Single Issue Voting

(This article , in slightly abreviated form, was published in The Roanoke Times, Roanoke, VA, on January 5, 2007.)

Linda Whitlock’s article (Roanoke Times, December 6), identifying herself as a single issue voter on the subject of abortion, tells us why Republicans are unlikely to preside over the demise of the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.  As politicians are likely to phrase the matter, they would rather have the issue than the solution.

Whitlock is not alone.  Apparently millions of voters put abortion (or the elimination of abortion) at the head of their public concerns.  For years this voting block has overwhelmingly embraced the Republican Party, whose platform has called for the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Whitlock is obviously an intelligent and compassion person.  But has she never wondered why, since Republican, pro-life presidents have presided over the nation for nineteen of the past twenty-seven years, and appointed the overwhelming majority of federal judges, and six of the sitting nine justices of the Supreme Court (Clinton appointed only two; John Stevens is a holdover from the Ford years), Roe v. Wade has not been overturned?

As I observe democracy, American style, I conclude that the primary goal of any elected government is to be re-elected.  The nation is fortunate when a government recognizes that the best way to accomplish this primary goal is to govern effectively.  But when re-election and governing effectively clash, re-election will trump other concerns in almost (a few important exceptions can be recalled) every instance.  This is as true of Democrats as Republicans.

Imagine yourself as a Republican candidate for national office.  You have two visions.  The first is the current condition.  You run championing a crusade against the evils of Roe v. Wade, demonizing liberal, activist judges, promising to see that pro-life judges are appointed to federal benches.  You anticipate with pleasure the Linda Whitlock’s of the nation falling obediently in behind you.  In the second vision you anticipate that the Supreme Court has actually overturned Roe v. Wade.  Several states have declared abortion to be murder.  Under these circumstances you must run defensively while web sites post photographs of women killed in back-alley abortion mills, and while stories circulate of desperate teenaged girls who performed abortions on themselves and now face a lifetime in prison.  Which vision has the greater appeal? 

Those who are appointed to the Supreme Court are usually outstanding lawyers, and they are loyal members of the party of the sitting President.  Their political loyalties do not end when they are confirmed to the Court.  Thus, seven judges appointed by Republican presidents are aware that their party is best served by decisions that nibble at the edges of Roe v. Wade (allowing states to outlaw late-term abortions, for example—a tiny percentage of all abortions performed), but keeping the basic decision in place.  Otherwise, people like Linda Whitlock may find other reasons for deciding where to place their mark on the next election ballot. 

Whitlock’s commitment to a more compassionate society through a focus on abortion comes up short on two grounds. First, societies that outlaw abortion do not abolish abortion.  Quite the contrary, nations that outlaw abortion consistently have higher abortion rates than those that do not.  A point of comparison:  Brazil, where abortion is illegal, has an abortion rate nearly seven times higher than that of Belgium, where abortion is freely available.  (Belgium also has in place effective programs designed to decrease the number of women requesting abortions.) 

Second, a society does not become compassionate when only one part of it changes.  No society could be considered compassionate while it allows more than forty million of its people to go without access to the best medical care; nor can it be called compassionate while it warehouses its mentally ill in prisons and provides only the most minimal care for their needs. 

I was fortunate to live in Illinois in Cardinal Joseph Bernadine’s final years as Archbishop of Chicago.  Bernadine spoke of a “consistent ethic of life.”  That seamless concern included, for him, opposition to abortion, opposition to capital punishment, opposition to war, and support for programs to provide for, among others, the poor, the elderly, and the mentally ill.

During one political campaign, the Cardinal spoke to one-issue voters: “Our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth,” he wrote. “Those who defend the right to life of the weakest [who are already] among us must be equally visible,” he continued,  “in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. ... Consistency means we can't have it both ways."  

I did not agree with the Cardinal on every issue, but I had great respect for him, and often was swayed by him, though I was not one of his flock. 

I commend Linda Whitlock for her passionate concern, even while I disagree that outlawing abortion will improve our common condition.  I encourage her to broaden the lens by which she sees morality.  By embracing many ways to practice compassion, she can encourage both parties to woo her.  By limiting her concern to one issue, she has given away her ballot to politicians who likely care more for her vote than for her cause.