Fr. Neuhaus: Pro-Life Movement is True Fulfillment of Hope for American Democracy

In the January 2009 issue of First Things Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has an article entitled The Pro-Life Movement as the Politics of the 1960s . In the article he looks at a new book, The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right, by Jon Shields, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College (Princeton University Press). Fr. Neuhaus points out that while it is not a Pro-Life tract, it "is an excruciatingly careful study, studded with the expected graphs and statistical data—but not to the point of spoiling its readability—in the service of probing the curious permutations in contemporary political alignments."

It shows that "Whatever else it is, the pro-life movement of the last thirty-plus years is one of the most massive and sustained expressions of citizen participation in the history of the United States. Since the 1960s, citizen participation and the remoralizing of politics have been central goals of the left. Is it not odd, then, that the pro-life movement is viewed as a right-wing cause? Reinhold Niebuhr wrote about “the irony of American history” and, were he around to update his book of that title, I expect he might recognize this as one of the major ironies within the irony."

In 1962 the Port Huron Statement was issued by the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). It "called for a participatory democracy in which, through protest and agitation, the “power structure” of the society would be transformed by bringing moral rather than merely procedural questions to the center of political life." I wonder what those involved with that statement would think of what Shields discovered 45 years later.

He found that “some 45 percent of respondents in the Citizens Participation Survey who reported participating in a national protest did so because of abortion. What is more, nearly three quarters of all abortion-issue protesters are pro-life, an unsurprising fact given that the pro-life movement is challenging rather than defending the current policy regime. Meanwhile, all other social issues, including pornography, gay rights, school prayer, and sex education, account for only 3 percent of all national protest activity.”

1 thing that Shields points out that was no surprize to me was the treatment of Pro-Life groups on most college campuses (& I would add including Catholic). " He cites striking instances of the campus efforts of groups such as JFA (Justice for All) and CBR (Center for Bio-Ethical Reform) meeting with frequently vicious hostility, often led by faculty members."

These groups find this unwillingness to allow "civil discussion" fustrating. & it is more than mere unwillingness, it a deliberate plan by pro-abortion forces. Sheilds says: “Such frustration is fueled by NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, whose leaders discourage their campus affiliates from debating or even talking to pro-life students. NARAL’s ‘Campus Kit for Pro-Choice Organizers,’ for example, gives this categorical instruction: ‘Don’t waste time talking to anti-choice people.’” The campus organizer for Planned Parenthood told Shields that she “discourages direct debate.” Feminists for Life has had more success on campuses, mainly because its members shake up conventional notions on the “woman question.” As leaders of the organization put it, the goal is not to “fit into a man’s world on men’s terms,” which means above all not “troubling employers with their fertility problems.” As they repeatedly assert, “Women deserve better than abortion.”

Shields makes a very interesting observation about who is truly conservative in the Pro-abortion/Pro-Life debate. He says: "the pro-choice movement is a conservative movement defending the status quo. Pro-choicers have little to gain from engaging their opponents and from the deliberative norms that facilitate persuasion.” I suspect that it is because yhey know that if there is actual discussion about the facts, the Pro-Life side will win.

Then there is another thing he talks about that didn't surprize me either. The Main Stream Media bias. Shields talked to the head of New York State Right to Life. She told him that “a major part of her work is simply trying to convince journalists that pro-life activists are ‘normal.’ It is hard to imagine a pro-choice leader describing her work that way.” Yes it is, because she wouldn't have to.

Then Shields goes on to explode the myth about who is Pro-Life. He found that the “pro-life movement is actually quite diverse, and abortion politics more generally does not [as some claim] pit working-class Catholic housewives against professional, career-oriented women.” Nor is the Pro-Life anti-woman as abortion supporters claim. He found that Pro-Life men & women “are only moderately less likely to be ‘very concerned’ about women’s rights. ”

Another thing Shields notes also explains all the attacks on the "Christian Right". He says that “One of the great political ironies of the past few decades is that the Christian Right has been much more successful than its political rivals at fulfilling New Left hopes for American democracy. Far more than any movement since the early campaign for civil rights, the Christian Right has helped revive participatory democracy in America by overcoming citizens’ alienation from politics.” Given that much of the Pro-abortion gang would identify themselves as the remnant of those in the 60s calling for participatory democracy, Fr. Neuhaus' reminder of the old maxim "Be careful what you hope for." is very appropriate.

I recommend following the link & reading the entire article as there is so much more than I could cover in this post. Fr. Neuhaus has 1 thing wrong in his article. He says the book is coming out in January. According to Amazon it won't be out until 19 Feb 2009.

_____________________
As a side note, please keep Fr. Neuhaus in your prayers as he has been diagnosed with cancer & is undergoing treatment for it.