‘Jane Roe” Arrested

Todd J. Gillman reports:

Norma McCorvey – the Dallas woman known as Jane Roe in the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade – was among the protesters arrested today for disrupting the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

The case that bears McCorvey’s court-picked pseudonym – and that of longtime Dallas district attorney Henry Wade, her legal adversary in the case – has been a central issue in judicial nomination fights for years. But McCorvey herself long ago decided that she regretted her role in the fight to legalize abortion, and has worked with anti-abortion activists as a potent symbol of the effort to overturn the Roe decision.

McCorvey, 61, is being charged with unlawful conduct/disruption of Congress, said Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider.

Krauthammer – Obama the Neophyte

Obama is pleased with the arms reduction agreement.  Should he be?  Should we be? Charles Krauthammer opines:

Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs. That a man of Obama’s intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers — the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) — induced the curtailment of anyone’s programs. Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.

Further, says Krauthammer:

Unfortunately for the United States, the country Obama represents, the prospective treaty is useless at best, detrimental at worst.

Useless because the level of offensive nuclear weaponry, the subject of the U.S.-Russia “Joint Understanding,” is an irrelevance. We could today terminate all such negotiations, invite the Russians to build as many warheads as they want, and profitably watch them spend themselves into penury, as did their Soviet predecessors, stockpiling weapons that do nothing more than, as Churchill put it, make the rubble bounce.

Read it all here.

“Love in Truth” – “Caritas in Veritate”

From the Introduction of Caritas in Veritate

“Love in truth — caritas in veritate — is a great challenge for the Church in a world that is becoming progressively and pervasively globalized. The risk for our time is that the de facto interdependence of people and nations is not matched by ethical interaction of consciences and minds that would give rise to truly human development. Only in charity, illumined by the light of reason and faith, is it possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane and humanizing value. The sharing of goods and resources, from which authentic development proceeds, is not guaranteed by merely technical progress and relationships of utility, but by the potential of love that overcomes evil with good (cf. Rom 12:21), opening up the path towards reciprocity of consciences and liberties.

The Wall Street Journal reports “Anyone seeking a repudiatyion of the market economy will be disappointed.”

The Pope on ‘Love in Truth’

By ROBERT A. SIRICO

In his much anticipated third encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (Love in Truth), Pope Benedict XVI does not focus on specific systems of economics — he is not attempting to shore up anyone’s political agenda. He is rather concerned with morality and the theological foundation of culture. The context is of course a global economic crisis — a crisis that’s taken place in a moral vacuum, where the love of truth has been abandoned in favor of a crude materialism. The pope urges that this crisis become “an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future.” Yet his encyclical contains no talk of seeking a third way between markets and socialism. Words like greed and capitalism make no appearance here, despite press headlines following the publication of the encyclical earlier this week. People seeking a blueprint for the political restructuring of the world economy won’t find it here. But if they look to this document as a means for the moral reconstruction of the world’s cultures and societies, which in turn influence economic events, they will find much to reflect upon. Caritas in Veritate is an eloquent restatement of old truths casually dismissed in modern times. The pope is pointing to a path neglected in all the talk of economic stimulus, namely a global embrace of truth-filled charity. Benedict rightly attributes the crisis itself to “badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing.” But he resists the current fashion of blaming all existing world problems on the market economy. “The Church,” he writes, “has always held that economic action is not to be regarded as something opposed to society.” Further: “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations.” The market is rather shaped by culture. “Economy and finance . . . can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man’s darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” The pope does not reject globalization: “Blind opposition would be a mistaken and prejudiced attitude, incapable of recognizing the positive aspects of the process, with the consequent risk of missing the chance to take advantage of its many opportunities for development.” He says that “the world-wide diffusions of prosperity should not . . . be held up by projects that are protectionist.” More, not less, trade is needed: “the principal form of assistance needed by developing countries is that of allowing and encouraging the gradual penetration of their products into international markets.” The encyclical doesn’t attack capitalism or offer models for nations to adopt. “The Church does not have technical solutions to offer,” the pope firmly states, “and does not claim ‘to interfere in any way in the politics of States.’ She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance . . .” Benedict is profoundly aware that economic science has much to contribute to human betterment. The Church’s role is not to dictate the path of research but to focus its goals. “Economic science tells us that structural insecurity generates anti-productive attitudes wasteful of human resources. . . . Human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs.” He constantly returns to two practical applications of the principle of truth in charity. First, this principle takes us beyond earthly demands of justice, defined by rights and duties, and introduces essential moral priorities of generosity, mercy and communion — priorities which provide salvific and theological value. Second, truth in charity is always focused on the common good, defined as an extension of the good of individuals who live in society and have broad social responsibilities. As for issues of population, he can’t be clearer: “To consider population increase as the primary cause of underdevelopment is mistaken, even from an economic point of view.” Several commentators have worried about his frequent calls for wealth redistribution. Benedict does see a role for the state here, but much of the needed redistribution is the result of every voluntary and mutually beneficial exchange. To understand such passages fully and accurately, we do well to put our political biases on the shelf. This encyclical is a theological version of his predecessor’s more philosophical effort to anchor the free economy’s ethical foundation. Much of it stands squarely with a long tradition of writings of a certain “classical liberal” tradition, one centered on the moral foundation of economics, from St. Thomas Aquinas and his disciples, Frederic Bastiat in the 19th century, Wilhelm Roepke, and even the secular F.A. Hayek in the 20th century. It also clearly resonates with some European Christian democratic thought. Caritas in Veritate is a reminder that we cannot understand ourselves as a human community if we do not understand ourselves as something more than the sum or our material parts; if we do not understand our capacity for sin; and if we do not understand the principle of communion rooted in the gratuitousness of God’s grace. Simply put, to this pope’s mind, there is no just or moral system without just and moral people. Father Sirico is president and co-founder of the Acton Institute.

86% of Americans Want Abortion Restrictions

NewsMax.com reports the numbers:

Among the key findings:

  • 86% of Americans would significantly restrict abortion.
  • 60% of Americans would limit abortion to cases of rape, incest or to save the life of a mother – or would not allow it at all.
  • 53% of Americans believe abortion does more harm than good to a woman in the long term.
  • 79% of Americans support conscience exemptions on abortion for health care workers. This includes 64% of those who identify as strongly pro-choice.
  • 69% of Americans think that it is appropriate for religious leaders to speak out on abortion.
  • 59% say religious leaders have a key role to play in the abortion debate.
  • 80% of Americans believe that laws can protect both the health of the woman and the life of the unborn. This includes 68% of those who identified as strongly pro-choice.

    Additionally, the data showed that since October nearly every demographic sub-group had moved toward the pro-life position except for non-practicing Catholics and men under 45 years of age.

    Independents and liberals showed the greatest shift to the pro-life position since October, while Democrats were slightly less likely to be pro-life now than they were in October.

    “The data shows that the American people are placing an ever increasing value on human life,” said Supreme Knight Carl Anderson. “Far from the great divide that most people think exists when it comes to the abortion debate, there is actually a great deal of common ground. Most Americans are unhappy with the unrestricted access to abortion that is the legacy of Roe

    vs. Wade, and pundits and elected leaders should take note of the fact that agreement on abortion need not be limited to the fringes of the debate and issues like adoption or pre-natal care. The American people have reached a basic consensus, and that consensus is at odds with the unrestricted access to abortion that is the legacy of Roe.”

    The survey of 1,223 Americans was conducted May 28 – 31 and has a margin of error of +/-3%.

  • Death Knell for Affirmative Action?

    eCharles Krauthammer sounds the death knell for reverse racism with the Supreme Courts Ricci decision:

    Ricci left Sotomayor relatively unscathed. But not affirmative action. Ricci raised the bar considerably on overt discrimination against one racial group simply to undo the unintentionally racially skewed results of otherwise fair and objective employment procedures (in this case, examinations).

    Krauthammer notes (bemoans?) Sotomayor’s survival:

    While overturned on Ricci, she is protected by the four dissenting justices who upheld the side of the case she had taken as an appeals court judge. Sotomayor was additionally helped by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s insistence on reading her dissent from the bench, as if to emphasize the legitimacy of her position — and, by implication, Sotomayor’s.

    Obama Concerned – Drawing Attention Away From God?

    Obama  afraid he might over-shadow God by his presence at Sunday worship?

    Lynn Sweet reports in the Chicago Sun-Times:

    Gibbs was asked at the briefing, “Is the Time magazine report correct, that the president has told his staff that he intends to not search for a church in Washington but he will worship at Camp David instead?

    Gibbs’ answer used the word formal many times–a wiggle word, perhaps.

    He replied, “No. He’s — there have been no formal decisions about joining a church. I think I’ve mentioned in here, in the past couple of weeks, that when he goes to Camp David, he has attended services at the chapel there. He enjoys the pastor there.

    “They’re not formally joining that church. And there have been no formal decisions on joining a church in this area. I will say, I think, one aspect of the article that is true, as I mentioned here in that same discussion, was the concern that the president continues to have, about the disruptive nature of his presence on any particular Sunday, in some churches around the area.
    “I think that was discussed in the article. And I know he’s — I think obviously he shares the strong belief that there’s a very personal nature to one’s spirituality. And for it to be — for his presence to be disruptive, I think, he believes that takes away from the experience that others might get and certainly doesn’t want to do that.”