On a New Grassroots Pro-Life Movement

At the recent Democratic National Convention, Bob Casey made up for the slight against his father in 1992 by speaking at the invitation of Barack Obama. He made their disagreement clear:

“Barack Obama and I have an honest disagreement on the issue of abortion,” he said. “But the fact that I’m speaking here tonight is testament to Barack’s ability to show respect for the views of people who may disagree with him.”

They do not agree on abortion. Yet there is something else that Casey sees in Obama, beginning of course with his very openness to allow Casey to speak. He further elaborated on this at his speech to the Democrats for Life at the convention, another meeting which got a fair amount of press. His main point:

Many pregnant women who face pregnancy, regardless of income and circumstances, for whatever reason are “in crisis,” Casey said. He argued that government and society should show solidarity with such women through government assistance. "We’re not doing that now,” he said. “In my judgment, neither party is doing enough on this issue.”

The question is one regarding offering as complete a package of help to pregnant women and young mothers as they may need in order to raise their child. In other words, to cultivate a child friendly culture, which it certainly is not now.

He continued:

Since current law grants the right of women to have abortions, Casey argued, “We ought to make sure that she also has the option to carry that child to term. We’ve got to help her, okay? This isn’t her problem, it’s our problem.”

My point here is that Casey, at the invitation of Obama, historically made up for what was denied to his father. We live in a different political environment. Recently I debated with a friend as to whether one could in good conscience vote for Obama over McCain. His main concern, as is mine, is, despite all the arguments that link abortion to poverty, despite the claims that abortions were lower during Clinton's administration than during the Bushs', and despite arguments that when balanced out, more innocent lives would probably be lost during a McCain administration than during an Obama one, that still, to simply vote pro-life in this country remains important, if only to preserve abortion as a relevant issue. I see this argument. Abortion is hardly a relevant issue in Europe anymore. The grassroots pro-life movement in the United States has been tremendously successful at keeping it at the forefront of the American mind.

However, this has been in many ways despite, not because of, the alliance of the pro-life movement with the Republican party. I remember back to the early years of the movement, when my dad and Father Thomas and other members of our community were getting arrested for sitting in front of abortion clinics. The days when I was carried to police cars, and dragged through parking lots. When Bishops sat next to university presidents who sat next to homeless people. The movement at that time had vitality. Joan Andrews was a hero like to Martin Luther King Jr. Protestants sat with Catholics, with atheists, with people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds. There was ingenuity and vision. There was a richness and vitality to the movement. Much of that is lost. The movement has focused my myopically on federal politics, and the wind went out of much of the early grassroots groundswell, the part of the movement that actually gave it life.

It may be that time again for the movement to re-energize at the grassroots level, and to do so by dropping all political allegiances. The pro-life movement has become too partisan, and has thereby lost its strength. I remember it being more energized under Clinton, if only because it was persecuted. But that is a negative reason. The positive reason is that there are many young people who want to enter the movement. They want to be a part of it, and make a change. But that big picture change will never, I repeat never, take place with one party. It must include both. Obama has shown himself open to allow Casey to speak, to allow Democrats for Life to appear on the national stage. I see far more hope for continued relevance and growth and effectiveness in the pro-life movement if it pushes to work across party lines and builds again at the grassroots level, where the Civil Rights movement was so effective, than if it remains with the Republican right alone. Such a strategy will not work.

Is there a danger of losing relevance if Obama is elected? Will his "progressive" appeal cause the young to lose sight of abortion as an issue? Possibly, but I don't think so. He, even, cannot lose sight of it, and he is opening a new space in his party for a new debate. This is something to take advantage of, not lament. Sticking to the old playing rules by thinking one has to vote for McCain is myopic. As pro-lifers, we do have at least two options, if not many more, and definitely not only one.

Nathan O'Halloran, SJ