Catholic Ramblings

See here for an activity undertaken by a UCLA pro-life group. An excerpt of the study from the FT review:

Over the summer, The Advocate investigated the financial dealings of Planned Parenthood and made some shocking discoveries about the clinic-owning “nonprofit.” We obtained the information by having an actor call clinics across the country and pose as a donor. The actor who called, The Advocate’s advisor, communicated to them a very racist agenda—the one that Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder, had envisioned. He then asked to donate money specifically for the abortions of African-American babies in order to “lower the number of blacks in America.”

Despite his bigoted requests, no Planned Parenthood employee (or director of development, in one case) declined the tainted money. Some even asked to speak with other employees to get permission. In the first day of calling seven clinics, not a single Planned Parenthood representative expressed outrage or concern at the racism behind donations specifically “to reduce the number of blacks.” In fact, some even went as far as agreeing with the antiblack agenda.

Wow.

-j.

Fr. Neuhaus, of First Things fame, writes a review of Martha Nussbaum’s new book here. An excerpt:

Almost every word of the book’s title raises interesting questions. Is “liberty” the same thing as religious “free exercise”? Does the “free exercise” of religion mean “religious equality”? Are “conscience” and “religion” interchangeable terms? And is her account of “America’s tradition” consistent with the legal history and lived experience of our country? These are all questions very much worth debating, and on all of them Ms. Nussbaum has strong opinions that she advances with an air of great self-confidence, and at length. One wonders if the book really needs to be all of 400 pages. But then, she is covering a truly enormous territory.

-j.

Much of the commentary on the upcoming election focuses on the question of whether Catholics may in good conscious vote for Obama or Clinton (or as seems likely now, Obama). Pragmatically, questions of Roe surface, especially in the context of appointment of Supreme Court justices likely to overturn Roe. This question has acquired special significance in considering the ages of the justices, and the likelihood that at least two will retire during the term of the next president.

However, I would suggest that there is another problem for Catholics when considering whether they may in good conscious vote for Obama or Clinton. This involves preemption doctrine, and is derived from the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which states in relevant part that the “Constitution and the laws of the United States…shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

In the words of Pennsylvania v. Nelson, the question that arises when looking at Federal laws and potentially conflicting state laws is whether “they evince a congressional plan which makes it reasonable to determine that no room has been left for the States to supplement it” or in a classic phrase, the question is whether Congress has “occupied the field.”

Both Obama and Clinton have promised to make national health-care plans a cornerstone of their administration. It is not unlikely, and is indeed reasonable to assume, that contraception and abortion would both be funded in whatever health-care plan they put forward, given the support both have given to pro-choice ideologies. It is worthwhile to remember that even if Roeis overturned, that act does not make abortion illegal, but simply returns the decision to it’s pre-Roe status – that is, to the individual states to decide upon. However, if a national health care plan were to specifically provide for payment for abortion and contraception, could any individual state regulate and prevent doctors from providing either when Federal law specifically allowed for it?

-j.

An excerpt of this review:

For those endeavoring to protect traditional marriage, David Blankenhorn’s The Future of Marriage is an invaluable resource. The founder and president of the Institute for American Values, Blankenhorn is a forceful critic of the divorce culture. He analyzed the disastrous effects of fathers’ departure from the home in Fatherless America (1995). Now, he addresses same-sex marriage, thoroughly weighing the arguments on both sides. A self-identified Democrat and liberal who has frequently debated same-sex marriage advocates, Blankenhorn expresses concern—even anguish—at opposing their demands. He does so because he believes that to grant them would destroy marriage as a public institution dedicated to the production and rearing of children by their two biological parents.

-j.

On ideologies of academia, and related matters. The review of the study is here, and here is a link to the study itself.

An excerpt from the review:

During a recent Thursday-morning get-together over scrambled eggs and toast, the conversation at Kuppy’s focused on the U.S. presidential election. As usual, Mr. Woessner’s colleagues were taking shots at him. Why did he originally favor Rudy Giuliani? one of his colleagues wanted to know. “I really want to make sure I have a president who is going to bomb more countries,” Mr. Woessner quipped.