Yesterday, Kansas voters had the chance to declare that abortion isn't constitutionally protected in their state. They declined.
In a recent discussion, I remarked that my ability to foretell future events is decidedly modest. Nobody strenuously (or even mildly) disagreed. But in the spirit of even a stopped clock being right twice a day, I'd like to point out a spasm of oracular competence I experienced a few weeks ago.
At the end of June, just a few days after the Dobbs decision was officially announced, I had worked as an election judge in Illinois' primary election. In Illinois, a primary voter walks up to the judges and requests a Democratic or Republican ballot. That day, I observed that women were requesting Democratic ballots by lopsided majorities. Having a bit of time that day to ponder tea leaves, I concluded that the Dobbs decision had motivated women to vote Democratic, and predicted that the widely-expected "Red Wave" won't materialize this fall: even if Republicans manage to recapture the US House, their new majority will fall short of overwhelming.
Events in Kansas yesterday may lend some indirect support for my prediction. Kansas held its primary election yesterday. On the ballot was a measure for voters to amend Kansas's constitution to clarify that there is no state constitutional right to an abortion. Pro-life activists pursued this amendment because, a few years ago, the Kansas Supreme Court had ruled that the state constitution conferred that right; and on the strength of that ruling, state courts had subsequently blocked attempts to further restrict abortions in Kansas.
Leading up to the election, polling had indicated that the Yes vote (clarifying that the Kansas state constitution does not include the right to an abortion) was leading, but the vote would be close. But the actual voting results went in the other direction, and were anything but close: the Yes's were shellacked by a margin of 59% to 41%.
I don't know whether anyone here claims to be knowledgeable about Kansas politics, but like many outsiders, I would have expected such a ballot initiative to succeed, because Kansas is generally perceived by outsiders like me as being a red state.
This NY Times graphic of voting results by county shows a Kansan sea of Yes votes (voting to amend the constitution in a pro-life direction), interspersed with a few islands of No votes in counties in the Wichita, Topeka and Kansas City areas, including the college towns of Lawrence and Manhattan. But support for abortion in those urban and college areas was enough to swamp the rural and small-town counties.
Catholic dioceses in Kansas are reported to have supported a Yes vote, so this result will be perceived as a rebuke of the church.
A few miscellaneous thoughts:
- Kansas probably isn't dyed as red as we outsiders perceive. Its current governor is Democratic; I am told this isn't unusual
- Pro-life advocates did not articulate an alternative to the status quo. Their story to Kansas voters was, 'First, amend the constitution. Then we'll propose some new legislation. But we won't tell you now what that legislation will consist of.' Thus, voters were left to choose between a well-defined status quo (consisting of abortion being legal through 22 weeks past the mom's most recent menstruation) and an undefined future. Surely voters feared (and pro-choice advocates would have been happy to fan the flames of fear) that, once freed of constitutional restrictions, pro-life advocates would propose hyper-restrictive laws with draconian punishments
- Pro-life advocates have a lot of work to do to establish credibility and trust among the electorate
- Pre-election polling has been subject to much criticism in recent years, but the poll cited above was way off. It leads me to wonder whether some voters may have been confused by the proposition: as the initiative was worded, voting Yes amounted to a vote against abortion, while voting No amounted to a vote for abortion to continue as a Constitutional right.
I read that the wording was written by the pro- life lobby to try to get more votes for their side - by deliberately being misleading and creating confusion. Interesting outcome. It seems to again show the urban- rural divide that is characteristic of red and blue voting patterns. It’s been kicked to the states. What next? Different laws for different counties?
ReplyDeleteP.S. Several commentators have said that the attempt to confuse pro- choice voters into voting anti- choice backfired on them. There were stories about the wording before the vote and apparently voters read carefully.
DeleteConfusion is a bipartisan affair. If pro-choicers would have been confused, then pro-lifers would have been at least as confused.
DeleteBut I can easily believe that pro-life advocates outsmarted themselves with the ballot wording. And they got their clocks cleaned. I hope it serves as a wake-up call to them. Slapdash and half-*ssed is no way to go about politics, or anything else in life, but in this Trump era, it's sort of the essence of conservativism. Remember when conservatives were respected and feared for their single-mindedness and discipline? Those days are long-gone.
I think the re-labeling of pro-life as "forced birth" had an effect. I don't like it, but I didn't like the labeling of pro-choice as "baby-killers" either. Maybe both sides could lose the labels and actually try to reach some common ground on what they could live with.
DeleteI use pro- choice and anti- choice because that is accurate as applied to the single issue of abortion. Some believe that the woman should have the right to choose abortion and others don’t believe that she should be given that choice. The anti- choice people are very often NOT pro- life when considering issues besides abortion. Although I don’t use the term « forced birth» the fact remains - by eliminating a woman’s right to choose abortion, the effect is to force her to give birth.
DeleteI don’t know much about Kansas except that it’s a deep red state. With blue pockets. However, I did drive through it once from east to west on I70 on one of my five cross- country roadtrips. It was in August and very hot. I don’t mean to dis the state, but after 6 hours of flatness as far as the eye could see in every direction, and almost no signs of human beings ( only crops) once past Kansas City, i felt like Dorothy when she first glimpsed Oz as the Rockies in eastern Colorado appeared in the distance. It was like seeing a mirage. A miracle. We would not actually be trapped in the endless empty flatlands forever!
ReplyDeleteI haven't spent much time in Kansas since college days. I attended my freshman year at Marymount in Salina. At that time Kansas was "purple". It was Vietnam era, and the mood on campus was very anti-war. But Salina is about 30 miles from Fort Riley, which is an army base. A lot of the girls dated Ft. Riley guys. So a very mixed atmosphere.
DeleteAnd yeah, Kansas is very flat!
I see that we drove right past Salina - an exit from I70. Don’t remember seeing any signs of civilization from the road, but that trip was 20 years ago. I’ve actually done 6 trips cross- country, not 5. I planned our route to avoid driving all through Kansas on the other 5 trips :)
DeleteSalina wasn't a bad town, I think it had about 50,000 population back then. Which was large enough to have some amenities and shopping. There was also another college in town, Kansas Wesleyan. Unfortunately Marymount no longer exists, it met the fate in the 1980s of a lot of small private liberal arts colleges.
DeleteI had transferred my sophomore year, to one of the colleges in the state university system; less expensive and closer to home. And closer to K, whom I was dating.
I used to have a remedy for traveling through flat states. Going a hundred miles per hour. Stopped that practice when I became eco woke.
DeleteStanley, the road had little traffic.At one point my speed had crept up to 90 and I hadn’t even realized it. Flat nothing all around, no or few cars. So I was surprised when a car passed me - on the right - and it was a police car. He must have been going 100. He wasn’t chasing anyone as far as we could tell.
DeleteI think your analysis hits the crux of the biscuit, particularly the trust issue.
ReplyDeleteI would trust pro-life doctors and nurses to devise a set of humane rules that restrict abortions based on medical info and understanding of the needs of women.
I do not trust the clergy or laity of any particular denomination or creed preoccupied with their specific notions of sin and damnation to make humane abortion law for all.
Nor would I trust state legislators preoccupied with reelection to make abortion rules without serious and lengthy discussions with medical professionals.
The setup in Kansas was, Give all your power to us and we'll make the rules we like for you.
Nobody, Dem or GOP, in their right mind would buy a used car under those circumstances.
A couple of weeks ago, Peter Steinfels wrote an article somewhere, begging the Catholic bishops to interject a modicum of wisdom and prudence into the burgeoning trend of post-Dobbs overreach on the part of giddy pro-life activists. I haven't seen anything in the interim to convince me the need isn't still urgent.
DeleteI'm all for bishops interjecting wisdom and prudence into any issue. I'll go over and see what Peter Steinfels has to say. But I don't sense that the bishops have acted giddy or encouraged legislative excesses. To the contrary, they seem to have kept silent except to emphasize occasionally that being prolife means embracing life at all stages, supporting women and families, etc etc.
DeleteIstm that bishops have mostly left the ground work to lay people who work in problem pregnancy centers.
And it's exactly in those centers where anti-abortion groups have eroded trust. Many of these groups have for years deliberately attracted the "abortion minded" by doing everything but posing as abortion clinics and then used high pressure tactics to dissuade women from having an abortion.
I don't want to single out Catholics here. I used to drop off donations once in awhile to a center in my area. It was staffed mostly by evangelicals. I don't know if they are in operation anymore because I stopped helping them when I felt they had become more coercive than supportive. The St. Vincent store was happy to take things instead. They will go to women who have already decided to have their babies.
Bishops, priests, and Catholics generally, might want to examine what they've been supporting in terms of anti-abortion warfare in the trenches for the past 50 years and whether those tactics have done/will do more harm than good in this new landscape.
Peter Steinfels' article is on the America site: americamagazine.org/politics-society/2022/07/11/abortion-dobbs-bishops-243326
DeleteThanks, Katherine. It's a good essay. How and whether the bishops can detach lay Catholics who have worked with less mercy-minded Protestants remains to be seen.
DeleteI am not surprised by the Kansas vote. There is much support even in Red States, for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the health of mother. When it comes to these cases there is not that much difference between those for and against abortion. People are not as polarized as we think.
ReplyDeleteAbortion has been used to raise money and get out the vote on both sides of the issue. Of course, we had the long fight over getting the Supreme Court to revoke its decision on Roe and return action on abortion to the states. Other than the symbol ability to say that the right to an abortion no longer exists, how much practical effect Dobbs will have in the long run remains to be seen. It will probably just change all the fund raising and getting out to vote to the state level.
I don't think it will change the minds of many people on abortion. While we have had major changes in this country about attitudes on guy marriage over the years, there has not been much change in attitudes toward abortion. Short of changing attitudes, I don't think abortion policies will make much real change. Where there is a will, there is a way.
I don't know if you are right about the intensity of polarization, but I think you are right that polarization has been good for fundraising and spurring one-issue voters.
DeleteI am happy that Kansas women did not cede control of the issue to their Legislature, which is 72 percent Boomer, 92 percent white, and in which Republicans outnumber Democrats nearly 2-1. If you're looking for a demographic to come up with humane abortion restrictions in a way that understands women across the socio-economic spectrum, that ain't it.
ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/state-legislator-demographics.aspx
Otoh, I wanted to slap every man cheering at the ballot proposal defeat party. The only reason I can see for a man to cheer over guaranteed abortion rights is that it allows him to worm out of responsibility for the consequences of his actions.
Sorry, sb 72 percent male and 68 percent Boomer.
DeleteAn article by Charles Camosy in America; Abortion win in Kansas was a wake-up call for the pro-life movement
ReplyDeletehttps://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2022/08/03/kansas-abortion-vote-243472
First, he slings mud at his opponents, following the first rule in this game, portray your opponents as being very scheming:
Abortion activists knew that, when Roe and Casey fell, they needed to be ready to strike a blow in an attempt to galvanize public opinion against prenatal justice. Unlike the ballot measure in Louisiana, the referendum in Kansas was nationalized, and abortion activist money from around the country provided the resources to flood the state with advertisements and get-out-the-vote campaigns.
Given that game plan used by abortion activists in Kansas was previously used to dishonestly undermine Ireland’s beautiful constitutional tradition in favor of prenatal justice a decade ago, it is puzzling why pro-life activists have seemed so unready for its execution.
Then he admits that there is a real problem:
But pro-lifers must face something else: This is about more than just losing out to dishonest folks with more money and a better ground game. It is also about the fact that abortion bans in the early first trimester (which may indeed have come to Kansas if the ballot measure passed) are simply unpopular, with about six in 10 supporting legal abortion at that stage of a pregnancy. On the other hand, decade in and decade out, Gallup finds that about seven in 10 Americans want abortion banned after 12 weeks.
With a certain amount of state-by-state flexibility, this is where pro-lifers need to live in terms of the legislation we propose and support. Furthermore, we need to make our model legislation absolutely clear—one million percent clear—that physicians can do whatever is necessary to save the mother’s life. Period.
Anti-abortion proponents need to honestly recognize that their opponents are not baby killers, but people who honestly believe that that in the earliest months of pregnancy they are dealing with a fetus not a person. On the other hand, most people have concluded that after several months of pregnancy there is an unborn person that should have some legal rights.
If the state is going to intervene in this medical process, many people are going to be opposed if it does so either too early or too late in the pregnancy, especially if it does not leave physicians much discretion. After all this is a medical procedure, we should not eliminate physician expertise from the equation.
The article is of shockingly low quality, as noted in many of the comments. Not only does he lean on mud slinging hyperbole, many of the things he says are factually wrong. It’s hard to believe that he is an academic, and that he teaches at Fordham. BTW, during the earliest weeks of pregnancy the correct term is embryo, not fetus.
ReplyDeleteI had seen that Camosy article, but I wasn't sure what to make of some of his charges about lies coming from the pro-choice side (although I don't find it difficult to believe).
ReplyDeleteHe's an interesting cat. He used to comment a little bit at dotCommonweal - I think he may have been one of Cathleen Kaveny's students at Notre Dame.
Here is an article that resonated with me: https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/church-teaching-dignity-women-changed-my-mind-about-criminalizing-abortion
ReplyDeleteThe crux of the matter could be summarized in these quotes:
"... the issue of law and abortion should properly be considered in Catholic thought as a clash of absolutes: the absolute of the right to life and the absolute of the right to self-determination before God by any pregnant woman.." and the author's words: "...I have never doubted the right to life of the fetus. But two implications of the dignity of women have been especially formative in expanding my understanding of the range of values at stake in matters of law and abortion: women's full moral agency and their right to bodily integrity."
A few weeks back it was announced that three women had been appointed to Vatican dicasteries, and will make decisions and have input on the selections of bishops. I guess that's nice and everything. But it would be way more meaningful if the PTB in the church would pay more attention to women's rights to moral agency and bodily integrity.
He also notes that Catholics have relied too much on the law. Overturning Roe was certainly the focus of Marches for Life and other anti abortion campaigns the local parish here was geeked up about. Services for pregnant women not so much.
ReplyDeleteThe pro-life movement needs to make a case for what it has done in the last 50 years to help women in the way of maternal health care, adoption services, child care assistance, spiritual care after an abortion, etc.
Otherwise, how can anyone feel assured that pro lifers are here to help rather than pass punishment laws punish?
Overturning Roe was certainly the focus of Marches for Life and other anti abortion campaigns the local parish here was geeked up about. Services for pregnant women not so much.
ReplyDeleteThis was one of the major reasons I moved from being a dues paying member of National Right to Life to my current reluctantly pro- choice position. Later I also became concerned with the issue of freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and not trying to impose the religious beliefs of some on all.
But lack of RTL willingness to support candidates who would work to truly help women facing a pregnancy that could push her into poverty, or into worse poverty, was a big disillusionment with the entire movement. I saw little to no practical support at the parish level either. Baby bottle collections aren’t even a drop in the bucket compared to need. The parishes I belonged to were far more interested in spending money on beautifying the church than on helping pregnant woman in need. The new marble altar, carved in Italy of the finest marble must have cost a fortune. The hand carved chairs that looked like small thrones on the altar of our 1960s era modern church. They looked absurd. Other lavish expenditures on things instead of on helping people.
Life is complex; we must be wary of stereotyping pro-life and pro-choice people.
ReplyDeleteA couple that is now in their seventies had two children, a boy and a girl. He was successful working class, drove big trucks, and had a lawn mowing service; she was a school teacher. Both have pensions in addition to social security.
Their son got his wife pregnant (I don’t know if they were married yet). They were inclined to have an abortion, his parents talked them out of it. They also stood by their son as his first marriage dissolved, an infatuation with a drug using woman followed, eventually followed by a second successful marriage (however no children to that marriage).
His son is now a very successful contract foreman. Their grandson has gotten married; he now has two young children. A lot of baby sitting by the great grandmother.
Their daughter died suddenly in her late twenties of a rare medical condition. As with such families, they never really recover. So, it has been a long journey for them resulting in one son, one grandson, and two great grandchildren- more like a Chinese one child family
Besides being pro-life in their own family, she is a board member and strong supporter of a local non-denominational home for unwed pregnant women. While this is now supported by our local parish, it took a long while to get there.
He is Republican and a big Trump supporter. Very big on guns; has this fear of being invaded by a foreign government or having our government confiscate guns.
Both are Catholic, but he does not attend church. He is a strong supporter of the American Bishops. I doubt if they would be pleased.
While he got both his vaccine shots; she refused because she believes the garbage about vaccines containing implants that can control you. Their beliefs fit the pattern of working-class people who have had little exposure to higher education and highly educated people. Most of their friends have not gone to college.
Let's not stereotype working class people, either.
DeleteA New York Times analysis of the Kansas data suggested that partisan turnout explained the results
ReplyDeleteIf there’s any rule about partisan turnout in American politics, it’s that registered Republicans turn out at higher rates than registered Democrats.
While the Kansas figures are still preliminary, it appears that registered Democrats were likelier to vote than registered Republicans.
The Democratic tally amounted to 56 percent of the number of registered Democrats in the state, while the number of Republican primary voters was 53 percent of the number of registered Republicans.
The superior Democratic turnout helps explain why the result was less favorable for abortion opponents than expected. And it confirms that Democrats are now far more energized on the abortion issue, reversing a pattern from recent elections. It may even raise Democrats’ hopes that they could defy the longstanding tendency for the president’s party to have poor turnout in midterm elections.
This is political analyst Chris Stirewalt at The Dispatch:
ReplyDelete"What surprised the heck out of me, though, was how many voters there were [in Kansas].
"In 2018, which, like this year, was marked by high voter intensity nationally and with a competitive gubernatorial race in the state, 467,305 Kansans voted in primary elections. The count from Tuesday: 916,304 votes, with a handful still to be counted. It would be remarkable enough to see primary turnout almost double in four years, but that’s not even the most interesting part.
"There were 270,578 more votes cast on the abortion measure than in both parties for the state’s red-hot gubernatorial race, and more than 191,667 votes on the amendment than there were cast in the state’s U.S. Senate race. There were more people who voted on the referendum but forwent the governor’s race than all of the votes that Democratic incumbent Gov. Laura Kelly received in her own lopsided primary win.
"Part of this is the result of state primary laws. Kansas has a closed primary in which voters get a ballot of the party of their own registration—no party switching at the polling place. Independents can vote in either party’s primary, but have to join on the spot. It’s a low-cost move in terms of hassle, but carries social and emotional weight. Many, or maybe even even most, of the roughly 1 in 5 voters who weighed in on the abortion question but not the partisan primaries were independents who did not wish to affiliate with either party but still wanted to be heard.
"That alone could tell us about the potency of the issue. There is a strong correlation between one’s likelihood of voting in a general election and voting in a primary election. If an issue is strong enough to get that many lower-propensity voters who reject both parties to actually show up for a primary on a sweltering Kansas August day, you have a real phenomenon on your hands. "
https://sweep.thedispatch.com/p/stirewaltisms-kansas-hints-at-a-changed
It has been said that most people aren't comfortable with the most extreme sides of either the pro-life or pro-choice positions. I believe that eventually a middle ground will be reached which probably won't satisfy the most zealous, but might be something we can live with. But getting to that point isn't going to be pretty.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, right - the zealots have figured out how to drive candidates to the extreme ends of the spectrum. In the business world, we call if the FUD factor (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt). In politics, they add a fourth factor: Rage. FRUD factor? FURD? Not sure about the acronym, but really, FUD isn't that clever, either.
DeleteThe middle ground seems to be fairly wide. Opinions vary on the point of no return gestational age, acceptable exceptions involving fetal abnormalities and maternal health, type of procedures, and consent restrictions. You can bet that legislators are going to consult their clergy before they consult doctors. And I expect that legislating abortion will suck most of the air out of various state Capitol to the exclusion of other important issues.
DeleteHere in Ohio the pro-choice people are already talking about a referendum on the issue since they have little chance of passing pro-choice laws in the Republican controlled legislature. However, they are focusing their efforts this November on Ohio Supreme Court elections. They say they plan to take their time and go at it well prepared and funded.
ReplyDeleteIf across the country, there end up being a lot of referenda on the abortion issue, that is going to cause a lot of division in the Church. The bishops will likely take a stand on the issues. Here in Ohio most state ballot issues usually get some sort of guidance issued by the Ohio Bishop's Conference. Most of the time their guidance simply gives the pro and cons of an issue with no strong recommendation. No one pays any attention. Are the bishops of Ohio going to tell Catholics how to vote on this issue? Will pastors take a stand? Will there be open division in the parishes? Or will it be like birth control where Catholics simply quietly make up their minds, and do whatever they want? Are bishops prepared to lose a referendum like the bishops did in Ireland? What will be the consequences in the parishes in terms of attendance and the collection box? Many bishops and clergy may come to regret that this issue has gone back to the states. I doubt many of them were thinking of a ballot issue.
I doubt if it's going to consume as much air as all that, because the normal business that states always have to deal with isn't going to go away. People's attention spans are limited.
Delete"Here in Ohio the pro-choice people are already talking about a referendum on the issue "
DeleteNot surprising: Democrats have been regrettably enamored with direct referendums for some time. It is part of the Left's war against the American system of democracy.
Jim, how are referenda a war against democracy ? Republicans seem very reluctant to allow the voices of the majority to be heard, especially at the national level. They are actively working now to pass legislation in many states to ensure that they will be able to dominate national elections against the will of the majority of Americans, as happened in the Bush2 and trump elections - overwhelmingly so in 2016. The authoritarian, anti- democracy efforts are predominantly from the GOP.
DeleteI have only lived in states that allow ballot initiatives and/ or referenda. Most states permit them - currently more red states than blue states. So it does not seem to be a nefarious plot on the part of the Dems. They have been a good way for the people to speak and not just be held captive by a political process that is now heavily dominated by politicians who are, or who are “owned” by millionaires and billionaires and special interest groups - lobbies. The Catholic Church has spent millions and millions trying to influence politicians and policies, including via ballot initiatives or referenda.
There's nothing undemocratic about referenda, but I suppose Republicans object to anything that circumvents representative government. Right-wingers pay lots of money to install their shills in legislatures, and they dislike the idea of the great unwashed running around with clipboards and petitions to overturn their agenda.
DeleteWe were founded as a Republic rather than a Democracy, i.e., certain people are elected to make wise decisions on complex issues on behalf of the people. The power of these elected officials was mainly contained by checks and balances and only indirectly by their accountability to the people. Over time we have become more democratic by allowing for recall of officials, ballot initiatives, etc.
DeleteLooks like we are going to see if ballot initiatives will do a better job than the courts or the legislatures at solving the abortion issue. I would not be surprised if we eventually realize that the Supreme Court invention of an abortion right was actually a good compromise, and that its demise will result in worst rather than better solutions.
What gets people riled up enough to circulate petitions is always interesting: term limits, dog racing, recreational marijuana, death penalty, dove hunting, redistricting, abortion. A mashup of the trivial, the ridiculous, and important.
DeleteSo much for Kansas. Fetterman's people in Pennsylvania have put out some pretty funny anti Dr Oz propaganda. Here's one: m.youtube.com/watch?v=ihRX-hXQjgo
ReplyDeleteStanley, care to weigh in?
Yes. Saw that ad already. Beautifully executed. The best thing about Oz being a TV quack and a politician is he's not performing surgery in the meantime. It just amazes me how the Republican voters are turning US politics into a bad comedy show. But at least Fetterman is well equipped to play this game. I'm hoping his pro-worker stance will get the working class vote. But it may be the abortion thing that pushes him over the top. Not the reason I'll be voting for him.
DeleteLOL about the youtube, that's a good one!
DeleteA WAPO article via MSN: Catholic bishops spent big on Kansas abortion vote — and maybe lost bigger
ReplyDeletehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/catholic-bishops-spent-big-on-kansas-abortion-vote-e2-80-94-and-maybe-lost-bigger/ar-AA10lN5Y
Naumann’s archdiocese and other Catholic organizations also spent millions, however, representing the single largest donor base for the pro-amendment umbrella group known as the “Value Them Both” campaign.
According to financial disclosures and media reports, the Kansas City Archdiocese spent roughly $2.45 million on the effort this year, with the Catholic dioceses of Wichita and Salina together spending an additional $600,000 or more. Some individual Catholic parishes across the state chipped in, as did the Kansas Catholic Conference, an advocacy group tied to the state’s bishops, which reportedly spent $100,000. Separately, the conservative advocacy group CatholicVote raised around $500,000 for the pro-amendment Do Right PAC, according to the news outlet Flatland.
It remains to be seen which side raised or spent more money, although opponents of the amendment also enjoyed major donations from liberal groups such as NARAL Pro-Choice America and the American Civil Liberties Union. But these mostly secular groups didn’t shy away from faith: In one advertisement broadcast to Kansans, a woman spoke about her opposition to the amendment from the perspective of a cradle Catholic.
“Growing up Catholic, we didn’t talk about abortion,” the woman says. “But now it’s on the ballot, and we can no longer ignore it.”
According to Natalia Imperatori-Lee, chair of the religious studies department at Manhattan College, the ad probably better represents the average Catholic’s views than the campaigns funded by bishops. The church officially decries abortion, but U.S. Catholics, generally supportive of legal abortion, have grown more liberal on the issue over time: According to a recent PRRI poll, the percentage of White Catholics who believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases jumped from 53 percent in October 2010 to 64 percent by June of this year. The shift among Hispanic Catholics was even more dramatic, from 51 percent in 2010 to 75 percent in June.
“The bishops have been so focused on the idol of abortion legislation that they have failed to step back and see the complication of criminalizing abortion and what that means — especially for vulnerable, non-White, non-wealthy communities,” Imperatori-Lee said. “If this is what the bishops are going to do, if this was their plan for a ‘post-Roe’ world, then Catholics are going to be very disappointed.”
Continuation of above
ReplyDeleteOne organization that financially skipped the Kansas amendment battle was Catholics for Choice, which advocates for abortion access. The group did not spend money in Kansas in part because, according to leader Jamie Manson, it didn’t need to.
“The vote in Kansas yesterday shows us the power of pro-choice people of faith when up against the power, money, and influence of the Catholic hierarchy,” Manson said in a statement.
She added, “I am looking forward to more David vs. Goliath victories ahead.
The underdog spirit in the Kansas fight was embodied by two Catholic nuns who penned an anti-amendment letter, published in the lead-up to the vote, that amounted to an act of defiance against local bishops.
“A church sign said, ‘Jesus trusted women. We do too,’” the nuns’ letter read. The sisters went on to bemoan the harm caused by restrictive abortion bans passed in other states and noted that supporters of the amendment primarily focused resources on banning abortion, rather than legislation that would assist mothers who bring children to term, such as “healthcare, parental leave, Medicaid and other support for poor women.”
Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic and former Kansas governor who served as secretary of health and human services in the Obama administration, lauded the nuns’ letter, calling the sisters “courageous.” Whether or not it had a broad impact, Sebelius said, it reminded her of when nuns spoke out in favor of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, which countered the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ opposition to the bill and is credited with paving the way for its final passage.
Looks like the Bishops cannot count on Catholics, including nuns, to support them in these ballot issues. And they are certainly going to get a lot of criticism for the amount of money they are spending on these political campaigns.
As I commented on Jim McCrea's email discussion, I don't think Catholic dioceses should spend buckets of money on direct political activism. The Napa Institute crowd already has more money than it knows what to do with and can fund these campaigns if it wishes. If the instittutional church wants to undertake media campaigns, let it be to spread the Gospel. Or use the money to pay its workers better wages.
DeleteThe Napa Institute crowd already has more money than it knows what to do with and can fund these campaigns if it wishes.
DeleteBut the whole aim of the Napa Institute is to have the Bishops front for them, to be the servants of the rich and worshippers of Mammon rather than be servants of the poor and followers of Jesus.
Rocco refers to the group that gathers at the Napa Institute as the Napa Whinery.
DeleteAs I wrestle with Michigan's upcoming abortion referendum, I continue to be dismayed by conversations and reporting that look at abortion strictly as a moral and political issue.
ReplyDeleteAbortion is also a medical, social, economic, and mental health issue, and I think those facets are being ignored.
Both sides, especially the extremists on both sides, treat it in a simplistic manner, without nuance.
DeleteIf those of us who vote against the bill are complicit in abortion, won't those who vote for it be complicit in lives lost due to the draconian abortion ban the GOP legislators have said they want to impose?
DeleteHuman life will be lost however this turns out.
I could elect not to vote on the measure either way ... and be guilty of the sin of omission.
Meantime, the local priest announced he's giving a series of sermons about angels. Today he went over the nine choirs, the functions of the cherubim, seraphim, and throne, and how some of the angels control the weather (so I guess this global warming is just a hoax, at least that seemed to be where he was heading). It all sounded positively occult. No discussion about how this info helps me love God and my neighbor. Maybe next week he will tell us how many angels can dance on his pin head.
Angels! I knew it!
DeleteYah, Raber was paying more attention to this than me. Uriel is the weather angel.
DeleteHuh.
Over at demonbuster.com, it says demons run the weather: "Believe it or not, but foul weather is caused by demons, which means we have authority over them in that area. Time and time again, we have prayed against the weather, and it either stops in its tracks or heads the other way. It must be noted, however, that if God wants to allow your neighbors property to be damaged, the storm will come through, but your property will be safeguarded, IF you are right with the Lord."
This site is affiliated with Gene and Earline Moody, who run deliverance ministries so that all Christians can learn how to cast out demons.
OK, I'll stop now.
Demons! I knew it!
ReplyDelete