US Bishops Rebuke Democrats Over Abortion

This is standing up for the Culture of Life in a very public manner:

Boston, Nov 15, 2007 (CNA).- The U.S. Bishops have issued their strongest condemnation yet of pro-abortion views with their “Faithful Citizenship” document issued yesterday. Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston also has added his disapproval of pro-abortion candidates in comments to the Boston Globe saying that the support of Catholics for these politicians “borders on scandal”.

Cardinal O’Malley voiced a sentiment that the bishops’ latest citizenship document includes, namely that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

Noting that many Catholics traditionally support Democrats, O’Malley reamed the Democratic Party for being “extremely insensitive to the church’s position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues.”

When the cardinal was asked about the many voters who support Democrats who are in favor of abortion, O’Malley said, “I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I’m concerned.”

Abortion is the central moral issue of the modern world – on it hangs all of the associated issues we catagorise as “social issues” in our political debates. If abortion is ok, then so is euthansia; if abortion is ok, then so is same-sex marriage; if abortion is ok, then so is widespread pornography; if abortion is ok, then so is pre- and extra-marital sex; if abortion is ok, then its ok to lie if its for a ‘good cause’…on and on it goes, with abortion being the barometer of our moral disintegration. On the other side of the issue, how can someone in favor of abortion argue against the death penalty? Argue against the war? Argue in favor of open borders? You can be on firm moral ground, or you can be in favor of abortion – you can’t be both.

What the Bishops are addressing here is the way in which people try to keep things in separate boxes – Democrat A is ok because of his support of Issue A and Issue B, and we’ll just ignore his pro-abortion fanaticism. This can’t be done – if you are backing a man who advocates evil because he’ll also throw you a bone on your pet cause, then you are polluting your pet cause, and dishonoring yourself into the bargain. Might as well support a gangster if he’ll throw a donation to Greenpeace.

The reason we are in such a contentious political climate is because of this fundamental disagreement – a disagreement as fundamental as that between the pro- and anti-slavery forces of the 1850’s. There is no way to bridge this gap – you are either on the side of the angels, or on the side of the wicked when it comes to this crucial issue of abortion. Tap dancing around it might make a person feel better about themselves, but the issue remains – the division is still there, and will continue to poison the debate until the matter is permanently settled one way or the other. The US Bishops are calling it as it is – anyone who by act or omission permits the unfettered action of abortion is unworthy of support, and anyone who lends such a person support is engaging in scandalous behaviour. In order to support a candidate, there must first be something in them that will aid an end to the evils of our day, with abortion as the primary evil needing to be ended.

35 thoughts on “US Bishops Rebuke Democrats Over Abortion

  1. french student November 17, 2007 / 6:09 am

    Ok, let’s endorse a candidate that wants to reduce the number of abortions in the most successful, scientifically proven way : by making contraception as widely available, in as many forms as possible. By educating young men and women on how sex works. By (gasp) giving them condoms.

    This, my friends, is the efficient way to do it. To reduce the numbers of abortions. Why do you think we get half as much abortions per 1000 women as you do?

    But of course, neither the bishops nor Mark will ever want that.

    Because it is not about morals. It is about following the taboos of a religion that was founded 2000 years before the contraceptive was invented. It is about forcing women to “Behave or go to hell”. It made sense back then. Hell it made sense till the condom waas made reliable, because it was the way to prevent STDs, or at least protect men from being infected from their wives. Does it still make sense now?

    The church took centuries to acknowledge that earth was not, in fact, flat and at the center of the universe. How long till they acknowledge that condoms, the pill, contraceptives implants, and contraception in general are more reliable ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies than putting shame of “sin” in front of an eighteen-years-old’s sex drive?

    And before you invoke a “golden age” when young ones waited to be married before they had sex, reread the first paragraphs of Romeo And Juliet : As recently as shakespeare time, the girls were getting married at Juliet’s age. Juliet is supposed to be… 13. Today, Romeo would be a statutory rapist. Do you want to come back to that?

    And of course, for those abortions that cannot be avoided, let’s not make it even more difficult for the girl. Let’s cut the red tape, since the longer she has to wait, the more serious the procedure is.

    But of course solutions are not what this is about, is it, Mark?

  2. jgwilk November 17, 2007 / 7:51 am

    No, it’s not about solutions at all, it’s about votes. Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency and not one piece of legislation was introduced to make abortion illegal. Why? Republican don’t want to lose that wedge issue. Actually, it’s sad how easily their voting based is so easily duped and led around like a bull with a nose ring.

  3. 1H8L1B5 November 17, 2007 / 8:32 am

    frog student, just because you “enlightened” Europukes want to define morality down, doesn’t mean the church should. This “get with the times” liberal mentality has destroyed many cultures worldwide; we don’t want our already-crumbling culture in America to go by the wayside.

    Mark, if one who has a sparse religious background was to consider becoming a Catholic, what would one have to do? Especially if one was headed to the U.K. for an extended period of time. Any suggestions?

  4. Jay Gaultieri November 17, 2007 / 9:05 am

    From 2002 to 2006 the Republican Party controlled the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. Nothing was done about abortion that entire time.

    The values voters have been played for chumps on this issue for 34 years.

  5. AgentFear November 17, 2007 / 9:21 am

    I don’t think ANYONE is “pro-abortion”.


    Do not confuse those who want to maintain a womans right to have freedom of choice.

    Abortion is a poor choice. Abortion is ugly and will probably mentally affect the woman for the rest of her life.

    Your rant on abortion being OK if…is quite a stretch. In fact its laughable. You could apply any of the seven deadly sins and twist them to conform to your examples.

    Abortion is abhorrent and should be the last worst choice a woman has to make.

    I for one, will not choose the womans path in making such an extreme decision. It should be solely up to her and her’ alone.

    Maybe, just maybe if we take sex and the repercussions of sex out of the dark ages we can make advances on preventing abortion.

    I can see you putting your support behind Rudy and we KNOW how he stood on the abortion issue. Does the word hypocritical come to mind?

    It’s obvious with the rise of STD”s in the U.S., the use of condoms should be reinforced, not shunned. Abstinence? Give me a break. What a waste of time, money, and effort. Can you for once get real?

    Reality? I don’t find your views very real at all.

  6. Joe November 17, 2007 / 9:33 am

    THAT is exactly what the Republicans don’t understand. Nobody is FOR abortion. People are FOR legal and safe and available if necessary.
    Why should some rich 70 year old politicians tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body?
    It is simply a wedge issue that righties love to use for votes.

  7. neocon November 17, 2007 / 10:08 am

    “Righties” are more concerned about the loss of infant life than we are about votes. I know that’s difficult for a liberal to understand. “Righties” also realize that overturning Roe V Wade would be nearly impossible considering the current SC, so we look to combatting this issue in a more effective manner, education and adoption.

    Rudys NY record on this issue was impressive, and he will appoint constructionists to the bench. That’s hardly hypocritical. It’s called a winning strategy.

    According to the state Office of Vital Statistics, total abortions performed in New York City between 1993 (just before Giuliani arrived) and 2001 (as he departed) fell from 103,997 to 86,466 — a 16.86 percent decrease. This upended a 10.32 percent increase over the course of the eight years before Giuliani, with 1985 witnessing 94,270 abortions.

  8. Casper November 17, 2007 / 10:36 am

    “According to the state Office of Vital Statistics, total abortions performed in New York City between 1993 (just before Giuliani arrived) and 2001 (as he departed) fell from 103,997 to 86,466 — a 16.86 percent decrease. This upended a 10.32 percent increase over the course of the eight years before Giuliani, with 1985 witnessing 94,270 abortions.”

    1993 to 2001. Who was president then?

  9. AgentFear November 17, 2007 / 10:44 am

    “Giuliani Tries to Clarify Abortion Stance
    Candidate Says He Is Personally Opposed but Supports Women’s Right to Choose

    By Dan Balz and Sylvia Moreno
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Saturday, May 12, 2007; Page A06

    Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday sought to quell a growing controversy over abortion that has disrupted his presidential campaign. Restating his support for abortion rights, he asked Republican voters to look beyond that issue to the totality of his platform and record.

    Giuliani called abortion “morally wrong” but said he nonetheless favors a woman’s right to choose. “I am open to seeking ways of limiting abortions, and I am open to decreasing abortions,” he told an audience at Houston Baptist University. “But I believe you have to respect their [women’s] viewpoint and give them a level of choice. I would grant women the right to make that choice.”

  10. neocon November 17, 2007 / 11:25 am


    Why does it matter who was President? Are you seriously going to try and credit Clinton with Rudys success in NY?

    This I want to see.

  11. KCJ November 17, 2007 / 11:39 am

    “From 2002 to 2006 the Republican Party controlled the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. Nothing was done about abortion that entire time.” – Jay Gautieri

    Well, there was the partial-birth abortion ban, which was passed, signed, and upheld by the Supreme Court.

  12. Casper November 17, 2007 / 12:12 pm

    “Are you seriously going to try and credit Clinton with Rudys success in NY?”

    Ah no. But it does bring up some questions. What policies did Giuliani have that lowered the abortion rate? Did his policies have anything to do with abortion at all? For that matter, can you prove that it was Giuliani’s policies rather than Clinton’s that brought about the decrease?

    I think that too often we give credit to a politician for something that happened on his watch whether he had anything to do with it or not.

  13. Jay Gaultieri November 17, 2007 / 1:19 pm

    The number of late term abortions was always miniscule—most doctors wouldn’t perform them. Other countries will provide for abortions if we don’t.

    And deep down in places you don’t like think to about you know abstinence ed doesn’t work and that the True Love Waits movement is basically a joke. It’s sad really, but that’s the truth. I know from first hand experience because I’ve had sex (using condoms) with several girls who made those vows of chastity.

  14. AgentFear November 17, 2007 / 4:16 pm

    Somehow I don’t see a time when we turn on the TV and see Ricky and Lucy sleeping in separate beds again. I don’t see Lifetime network changing its torrid programming (my wife loves that stuff). I don’t see movies at the theaters changing their violent and sexual themes. I don’t think the music industry is going to change its fair, or doing anything beyond labeling it’s music as “mature”.

    Time to step into the future boys. Sometimes it ain’t pretty. We can blame this and we can blame that, but I don’t think things are going to change much at all.

    What we CAN do is what some have mentioned here, educate, inform, counsel. If we need to provide condoms, so be it.

    Preaching abstinence is NOT going to work in todays world. Get it? The kids are too smart. Too wise for their own good. Abstinence? They laugh at you.

    No this is not the dark ages, it is the future. Step into the new world and adapt and prepare.

    The Beavers gone.

  15. lilly06 November 17, 2007 / 6:07 pm

    As a Christian myself, I believe that abortion should not be used as a contraception or for when a healthy fetus is not ‘convenient for life right now’.


    I will not judge a woman who has been raped,
    I will not judge a young teen who has been molested by a family member,
    I will not judge a woman whose going fetus has spinalbifida,

    …who have a preganancy termination.

    Abortion is not a black and white issue….it is not straight forward therefore cannot be resolved with a blanket solution.

    …I would prefer for women to exercise their right to have a termination in a clean hygenic hospital rather than in an alley somewhere because it is illegal.

    Mark I understand your point of view but you need to exercise some empathy for the thousands of women who make this decison in America every year. If you were the women I described above, it would be a very hard decision to make. The last thing you need is judgement.

  16. Psycheout November 17, 2007 / 7:06 pm

    Good for Cardinal O’Malley. He’s right. The murder of millions of innocent lives, little candles snuffed out in the abortuaries, is the most significant issue of our time. It is a tragedy, it is wholesale undignified slaughter.

    It cannot go on. We must end this night of wrong.

    Over six million American children have been murdered in this country since the start of the liberation of Iraq. You certainly can’t say that isn’t a holocaust.

  17. Jeremiah November 17, 2007 / 9:13 pm

    I agree wholeheartedly, Mark

    There are approximately 1.5 million abortions annually here in America. Since Roe V. Wade was enacted in 1973 it’s been the result of over 40,000,000, nearly 50,000,000 abortions…that means that 3 or 4 out of every 10 conceptions results in the Murder of an innocent.
    The Judges who enacted Abortion into law some 34 years ago have much blood on their hands, and will ultimately give an answer for this criminality.
    It is an insult to our humanity, for now the beligerant technocrats have ignorantly injected an insideous trespassing of the Law of Almighty God our Creator who Lovingly Willed us into existence!!
    To question the very Life that God hath ordained, is to remove our only firm basis for a civilized world!!
    May God have mercy on those Souls who commit such acts of barbarism!!


  18. Jeremiah November 17, 2007 / 9:16 pm

    Any Nation who can’t see Abortion as Murder, is a reprobate Nation!

    God help America!


  19. plainjane November 17, 2007 / 9:23 pm

    Abortion should be in the back alleys like it was in the 40s and 50s.

  20. Casper November 17, 2007 / 9:36 pm

    “There are approximately 1.5 million abortions annually here in America.”

    Do you have a link to this?

  21. winnowhead November 17, 2007 / 9:43 pm


    I look forward to your equally tortured arguments in support of Giuliani, in the likely event that he receives the GOP nomination.

  22. Jeremiah November 17, 2007 / 9:51 pm


    I presented “1.5” million as a statistic, roughly! The actual numbers are more like, 1.38.

    Here is an actual number chart for the U.S.

    U.S. Abortion Statistics!

    The clock is ticking, one unborn child is Murdered every 24 seconds!



  23. Psycheout November 17, 2007 / 10:54 pm

    Well said, Jeremiah. I think our figures agree.

  24. winnowhead November 18, 2007 / 4:10 am


    You’re not all or nothing? I’m sorry, but you just claimed that abortion is a barometer of border security. If that’s not a tortured analogy, I don’t know what is.

Comments are closed.