Look, I know this subject is wearing through its welcome. But CACG asked me to look at their new study on policies that lead to a reduction in the rate of abortions, and it's worth responding to.

The study's conclusions are interesting, although hardly ground-breaking:

Recent research finds that the abortion rate among women living below the poverty level is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level. This study of all U.S. states from 1982-2000 finds that social and economic supports such as benefits for pregnant women and mothers and economic assistance to low-income families have contributed significantly to reducing the number of abortions in the United States over the past twenty years.

The findings in this study suggest that elected officials can utilize effective and appropriate socioeconomic public policies to reduce abortions. These include: increasing benefits for pregnant women and mothers with children under five; promoting policies that increase male employment; providing funding for child care for working women; increasing economic assistance to low-income families and removing the “family cap” on economic assistance. Legislation aimed at these goals can effectively reduce abortion in America.

This seems very commonsensical to me. The argument that certain public policies are the right thing to do and they have the pleasant side-effect of reducing abortions is a good one.

But here's what continues to gripe me: elected officials can utilize effective and appropriate socioeconomic public policies to reduce abortions. That leaves questions unanswered. A lot of questions.

For one thing, it assumes that abortion reduction is in itself a good thing, which is problematic. I don't mean to be perverse here. But policy goals have to be set for the benefit of all, not simply to match our particular values. To put it another way, of what benefit is it to a young woman who sees abortion as nothing more than a medical procedure to have her behavior shaped by a bunch of men like "Sen. Bob Casey, Rep. Heath Shuler, Rep. Lincoln Davis and U.S. Senate nominee Bob Tuke"?

Or perhaps even more to the point, of what benefit is it to the government to reduce abortion? The press release accompanying the study says

“This new research suggests that the Pregnant Women’s Support Act is exactly the kind of sound public policy that can lead to lowering the abortion rate in America,” said Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life “This discussion will prove that hope and change are possible in Washington if we focus on creating solutions based on shared values.”

But what problem does this solve, exactly, other than limiting a perfectly legal procedure whose morality is debated? Why, exactly, is the "safe, legal, and rare" stance preferable to any other position? These things never seem to get spelled out. My sneaking suspicion is that it's because there isn't a good answer to them beyond "this is what our moral tradition teaches us." In a pluralistic society, that's an understandable but hardly a compelling answer.

It seems all the less satisfactory when you notice what's not in the report. There's no mention of birth control that I can find, rape is mentioned only once, and there only to point to some rather vague language in the Catholic bishops' pro-life plan about "supporting rape victims." And while the CACG study advocates for health care for pregnant women, it doesn't spell out access to reproductive care such as that provided by Planned Parenthood. Nor, lastly, does it address some of the other impediments to women's control of their bodies that are popping up all over the place.

In other words, it starts where Jim Wallis started, with the assumption that talking women out of having an abortion was more important than giving them the tools - all the tools - to take charge of their bodies and their futures. They're less obnoxious about it, but it's still the same place.

So I'll go back to what I said a few go-arounds back: come out in support of the ERA, then we'll talk.

Tomorrow, the whole world will watch as John McCain introduces and appears with his running mate as the Republican ticket in public for the first time. The timing of the announcement is meant to achieve four key goals for the McCain campaign:

1) Keep Obama/Biden from getting the kajillion point bounce they need for the Democratic National Convention to be considered a success.

2) Dominate the weekend news cycle.

3) Generate a little excitement for the moribund Republican Party heading into their dirgefest national convention.

4) Distract us all from an important anniversary.

Today's Meditation:

On the 45th Anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King's delivery of this historic speech:


I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
Martin Luther King, Jr., delivering his 'I Have a Dream' speech from the steps of Lincoln Memorial. (photo: National Park Service)

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

The Dream lives on.


Thanks to Ken for today's photo.


Stay with us......

Forty-five years ago tomorrow, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke these famous words on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial:

Welcome to Coffee Hour, that daily space where we grab a beverage, a snack, and spend some time hearing about each other's day. Oh, and sharing what our lunch, dinner or other meal plans are :-).

I'm over here on the comfy chair, feet up after 5 solid days of walking all over Disney and Sea World...

Our sin in numbers New Census numbers: 37.3 million living in poverty; 45.7 million uninsured.

And so it starts

Denver's CBS affiliate reports that "at least four people are under arrest in connection with a possible plot to kill Barack Obama" and one of the suspects reportedly told authorities that they were "going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a ... rifle … sighted at 750 yards."

Hillary Knocks It Out of The Park: “No Way. No How, No McCain.” "It's fitting that John McCain and George Bush will be meeting in the Twin Cities next week, because it's getting pretty hard to tell them apart." -- Hillary

I've got to give Tim Rutten major ups for this column:

Every four years, an astonishing array of conservative commentators and Republican campaign strategists suddenly discover an intimate concern for Catholic consciences and an overriding preoccupation with the Roman church's sacramental and liturgical norms.

Last time around, for example, you couldn't toss a dart at the average Op-Ed page without hitting a right-wing columnist with a firm opinion on whether the Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, ought to be denied Communion because he's pro-choice. You could virtually feel the hunger for a good old-fashioned auto-da-fé and hear Karl Rove in the background disappointedly whispering, "Are you certain they don't burn people at the stake anymore?"

For a time, it looked as if war and recession would push "values issues" back into perspective in this election cycle, but abortion is too large a wedge issue to abandon casually. In the last few weeks, commentators began a campaign over the Democrats' failure to invite to Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput to their convention. Chaput was one of the handful of bishops who argued that Kerry and other pro-choice Catholic politicians should be denied Communion. More recently, Chaput's book, "Render Unto Caesar," argues that Catholics may not vote for pro-choice candidates. Under the circumstances, the Democrats' snub was graceless but understandable.

...

All this conservative crosier waving is about a simple set of numbers. Catholics constitute 25% of the electorate, and no presidential candidate in decades has won the popular vote without carrying Catholics. Obama and Sen. John McCain are in a statistical dead heat for the Catholic vote, with Obama leading 42% to 40% and 17% undecided, according to the pollsters' consensus. The Republicans think their margin of victory might be found in that 17%, many of them white, ethnic, swing-state voters presumed to be socially conservative. The bishops are desperate to demonstrate that their flock isn't ignoring them on abortion the way it has on contraception for half a century.

Really, as they say, read the whole thing. Rutten has a good feel for the political and religious dynamics at work here. Just to be clear about those: he's not accusing Chaput or any other bishop of being partisan tools. Rather, he's arguing (I think) that their desire to maintain their moral authority coincides with the Republican need to sway Catholic voters. It's a mutual admiration society, if you want to put it that way.

For what it's worth, I think the GOP is barking up the wrong tree here. It's true that Obama has had a tough time with Catholic voters, particularly older ones. The issue seems to be race, but perhaps abortion or "values" issues could be used as a proxy for that.

But it seems to me that ultimately McCain will come up short. My unscientific hunch is that with a united Democratic front, the union vote will come home just enough to tip the election to Obama. It might be closer in places like Michigan and Ohio than Dems would like, but in the end, I really do think Joe and Jane Lunchpail will realize which party represents their interests.

(And even if not, Obama's within ten electoral votes of walking away with the election. With ten states in the "toss-up" category, it's a pretty safe bet that he could make up for lost ground elsewhere.)

I'm interested in what other folks think. Does McCain have a reasonable play for that 17%? Show me the numbers, as they say.

Pee Ess: this story, on the other hand, is a perennial. Zombie lies never die.

Focus Action senior vice-president and clueless idiot Tom Minnery tries to mock the Religious Caucus at the DNCC:

One of the speakers actually carved a new road leftward, well away from that elusive common ground. The Rev. Jennifer Kottler of the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Coalition spoke glowingly of what she called a tradition in Celtic Christianity — the redistribution of property. She said God has made His gift of grace abundant to everyone, and His gift of nature should be no less available to everyone.

It's such fun to smear political opponents with charges of religious heterodoxy, don't you think? It's worked for authoritarians across the ages.

There's just one little problem with this particular attack. Apparently, Minnery has never read the foundational documents of the "Judeo-Christian tradition". He might want to start with Genesis. And Leviticus. And Psalms. And Proverbs.

And...well, you get the point. God's generosity and his call to redistribute property as part of a macro-Sabbath are well-rooted in more than just Celtic Christianity. They're a part of the Old Testament, including some of the very books the creeps at Focus on the Family like to cite in justifying their bigotry against gays and lesbians.

Which they would know, if, you know. They actually read the damn thing they cite as normative.

[editor's note, by PoliSigh] sinus headache this morning--yuck.....

Today's Meditation: thanks to americancatholic.org

August 26, 2008
St. Joseph Calasanz
(1556-1648)

From Aragon, where he was born in 1556, to Rome, where he died 92 years later, fortune alternately smiled and frowned on the work of Joseph Calasanz. A priest with university training in canon law and theology, respected for his wisdom and administrative expertise, he put aside his career because he was deeply concerned with the need for education of poor children. When he was unable to get other institutes to undertake this apostolate at Rome, he and several companions personally provided a free school for deprived children. So overwhelming was the response that there was a constant need for larger facilities to house their effort. Soon Pope Clement VIII gave support to the school, and this aid continued under Pope Paul V. Other schools were opened; other men were attracted to the work and in 1621 the community (for so the teachers lived) was recognized as a religious community, the Clerks Regular of Religious Schools (Piarists or Scolopi). Not long after, Joseph was appointed superior for life.

A combination of various prejudices and political ambition and maneuvering caused the institute much turmoil. Some did not favor educating the poor, for education would leave the poor dissatisfied with their lowly tasks for society! Others were shocked that some of the Piarists were sent for instruction to Galileo (a friend of Joseph) as superior, thus dividing the members into opposite camps. Repeatedly investigated by papal commissions, Joseph was demoted; when the struggle within the institute persisted, the Piarists were suppressed. Only after Joseph’s death were they formally recognized as a religious community.

Comment:

   No one knew better than Joseph the need for the work he was doing; no one knew better than he how baseless were the charges brought against him. Yet if he were to work within the Church, he realized that he must submit to its authority, that he must accept a setback if he was unable to convince authorized investigators. While the prejudice, the scheming, and the ignorance of men often keep the truth from emerging for a long period of time, Joseph was convinced, even under suppression, that his institute would again be recognized and authorized. With this trust he joined exceptional patience and a genuine spirit of forgiveness.

Quote:

   Even in the days after his own demotion, Joseph protected his persecutors against his enraged partisans; and when the community was suppressed, he stated with Job, to whom he was often compared: "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; /blessed be the name of the Lord!" (Job 1:21b).

(This entry appears in the print edition of Saint of the Day.)

God, help me, I pray, to admire what is fine in other people and to make my admiration known. Keep me aware that human hearts are ever hungry for encouragement. I know that even people who seem so confident can be strengthened in their work. May I develop the art of searching out kindness, generosity and courage, and then, by word or letter, show my admiration. Amen.


— Catholic Prayers for Every Day & All Day

Stay with us!

That's the title of a new blog post up on the Texas Freedom Network's Blog covering Texas Governor Rick Perry's new invitation to evangelical pastors to attend the Texas Restoration Projects' Pastors Policy Briefing. From Governor Perry's written invitation :

Both our nation and our Judeo Christian heritage are under attack by a force that is more dangerous than any threat our world has faced in recent memory. I am convinced that our ability to defeat the radical jihadists who threaten our nation will be significantly impacted by the prayers and leadership of America’s evangelical pastors...

...While Congress occupies its time trying to legislative defeat in Iraq, we hope you will attend a Pastors’ Policy Briefing that will equip you to walk point in the war of values and ideas.

Rediscovering God in America-Austin is intended to remind us that excuses are not the proper strategy when facing evil and confronting enemies...

(emphasis is mine)

The Texas Freedom Network warns us that this is all

part of a web of organizations seeking to mobilize conservative evangelical pastors in support of far-right candidates and causes across the country. They encourage pastors essentially to turn their houses of worship into campaign tools.

Among the attendees will be Mike Huckabee, the head of the Texas Republican Party, the head of the Texas affiliate of Focus on the Family and of course Governor Perry. Look for an event like this to be coming to a state near you. The theocrats came close to having control of our government... they are not going to let go without a fight.

Like Amanda Marcotte, I've noticed how shrill the right-wing shrieking has been about the Democratic Convention in Denver. Again like Amanda, I've noticed that the shrillness seems to be primarily aimed at the abortion issue:

Values voters are, by and large, evangelicals, as well as orthodox believers in mainline Protestant churches, and a growing number of Catholics. They are people who are long past the point of listening to a politician who says, “I am personally opposed to abortion, but I can’t impose my views on everyone.”

...

One wonders just how many of these people the Democratic Party even wants. One of its well-recognized consultants on outreach to religious people is Burns Strider, who formerly advised Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He has said, “If we create or become a mirror image of the religious right, we have failed. If we have increased the number of chairs around the table, we have succeeded.”

In other words, the party wants the voters, but not the values.

I'm mostly kidding with the title.  And of course all I have is one uncorroborated source, who may be biased.  But here's the story:

Basically, droogie6655321 wrote a piece yesterday, which the gonof deleted, alleging that the AP's business model doesn't work without the unwitting collusion of member newspapers.  In that diary, as it turned out, droogie made at least one factual error, claiming that "75% of the AP's news stories come from newspapers."  The real number appears to be 45% local pickups.  The AP sent him a note suggesting that his piece was riddled with error.  

droogie is a print reporter by day (who, I don't know, nor with what publication), and the AP did enough searching and discovered who he actually was.  And then the AP sent its letter not only to droogie, but to HIS EMPLOYERS.  

This is roughly equivalent to any particular WOTD sending a note to the Dean of the Law School: "FYI, Mr. Krell called (say) Jerry Weller a wanker for disagreeing with raising the federal poverty threshold."

Sure, that's true.  And yes, the error in droogie's piece was factual, and not an opinion like my example.  But seriously?  Search out the damn blogger and out them to their employer because they got a fact wrong and suggested a market plan for (legally) putting you out of business?

Yet more proof that the AP is rapidly swirling 'round the drain.