Readers will recall the name Jack Smith, editor of the Catholic Key, the diocesan newspaper in Kansas City-St. Joseph, who launched a vile, unsubstantiated, and personal attack on Sister Carol Keehan, suggesting that her support for health care reform was motivated by money-grubbing acquisitiveness, an odd charge to lay against a woman whose salary goes not to her but to her order. It was the vilest thing I have read in the Catholic blogosphere all year. It is also worth noting that Sister Carol’s position on health care reform has been much closer to that of the bishops than have some of the writings to appear in Mr. Smith’s pages, but never mind.
So, I was unsurprised that a man whose writings betray no sense of hesitancy before the sin of slander should now display an astonishing degree of ignorance by quibbling with a small line in an article I wrote. My sentence was this: "The Hyde Amendment is nearly as settled law as is Roe." Smith argues that Roe can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment or by appointing more anti-Roe justices to the Supreme Court, which he thinks unlikely given the current make-up of Congress and current President’s pro-choice position. He notes that the Hyde Amendment is an annual legislative act that can be undone anytime, that Hyde is "about as ethereal as a law can be."
Let us start with Smith’s claims about what it would take to overturn Roe. Suffice it to say that since that decision was rendered, Republican presidents have controlled the White House for 24 years while the Democrats are only in their thirteenth year of being able to appoint justices to the Court. The reason Roe has not been overturned is, sadly, because the American people don’t want it overturned, Republican political leaders have been content to pay lip service to the pro-life cause and pro-life leaders have done a fine imitation of Pavlov’s dogs in praising the GOP and denigrating Democrats. The only way to overturn Roe is to change American culture.
Smith’s inability to grasp this leads to the real problem with his article which is its almost total ignorance of American politics. He says that the Hyde Amendment is ethereal. Well, let’s see. It has been re-approved every year since 1977 by an act of Congress, and this despite the on-going efforts of pro-choice forces to get it overturned. Hyde has been passed by Democratic Congresses and Republican Congresses. It has been a part of laws signed by Democratic presidents and Republican presidents. When the Hyde Amendment first passed, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia sent only Democratic Senators to Washington. In 1977, Ronald Reagan was an ex-movie actor, ex-Governor and a former and failed presidential candidate. In 1977, the Colts were still in Baltimore. In 1977, Karol Wojtyla was the Archbishop of Krakow. In 1977, Leonid Breshnev was still alive and ruling the Kremlin. In 1977, Barney Frank was still in the closet and not yet in the Congress. You get the idea. Year in and year out, for all the other changes that have occurred, the Hyde Amendment has been passed by Congresses of both parties. Ethereal? Maybe not so much.
So, why go on and on about the prospect of something happening, the Hyde Amendment being overturned, that is about as likely as pigs flying? To scare people. Indeed, my original article was in response to a piece by Deal Hudson in which he was scaring people about the public option funding abortion. Now, Mr. Hudson has replied also, and claims he is not a "deceitful bogeyman" but he misses the point too. The problem is not that Hudson himself is a deceitful bogeyman. The problem is that he creates deceitful bogeymen to scare others. I think Hudson’s sin is far worse than merely lying. But, Hudson, like Smith, provide evidence of an ancient truism: Those who cannot invoke facts will rely on fear to make their case. But, it is a shameful thing to do.
Roe will never be overturned judicially - not because of the hearts of the people but because it should not be. It can be overturned legislatively, since Congress has the inherent and explicit powers to say who and who does not have legal protection as a person (under the enforcement powers of the 14th Amendment). Because this power is reserved to Congress and not the states, overturning Roe judicially and going back to 1972 is a pipe dream, although this dream plays into the Republican states rights meme very well so it is hard to eradicate. Until it is eradicated, the pro-life movement will remain in fantasy land and innocent life will continue to be taken. The other thing keeping abortion mills going is the link between the pro-life movement and economic conservativism. As long as this continues, poor women and the families of teenage daughters will resort to abortion - regardless of its legality. Like the problem of illegal immigration, this problem persists largely due to conflicting desires in authoritarian conservatism itself, which is stubborn and unwillilng to face new facts. It is not the hearts of the American people at large which must change, but those who insist on solutions that will not work.
The above post is a prime example of the pathological anti-conservative bias that infects MSW's blogging. He claims that Jack Smith accused Sister Keehan of “money-grubbing acquisitiveness”, when in fact Smith expressly noted that she donates her salary to her order. Here is Smith’s quote: “Sister Carol does not keep her salary. It goes to her order. It's noted here to demonstrate that her compensation at CHA is much more in line with a trade association lobbyist than the head of a charity.” If (unlike MSW) you take the time to actually read the article, you will see that Mr Smith makes no personal attacks of any kind, vile or otherwise, against Sister Keehan. In fact, his article is a well-reasoned defense of Sister Keehan against pro-life critics who misunderstand her role as the head of the CHA, and erroneously ascribe theological implications to a secular trade association’s profit-driven decision to support healthcare reform. MSW was apparently so intent on ripping into Smith that he failed to notice that the article was actually sympathetic to Keehan.
That same reflexive antipathy to Mr Smith probably explains why MSW wants to double-down on his absurd comments regarding Roe and the Hyde Amendment. As Mr Smith pointed out, there are in fact only two ways to undo Roe – by constitutional amendment or by a majority vote on the Supreme Court to overrule it. MSW can confirm this by re-reading his junior high school civics text, but I suppose he finds more comfort in willful ignorance of basic jurisprudence. Mr Smith is also indisputably correct about the relative vulnerability of the Hyde Amendment, which can be compromised or eliminated at any time by a congress that is controlled by militant pro-abortion Democrats.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. That is what I thought. Abortion neutral means that taxpayor money will be used to fund abortions.
I guess I cannot support the healthcare bill in good faith.
I guess Mr. Winters will have to leave the Democrats.
Your point is clear. Under Obamacare, abortion will be subsidize with tax money on a grand scale.
The Democrats can now change their platform to keeping abortion safe, legal and free!
I hope you and Mr. Winters can sleep easy with your Democratic Pary bed mates.
Allow me to demonstrate.
During those 24 years the GOP held the White House, how many times did the GOP also hold the Senate? (12 years, for those who are scoring at home.) Those years were 1981-87, and 2001-2007. Next...how many judicial vacancies came to pass during those twelve years? Four. By whom were those vacancies filled? SCCJ Roberts, SCJ Scalia, and SCJ Alito and retired SCJ O'Connor. You will note that all of these, ALL, have voted in a generally pro-life way; and, setting aside O'Connor, that pro-life voting percentage rises to "always."
Furthermore, let's examine what happens when a Republican President is saddled with a Democrat Congress.
One of two scenarios invariably happens:
1) A "stealth" nominee is proposed, whereby the President gambles on his nominee's nearly nonexistent record of writings, decisions, etc. to assuage his Democratic opponents into voting for the nomination. This brings us the Souters and Stevenses of the world.
or
2) The President decides to slug it out with his Democrat opponents. Said opponents, you will note, generally engage in uncivil, ad hominem attacks on the nominee (cf. Sen. Kennedy's "In Robert Bork's America..." speech.) Sometimes you win (Thomas) and sometimes you lose (Bork).
So, RvW will be overturned when we have a GOP President, GOP Senate AND enough SCOTUS vacancies.