He starts his latest effort by making us wonder why anyone, as a practicing Catholic, would care what the idiot behind the pulpit was saying during a sermon.
"As a matter of Catholic teaching, who’s right? None of us. Who’s wrong? Also, none of us. Catholic teaching simply does not supply a single, definitive answer."
So why not just chuck it professor? Could you give us a single, definitive answer to that one? If a religion doesn’t teach you the difference between right and wrong, in clear and distinct terms, there are better ways you could spend your tithing allowance.
I haven’t ever prayed to God in hopes of receiving a non-responsive missal, cloaked in the weasel-words of non-definitiveness. God is either omnipotent, or he’s just another bum on the plush.
Kmiec’s powers of reasoning flower into full and putrid blossom when he argues that Catholics shouldn’t vote against Barak Obama because of his support of upholding Roe v. Wade. His deliberate obfuscation of the difference between a necessary logical condition and a sufficient logical condition takes the cake for sending us a non-responsive missal, cloaked in the weasel-words of hoping there won’t be any changes.
Given that abortion is an intrinsic evil without justification, thinking the overturning of Roe “solves” the abortion problem, when it does not, can mislead Catholics into the erroneous conclusion that any candidate unwilling to pledge reversal of Roe is categorically unworthy of support.
I agree strongly with Professor Kmiec’s assertion that overturning Roe v. Wade doesn’t solve the abortion problem in and of itself. It is a necessary condition to limit the number of abortions performed, but is not legally or morally sufficient to accomplish the task. Like the heroic efforts of D-Day, overturning Roe v. Wade would only be the end of the beginning.
With Roe v. Wade out of the way, the deliberate misappropriation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and the so-called right to privacy skulking in the penumbras thereof, would not longer render a state law limiting abortions facially invalid. There would be no valid standing for a plaintiff to assail state jurisprudence in a case such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
In other words, getting Roe v. Wade overturned would allow states to conduct debates on abortion. Laws would still have to be passed and enforced. The debate on the morality and legality of abortion would commence after such a reversal of USSC precedent.
In several states, abortion would become an illegal medical procedure. In several others, laws such as those supported by then Illinois State Senator Barak Obama that condone partial birth abortion, would be successfully enacted over the dead body of basic decency and goodness. Here is a description of how late-term an abortion Barak Obama political supports.
This is a procedure, performed in late-term pregnancies, where a fetus is extracted from the uterus via the birth canal by the legs. The head of the child is left inside the mother until after the infant's brains have been sucked out. All the while the poor child is kicking and flailing. Many lives that are destroyed this way are past the point at which they are viable outside the womb.
Assuming the American electorate’s views on abortion remained unchanged, what would happen in the absence of Roe v. Wade is similar to what happened to alcohol laws in the absence of The Prohibition Amendment. There would be “dry” states and unlimited abortion states. Most states would adopt a stance somewhere on a continuum between the two polar opposites.
If Professor Kmiec cared in the slightest about getting rid of abortion, he would realize that Roe v. Wade was a road block to any serious discussion of the issue outside of the USSC. It’s ban would initiate a discussion of abortion that is thirty-four years and 38 million dead babies too late.
Recent comments