Never before have there been as many pro-abortion apologists as there are now. These apologists maintain that it is entirely possible to be pro-life while supporting pro-abortion candidates, just so long as these candidates sponsor legislation that reduces the need for abortion. Yet the apologists would never support a candidate who said he opposes laws that criminalize wife beating but is nonetheless adamantly opposed to it. Nor would they be persuaded that such persons deserve our support if they sponsor legislation that reduces the incidence of wife beating.
Only when it comes to abortion do the apologists scrap a legal remedy. To be specific, it is dishonest for Catholics United to say that “legal protections for the unborn are an important part of a pro-life strategy,” and then support candidates who are opposed to every legal protection ever proposed. Is it too much to demand that lying has no legitimate role to play in these discussions?
