An Unrequited Letter to Prof. Doug Kmiec

Sent on June 8, 2008.

Professor Kmiec,

In the words of St. Paul: Grace and Peace from our Lord Jesus Christ. I'm writing to you because of your political statements that have caused quite a stir in Catholic circles. This letter is not intended to be an attack of any sort. All I offer is a humble consideration, if you conscientiously disagree, I will not (and as I don't now) doubt your dedication to the Catholic faith, though I think you are making a serious error. I just hope that you will consider my words and if my reasoning is not faulty, you may change your position.

I'm a student at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas, a practicing Roman Catholic, and a pro-life Democrat. I will concede that I am convinced for a variety of reasons that the Republican Party puts on a pro-life facade every four years and pro-life Christians (people of good will) take the bait and get little out of it. I think it is terrible that the pro-life voice is found only on one side of the American political discourse because it enables the Republican Party to make promises that it has no intention of keeping. Moreover, changing American culture and its moral environment is far more crucial to the abortion situation than the law itself—though that does not mean that the law is of no consequence.

The entire primary season, I backed (and voted for) Hillary Rodham Clinton because I felt she was the strongest candidate, the most morally sound, and the only one who had a clear plan and not words. I think she is an intelligent and very capable woman. Truth be told, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton's politics. But she and I became friends because we had a common enemy: Barack Obama. That's over now and I'm voting for John McCain.

First, Barack Obama has very little political experience. He entered the Senate in 2005 and after 143 days of experience in office he announced his presidential bid. Obama has not championed many bills, has voted "present" on too many bills for someone not even finished with his first term, nor has he reached across the playing field for bipartisan agreement. Instead, he was number 16 in rank of the most liberal Senators in 2005, number 10 in 2006, and number 1 last year. He is a clear leftist. His rhetoric sounds wonderful and lofty—uniting the country, reaching across the political divide, etc, but his political actions and voting record suggest otherwise. Don't actions speak louder than words? In essence, Barack Obama has found a political gimmick that works magnificently. John McCain has said that he would have Democrats in his Administration; McCain has made bipartisan agreements with Democrats, he's voted against Bush's tax cuts, has bucked the GOP on torture and immigration, and even argues with fellow conservatives about the reality of climate change. He's pretty bipartisan and he has a record that offers proof—he should be running on Obama's slogan.

In many of your statements, I believe (rightly or wrongly) that you accept Obama's supposed-bipartisan rhetoric too quickly particularly on the abortion crisis. Your argument for the moral equivalency between McCain and Obama's position on Roe v. Wade is quite a statement—one that will not go unchallenged. Unless I am totally mistaken, your assessment in "Reasons for Catholic Hope in the General Election" is that since neither McCain or Obama take a natural law standpoint on abortion (one being pro-choice and the other being pro-federalism rather than favoring a constitutional reading that sees the inalienable right to life—thus, we are truly nine judges away from overturning Roe v. Wade instead of one judge) there is no qualitative difference between their views and a Catholic could easily vote for either. I profoundly disagree with you. A Catholic is obliged to certain moral principles that promote the common good, but there is a clear hierachy of issues and we have to vote for the candidate that will clearly bring us closer to an end to abortion. It is clear to me that Obama's pledge "on this fundamental issue, I will not yield" and promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into federal law rolling back every federal and state law restricting abortion since the Roe v. Wade (including partial-birth abortion) is an ominous sign that Obama's "unity" abortion rhetoric is false.

As a Democrat, I would agree that Republicans don't give abortion the primacy it deserves and that they may not be all that serious about ending it. Sure. But that does not immediately justify a Democratic vote. McCain's view would allow many states to outlaw abortion. Obama has pledged to roll back any restrictions and abortion-on-demand will be the law of the land. Again, as a Democrat I believe women who get abortions are faced with the most difficult and tragic circumstances they may ever find themselves in and we need to work to eliminate the "abortion climate." I'm very compassionate toward women and aware of the social and economic crises women who opt for abortion face. But I don't see why we cannot legislate pro-woman policies and work to provide legal protection for the unborn simultaneously. Obama has talked real big, but there is no actual evidence of Obama's supposed tendency to "reach out" to people he in disagreement with. Unless he's talking to some massive audience and giving a lofty speech about "unity"—I find that any disagreement he rejects as "divisive" and "not what people care about..." followed by an hour long speech about gas prices and healthcare.

Lowering the abortion rate under a Democratic Administration is one thing, but to do so at the cost of having possibly every pro-life law since Roe v. Wade rolled back by the Freedom of Choice Act passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President is another thing. The ground we would lose on ending abortion is unfathomable. In the Illinois State Senate he voted against legislation similar to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate. Not only did he take the bill down, he kept it off the floor. There was a story in the news about babies who survived abortions dying in Chicago hospitals a few years ago and he was cited in the story as why the bill could not pass for about 5 years until he left the State Senate and then it passed. Truly, I do not wish to insult you or demean you as a Catholic. I am sure you have good intentions and you want to see human flourishing. But I cannot conceive how anyone in good conscience could vote for a man who believes that a child outside of the mother's womb does not deserve basic legal protection and medical treatment and instead votes in favor of the child being left to die in a utility room—jurisprudence goes out the window, bill language out the window—how can anyone vote for that? I don't think our Lord would vote him.

NARAL Pro-Choice America did not oppose the bill. I cannot fathom a candidate more pro-choice than NARAL, but Barack Obama is that candidate. Even in regard to healthcare Obama is a terrible choice. At a Planned Parenthood Forum in 2007, Barack Obama and John Edwards promised to include abortion coverage in their healthcare plans (and this was later confirmed by both campaigns). Therefore, Obama not only wants to allow access to abortion-on-demand at any point during pregnancy, not only will he apply a strict pro-choice litmus test to Justices he appoints, but he wants to cover abortion in universal healthcare and all citizens—including pro-life citizens—would have to pay for it. To even fathom that idea somehow says that he does not believe a word of all the hot air he spouts off in his speeches.

Even if Obama did believe what he was saying—I'm not convinced—he is naive to think that after 8 years of the President Bush horror (and it has been horrible), Democrats are ready for change. He'll pick for his Administration from the same run of the mill politicians, possibily with Hillary Clinton on his ticket, a Democratic Congress, and a solid pro-choice Supreme Court after his appointments. Basically, he'll be surrounded by politicians—more experienced than he, unless he picks a totally unexperienced Administration—glad to be back in control, eager for power, and not sharing his ideals for change, if they even exist. He has basically written a check that he cannot cash either way or doesn't even plan on cashing.

I don't doubt that you are a man of good will. In fact, it is unfortunate that you had to suffer the horrible experience of being denied the Eucharist. Perhaps, such an incidence may make it harder to concede. But I do hope that you prayerfully consider your position. If I'm right in regard to Sen. Barack Obama, his presidency could be a very grave setback for the pro-life cause. At one point, slavery was an issue and it wasn't until it is outlawed that the political climate changed; the same is true of civil rights. What is law, for some people is the way things should be and to let Roe v. Wade be enacted into federal law would be a real blow to the pro-life movement. Lastly, consider that it would be better in the long run for states to be allowed to determine what to do on abortion than let it stay legal in all 50 states while only trying to reduce the abortion rate—it could and would be illegal in many states. Illegal in many states is far better than illegal in no states. It is a mere step closer toward a total abolition of the holocaust of the unborn.

The Catholic obligation is not only to reduce the abortion rate, but to end its practice and the legality of abortion does matter. If there were a different candidate not with Obama's voting record and history and lack of legislative and executive experience, whom was mildly or even moderately pro-choice, I think things may be somewhat different, but Obama is too far to the left on a number of issues especially abortion. Obama by far is the leftist-leaning, most pro-abortion candidate in history and it is hard to fathom how he at all will receive or why he deserves a Catholic vote.