The problem is that the “pro-choice” position is one which recognizes abortion as a morally acceptable act. In other words, to be “pro-choice” is to call abortion a suitable option among other options.

Substitute another intrinsic evil and see if “pro-choice” seems palatable regarding slavery, racism, or murder.

Also, the aim is not to target 1/2 of the population with criminal intent. Just as the movement to abloish slavery was not aimed at prosecuting the many slaveholders in the South — it was to recognize a moral evil in our midst and free the human beings being denied their liberty. Likewise, the aim of the pro-life movement is to recognize those being denied their right to life.

It might be helpful to consider that 1/2 of the 45+ million babies killed in their mothers’ wombs have been female.

Who is targeting whom?

And there’s the rub.

How many among that vast sea of “Catholic” voters out there can we count on to go to the polls as “committed pro-lifers?” The face of the Congressional delegations from New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, California and other heavily “Catholic” populated states tells me that abortion hardly registers on many “Catholic” radars as a factor in choosing between a “pro-choice” candidate and a “pro-life” one. Their choice for POTUS will be decided no differently despite the glaring contrast between the voting records of the two contenders, one constantly “pro-life,” the other consistently “anti-life.” (Add to that the matter of one being a strong defender of the traditional family, the other committed to tearing down the boundaries and redefining “family” and “marriage” to include those living arrangements Sacred Scripture characterizes as “unnatural.”

Sadly for most, if Catholic Social Justice factors in at all in their voting preferences it is as a one-dimensional “flatland” landscape, one issue carrying no more weight than the others, morally speaking. I take that back. There are a lot of “niche” “Social Justice” Catholics who have staked out what in *their* minds is *the* issue: Iraq war, protection of the environment, amnesty for illegal aliens, or just venting their spleen at anything that has a “Republican” label. (So much of the anti-McCain propaganda tries to appeal to this group by linking him with GWB.)

I’m preaching to the choir here for the most part. Those who really need to be reading articles like Mr. Mason’s are over at justpeace.org or networklobby.org. (or moveon.org)and don’t particularly want to hear what *we* (or the U.S. Bishops for that matter) have to say about abortion and the preeminence of protection of the innocent unborn. Their ears have long gotten used to the sound of “Choose Life” and have learned to effectively tune that message out.

That isn’t to say that those who are pro-life can walk indifferently by when confronted by issues involving economics, the environment, health care, etc. But we understand that these others are for the most part prudential judgment matters. The USCCB’s 2007 “Faithful Citizen” statement makes that very clear.
But they also make clear that when faced with a clear choice between a “pro-life” candidate and “pro-choice” candidate our consciences should lead us toward the defense of Life, and not give issues like tax reform greater weight than reversing Roe v. Wade. Yet, tragically, a lot of Catholics do just that.

If ever a national election in this country compelled us to prevailing prayer, it is this one.