These arguments do really seem to go around in circles. The defenders of the Republican party seem to rely on a single line of un-nuanced linear reasoning: these Democrats (plus a few Republicans) believe something that is actually a great evil to be a “right”, somthing good, and hence voting for them is beyond the pale. Next you will be presented with abortion statistics that would lead one to think of an on-off switch: pull the lever for Republicans and abortion does to zero, swing to the Democrats and you have a holocaust. Now, I’m deliberately trivializing and caricaturing the argument, but at some fundamental level, this is the point they are trying to make.
Unfortunately, the world is not so simple. I do not wish to get into the key issues of moral theology here — this was the topic of one of my first ever post on Vox Nova. Instead I wish to make a more direct point. The Republican argument is built upon a possible house of cards. Their strategy is simple, and it is the only game in town as far as they are concerned. The idea is to elect politicians who may or may not appoint judges who may or may not overturn Roe v. Wade, which may or may not substantially reduce the legal availability of abortion, which may or may not affect the actual incidence of abortion. That’s it. Note the great uncertainties at each link in the chain, uncertainties which are never mentioned by the Republican supporters.
With all these leakages, simple statistics suggests the final probability of abortion actually falling under this strategy may indeed be low. At the same time, we are told that a “deal with the devil” is necessary because of the overwhelming importance of the abortion issue. We are told that other aspects of Catholic social teaching can be routinely sacrificed, when they really should not be sacrificed. In its Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the bishops note that all life issue are connected and caution against “the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity.” On these matters, the guidance of Church leaders is not just another political opinion that can be discarded at will.
So, Catholics are told they must support Republicans because of abortion, when the ability of Republican policies to impact abortion is suspect, and not to worry about the other deviations from Catholic teaching, even when these deviations have been magnified in recent years. But I’ve noticed something strange. Many Catholic Republicans who back this party on abortion are often not too bothered by its other positions. The same abortion-first Catholics are often right up at the front of the line cheering the Iraq war and occupation. They are the first to disdain and dismiss global warming. They implicitly support an economic policy predicated on a preferential option for the rich. They don’t bother too much about inequality and health care. They love the coercive power of the state when it is used to bomb countries and seal borders against immigrants, but jump up and down when it is used to tax them and regulate gun ownership in the name of the common good. And, God forbid, a small but vocal minority even play down the Church’s teachings on torture and nuclear weapons. This is the problem I have with many Catholics who support Republicans on abortion. They seem all too comfortable with the nationalism, the militarism, the consequentialism, and the free market liberalism that often underpins the platform of that party.
Of course, there are those like Christopher Blosser who like to catalogue all the great achievements of the Republican party on the abortion issue. Unfortunately, this is just tinkering around the edges, throwing a few bones to the anti-abortion supporters while they got on with the real agenda. As horrendous as it is, does anybody really believe the partial-birth abortion ban will do anything to reduce abortion rates?
Ah, but there are the statistics! Blosser refers to recent Guttmacher data as supportive of the wondrous work Bush and his friends have done to reduce abortion. After all, abortion rates are at their lowest level since 1974. But this is a long-term story. Let’s look at the actual declines broken down by presidency. Under the Republican presidencies (Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II), the abortion rate declined on average by 0.3 percentage points a year. Under Clinton’s two terms, it declined by 0.5 percentage points a year. The earlier data had pointed to a standstill under Bush, while the new and updated data show only that the decline has returned to its pre-Clinton historical average.
But this is not too surprising, and it turns out that economics matters. Guttmacher notes that 57% of women opting for abortion are economically disadvantaged, and that the abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level. Moreover, when asked to give reasons for abortion, three-quarters of women say that cannot afford a child. At the same time, black women are almost four times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are two and a half life times as likely. I did some basic econometric analysis a while back on this blog, showing a firm link between poverty rates and abortion rates.
I am not saying that it is all economics, and that legal availability has no effect. I don’t believe that for a second. But I also believe the Republican’s narrowness when it comes to this issue is bankrupt and self-serving, It is for very good reason that the USCCB calls for a consistent ethic of life. noting that all life issues are connected, and that the moral imperative to provide for the basic needs of our neighbors is universally binding on our consciences.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In