MARIO CUOMO - THE CINOP BRAIN - 3

MARIO CUOMO – THE CINOP BRAIN - 3
In pursuit of the truth – cinops be gone – Monday, January 12, 2009

We continue with David Carlin’s book, “Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? 204-6

# 2 – The practicality – and – prudence defense. (cont’d) This wasn’t because they held slavery to be morally permissible; rather, it was because they made a prudential judgment that denouncing it would serve no useful purpose – indeed, it might even cause harm. Cuomo says he’d like to see the bishops observe a similar reticence when it comes to abortion, for legal bans on abortion are not practical and therefore are imprudent.

“I believe {he says} that legal interdicting of all abortions by either the federal government or the individual states is not a plausible possibility and, even if it could be obtained, it wouldn’t work. Given present attitudes, it would be Prohibition revisited, legislating what couldn’t be enforced and in the process creating a disrespect for law in general.”

Cuomo is obviously correct that it would be impossible in practice to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning abortion. It was a political impossibility at the time he made his Notre Dame speech, and it remains so today. But is it impossible to ban abortion in individual states? It might have been, and might still be today, impossible in his own state of New York, and in other states in the Northeast and on the West Coast. But even in these “impossible” states, a strong case can be made for attempting to enact anti-abortion laws. The proposed legislation might not pass, at least not for many years, but the legislative and public debates surrounding such proposals could well serve a useful educational purpose. Such would not be the first time that unsuccessful legislative attempts gradually enlightened the public.

What about the “red” states? Even in 1984, many of those states would have been able to enact strong anti-abortion laws if the Court’s Roe decision had not stood in their way. And certainly they would be able to do so today, especially when the Republican Party, an anti-abortion party, is far more powerful in the South than it was in 1984. Should Roe be overturned in the near future, there can be little doubt that many states – and not just in the South – would rush to enact abortion-restriction legislation.

And what about Cuomo’s contention that laws banning abortion couldn’t be enforced? He makes this assertion without defending it - other than to suggest comparisons with Prohibition-era speakeasies and bootleggers. I’ll discuss the practicality of enforcement later, but for now let us just say this: in the 1920’s, it was far easier to sneak an illegal drink during Prohibition than it would be to sneak an illegal abortion in 21st century Alabama. It’s true enough that a haphazardly enforced law against abortion in the state of New York might create “disrespect for law in general,” but would a well- reasonably enforced law in Alabama have the same effect? More important, if he’s concerned about how bad law can create disrespect for law in general, why does Cuomo not mention the disrespect for law in general, why does Cuomo not mention the disrespect generated by the Roe v. Wade decision? Hasn’t the cultural divide over that decision served to undermine respect for the Supreme Court and for courts in general – and worse still, for the Constitution?

# 3 – Catholic shortcomings/hypocrisy: It ill befits Catholics, says Cuomo, to demand anti-abortion laws when they themselves are so “soft” on abortion:

“Catholics, the statistics show, support the right to abortion in equal proportion to the rest of the population….”

George H. Kubeck