race. The economy – Mammon’s playground – has taken precedence over the holocaust of children. If self-sacrifice and love are the heart of our faith and principles even secular relativist promulgate, why do abortion-on-demand and material-prosperity-as-an-end-unto-itself seem to be the only things the polity desires? Does anyone really believe in Heaven anymore? Are we so riddled with culturally-indoctrinated doubt that only this faithless world can hold our attention? We merely travel here, toil and suffer here, but this isn’t the end, the be all and end all – that is eternity with God… or without. We are ever on the road. Mr. Zmirak, your article chilled me in perspicacity.

John, very well said, thank you for this final warning, Deal

Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I continue to be unconvinced that FOCA will see the light of day any time soon. It's simply too radical - a majority of Americans want abortion legal, but most of them also want restrictions on abortion.

As Brian Saint-Paul said yesterday, and I've said elsewhere before, Obama is far too shrewd a politician to blow his political capital on something so pointless. It would gain him points only with the most radicalized elements of his base, and would alienate many of the Catholics and other former-conservatives who have rallied to his banner, thinking that somehow his socialist programs will reduce the number of abortions rather than increase them.

FOCA could well exist down the road depending on how hungry America is for the policies of a leftist administration, which, if the lines at the polls this morning are any indication, may be very hungry indeed. But unless Obama intends to exploit all those executive orders that have been created over the last decade facilitating arbitrary martial law, he's going to want a second term. And you don't ride to a second term on radicalism. He's been playing to the center since he got in this race. His characteristic style is one of restraint, not excess. I believe that he is personally frighteningly leftist, but he lacks the rabid fervor of the zealous left.

Like all politicians, he's an opportunist. I would be surprised to see him overplay his hand. FOCA will be a promise he will conveniently forget he made, and his cronies on the left will be so ecstatic about his reign that they won't call him on it.

John you are a true voice of wisdom today! Thank you.

I totally agree with your idea regarding immigrant catechesis. I often thought that this country may well, in the end, be “saved” by the “illegals.”

As a prolifer who at least tries to “fight the good fight”, I DO agree that we have to change strategy should Obama win (maybe not a bad idea even if McCain wins). The war against life will ONLY be won through the Eucharist. How else can it be, being that abortion is straight from the gates of Hell?

The comforting fact is that Jesus will ALWAYS be with us, until the end of time. Perhaps for Mary’s Immaculate heart to Triumph (which will occur when the world returns to the Eucharist), we will have to go through some very painful times. Whatever it takes, I’m in!

That said, I still predict a McCain win, won largely by the pro lifers of Western PA

My only disappointment with Mr. Zmirak's article is that it contains nothing about the bishops role in this sorry state of affairs.

In the 2004 election practicing Catholics (those who attend mass at least weekly) went 60-40 for Bush. The less frequently a person attended mass the more likely he was to vote for Kerry. That can be taken, rightly I suppose, to mean that those who are lukewarm about their faith are less likely to be influenced by its teachings.

But what does it say about the 40% who take their faith as seriously as anyone? How is it that they can rationalize choosing candidates who support abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, and, unbelievably, in this election, even infanticide?

That this percentage is so large I lay at the feet of the bishops. That 40% is made up of people who would seriously reconsider their choices if the bishops stood up and seriously challenged them. We may have gotten the leaders we deserved but we surely didn't get the ones we needed.

Let's not forget to blame the "conservatives" who have given us the wars and economic interventions which have weakened our country. They did all of this by claiming the mantle of "low taxes" and "limited government". They set the stage for the coming "redistribution of wealth".

It is interesting to note that the late L. Brent Bozell, Sr. recognized the potential impact that Catholic Mexican immigrants could have upon our country. Despite illness toward the end of his life he was devoted to the mission of catechizing these folks.

If it's another case of Obama just saying whatever he believes a certain group want to hear then who is to believe anything he has said? Not me!!

Could this article be any more extreme and radical? As we move forward attitudes like this will surely fade.

John,many thanks!

Jonathan,

If being staunchly pro-life and pro-family and persecuted for it by the Stalinist thugs (eg, Obama Youth, Obama Truth Squads, resurrected Fairness Doctrine, wealth redistribution, Bill Ayers, etc) in an Obama regime sounds "extremist" to you, then proudly call me "extremist."

Since when has the desire/opinion of a majority of Americans been the real driving force behind the actions of our federal government? Not since the 1960's or '70s, as I read history. A Democratic president with a Democratic supermajority can and will invent "mandates" to do whatever they wish.

Hi Jared,

You make a great point, but I'm not sure it directly addresses Steve's argument. Obama is no progressive messiah; he's a standard politician like any other. As such, his primary mission in life is not to pass FOCA, but to ensure his own re-election. If passing the law helps, he'll try to do it; if not, he won't.

With that in mind, if the Congress were to pass -- and Obama sign -- the FOCA, there would be such an explosion among voters (the great majority of whom do NOT support FOCA) that all the gains Democrats made with moderates this year would be for naught. The FOCA is great for rallying the Democratic primary base, but like Obama's other promises to the fringe of his party (like filibustering FISA), it will disappear once he takes office... Only to reappear as a 2012 campaign promise.

FOCA is a boon for direct mail fundraising (on both sides), but it isn't going anywhere as legislation.

Steve & Brian,

I understand you do not think FOCA will pass, and your reasons for thinking so are fairly well founded. But the truth is you don't know for sure what Obama's intentions are, and you don't know what he will do. What if it does pass?? He is, after all, one of the most liberal Senators in Congress.

I think you have a tendency to predict the future with an attitude of absolute certainty a little too often. The point is FOCA is a real danger and even if there is only a 1% chance of it passing, that 1% chance would have absolutely devastating effects on our country.

On FOCA, if Obama said he will sign it, why not believe him?

It's just reversing some of the abortion restrictions that have been put into place over the past years.

When someone tells you who they are, believe him.

The problem with being my age is that you remember too much. For example, I remember the same kind of talk in 1992, which was also supposed to be The End of Civilization as We Know It. Yet, we seemed to survive the next eight years. Some even think we did better in the 90's than in the ought's. In politics, the end of the world seems to be a quadrennial event.

That being said, one wonders why the imminent death of 4 million babies does not seem to impress the electorate at large. According to Fox News, only 5% of the voters, and only 9% of the Republicans, regard it as an important issue. Indeed, a Marist poll done for the Knights of Columbus shows that 50% of Catholics identify themselves as pro-choice. Why after such long standing and well-funded efforts to convince the public, does the public remained unconvinced? Why, by any objective standards, is the movement such a failure? Why does it not save any actual babies? I think it is time to ask these questions.

What is amazing about the failure of the right to life movement is that 84% of public, according to the Marist poll, supports some form of restrictions on abortion. While there is a clear consensus for legal abortion, there is no consensus for unrestricted abortion. Yet that is what we have. Further, we have one of the highest abortion rates in the world. Rates in Western Europe tend to be about one-fourth our rates. This tells me two things: one, there is no possibility in the near term for an actual criminalization of abortion, and; two, we can greatly bring down abortion rates.

It seems to me that the movement is not really interested in this second goal, only in the first. But only the second is doable. Hence, the movement is stuck in impotence, unable to accomplish its goals.

Or is it? Maybe its goals have little to do with abortion. What the movement has accomplished is to provide, in more normal elections, a comfortable margin for one political party. It does not gather enough support for that party to be compelled to actually do anything, but it nevertheless provides the last vote, the margin of victory, a group of people who can be counted on, with little persuasion, to vote in one way and vote reliably. I even know of one person who told me recently they would vote for a neo-nazi if he would end abortion? Hmmm.

Hence, the movement doesn't accomplish its own goals, but it does accomplish other goals: it keeps the neocons in power (up until now.) Therefore, the RTL movement doesn't save any actual babies, but it does give us unrepayable debts, unwinnable wars, and now, a possible replay of the great depression.

Given that history, it is time, I believe, for an examination of conscience on this issue. If 35 years of work have actually shrunk the base for an abortion ban, and given us more actual evils, then we need to rethink what we are doing and how we approach it. This is a painful process, and initially meets with howls of rage. Nevertheless, as adults we must begin to take responsibility for our actions. After the initial phases of anger and denial, perhaps we can move on to negotiation (reform) and acceptance, and thence to real actions that have the chance of saving real lives.

Why does the so-called Catholic press (like National Catholic Reporter) always side with the abortionists over life?

There are Tax Code Problems with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy issuing a Pastoral Letter commanding Catholics to vote Pro-Life, so our Tax Codes should be changed, but....but.

In the meantime, why doesn't the Church insist that Catholics be Catholic? For decades the Mass has been a hootenanny, the church has been "hip", and Catholics hide behind "helping the poor" to disguise their heretical disobedience to God and God's Vicars, [St.] Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict.

Catholics in name only live like swingers, use Birth Control, refuse the Gift of God's Grace in Children bestowed, deny and discourage boys' Vocations, and agitate to change God's Will to open up the PRIESTHOOD (a male noun, and a transfer from Jesus to his MALE disciples and from them to us through generations of men willing to be pure men worthy to stand in Mary's presence, just as any woman who is really a woman wants to be a female for Mary and Christ and play the role God wrote for women).

And we true Catholics have stood silently whle the "cool kids" took over our beloved church.

We need a new cleaning of money lenders from the House of God. The American Bishops need to tell the fake Catholics, "Get into God's grace or stay away until you do."

Vocations would soar, Families would grow, and until the Democrat Party stopped embracing and promoting The Culture of Death, Republican candidates would sweep to easy vitories allowing God's greatest invention, Free Market Capitalism to do its work.

The "poor" would disappear when work and individual effort are rewarded again.

"That being said, one wonders why the imminent death of 4 million babies does not seem to impress the electorate at large. According to Fox News, only 5% of the voters, and only 9% of the Republicans, regard it as an important issue."

In many ways, people's concerns mirror the major news stories of the day. When a GOP pollster asked me what election issues I was concerned about, I named our economy and foreign policy and almost forgot to mention the culture war issues.

In part, this is because the media doesn't want to cover these issues. But an outspoken candidate might be able to make them cover it.

For instance, why are we hearing about FOCA from Catholic sources, but not from McCain or Palin themselves? Their opponent has made this a priority, why haven't they pressed him on that?

For one thing, McCain's friend Joe Lieberman is a FOCA co-sponsor.

For another, perhaps they too realize it has no chance of passing.

From Catholic News Agency, see Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life on FOCA:

“Moreover, it’s so extreme, I really don’t think it would ever reach his desk, even if the Democrats increased their numbers in Congress,” Fr. Pavone said."

I have asked this question and the best answer I can get is the Catholic Church must worry about losing its Exempt Status under our Tax Laws:

Why won't the Bishops announce that one MUST vote, actively vote, Pro-life or be excommunicated and disqualified from Communion until a Full Confession is made?

Why does even Fr. Pavone have to say "here is the information, apply it." Why can't he say, "Sarah Palin lives pro-life and with her onboard, Roman Catholics have a DUTY to vote for McCain and stop the pro-Abortion, pro-death, Democrat Party."

Think of all the lives that could have been saved with a Mccain Landslide. Think of all the souls of the foolish Catholics who have a do-your-own-thing aversion to denouncing evil.

The Bishops must speak clearly and Congress must change the Tax Code to allow them to do so.

p.s. The Cafeteria Catholics will come back to the Church if we have a return to Faith and Grandeur and Worship and Obedience. They want to believe in something, too.

Kevin asks, For instance, why are we hearing about FOCA from Catholic sources, but not from McCain or Palin themselves? Their opponent has made this a priority, why haven't they pressed him on that?

Partly because it is not a concern to McCain, but mostly because it is not a concern to the voters. Again, even on such a comparatively easy issue, the RTL forces have not been able to deliver significant numbers. Undoubtedly, they focus-group or poll-tested the issue (or at least I assume they did) and found it had more negatives for them than positives. We have a losing strategy; we've had it for 35 years. At some point, you have to look at what we are doing and decide how we can do it better. In truth, we could hardly do worse.

John:

Slavery was (objectively, I think) a less evil institution than abortion.

Was it overturned in thirty-five years? No? Then does that fact necessarily represent an indictment against the stratagems of those who opposed it?

When strategies do not succeed, it is for one of two reasons: (1.) The strategy was less sound than some alternative; or, (2.) The strategy was entirely sound, but the opposing forces were so powerful that no strategy was sufficient to overcome them.

Do you remember the definition of heroism from Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird? The vision that Atticus went out to fire his rifle, knowing all along that the chamber was empty?

In this particular war, as in the days of slavery, we fight against entrenched human moral error, and thus against the fallenness of humanity; against Original Sin. Is it any wonder that thirty-five years are insufficient to overcome that?

I myself don't believe the time periods from Genesis 3:6 to John 19:30 are, in the early parts, intended to be taken literally. They could in reality represent a span of a hundred times as many years as those literally recorded in the ages of the patriarchs.

But even if St. Augustine and I are somehow wrong about that, then apparently God Himself allotted four thousand years, give or take, from the first sin to the moment He so soundly defeated sin He could say "It is finished."

And we see recorded in Scripture that even those who loved the great I AM bitched about how slow His salvation was in coming. But His way was right, and "at the right time, God sent his son, born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4).

The Right-to-Life movement is faithful. It cannot stop saying that abortion should be illegal. (The message would burn in our bones if we tried to hold it in.)

Sure, we should (and do) give charity and fellowship to the needy: A Civilization Of Love is one in which no parent fears to raise a child because he or she knows the neighbors will be there with hand-me-downs and casseroles not just the first week, but the first decade.

But the character of the RTL movement cannot change in the way you seem to offer. That is no solution, just an abandoning of one's post.

Abortion is a violent attack; government is that organization we authorize to lock up those who violently attack others; that it does not do so in the case of abortion is a human rights violation; and that is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man.

So, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. It has taken thirty-five years. I hope it will not take thirty-five hundred years. If it does, I'll bitch about it, and know that I am in good company, with the Psalmists, in doing so.

But I'll stay at my post. Come Hell or High-Court Outrages, I'll stay at my post.

Mr. Medaille,
As a self-proclaimed authority on Catholic social teaching, and as one who teaches (admittedly as an “adjunct instructor”—your real job is peddling real estate for Re/Max) at a reputedly orthodox Catholic school, the University of Dallas, in the theology department, you certainly ascribe to a deviant “Catholic” world view. You have endorsed Barack Obama (http://tinyurl.com/5es7sh) —who has promised as his “first act in office” to repeal every abortion restriction in 50 states—the very restrictions you claim the pro-life movement should be promoting. His bill, according to the Catholic bishops, would force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or close. Obama has close ties to black racialists like Jeremiah Wright, Marxist terrorists like Bill Ayers, and Palestinian supporters of terrorism like Khalid Abdul Muhammed. Curiously, elsewhere you claim to be a “monarchist.”

So let’s add all this up: You’re one of those leftist, racialist, Chestertonian monarchist pro-life Catholics who support repeal of all abortion restrictions and the closure of Catholic hospitals. Perhaps your eccentric opinions are what earned you the epithet offered by a student, “UEBER PERV."
(http://tinyurl.com/6jgk6x)

As a Dallas resident, I know what our local bishop (also Grand Chancellor of your University) teachers about Catholics of your stripe. (http://tinyurl.com/5vbghj) Are he and the head of your theology department aware of your public dissent? Do you have a mandatum—the license to teach Catholic theology required by the Vatican, for which you must swear to uphold Church teaching. If so, they must be as easy to obtain as annulments.

It is November 5 and it is over --- Mr. Obama won the election. I have never been so disappointed in the United States.

This election was about Race --- and the promises of lower taxes for 95% of the people --- stealing from the so-called rich and giving to the less fortunate --- or to say those who do not want to work. Very few people cared about Moral Values -- Experience.

I am far from being the best Catholic --- but I am trying to do my best. I voted for George Bush because of Moral Values --- he was against abortion. I voted for John McCain because of the most important issue --- John Mc Cain is pro-life. Second reason he was more experienced.

Again, for the first time in my life, I am not proud of this Country. I can't even say my Country.

R.C., you can certainly blame our failures on the other guy, but that is a bit like saying, "We would have won the game if only the other team would have left the field." It's not merely that we have failed, but we have actually moved backwards. The whole effort has been counter-productive. Yes, abortion ought to be illegal. But that's not a possibility at this point. What is a possibility is actually reducing the abnormally high rate of abortions. And beyond that, reducing the rate of contraception and increasing the regard for life as an end in itself.

Reducing the rate of abortions is a real possibility, and ought to be a real goal. As I point out, Western Europe has a rate 25% what ours is. So we have to ask, is our goal merely legal or is it material. Do we just want a law or do we actually want to save lives?

This is not comparable to waiting for the second coming or eradicating original sin. The coming is not under our control and original sin is just part of fallen nature. You can (and should) compare the issue to slavery, and when we do so we see that the anti-slavery movement built a national and international consensus condemning slavery, so that when the moment of crises came, there were armies to oppose it. We have not done this; in fact, we have done the opposite: we have shrunk our armies done to a few dispirited companies. Our movements have been retrograde.

What is at issue is not an argument about ultimate goals, but proximate ones. We serve God not in the purity of our ultimate goals, but in the selection of means to reach those goals. Those who justify themselves purely in terms of the purity of their goals fail to serve God or save children. It would be rather an odd if the purity of your ultimate goals means that there can be no debate on proximate ends and tactics.

The refusal to debate the means (a requirement, by the way, under the virtue of prudence) leads to posts like Eleanor's, which do not engage the issues, but rather shift to mere personal attack and unsupported charges. Eleanor, if you can find a single instance where I have violated Church Teaching, I will immediately resign my position. I have been vetted by the Chair of the Department, one of the most orthodox and faithful Catholics of my acquaintance. But apparently you think your judgment is better than his. That leads me to ask what your qualifications are for making such a judgment?

I am fully aware of the Bishops' letter and also of the Instruction of the American Bishops' conference. And the teaching clearly supports my actions. We were presented with the choice of two abortionists; in such cases, we may make our decision on the basis of their conformity to other social issues. You are entitled to give your own interpretation of how to implement the teaching. But what you cannot do is elevate EST (Eleanor's Social Teaching) over CST (Catholic Social Teaching); you cannot declare your interpretation sovereign and judge others on that basis. The implementation of CST is open to debate; the teaching itself is not.

As for my student ratings, we survey every class after completion of the course for comments and ratings; I am proud of the consistently high ratings and good comments that my students give me, and I will be happy to share them with you, since this seems to be something that has vexed your peace of mind.

But I have an even better idea, since you seem to be from the Dallas area. Why don't you just enroll in my class? Then you can directly report all of my supposed violations of Catholic Orthodoxy directly to the Bishop on your own testimony. You can give your own rating, based on actual evidence.

Catholic Girl,

I agree with you; I'm deeply saddened and disappointed too. The sense of betrayal I feel from my Catholic brethren is palpable. It is still our country though. Remember, Our Lady under her title of the Immaculate Conception is the patroness of the USA. Also, Our Lady of Guadalupe is the patroness of the Americas. We need to pray, pray, pray for our country like we've never done before.

John:

Thanks for your reply.

It seems to me that I can't evaluate the truth or falsehood of what you say without better understanding what you say.

You seemed to be excoriating the RTL movement for insisting that the unborn have a right to life. But now I get the sense that you don't do so, and that you make some claim to orthodoxy.

You also apparently envision some alternative strategy to that which the RTL movement is using. I had thought, on the basis of your previous posts, that your strategy could be summed up as: "Stop loudly insisting that the unborn have a right to live, and instead use tax money to provide single mothers with generous handouts; and, stop voting only for pro-life candidates, and instead vote for some pro-choice candidates, too."

As such a strategy can be best summed up as "giving up the whole fight, for politeness' sake," I rejected it. Getting arrested in an abortion-clinic sit-in is less counterproductive, and has the benefit of not also being cowardly! ...and I wonder if your dislike for such methods isn't more a distaste for the down-in-the-trenches nature of them.

But perhaps your alternative strategy is something else? If so, spell it out and I'll consider it.

And, perhaps your alternative strategy is not mutually exclusive with insisting on the truth and voting our conscience? That, were it the case, would commend it all the more.

I worry, though, that your alternative is in reality just a wishing for the issue to go away, to focus on more tractable problems. If so, I must reject it, for wishful thinking does not a strategy make. I am certain that the U.S. had more tractable problems than slavery, too, in the 1840's and 1850's. But some evils just don't admit the option of circumvention.

As for Europe, I can think of several reasons why they (a.) may not be a useful model for comparison, or (b.) the methods by which they achieve such numbers might be morally inadmissible. Also, (c.) some European states have much tighter restrictions on abortion than the U.S., and (d.) I guess you're not including Eastern Europe and Russia in that, are you?

But more comment than that requires clarification on your part. You say, "time to change strategy"; fine...to what? Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives, and we'll see whether I decline.

R.C. says You seemed to be excoriating the RTL movement for insisting that the unborn have a right to life.

Where do I say such a thing? In this post or any other of my writings? You don't point to any specific quotation, so I am at a loss to know what you mean. As I did insist, it is not an argument about ends, but about means. And those who engage in the battle for the Kingdom do indeed need to debate means. So I am at a loss here about how to respond to something I manifestly did not say.

And I have no distaste for those who stand in front of abortion clinics and pray, and expose themselves to arrest and persecution. On the contrary, I assert positively that they do more than the political movement has ever done. They may actually save a life, may actually convert a heart. They are doers of the Word; they are not just hearers but heroes. But the political movement has done the opposite: it has not saved any lives and has actually moved the public away from our position. When you find yourself going backwards, it is prudent to consider how you can turn around.

And I think you give up far too easily on actually saving lives. Is the Western European experience different? Well, since all experiences are different, I suppose so. But are there no comparisons to be made, no lessons to be learned, no techniques we can use? Why surrender so easily and not only without a fight, but without studying those you have made some progress in the fight?

I also notice that the question seems to be connected to a certain economic Austrianism. Now, there is reason to connect economics and life, because, as St. Thomas says, the practice of virtue depends on a certain material sufficiency. But why Austrianism, which is individualistic and rooted in Bentham's hedonism? Why not in the older, pre-enlightenment moral code, as expressed by Leo, Pius, John, John Paul, and Benedict?

I notice here a certain definition of "Orthodoxy" that I never met in my study of Catholic doctrine. If you want to actually save lives, you are unorthodox; if you reject Mises in favor of John Paul, you are unorthodox. Well, I want to actually save lives and I reject Mises; if someone wants to report me to the Bishop for this, they are welcome to do so.

R. C., I forgot to answer you last (and most important) question.
For the answer, see:
http://tinyurl.com/5wsq26
and

http://tinyurl.com/6apyh8

John Z. wrote:

"Let us turn ...to the care of souls, and focus our efforts on the propaganda fidei -- the propagation of the Faith."

Absolutely. Though I admit that secession interests me too.

Medaille,
YOU VOTED FOR OBAMA! You have NO credibility to discuss the Pro-Life cause or ANYTHING Catholic! You have disgraced yourself.

In your own words (http://tinyurl.com/5es7sh):

“In the interest of full disclosure, I must say that I am adding my name to the list of defectors. To the chagrin of many of my conservative, Catholic friends, I am voting—have already voted—for Barrack Obama. Since in the current crises, the Republican Party has little to offer the country, voting for Obama can do little harm, and may do much good.”

Elanor discovers what I made no attempt to hide. While we may applaud her investigative skills, we must also note that she makes judgments about who may comment that she is not authorized to make. But no matter. We will simply follow Christ's command: By that judgment that you judge others, you shall be judged.

So may I ask, "How many baby-murderers did you vote for?" For McCain, who supported abortion up until this campaign and still supports embryonic stem-cell research? For Reagan, who before Roe v. Wade supported and signed the first or second permissive abortion in the United States (back then, it was standard libertarian-Republican rhetoric to support abortion as "getting the gov't off our backs and out of the bedroom!") Reagan only became a convert when he saw how powerful the issue was with a particular group. Did you vote for Dole, who supported abortion and declared the Party a "big-tent" to accommodate both the Eleanor's and their opposites? Granted, Dole had a problem. The NRLC had alienated so many voters that what was once a large faction had been reduced to a small but important rump group within the party. Did you vote for Cheney, the old-time Republican who still wants the gov't "out of the bedroom?"

Catholic teaching is clear here, even if it conflicts with Eleanor's teaching: if both candidates support an intrinsic evil, you may decide on other grounds. Oddly enough, I am going to follow the Church in this matter, rather than Pope Eleanor. Its not that I don't hold her in high regard, its just that I suspect that she might have enough blood on her hands that she should confine her judgments to the person she meets in the mirror.

Great article, John. I would like to expand a little on what Sam implied - with what is going on now in our country, I fear that worse may be coming. When we ignore the most fundamental God-given right, that of life, we will be opening the door to losing all our rights. I have been thinking lately about historical parallels - certainly the Old Testament Israelite society is a parallel of our own. However, there is a society that is a bit closer to our own temporally that mirrors our own problems and issues - Weimar Germany of the 20's. And we all know who came to power when that collapsed. Is this a real possibility to anyone else? Pope John Paul II warned the West about this issue many years ago. A free society that loses its moral compass tends to end in dictatorship.

John Médaille, the Church teaching is that if the candidates support the intrinsic evil equally, only then could they consider other grounds. It is most certainly clear who supports this evil more. The man clearly does not know the difference between serving the people and killing the people. It is above his pay-grade to know the difference, from what he says. The other pro-life issues that you have listed are not morally equivalent to that of the primary right to live in the first place. Obama also happens to favor more than one of these intrinsically grave evils. Many people have been abusing the "Faithful Citizenship" guide, and the bishops have clarified what exactly this guide meant. If you don't like McCain (I certainly don't like him) there were other choices. I 'd be careful about accusing others of declaring themselves pope while you ignore (and mislead others against) the Church teachings made by the bishops in conjunction with THE pope. I suspect that you are in league with Joe H, and put your political party before God. You can continue working towards changing the parties for the better, but this does not mean playing a game of gambling on matters so grave.

Ken, I cannot agree with your interpretation of the Bishop's document, but perhaps you can point me to the paragraph that supports your position; on my own I cannot find it. Para 36 does allow the relatvising of the intrinsic evil, but does not require it. Beyond that, the document--and constant Church teaching--encourages a consideration of the entirety of Catholic Social Teaching under the rubric of Benedict's Eucharistic consistency. The document insists that Catholics are not single issue voters, even if a single issue involving intrinsic evils can disqualify a candidate. The problem comes in when intrinsic evils disqualify both candidates.

That is the situation today, and it tends to be the situation in most elections. You can make a reasonable argument that a third party choice is therefore dictated, and I believed that through most of my life. I no longer accept that. For all intents and purposes, America has a two-party system. I voted 3rd party in 2000, and got as a result a host of intrinsic evils: war, torture, stem-cell research, an economic system that actively denies the dignity of the person, incredible debt, etc. To the extent that I refused to participate, I bear some responsibility for these things.

Not this time.

Abortion has been the devil's greatest political victory because it has allowed him to play both ends against the middle. The majority of people vote for the intrinsic evil of abortion, and the rest use abortion as an excuse to vote for a host of other intrinsic evils.

What is amazing is that you can't even discuss these issues without having someone shout at you in boldface. And what can't be discussed leads to disgust, and indeed the public is disgusted with us. Even in a deep red state like South Dakota, limitations on abortion are defeated by landslide margins.

Forty years of failure are enough. We have refused the virtue of prudence. But prudence is the mother of all virtues, so that to reject prudence is to reject all virtues.

John Médaille, that was not my interpretation of the document. The interpretation came directly from the bishops themselves. Also, you do not seem to recognize what it means by intrinsically grave evil. These matters have been discussed for months. I have to accept that many choose to follow their own path.

Ken, you tell me this is the bishop's interpretation, but you don't tell me where to find this interpretation. I pointed directly to the paragraph I thought addressed the issue. Which paragraph are you pointing to?

My "own" path, as you call it, is constant Church teaching, and intrinsic evils are fairly well defined by the Church, not by me, and not by you.

But aside from that, there is the issue of effectiveness. Tuesday, in one of the deepest-red states in the nation, a rather mild set of limitations on abortion were defeated by 11 points. It is clear that the movement can't even speak to dyed-in-the-wool Republicans. Something needs to change.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." From the Declaration of Independence by the Thirteen United States of America from the Kingdom of Great Britain

We have the right, we need only be mindful of it and hold it dear.

John M, many bishops across the nation have issued clarifications to the guide. They did this because many people were misusing the document for their own purposes, some unknowingly and others deliberately. You have previously acknowledged these statements, now you are pretending to be ignorant of such. Yes I am going by the definition of intrinsic evils according to the Catholic Church. I have not defined it any other way. You show in your posts that you do not know what they are. By your own admission you are a defector of the Catholic Church and its teachings.

It is true that more needs to be done. Proper catechesis is one. I agree with Eleanor in that it does no good when we have catechists deliberately misteaching the Catholic faith and morals.

I wonder if you and others would feel differently if instead of innocent unborn children being murdered, it was legal to murder children between the ages of say 14 and 15 for any reason. Would you and others still blindly support a man so entrenched in such evil, in addition to his support of other non-negotiables, for the sake of his promises to better your quality of life? Don't bother to respond. I am just wasting my time with you. Just remember that God is not done with you and the rest of us, for better or for worse.

Ken,
John Medaille is a cyber troll who stalks John Zmirak and other renown writers throughout the cybersphere. He is banned on other sites for hijacking threads like this one in order to mount his soapboxes before an audience he could never assemble on his own. He presumes on the Christian charity of both writers and commenters to "instruct the ignorant" as a way to engage them, only to bloviate about his heretical views, which are always off-point and intractable, impervious to reason or argument, and often abusive. Barring a (merciful!) ban on this site, it is best to ignore him. In other words: DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

The overriding theme of doom in this article is deeply disturbing. Abortion is currently on the decrease yet this trend is ignored and the worst case scenario for pro life advocates is assumed. Are not we first a Church of hope not fear? An examination of the history of the Supreme Court testifies to the fact that judges are in the habit of being very independent of those who appoint them. Again imagining a worst case outcome at SCOTUS is unbalanced. Equally unsettling is the notion of immigration as a sympathetic cause only if it produces an enlarged pro-life voting block. Aren't the bishops rightly calling us as Christians to a brother's keepers view on immigration. To immigation as a moral issue on to itself before consideration of it's effect on other causes? This election, it seems to me, has led many a sincere Catholic to a Faustain dilemma, and I don't make reference to just one of our political parties but two.

Here's the thing, pro-life people. You have to get along with one another if you expect the movement to be able to accomplish anything. In-fighting will do nothing to advance the cause. You're asking Americans to respect life, so why not try showing a tiny little bit of that respect for one another? We're all we've got. Now grow up and get moving.