On May 17, 2009 President Barack Obama will ascend the steps of the Joyce Auditorium stage to accept Notre Dame’s highest honor as a doctor of laws, amid deafening applause.  And doubtless, it will come after months of intense debate on messy things like academic freedom, the nature and mission of Catholic universities, and what it means to grant the podium to scholars and political figures of diverse views.

But all the months of scrutiny will abate at this awesome culmination, and graduating seniors and their families will savor the moment of seeing the first black president in our nation’s 232-year history address them with his message of hope and unity.

At that moment, I invite every member of the Notre Dame community to gaze northwest and ponder in their hearts what the Lady who glistens atop our Golden Dome is thinking.  Here is my humble guess.

She will wonder whom the University is honoring.

She will remember the university’s first days, how she first came to be cloaked in gold above a lake, and how she stood overlooking an awesome experiment dedicated to the pursuit of faith and reason, a place of scholarship and service, of faith and action, of fellowship and intellect— a place chartered to glorify and honor her.  She will remember how that awesome journey was wrought with intellectual questioning and diversity of thought and fierce debates, but that all of the intellectual vigor was ordered to the Truth that she literally held in her womb.  She will remember how the university grew—how its embrace of academic excellence and faith came into harmony, attracting people of diverse backgrounds and differing thought, but how its love of diversity was subordinated to a love of honoring her.

She will remember that she is literally the Mother of her faithful—she is Notre Dame—and that in her is the embodiment of undying and selfless love.  She gave life to the source of life, and to honor her is to honor her Son and life itself.

She will wonder why her university is honoring a man with a philosophy inimical to life.  A man who believes the law should protect the right to abortion—a man who, in his first days of office, opened the nation’s coffers to international abortion organizations, who proclaimed that abortion is an issue “on which (he) will not yield.”  She will remember the only article this man wrote for the most prestigious law review in the country, which stated that the law has an interest in safeguarding abortion to “prevent increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair.” She will remember, too, that her Son’s own life—the most influential life ever lived—was marked with great pain and agony.

She will remember that her University has given a forum for many scholars and leaders—but she will wonder why we are so honoring this one.  She will wonder what part of the president’s philosophy of law and life is praiseworthy.  And she will wonder what her university’s stewards consider a doctor of true law.

When President Obama steps down those steps holding the physical proof of her—her!—university’s most esteemed honor, she will remember the words of the school’s founder in 1844:  “When this school, Our Lady’s school, grows a bit more, I shall raise her aloft so that, without asking, all men shall know why we have succeeded here. To that lovely Lady, raised high on a dome, a Golden Dome, men may look and find the answer.”

On May 17, 2009, Our Lady of the Lake will wonder in whom they have found that answer.

Here, then, is a sum of official quotes Planned Parenthood has submitted in response to 24-hour waiting periods.

•    “Women are intelligent, thoughtful human beings. They’re capable of making these decisions on their own,” said Lindsay Siler, director of public policy for Planned Parenthood Health Systems. “This bill is completely medically unnecessary. It places an unnecessary burden on women.” Siler and other critics of the bill say women will have to make two trips to an abortion clinic, resulting in time off work and lost wages. But: Does being intelligent or thoughtful make education any less necessary?  Regardless of what a woman considers a fetus—whether a child or insensate blob—how is Planned Parenthood living up to a culture of information and responsibility if they don’t want pregnant women to have the opportunity to see what they might be aborting?

In Texas, Planned Parenthood responds to a bill that would require women to start the 24-hour waiting period clock after a sonogram:

•    “We already have a 24-hour waiting period. We already have steps in place that women have to attain a legal service, and we look at this as one more step, one more hurdle women have to go through,” Carla Holeva with Planned Parenthood, said. More and more, abortion rights advocates have hailed the approach that politicians like President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have adopted:  No one likes abortion, and everyone, regardless of their personal views, agrees on one thing—fewer is better than more.  That’s why something in the above rhetoric—which says that one more hoop is too many to jump through—smacks of insincerity.  Again: if fewer is better than more, if information and responsibility are at the core of a group’s mission, why is a potentially deterrant sonogram a bad idea?  Why is receiving medical information relevant to a major surgery considered so onerous?

Sonogram aside, here’s Planned Parenthood’s take on the whole concept of waiting, courtesy of the official website:

•    Q:      What’s wrong with having a 24-hour waiting period before abortion?
A:      State laws that require mandatory waiting periods before a woman     can get an abortion do not offer any health benefits. They result in     increased expenses, travel difficulties, and medical risks. They unnecessarily postpone the procedure even when a woman has already made a  deliberate, mature, and fully informed choice. Is the choice fully informed simply because Planned Parenthood says it is?  My question to the  nation’s largest abortion provider:  Tell me, exactly—specifically—what constitutes full information.  What bare-bones information is necessary before a woman has an abortion?

It’s a good question in that it forces anti-abortion advocates to ponder the complexity of any favorable abortion ruling, but it also tends to short sell the legal system when Quindlen muses, “But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can’t countenance the first, you have to accept the second.”  Consider:

• Good law is nuanced. Sound judges—and the laws they uphold—recognize that it’s imperative to weigh a host of factors when determining someone’s culpability—nuances like age, emotional state, life circumstances, yearly income. It’s why courts show clemency for minors, distinguish between different degrees of murder, and seek rehabilitation for drug offenders.  Not every crime puts the criminal behind bars.

• Why is that paternalistic? Quindlen argues that it’s paternalistic to shift the blame to abortion providers instead of women, since it seems to imply the law were “protecting women from themselves.”  The red herring here, though, is putting women as the only faces of the debate.  Like the law, people are nuanced as well, and they realize that a woman who may be stressed financially, or facing abusive friends and family, or stigmatized by peers should not be the most harshly punished.  But is it really, as Quindlen puts it, “paternalistic” to argue that those who should be most culpable for abortions wouldn’t be the ones who make their choice in a matter of days or weeks and often under emotional duress, but those who setup businesses  to perform them, who charge a fee for the service, and who would be blatantly targeting many who are vulnerable if abortion were criminalized?  Is that paternalistic, to acknowledge that there is an imbalance of responsibility between those who feel the need to abort a pregnancy, who may indeed feel vulnerable, and those who make a living by performing abortions?

• Advocates need to be able to envision what would happen if they got their way. That said, there’s an invaluable take-away in the question: if anti-abortion advocates really do want to see the law prohibit abortions, they need to be ready to articulate how it would work—who would enforce it and where the culpability lies.  The documentary that Quindlen references, in which a videographer asks protestors this very question outside an Illinois abortion clinic, portrays the anti-abortion advocates as blundering fools.  And while it’s not completely fair to expect a perfect answer on the spot, it’s a valuable point: if abortion were to become illegal, anti-abortion advocates need to be able to communicate how that would work.

“It’s time we end the politicization of this issue.”

And the way he signed the deal was certainly consistent with that theme; the news dissolved into the weekend without much fanfare. But it raises some questions that all Americans—anti-, pro-, and indifferent—should ask of our new president. I, for one, want to know:

• What is wrong with political debate? “Politicization” means bringing the issue into the government’s purview, where politicians elected by the people can engage an issue and wrestle with it. It’s the arena where debate happens, where laws are made and reformed and tweaked and discerned. In other words, politicizing an issue is acknowledging that it affects people, law, our understanding of ethics and the government. So when our president says that the era of politicization is over, does that mean that our government should no longer debate it? If there are citizens out there who disagree with him, should they too end the politicization of this issue? If political debate has helped us to define freedom—a definition that evolved once we saw the first first female voter or the first black president—then what is wrong with politicizing the abortion debate?

• And what issues should we politicize? In this era of unprecedented economic turmoil, we’ve politicized the banking process. Should we scrap that? What about the national debate on gay marriage—is it time we moved the government out of that sphere? Americans have a fundamental right to engage their government and the laws that it protects, so when a national leader declares an end to the politicization of abortion, it has to make us wonder which other debates will soon see their end during his term. But more importantly…

• Didn’t Obama just politicize the issue? The “Mexico City policy” mandated that our government not fund organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas with taxpayer dollars. So when President Obama signed the order repealing it, he opened up our federal coffers to those same organizations. How is that not politicizing the issue?

If government leaders herald our right to freedom, then dismissing “politicization” essentially dismisses one of the greatest tools we have to engage each other and to effect change. Change, after all, is the foundation of President Obama’s presidency—isn’t it?

The schedule? Check in every Monday.

My apologies for a bit of a lull in getting post #2 off the ground.  (If a blog isn’t consistent, who wants to read it?)  Here’s what to expect going forward.

Every Monday morning by 7:00 am, the new “Three Points” will run.  If something extraordinary happens or warrants mentioning between Mondays, I’ll post an additional piece.  Otherwise, expect some food for thought at the onset of the workweek.

Thanks again—always welcome any suggestions or debate.

Isn’t the blogosphere already a tad overcrowded with people determined to convince others of what is important, or right, or legal or whatever? Are we even convince-able? People are so fantastically fervent in their beliefs, it seems, that any forum for debate or dialogue is less a forum than a depository for pre-conceived credos. (“Insert passionate opinion here. Then yell.”)

Which brings me to abortion. Here I am, pulling up to the cyberspace depository and throwing in my two cents—the hypocrisy!—except I’m laying some ground rules. Fervor is a good thing, a necessary force that energizes and invigorates, but it must be harnessed and mastered. That is to say, to convince the pro-choice population that abortion should be illegal, you need to engage them first. Which is why I’d like to offer the inaugural three points to the anti-abortion community—a trio of principles to guide your steadfast work in changing the nation’s understanding of abortion and to remind yourself, “Why am I doing this?”

• Ask a lot of questions.
It always strikes me how the most intelligent people are those who ask the most questions. Asking does a few important things: first, it necessarily engages someone (legislators, doctors, lawyers) by showing your sincere desire to understand what he or she actually believes. And, more importantly, it challenges people to clarify what they really believe. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in a conversation with an intensely interested questioner, and have walked away surprised by how little I actually understand those things I claim to know. What, for instance, does someone mean when they say the word “abortion”? What, in their mind, constitutes one? When do they believe that life begins? Is a fetus a human being? Which freedoms are absolute? If someone believes in “choice,” they mean the choice to do what?

Then—listen carefully enough to demand good, specific answers, because one of the greatest victories for the pro-choice side has been demurring on the toughest questions. Since our President-elect doesn’t know when life begins, I want to ask him: what will you do to find out? Is knowing the answer relevant to whether abortion should be legal?

• Watch your language.
So much of the abortion debate is semantic—after all, that’s much of what law is. That’s why it’s so imperative to use language that isn’t sloppily inflammatory. For instance, equating abortion with a “culture of death” doesn’t engage. Calling women “murderers” won’t get a discussion off the ground. Now, is a society that permits abortion fostering a culture of death? Certainly. But that’s not the point. The point is, for the people you’re trying to convince—those who already believe (albeit wrongly) that legalized abortion is a fundamental right and an expression of freedom—labeling them as murderers is more of a condemnation than an invitation to understanding or conversation.

Don’t get me wrong: we shouldn’t sugarcoat what abortion is or ignore its grim reality. But the facts are persuasive enough on their own—you don’t need to throw in adjectives like “monstrous” or “demonic” to describe a procedure in which a physician deliberately dismembers a fetus in utero. If you have to resort to extreme language, go back and try to demonstrate it with the facts. True as your adjectives might be, an ardent pro-abortion advocate won’t listen to you otherwise.

• Pick one argument and stick to it.
In his book Anti-Abortionist at Large, USF philosophy professor Raymond Dennehy says that, since debates and lectures don’t allow for a thorough approach to abortion, “your argument must have a lean, sharp cutting edge and you must go for sudden impact.” It’s sage advice for something as complex and multi-faceted as abortion, considering its relevance to everything from biology to law to religion. You could argue that “viability” is an imperfect criteria for life. Or you could prove that abortion rates don’t decline when abortion is more accessible. Or you could debate the Constitutionality of the right to privacy.

But stick to one. Pick those arguments that are most incisive and hone them. Make them quick-hitting and consistent. An example that jumps to mind is today’s debate on the psychological impact of abortion on women. While both sides claim that abortions do or don’t traumatize women, it seems to miss the point. Let’s say that, somehow, someway, psychologists concluded that abortion does not psychologically mar the women who have them—should abortion be any less illegal? Does that address the crux of the abortion debate—namely, when does life begin? Who must defend it? So, with every sentence you write or phrase you utter, make sure to reevaluate what—specifically—you’re arguing.