I have some other thoughts on the March for Life that didn’t make it into the Inside Catholic piece. I’d like to share some of them with you here. You understand my thoughts on the focus of the March being wrong, but I think it’s important to realize that this thought didn’t occur to me in a vacuum.
I’m worried that the March has become a pure political statement and serves no real purpose other than to make pro-lifers feel good about taking some kind of action. As a former regular attendee, I am well aware of this feeling. Get together with tens of thousands of other pro-lifers, march down Constitution Avenue on what invariably amounts to one of the coldest days of the year (“Offer it up!”) and make a stand in front of the Supreme Court to let them know you’re mad as hell that abortion is legal and you’re not going to take it anymore. (If you’re in college, you then head immediately to the Dubliner for a pint of self-congratulatory Guinness and to catch up with old friends it seems you only get to see on January 22nd.)
As time wore on, however, something nagged at me. It began to feel more and more like it was all just for show, and a show nobody was watching but us. While we may think that by marching we are making an impact, I can tell you from experience that you can live here in Washington and not even know that the March for Life took place. Our focus, I began to realize, was all wrong. Here we were, marching up to the steps of the Supreme Court to show our displeasure with their judicial activism by demanding some of our own. This was plainly hypocritical, and yet somehow it took me years to see it.
What I came to understand was this: if Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned, it must be done with the respect for law that was neglected in its initial passage. Due process must be followed or the laws we would enact to protect life will be easily overturned. We need to recognize that an issue that is so important to the people must be decided by the people, not an imperial judiciary or at the whim of a President. (This is the position I explained in my piece in more detail.)
But it’s important not to underestimate the significance of this. Pro-lifers, by and large, seem to be so desirous of stopping the holocaust that they don’t worry about what they will lose in order to achieve it. They want to grant powers to the federal government in overturning the law that could just as easily be used to broaden it, or suppress our freedom to speak in opposition to it. Essentially, they don’t have a problem with the government controlling the people as long as the government is on their side. This is a dangerous rationale, and one that ultimately will lead to disaster. It’s one of the reasons I don’t trust guys like Mike Huckabee who campaign for the Presidency promising to fight for a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw abortion when they know damned well such an amendment will never pass - even if it were a good idea, which I’m not convinced it is. Start fiddling with the Constitution to force concessions on such a hotly contested issue, and you weaken the authority of the document and increase the likelihood that it will continue to be abused and exploited by whoever is in power.
Give the decision to the people, however, and you’ll see that the surprisingly large amount of pro-life sentiment in this country will show through legislation at the state level that at the very least would severely restrict abortion in the immediate future. That’s progress.
On the occasion of the confirmation of Justice Alito, Ron Paul made the following observation in a column published at LewRockwell.com:
Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it’s far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.
Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don’t fight for them ourselves.
Marching on Washington as a sign of protest may make us feel solidarity with our fellow pro-life Americans, bolster our will to fight, and give us a sense of purpose, but it has not moved us significantly toward an end to this horror that has plagued our nation over the past 35 years. It was recently reported that abortions are down in this country, now 1.3 million annually instead of 1.5 million. I suppose that’s progress, but it’s hardly cause for a celebration. We may be winning some battles, but we are not winning this war. The tactics we have employed thus far are frankly not accomplishing enough.
My advice, therefore, is this: march if you want to, but don’t expect it to change anything. There’s nothing wrong with participating in the March as long as we recognize that to those outside our ranks it is a largely superfluous (though well-intentioned) gesture. If we want more, however, we need to revisit our pro-life and political strategies and then work and vote for the things that will really make a difference.
I like Paul’s idea about removing court jurisdiction from Roe v. Wade a lot. I can understand the worry about it being a bad precedent for other laws, but that’s what voters are for.
The March always brings to my mind a passage from Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue. He points out that a relativistic democracy like ours, with very ambiguous first principles and a fluid moral character determined by voting, lacks the context necessary for rational discussion in the public forum. When you relegate even first principles to popular opinion, you get a society which depends upon screaming mobs marching with signs and bumper stickers to uphold truth and justice.
I still agree with your point about judicial activism, but I suspect that the cultural roots of public protests go beyond that debate.
pro-lifers feel so bad most of the time that I do’nt really have any objection to their getting together once a year to help them feel better.
I don’t go myself and I get your gist, but I do think that it isn’t a matter of either/or.
And I think the fact that it has grown so huge and become so much a young person’s thing that this alone is a good use for it. I remember going to my first big pro-lifer thing. It was a revelation that there were other people who thought as I did.
But I’m far enough along now that I don’t need to go spend a day out in the freezing cold in Washington. Leave that to the younger folk.
Your point about the effectiveness is well taken. As a mom, who has taken her daughters to the March: it is invaluable for them to see that there ARE thousands who are pro-life. We are Catholic and different than the rest of the culture but we are not alone. My 12 year old daughter is so much braver about being pro-life than I ever was. Having gone to the March for three years, I can definately see that I may not wish to do this forever (maybe I should respond to the needs of pregnant women more directly) - however it is a great thing for the youth.
love in Christ, Deni
“I’m worried that the March has become a pure political statement and serves no real purpose other than to make pro-lifers feel good about taking some kind of action”
I do not totally agree with you. We have not been able to make it to the DC March but we participate in something local. It isn’t about making us “feel good” either. It is a statement. I know in DC that some also have a chance to speak with some pro choice people and sometimes that changes their heart. I know that people listen to the witness talks of those who have had an abortion and do affect people.
I don’t agree with you on this one Steve.
Samee,
I’m perfectly fine with your disagreement. The point of bringing something like this up is not only so I can voice my dissenting opinion, but also so a discussion can be had about it.
Being pro-life has taken very distinct forms over the past 35 years, and I can’t help but feel that pro-lifers are sort of stuck in the same ruts. Some of what they do is effective, some isn’t. Pro-life people are used to being challenged by their opponents. I don’t think they are used to being questioned from within.
This discussion is part of the process that will make us, I hope, more effective.
Yes, we do need to look and see what we can do to make our efforts more effective. I personally feel we will gain more ground if the abortion issue were left up to the states individually. Now, if we could get the GA Bishops to agree on this…that would be a small miracle and maybe set the tone for the rest of the states.
Also, what is wrong with the march being beneficial to us, to encourage us and to know we are not alone in this fight? At a local level, we have lost people instead of gaining in our march. But it is edifying and encouraging to see, especially the young marching in Washington. It is a strong statement that we are not “gone” or alone. Also all the priests and bishops at the mass were amazing. Especially since our own bishop didn’t show for our own.
Samee,
Nothing is wrong with the March being something that just rallies the troops. I suppose I simply never thought of that as the purpose of the March. It was always more of a side effect in my mind.
This could be a function of my own personality though. I don’t need those kinds of things. If something is right, I fight for it. If it isn’t, I don’t. I’m not easily aroused to action by these kinds of thing. I was probably more prone to that as a teenager, and that’s what I’m hearing a lot of - that more than anything, this March is for them.
I can definitely see that point.
Steve et al.
Having gone to the March several times myself, it is edifying to meet pro-lifers. I do know a bunch of them around here, even in the liberal Northeast, but it’s nice to see so many in one place down there. I can’t help but think that if we actually turned the March into something for the pro-lifers, we could have a million people come. I have been told the reason why the March is when it is (other than the obvious anniversary date) is so that the Congressional delegates will see us. Has ANYONE ever seen a pro-abortion delegate on that day?
Consider the thought of a March . . . during the Spring . . . on a Saturday . . . drawing everyone who wants to go, but can’t because of work or weather. Instead of 1 or 2 hundred thousand, how about a million?
Instead of having a March where we are suppose to be trying to make a statement and the side effect being an edification of your pro-life viewpoints, why not have a March where we purposely try to get together to help each other with the side effect of making a huge statement to Congress? And they will know if a million show up.
Yes . . . no?
“Some of what they do is effective, some isn’t. ”
But we’re called to be faithful and not effective right?
Being faithful to the cause - i.e., fidelity to the defense of unborn human life, is one thing. Faithfulness is demonstrated through prayer, fasting, reparation, etc.
If we are speaking about pragmatic actions, however, effectiveness should be paramount. Otherwise, we are wasting time. (I should know this…I am a master at wasting time.)
If the March for Life is feeding the energy of those who need the boost to go out and continue pro-life work in their daily lives, great. It’s serving a purpose. If it’s not helpful in that way, as it isn’t for men like me (and many others) then it should be of no consequence for those people not to attend.
Unfortunately, people tend to look at you like you’re a traitor if you shun the pro-life movement’s biggest event. It’s as if attendance is a foregone conclusion.
I want people to know (that’s why I wrote this) that there’s a good reason why I don’t go. They may not personally agree, but that doesn’t negate the logic I’ve tried to explain.
hmmm yes, the “faithful not effective” dodge.
I’ve seen it deteriorate, and quickly, into an excuse for time card-punching.
A lot of people in the pro-life movement like to do things in order to make themselves feel as if they’re doing something. I know a whole group here in England who go to their monthly meeting, at which they talk about exactly the same things (little church fundraisers) for exactly one hour. Their main objective has become, after who knows how many years, to go to the meeting and keep it to exactly one hour. I simply cannot for the life of me imagine what they think they’re accomplishing.
It is this type, usually in their sixties and seventies, who cannot for all the money in the world, be dragged out to anything else for any other reason. I was faced with a little crew of them in Halifax. I tried to organise a picket on mother’s day at the abortion facility. Every one of the long timers on my phone list said the same thing, with the same despairing, whiney, fatalistic tone, “We tried that, years ago, but it didn’t work.” And they make up the boards of directors of nearly every pro-life organisation in the western world.
They seem to respond exactly the same way every time someone under fifty comes to a meeting full of interest in doing something: “Well, that’s fine, but we’ve been doing things this way for 25 years”. Then at the meeting coffee break, they cluster together complaining that they can’t keep “the youth” in their organisations.
They’re faithful all right,
but I’ve never seen a bigger bunch of useless bumps on logs.