Ugh. Is this publication a "Pillar" of Catholicism or something else? The tone and assumptions of this piece are offensive. The article does not offer any real insights about what, exactly, is offensive or deleterious about the movement being tied to "Republican party politics and a broader Republican agenda."
The authors imply a false equivalence between a "net of family social supports" and stopping abortion. This is an offensive canard and shame on the authors for giving it ANY credence. Conservatives and Republicans (not the same thing), including many faithful Catholics, do not blindly oppose "safety nets," especially at the state or local level. They oppose FEDERAL programs that disincentivize marriage and contribute to the further destruction of the family--the first society.
The pro-life Democrat is nearly a unicorn, even at the state level. Overturning Roe V. Wade and returning the decision to the state level will not change this. The arguments for abortion will remain anchored in dehumanizing the unborn child in the womb and the Democrat party--at the federal, state, and municipal level--will continue to advance them.
It makes a lot of sense to detach anti abortion lobbying from partisan politics. I'm not an American but I'm amazed at how many voters are disenfranchised by having a heart for the general philosophies of the Democratic Party but are essentially required to deny all of their deeply held positions in order to oppose abortion. What a great thing if prolifers could rise above politics for this important activism!
If Roe/Casey is struck down, allowing state regulation/prohibition of abortion, then the March for Life will have fulfilled its original stated purpose.
Does that mean it will disappear? Not likely. But it will have to change. The March has fulfilled an additional function of being a central, unified pro-life event. I think it likely that it will organize events in DC to continue that function, such as the annual Rose Dinner currently held in conjunction with the Marches. Maybe the March itself will become a simple rally on the Mall.
More broadly, the pro-life movement should definitely disentangle itself from electoral politics. Yoking itself to the Republican Party, and thus to Donald Trump, discredits the moral force of the pro-life cause. There must still be political activism, but nurturing a broader coalition, including disaffected pro-life Democrats.
I can't think of another social force that has accomplished more in the past 10 years in America (at least among those who are not trying to turn us into an all-against-all will-to-power secular hell-scape). So kudos to them. If political alliances are a necessary part of the bargain in this country, so be it. Traditionalist social values movements have few options for allies these days.
To broaden the movement, if that is a desired goal, pro-lifers might benefit from coordinating efforts with parents' movements which are working to undo the damage inflicted on future generations by public schools disseminating no-norms social constructs. Ultimately, pro-life means pro-(traditional )family, plus sexual abstinence pre-marriage.
Humanae Vitae, anyone? Or is that still too radical?
Ugh. Is this publication a "Pillar" of Catholicism or something else? The tone and assumptions of this piece are offensive. The article does not offer any real insights about what, exactly, is offensive or deleterious about the movement being tied to "Republican party politics and a broader Republican agenda."
The authors imply a false equivalence between a "net of family social supports" and stopping abortion. This is an offensive canard and shame on the authors for giving it ANY credence. Conservatives and Republicans (not the same thing), including many faithful Catholics, do not blindly oppose "safety nets," especially at the state or local level. They oppose FEDERAL programs that disincentivize marriage and contribute to the further destruction of the family--the first society.
The pro-life Democrat is nearly a unicorn, even at the state level. Overturning Roe V. Wade and returning the decision to the state level will not change this. The arguments for abortion will remain anchored in dehumanizing the unborn child in the womb and the Democrat party--at the federal, state, and municipal level--will continue to advance them.
It makes a lot of sense to detach anti abortion lobbying from partisan politics. I'm not an American but I'm amazed at how many voters are disenfranchised by having a heart for the general philosophies of the Democratic Party but are essentially required to deny all of their deeply held positions in order to oppose abortion. What a great thing if prolifers could rise above politics for this important activism!
If Roe/Casey is struck down, allowing state regulation/prohibition of abortion, then the March for Life will have fulfilled its original stated purpose.
Does that mean it will disappear? Not likely. But it will have to change. The March has fulfilled an additional function of being a central, unified pro-life event. I think it likely that it will organize events in DC to continue that function, such as the annual Rose Dinner currently held in conjunction with the Marches. Maybe the March itself will become a simple rally on the Mall.
More broadly, the pro-life movement should definitely disentangle itself from electoral politics. Yoking itself to the Republican Party, and thus to Donald Trump, discredits the moral force of the pro-life cause. There must still be political activism, but nurturing a broader coalition, including disaffected pro-life Democrats.
I can't think of another social force that has accomplished more in the past 10 years in America (at least among those who are not trying to turn us into an all-against-all will-to-power secular hell-scape). So kudos to them. If political alliances are a necessary part of the bargain in this country, so be it. Traditionalist social values movements have few options for allies these days.
To broaden the movement, if that is a desired goal, pro-lifers might benefit from coordinating efforts with parents' movements which are working to undo the damage inflicted on future generations by public schools disseminating no-norms social constructs. Ultimately, pro-life means pro-(traditional )family, plus sexual abstinence pre-marriage.
Humanae Vitae, anyone? Or is that still too radical?