When Mary was at the College of William and Mary, she was active in two groups: the Catholic Campus Ministry and Alternatives to Abortion (ATA). The ATA group was mostly made of conservative Catholics and like one nominal Protestant. She sometimes jokes that ATA was like the “alternative CCM for conservatives.”
Anyway, she says how they’d debate the feminist student group, and the topic of “common ground” would come up. The feminists would insist they wanted to “reduce” abortions and ask for “common ground.” The ATA people would say, “Sure!”
Then the feminists would suggest they get together on a condom drive. “Uh, we’re opposed to condoms, too,” replied ATA, and the feminists were baffled, and called them hypocrites. I don’t recall if ATA suggested to the feminists that they get together to promote chastity.
The claim is often made that pro-lifers are hypocrites for opposing contraception, but two wrongs don’t make a right; the ends don’t justify the means. The claim is especially made regarding AIDS and other STDs that condoms are, in that case, “pro-life” for avoiding spread of disease. John Paul II addresses both of these objections in Evangelium Vitae.
Last year, when Obama was the clear winner of the Democratic nomination, and shortly before Douglas Kmiec made his notorious endorsement of Obama, Obama’s “Catholic Outreach” was made up of the “usual suspects” like Ted Kennedy and one of his nieces. They had an exchange of “open letters” with Bill Donohue. Donohue had urged Obama to pick some “real” Catholics as his outreach if he really wanted to win the Catholic vote, and not these abortion supporters.
They responded by calling Donohue a hypocrite, saying he was engagnig in “anti-Catholicism” by criticizing fellow Catholics, and that proclaiming Catholics must be loyal to the Pope is just baiting anti-Catholicism. They also insisted that they were not “pro-abortion,” but wanted to “reduce abortion”: the claim made by Obama, Catholics United, etc.
Only problem with this is *how* they want to “reduce” abortions. Obama, of course, makes no secret of the fact that he thinks artificial contraception is the way to “reduce” abortion. And while people like Doug Kmiec and Chris Korzen skate the issue, the original Obama Catholics like Ted Kennedy make no bones about it. Let’s recall that it was Ted Kennedy who railroaded the Robert Bork nomination because of Bork’s position on Griswold v. Connecticut and artificial contraception.
These people try to say, “We’re anti-abortion, but we’re pro-contraception,” as if that’s OK, as if that is not just as much a violation of both Catholic teaching and the Natural Law (whether you look to the teachings of other religions or even the behavior of animals, Natural Law favors reproduction).
Yet, the evidence is just the opposite. Rising tolerance of contraception is always followed by rising tolerance of abortion. Liberals insist that chastity education doesn’t work, yet they specifically credit “the Pill” with the so-called Sexual Revolution. Even the Supreme Court acknowledged in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that legalized abortion is necessary so long as contraception is legal. Kissinger acknowledged it in NSSM-200, and said that, if his plan for depopulation of third world countries was to work, then tolerance of abortion needed to be promoted in the US (and that both had to happen under the euphemism of “choice” to create the illusion that the entire thing was not being engineered by the government).
In 1998, Phil Lawler wrote a column talking about how accurate Paul VI’s predictions in Humanae Vitae had been: how the 30 years since the encyclical had proven that societal acceptance of contraception encourages immoraliity and undermines the family.
He has recently reprinted that column in the light of Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, to reemphasize that contraception does not reduce abortions and that it only creates greater evils.