Please welcome guest poster JF, a concerned Catholic

I just finished reading an article in the New York Times about the fact that some Catholic Bishops are banding together against Kerry and saying that any Catholic who adheres to Catholic teachings should vote for Bush and against Kerry.

My first reaction is, what ever happened to separation of church and state? I'm amazed, as a Catholic, that the church feels the need to step in and demand that the followers of the faith follow a certain candidate. 

My second reaction, however, is that many people who are pro-life will probably buy into this absurdity.  It's absurd because if someone really looked into how much influence a president has on something like abortion, they will find that a president's ability to change the abortion issue relies primarily on his or her ability to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.   Some might say that he can do what Bush has done and "ban 'partial-birth' abortions." The reality of that is, however, that many courts are overturning that ban based on the fact that it is unconstitutional.  The Court, then, is the primary way to overturn Roe v. Wade and other cases.

However, the President's ability to appoint a Supreme Court Justice is reliant on a Justice either retiring or dying.  As Stevens is the oldest Justice, and the one most likely to step down next, the focus should be on him. My bet, however, is that unless a liberal president is elected, Justice Stevens will wait four years to retire.

But, if for argument's sake, if we pretend that the President will appoint the next Justice, we then have to believe that the Court will also get a case on abortion, which may or may not happen. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that the court would fully criminalize abortion. Therefore, someone would elect a president based solely on his or her ability to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who might get an abortion case, and who will then vote (with the other Justices) to limit abortions in some fashion. That is pretty tenuous if you ask me.

If, however, a person wished to look at the reasons why people get abortions, and then try to stop abortions through prevention, the clear choice for President would be Kerry. I would argue that many abortions occur because women and families lack support, there is a lack of education about birth control options, and there is a lot of domestic violence, mental illness (I work with people with mental illness. This is not to disrespect anyone with mental illness. There have been studies, however, that indicate that people who get multiple abortions often have a mental illness) and other issues which contribute to people feeling like they have no options other than to get an abortion. To then examine what the candidate's position on these issues, clearly Kerry is closer to giving women/families more options. Kerry supports programs like Head Start, WIC, TANF, food stamps, Section 8 (housing) and other programs which directly assist women and families. Under Bush, programs such as Section 8, WIC and others have had their funding substantially cut. There are two million more people who are homeless (than when Clinton was president), 1/2 of which are children. No Child Left Behind is terribly underfunded. He sponsors giving "incentives" for poor people who are married, which sounds like a nice idea, but encourages people to stay in domestic violence situations. He continues to cut funding to programs supporting the poor, and those with disabilities, including mental illness. He also suggests that we teach abstinence, which bellies the idea that teens continue to have sexual intercourse at increasingly young ages. When one looks at the totality of each candidates views, Kerry is far superior in supporting programs which will actually support women and families rather than the possibility of appointing a Supreme Court Justice who might limit abortions in some fashion. The outcomes are counter-intuitive.

I will vote for John Kerry on November 2nd. Even as someone who considers herself in theory, pro-life; I cannot vote for a candidate based on his ability to possibly appoint a Supreme Court Justice who might possibly limit abortions, when that candidate will also cut funding to all the programs which will support families. One-issue voting is misinformed. It's time to get informed about the issues and the stances that each candidate faces. Plus, how come the church can ignore such glaring disparities when it comes to other social issues such as supporting the poor, going to war, etc. etc.? How come the church possibly sides with someone because of one issue, when other issue that the candidate takes are so contradictory to Catholic social teachings? I would have to say that, not the first time in the history of the church, the church's stance is for all intents and purposes, wrong. Issues are not black and white. Anyone who suggests that they are has not fully thought through an issue.