Joe Biden’s Policies on Abortion and Immigration: The Challenges of a Catholic President 166691066X, 9781666910667

Citation preview

Joe Biden’s Policies on Abortion and Immigration

Joe Biden’s Policies on Abortion and Immigration The Challenges of a Catholic President Jo Renee Formicola

LEXINGTON BOOKS

Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Published by Lexington Books An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www​.rowman​.com 86-90 Paul Street, London EC2A 4NE Copyright © 2024 by The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Formicola, Jo Renee, 1941- author. Title: Joe Biden’s policies on abortion and immigration: the challenges of a Catholic president / Jo Renee Formicola. Other titles: Challenges of the second Catholic president Description: Lanham: Lexington Books, [2024] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2023039072 (print) | LCCN 2023039073 (ebook) | ISBN 9781666910667 (cloth; alk. paper) | ISBN 9781666910674 (electronic) Subjects: LCSH: Biden, Joseph R., Jr.--Political and social views. | United States--Politics and government--2021- | Church and state--Catholic Church-History--21st century. | Catholic Church--Political activity--United States--History-21st century. | Abortion--Religious aspects--Catholic Church. | Emigration and immigration--Religious aspects--Catholic Church. | Political leadership--United States-History--21st century. Classification: LCC E916 .F67 2024 (print) | LCC E916 (ebook) | DDC 973.934--dc23/ eng/20230912 LC record available at https:​//​lccn​.loc​.gov​/2023039072 LC ebook record available at https:​//​lccn​.loc​.gov​/2023039073 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

To those who pursue and practice politics in a society with competing values and do so beyond partisanship

Contents

Introduction

1

Chapter One: From Roe to Dobbs

7



Chapter Two: From Dobbs Forward: President Biden Reacts Chapter Three: Catholics, Biden, and Immigration Chapter Four: Pyrrhic Victories



Bibliography Index

39 69 93

Chapter Five: Leading and Governing Chapter Six: Epilogue









109 127

139

155

About the Author



163

vii

Introduction

This book articulates the complexity of the moral, partisan, and pragmatic considerations that enter into the decision-making of Joe Biden, the second Catholic president. It does this by contrasting his policies on abortion and immigration with the teachings of his church, which are often at odds with the realities of his political party and even his conscience in the world of politics. Therefore, this book examines the president’s leadership ability and governance skills to critique how, or if, he has been able to integrate these values to create viable policies on abortion and immigration to balance his religious beliefs, partisan expectations, and constitutional duties. This book, then, will show how President Biden has often rejected his church’s teachings and created a division in society. He has done this, first, by leading through executive orders and total government responses to abortion, which he believes is a crisis of democracy. Second, it also critiques the president’s ability to govern though his refusal to recognize the crisis on the southern border while attempting to bring about the humane and equitable treatment of the marginalized as he and his church had intended. The time frame of this book covers from June 2022 to May 2023. Within this one-year period two significant events occurred: the Supreme Court changed the legal status of abortion, allowing states to make decisions about reproductive freedom though their individual constitutions in Dobbs v Jackson.1 Then, several months later, Title 42, known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, was declared invalid by the Supreme Court. It ruled that immigration could no longer be curtailed due to health reasons because the pandemic had officially ended. These legal decisions, then, completely changed the status of two of President Biden’s major political policies, and created significant partisan difficulties during his presidency. The idea of examining how, or if, the president reacts, integrates, and balances his competing responsibilities seemed challenging, but plausible, when this study began. I am after all, a political scientist, and was even a duly elected councilwoman in my hometown. I had local political “experiences” to call on, academic friends who had undertaken even more difficult research tasks, people that I could depend on for valuable criticism, and priests to talk 1

2

Introduction

to about potentially conscience-related problems. But, as it turned out, my forty years of teaching, being a professor, an editor, the author of this, my tenth book, and having an extensive résumé of peer-reviewed studies and papers, were not nearly as sufficient or relevant as I had hoped to enable me to advise the president on his decision-making quandaries! My entire academic career has revolved around one research question: what role, if any, should religion play in politics? More specifically, that question has evolved into one in which “religion” turned out to be Catholicism, and “politics” has turned into studies of school choice, faith-based initiatives, Vatican foreign policy, and clerical sexual abuse. They were all clear issues, with specific facts, clear policy choices, and viable solutions. But the current political climate and contentious social issues surrounding abortion and immigration seem much more palpable because they deal with life and death and urgent humanitarian issues. They present decisions for President Biden to make based on his vision for America, his ability to lead and govern, and his agency to implement solutions that deal with religious, social, and legal consequences. Indeed, these expectations prompt the question: how has the second Catholic president tried to reconcile his personal conscience with his professional responsibilities and public duties? This book, then, will use two case studies of the president’s policies on abortion and immigration, analyze their political ramifications, and argue that they have only increased partisanship, intensified social contention, and done little to nothing to solve either issue. Abortion, then, is a major part of the president’s leadership predicament. It is an issue that is like the legend of the phoenix: once a living question; then answered in Roe v Wade,2 and now resuscitated in Dobbs v Jackson. Regenerated from its legal ashes, abortion has a new public life, again characterized by controversy. Therefore, this book begins with a review of the significant histories and holdings in both Roe and Dobbs, to show how they play a crucial part in understanding the challenges that continue to surround the political policies and moral quandary of one of President Biden’s most contentious policy stances. Immigration as well, has a long history with social, economic, religious, and racial implications in the United States. It has changed from the need to increase the population and the workforce of this country, to unlimited and unchecked policies of unwanted and illegal migration. Times and needs have changed, from the open door and compassion of government to fear and public opposition to those seeking a better life. Therefore, migration will also be discussed within the context of the President’s Biden’s leadership and governance and his attempts to create a unifying, humanitarian equitable and safe solution to the problem. It will be examined in the second part of this book and analyzed in its conclusion.

Introduction

3

Chapter 1, “From Roe to Dobbs,” articulates the historic rationale and moral concerns of pro-life activists in the United States. It will explain the strategy of the Catholic Church, specifically those of the United States Catholic Conference (USCCB), to reverse Roe, as well the tactics—pastoral, political, and judicial—to justify their actions to protect unborn life. The author will use teachings, documents, and position papers issued by official Catholic Church authorities and highlight complementary, nonpartisan actions by its affiliated organizations and lay members. Chapter 2, “President Biden Reacts to Dobbs,” discusses the president’s responses to the Dobbs decision. It will explain the president’s strategy to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision, and his main political tactics—reframing abortion in terms of rights, issuing executive orders, and providing a “whole of government response” to protect reproductive rights. This chapter will contain significant speeches, official government statements issued by the president, and his executive orders designed to place constitutional and partisan responsibilities over his previously held religious views on abortion. Chapter 3, “Catholics, Biden, and Immigration,” investigates the growing problem of immigration between the president and his church: their understandings of the realities of the movements of peoples and their solutions to the growing crisis at the southern border. It includes the pastoral messages and responses of various popes as well as the United States Catholic Conference, its allied NGOs, and affiliated services that advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. Their stance is often in opposition to the Biden policies that are discussed here. They are purported to be based on humanitarian, safe, and equitable means to provide care and compassion for those in need, but are often given little attention or appropriate management by the president. Chapter 4, “Pyrrhic Victories,” discusses the 2020 midterm results as well as the political implications of the election on abortion and immigration in the current political climate. Both the president and the Catholic leadership won Pyrrhic or empty victories; neither abortion nor immigration policies were radically changed, nor did the mid-terms solve the issues that church and state intended to control. It will analyze the political losses of both church and state and their failed attempts to try to recover dominant moral and political positions. Chapter 5, “Leadership, Policy and Governance for Success,” explains various theories of leadership and administration that can serve President Biden to overcome the policy divisions created by his responses to abortion and immigration. It points out the political ramifications of his reactive leadership and ineffective governance as well as actions that could end the policies of antagonism that currently exist. It calls for the need to establish a new path toward recalibrated policies that can replace partisan, dogmatic, and

4

Introduction

intransigent ones. It also discusses how the Catholic Church is pursuing abortion nonnegotiables while also choosing to walk a broader, humanitarian road that could possibly bring a semblance of unity and collaboration between church and state on immigration. Thus, this chapter looks at the theory behind successful cooperation and collaboration between government, religion, and public agencies to posit a revised immigration policy as a potential avenue of mutual interest and concern in the world of politics. It lays out the Catholic social doctrine of “welcoming the stranger,” and the roles that the church can play to integrate those in need of help with its commitment to compassion. It looks at the president’s leadership and guidance on the issue of immigration, critiques his policies and actions, and makes recommendations to solve this growing crisis for the good of the country. Finally, Chapter 6, “Epilogue,” concludes that because the realities of both abortion and immigration policies will continue to change as social mores and needs, partisan platforms, media influences and presidential agendas emerge. It is true that no major policy problem is ever finished or solved; at best it is only subject to reform, and, like the phoenix, lives for another day. At the same time, this book is not an indictment of beliefs, individuals, leaders, or political parties. It is, rather, a scholarly critique of the complex and convoluted leadership and governance of President Biden, and will offer advice posed by experts on how to produce a humanitarian agenda for a renewed policy on immigration. As a result, it will discuss policy development and implementation as well as the use of wise collaborations and appointments that can influence the course of public agendas now and into the future. The reader should be aware that this is not a definitive study, but rather an examination of unfolding events that are a challenge to this Catholic president. In the end however, it is important to remember the admonition of Reinhold Niebuhr, the famous theologian, ethicist, and political scientist. He brilliantly reminded us at the end of his seminal book, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness,3 that democracy is a method of finding proximate solutions to insoluble problems. It is with this caveat in mind that I present this book. It would not have been possible to complete this volume without the release time of the Department of Political Science, the College of Arts and Sciences, and the approval of the Provost at Seton Hall University. Their continued support during my four decades in research and teaching has made it possible to continue a fulfilling career, one that has now led to phased retirement and greater time to reflect and critique church-state issues in the United States. It is also with great appreciation and admiration that I must also thank my most critical reader, Dr. Allan Formicola. He is my most sincere and

Introduction

5

enthusiastic supporter; the person who kept me going during the rewrites and most difficult time in the production of this volume! JRF NOTES 1. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ June 24, 2022. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/19-1392/. https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_597. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports. 2. Roe v Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973). 3. Reinhold Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1944), 118.

Chapter One

From Roe to Dobbs

The word “abortion” evokes many emotions—fear, anxiety, anger, need, relief, hope, freedom, sadness, guilt. At the same time, the feelings associated with abortion often include a medical and moral understanding as well: the simple expulsion of amorphous cells or the killing of a living being. In a broader sense, however, abortion is infinitely more nuanced than such definitions imply. In the United States, a spontaneous abortion is called a miscarriage, but as an elective, reproductive choice, abortion is often considered by pro-life advocates as a sin, or manslaughter, and even the murder of an unborn being. Pro-choice supporters, on the other hand, consider abortion differently: as a personal choice and an inviolable constitutional right of every woman. These differences often involve constitutional, moral, and social challenges as well, to a procedure that pragmatically is also limited by certain legal requirements. Abortion must be carried out surgically by a licensed physician or by prescribed medications to induce a miscarriage; performed within a specific time period, for health or other reasons as specified by law within each state, and in an approved medical facility. Thus, it is safe to say that elective abortion, over the last fifty years, has evolved into one of the most contentious, divisive, political, and even partisan public policy battles in this country. It had been illegal in the United States until it became a national issue in 1973. At that time, a Texas state law banning abortion was challenged in the Supreme Court. In a 7–2 decision, the justices ruled in Roe v. Wade1 that a woman’s right to have an elective abortion was legal and based on two constitutional principles. The first was that abortion fell within the precedent that recognized the implied right to privacy in the Ninth Amendment, thus justifying the use of contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut.2 Second, the Court also held that abortion was protected by the “due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibited government inference in fundamental rights such as life, liberty, and property. 7

8

Chapter One

In so doing, however, the Supreme Court did not rule on the crucial question: when does life begin? Instead, it essentially viewed pregnancy as an evolutionary process divided into three stages. In the first trimester, the Court allowed abortion on demand, thus considering the right of choice of the mother over the existence of the fetus. In the second trimester, which began at viability, or the fetus’ movement within the womb, the Court ruled that it was within the compelling state interest to protect both the mother and the fetus, and thus required the mother to consult with a physician for the approval of an abortion. In the third trimester, where the fetus could live outside the womb, the unborn child would be considered as a person, thus limiting abortion only to preserve the health of the mother. Each part of this decision has been challenged, redefined, expanded, limited, and protected in various ways since Roe. In 1992, a significant challenge occurred in Planned Parenthood v. Casey3 that challenged not only the trimester framework of Roe, but supported restrictions that the state of Pennsylvania had placed on abortion before the fetus was viable. It also contended that a new standard should restrict the “undue burden” or “substantial obstacle” to an abortion before fetal viability. This included counseling, parental consent, involvement of the father in the decision, or travel requirements. Thus, the legal door to place limits on abortion began to open. Over the years, however, other reactions to Roe had appeared. They ranged from pastoral teachings by the American Catholic hierarchy to support its theological belief that life begins at conception, to pro-life activism designed to maintain sacrosanct moral values as well as social policies to protect the unborn, to pro-choice political demands for increasing personal reproductive freedom. The American Catholic bishops have responded to the decision in Roe through two hierarchical structures with different responsibilities The first of these organizations was the National Catholic Welfare Conference, founded at the behest of Pope Benedict XV after WWI to continue its domestic work for peace and social justice. It had a small administrative staff and was later renamed as the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC) to emphasize its consultive, rather than legislative role to deal with issues of education, immigration, and social action. In 1966, this Catholic hierarchical structure was changed and enlarged by the Vatican so that all the American bishops could jointly exercise their growing pastoral responsibilities. This brought about the establishment of National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) and the United States Catholic Conference (USCC). They would handle domestic and broader issues respectively though committees of bishops, clergy, religious, and lay persons. In 2001, they were combined to form the United States Conference

From Roe to Dobbs

9

of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), thus broadening their purpose, and strengthening their influence. The USCCB, then as now, has been regulated by the official legal code of the Catholic Church, that is, the Code of Canon Law.4 In Canons 457–79,5 the USCCB is officially recognized as a canonical entity and subject to the immediate and absolute authority of the pope over all ecclesiastical structures and policies. One of the major offices of the USCCB, today, not surprisingly, is the National Right to Life Committee that deals with the abortion issue. The need for this organizational restructuring could have been part of the reason why the American bishops had not participated openly in the case of Roe v. Wade initially. According to this author’s discussions with officials at the bishops’ offices, there were “strategic reasons”6 why they did not do so. For example, around that time, other cases such as Lemon v. Kurtzman7 were challenging the constitutionality of educational statutes that enabled U. S. government funding for nonsecular, private, and nonsectarian schools. It was a matter that the American bishops were expected to prioritize, a serious domestic matter that could impact the salaries of teachers in Catholic schools who were receiving state financial supplements at the time. Instead, Shea and Gardiner, a New York law firm that had represented the Catholic Church in other litigation, became a party to the amicus brief in Roe v. Wade by joining with the National Right to Life Organization. However, by its lack of official institutional involvement, the American Catholic hierarchy was not specifically represented in the case. In retrospect, it was obviously a grave error on the bishops’ part, especially as the issue was compounded afterward by increasing public demands to broaden reproductive rights. Since then, however, the American Catholic bishops, with allied lay organizations and other pro-life activists, have advocated to reverse the judicial holding that they had not seen coming, possibly from their perch on the moral high ground fifty years ago. Today, the bishops, through the USCCB, in its enhanced canonical position, have greater moral authority and a better opportunity to take a more active political, but nonpartisan, role to support a right-to-life stance on the issue of abortion in the United States. This is especially true since the Vatican has made the pro-life agenda a centerpiece of papal geopolitical and moral concerns since Roe. The effects of these institutional changes could be seen in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,8 where over 140 groups and individuals filed amicus briefs to try to influence the decision of the Supreme Court when it reheard Roe. Pro-life supporters included the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops along with other major groups like the National Right to Life Committee, the Center for Religious Expression, Trinity Legal Center, the Catholic Medical Association, the Catholic Nurses USA, the American

10

Chapter One

Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and individual state pro-life organizations, as well as Catholic universities and individual political actors. They presented arguments based on health risks, textualism or originalism in legal theories, viability claims, opposition to stare decisis or precedents, and the moral need for legislative authority to prevail in the matter of abortion. The pro-choice amici in Dobbs consisted of major opponents who intended to influence the Court to support the holding in Roe. They were supported by the American Bar Association along with 238 members of the US Congress, as well as other diverse and interested groups. Some of these were female athletic organizations, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Center for Inquiry, American Atheists, and the Susan B. Anthony List, which included women members of state legislatures and universities. Further, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and other groups such as the Constitutional Accountability Center, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, and other minority interest groups such as the Puerto Rican reproductive rights organizations made their voice heard as well. They made arguments for gender equality, reproductive rights and justice, the need to protect a woman’s health and safety, and the principle of separation of church and state.9 Once the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Dobbs, ruled Roe to be a states’-rights issue, and forced the review of many laws that had emerged from it, the obvious question was how could or would the second Catholic president, Joe Biden, reconcile his religious, partisan, and pragmatic responses to respond to this turn of events? The decision in Dobbs was leaked before it was publicly handed down,10 causing President Biden to admit that he was “stunned”11 by the Court’s rejection of settled law and public policy. The First Lady, Dr. Jill Biden, at a fundraiser in Nantucket, also asked: who would ever have expected it? Answering her own question, she said “maybe we saw it coming, but still, we didn’t believe it.”12 Clearly, the decision was just too incomprehensible from a political, demographic, secular, and feminist perspective. For President Biden, however, Dobbs was a reality check and more. It created a personal, political, and policy quandary for the most powerful leader in the world, one who also happened to be a practicing Catholic. As a church adherent, he was expected to uphold the moral positions of his religion, which included following its pro-life teachings. It was a commitment that could place his Democratic partisanship and pragmatic approach to leading and governing at odds, now, with his own conscience and public responsibilities. How would he handle it? This chapter, then, will examine part of the president’s leadership dilemma on abortion policy and articulate his church’s beliefs and social doctrines

From Roe to Dobbs

11

on the issue. At the same time, it will also analyze the Catholic strategy and tactics behind its attempts to reverse Roe during the last half century. The purpose, here, is to gain an understanding of how and why religious values can result in complicating political decision-making, agenda setting, and policy formulation in the service of the common good. REACTIONS TO DOBBS The decision in Dobbs was immediately vilified by pro-choice advocates in President Biden’s own party who feared for the protection of reproductive freedom. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) even called for the federal government to set up tents in the national parks so that women could get abortions on public lands. Others refused to accept the Supreme Court’s holding and logic, challenging its legitimacy and credibility. Their fears rested on the arguments written in the majority opinion by Justice Alito: The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including . . . the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” . . . The right to abortion does not fall within this category. . . . Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different . . . because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being . . . ” [The] Opinion of the Court . . . does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue . . . enflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.13

Afterward, Justice Alito claimed that the leak prior to the decision altered the atmosphere at the court. Some even said that it made certain justices

12

Chapter One

targets for assassination, while the media challenged the credibility and legitimacy of the institution.14 The reasoning in the Dobbs decision, also immediately led to an unexpected turn in partisan politics. As the midterm campaigns searched for different strategies to win the 2022 elections, the Democratic Party and the Biden administration saw the abortion issue as an opportunity to address and challenge public policies on reproductive rights. For the Republicans, it brought states’ rights and reproductive rights to the center of the debate. Both stances, however, also required that the midterms focus on constitutional debates to clarify personal and fetal rights. The Dobbs decision even provided a rare chance for the Democrats, who held a majority in the Congress, to codify the right to reproductive rights in the middle of other economic, security, and immigration issues. Dobbs, however, also raised concerns about revisiting precedents on substantive due process, or government prohibitions that infringed on fundamental constitutional liberties such as life, liberty and property guaranteed in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This issue, raised by Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in the Dobbs decision, argued that the Supreme Court should reconsider other holdings, such those on gay marriage, that had already been decided in Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,15 if they could be shown to be “demonstrably erroneous,” and thus should be corrected.16 To many, Thomas’s reasoning was a bridge too far and fed the fears and flames of opponents for its potential to turn back other important decisions on personal rights. CATHOLICISM: BIDEN’S IMMEDIATE PROBLEM If Joe Biden, the Catholic president, intended to try to use his political position to overcome the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, he would have to deal with the most formidable and vocal opposition to abortion in the United States: the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This is because the most critical religious tenets of Catholicism, which the president claimed to accept, are based on the Scriptural definition of life, and infused within the church’s perceived salvific mission, to save souls. Indeed, this is seen in the Catholic theological doctrine of imago dei, that is, the belief that the individual is created in the “image and likeness of God,” as recounted in the biblical story of creation in Genesis 1:26. The significance of the creation act explains and gives credence to the divine, loving gift of life from a religious perspective. Basically, Catholic doctrine holds that the human being is created by God in unity of body and soul; that a person is a material being, linked to this world by a body, and a

From Roe to Dobbs

13

spiritual being open to transcendence and the discovery of truth by an intellect that shares in the light of the divine mind.17 The unity of soul and body is therefore, defined as “profound” and considered as unique, unrepeatable, and deserving of respect, dignity, freedom, and human rights.18 These theological beliefs provide the basis on which the Catholic Church has developed its social doctrines or teachings about life. They are used as a guide to help in the formation of conscience that underlies the complex moral choices of individuals. Pope John Paul, perhaps, gave the clearest definition of Christian behavior in his encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis.19 He wrote: The Church’s social doctrine is not a “third way“ between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its own. Nor is it an ideology, but rather the accurate formulation of the results of a careful reflection on the complex realities of human existence, in society and in the international order, in the light of faith and of the Church’s tradition. Its main aim is to interpret these realities, determining their conformity with or divergence from the lines of the Gospel teaching on man and his vocation, a vocation which is at once earthly and transcendent; its aim is thus to guide Christian behavior. It therefore belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology.20

Thus, the rationale to speak out, to consider and challenge matters of conscience, is expected of all Catholics. Their actions are seen as broad and morally significant, as well, because they affect the foundations of life in society.21 They include the responsibility to assure the right to private ownership; a preferential option for the poor, principles of subsidiarity or help for others, the protection of every person’s ability to participate in social and political life, as well as the principle of solidarity or the quest for equality for unity. These obligations are the bases of social doctrines and considered as moral virtues. Indeed, they are tied to “gratuity, forgiveness and reconciliation.”22 Thus, the decisions that President Biden would make in the future, possibly on a potentially new government abortion policy, were important considerations to church authorities after the Dobbs decision. They would consider it imperative to challenge him if any policies were against Catholic pro-life teachings. While decision-making for the president became more precarious after Dobbs, the same considerations were true for the church in a world that had changed significantly since Roe. How could church support for a pro-life agenda still be justified today? What holds together Catholic moral and social values in the political area now? According to church pastoral teachings, they are the quests for truth, freedom, and love within the context of marriage, family, the sanctity of

14

Chapter One

life, education, work, and the rights of children.23 These principles found in the official precepts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,24 which distinctly oppose all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. Such dogmas on human life are expected to be respected and protected absolutely from the “moment of conception.” The only exceptions are for an ectopic pregnancy, or uterine cancer where the continuation of a pregnancy would bring about the death of the mother or the fetus. Cloning and the destruction of embryonic stem cells for research or even for potential cures is always considered morally unacceptable and wrong. Thus, this chapter also raises questions about the propriety of the actions of the some of the members of the Catholic leadership. An analysis of their political behavior in the matter of abortion adds to the broader and continuing debate over what role, if any, religion should play in the US political process. LESSONS FROM THE CATHOLIC STRATEGY AND TACTICS TO REVERSE ROE With moral principles as the foundation and justification to protect life, how then was a religious organization like the Catholic Church able to evolve into a movement to help upend the decision to allow abortion in Roe after the Supreme Court decision in 1973? In retrospect, it is possible to see how the Catholic strategy to reverse the legalization of abortion as advanced by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) at first, and supplemented by other activists later, was able to play a large part to influence the formulation of American pro-life policy. Based on the church’s theology and teachings, the American hierarchy took the lead to challenge the decision in Roe by defining the issue of abortion within the theological context of life. This allowed them to create a social narrative based on three moral and intersecting, operational tactics to support a pro-life policy and agenda in the United States. First, the bishops advanced a pastoral plan to teach about the sacredness of life and the compassionate rationale to support women during their pregnancies. Second, they designed a political agenda based on the church’s social doctrines to restrict the expansion of public funding for abortion. And third, the bishops made a judicial commitment to challenge future cases that sought to enlarge reproductive rights. An examination and analysis of these USCCB operational tactics is important because they focus attention on the evolving scope and methods of the largest, collective group of religious leaders within the United States and its efforts to impact American policy. To put that influence into perspective

From Roe to Dobbs

15

today, the USCCB defines, preaches, and acts to implement the church’s social doctrines within a constituency of approximately 50+ million faithful followers. It can also impact the polices of the Catholic health-care system of more than 600 hospitals, 1,600 long-term care facilities and clinics in all 50 states; close to 200 colleges, as well a myriad of nonprofit agencies such as Catholic Charities which alone operates 167 agencies in the United States, and lay activist organizations that are, and were, in its moral orbit at the time of the Dobbs decision.25 Its views are reported by the Catholic News Service, as well as its television station, Eternal World Television Network (EWTN) and the publications of various religious orders and diocesan newspapers. Within this structure, the USCCB has been able to influence and challenge the political views of abortion held by the current president of the United States, the former speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, all of whom are Catholics and in political positions to advance the most significant political policies and agendas in the United States. PASTORAL TACTICS With the development and use of oral contraceptives in the 1960s, many Catholic Church officials and members of the laity pressed the sitting pope at the time, John Paul XXIII, to reconsider the Vatican’s opposition to artificial birth control.26 In 1963, the pontiff established a papal commission27 to study the question, but died before the completion of its work. Pope Paul VI, his successor, enlarged the commission but challenged its eventual conclusions: to accept and expand the use of contraceptives. The pontiff’s encyclical Humanae Vitae,28 which affirmed and broadened the church’s traditional teachings on the sanctity of life, procreation, and its opposition to artificial birth control, resulted in an internal church debate that continues among conservative and progressive elements among Catholic adherents today. Indeed, it was a controversial document in an increasingly liberal religious and secular world which prompted hierarchical pastoral teachings that defended specific religious principles, showed how they were based on Catholic theology and natural law, and why they justified the church’s social doctrines on public policies such as abortion, the sanctity of the family,29 and considered as the crucial part of the church’s evangelizing mission—to carry out its salvific purpose and save souls.30 For many reasons then, the American Catholic bishops issued a letter of their own, known as “Human Life in Our Day”31 as a response to Humanae Vitae soon after it was promulgated. It was written to reinforce Pope Paul’s encyclical by defending his authority, as well as teaching and refining the

16

Chapter One

principles by which the American bishops turned the rejection of birth control into a reframing of the support for the protection of life. Their teachings in the document discussed the role of conscience in theological dissent, while also emphasizing the purpose of the family as a force for life and education in human sexuality. The hierarchy taught, first, that opposition to Catholic principles requires “propriety and . . . regard for the gravity of the matter and the deference due the authority which has pronounced it.”32 Accepting and defending papal authority on matters of faith and morals, the bishops, in a second argument, drew attention to the challenges that emerged to the sacredness of life. They wrote: Stepped up pressures for moral and legal acceptance of directly procured abortion make necessary pointed reference to this threat to the right to life. Reverence for life demands freedom from direct interruption of life once it is conceived. . . . A human person, nothing more and nothing less, is always at issue; once conception has taken place. . . . Abortion brings to an end with irreversible finality both the existence and the destiny of the developing human person. . . . Men are not the masters but the ministers of life.33

A year later, the USCCB again appealed for a positive attitude toward life, and the need for a scientific investigation into the question of abortion. At the time, it posited education as a priority to advance the “reverence for human life” after the earlier papal publication.34 The US Catholic hierarchy, then, was already defending papal protections for life during the late 1960s in the United States. In retrospect, however, two major problems seemed to compromise the bishops’ ability to hold the moral ground on abortion. First, they were limited by the church leadership at a General Council in 1965 to act only in a pastoral way when responding to morally questionable public policies. The assembled hierarchy at the meeting had clearly stated that “Christ to be sure, gave his Church no proper mission in the political, economic. or social order. The purpose he set before her is a religious one.”35 Thus, official, Catholic political involvement was restricted globally and could not advance, what many perceived to be partisan, political priorities that impinged on moral values. At about the same time, a second, secular movement was occurring in the United States concerning reproductive rights. It was beginning to take center stage within the medical and legal communities in the United States. In 1970, the American Medical Association (AMA) recognized changes that were occurring in state laws and judicial decisions that were making abortion more available. As a result, the AMA agreed to adopt a new policy on

From Roe to Dobbs

17

the termination of pregnancies. It was one that emphasized “the best interests of the patient,” “sound clinical judgment,” and “informed patient consent.”36 In that same year, the American Public Health Association also set up “Standards for Abortion Services,” recognizing that the issue was becoming a reality. And by 1970, the American Bar Association approved a Uniform Abortion Act. From a medical and legal perspective, then, it was beginning to look as though abortion might soon be considered as a personal right on a national level. How could the Catholic leadership challenge it? The US bishops, in 1970, with Vatican limitations on partisan political activities, and having to respond with evolving views within the scientific and legal communities, reacted predictably—in a pastoral way—to the challenges of the church’s social doctrines on life. Turning to traditional teachings, then, to counter the changes occurring within certain parts of society, the church leadership clearly, officially, and openly taught about the need to support life and the sanctity of the family in theological terms. As a critical corollary, it also claimed that the function of the law was to support the right of every “person,” which implied that the “child” in the womb is human, and that the evil of abortion lies with all of society.37 Above all, Catholic authorities also held that direct abortion was morally wrong for doctors and nurses to perform. These pastoral teachings appeared merely rhetorical until 1971 when the bishops, in a more pragmatic move, started to establish directives for Catholic health facilities. They specifically charged hospital boards to prohibit procedures that were “morally and spiritually harmful,”38 while persisting to make further pastoral statements and issuing guidelines on abortion.39 POLITICAL TACTICS Within the context of the shocking decision to the Catholic Church in Roe in 1973 and the growth of a more liberal society, the USCCB gradually began to use a new tactic: political, but nonpartisan, involvement on behalf of moral issues. It supported a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision in Roe,40 but the original effort failed. Then it pursued, more realistically, the establishment of a grassroots movement to change public policy and establish a supportive, pro-life, political agenda. John Cardinal Krol, the president of the USCCB, belatedly viewed the Court’s decision in Roe as a tragic mistake, and set the stage for a new approach to oppose the public precedent set by the Court. Appearing before a Congressional subcommittee in 1974 His Eminence said:

18

Chapter One

I am convinced [Roe] will ultimately be seen as the worst mistake in the Court’s history. Only a constitutional amendment can correct this mistake. At the same time, we are aware that amending our Constitution is not a step to be taken lightly. . . . It is precisely as concerned Americans who are moral leaders that we appear here today. We do not propose to advocate sectarian doctrine but to defend human rights, and specifically, the most fundamental of all rights, the right to life itself. While we are leaders of the Catholic Church in the United States, we believe that what we say expresses the convictions of many Americans who are members of other faiths and of no faith. . . . We reject any suggestion that we are attempting to impose “our” morality on others. First, it is not true. The right to life is not an invention of the Catholic Church or any other church. It is a basic human right which must undergird any civilized society. Second, either we all have the same right to speak out on public policy or no one does. We do not have to check our consciences at the door before we argue for what we think is best for society. We speak as American citizens who are free to express our views and whose freedom, under our system of government, carries with it a corresponding obligation to advocate positions which we believe will best serve the good of our nation. Third, in our free country, decisions . . . are made by legislators who themselves are free to act according to their own best judgment. We dare not forget, however, that to separate political judgment from moral judgment leads to disorder and disaster.41

Krol’s statement was significant insofar as it clarified Catholic social doctrine and the church’s commitment to work for pro-life issues in American public policy. Both were based on religious beliefs, but they were not meant to be either denominational or ecclesiastical. Instead, they were an attempt to establish the rationale for future Catholic political action in the matter of abortion: first, because it impacted all Americans, including Catholics, who had the right to speak out on freedom, and second because it concerned moral leaders who were committed to human rights. In its own way, Krol’s statement also served as a warning: that political judgments made without moral considerations could have dire consequences.42 Thus, the stage was set for the establishment of a “Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities,”43 a cross between a teaching program and a grassroots activist effort to reverse Roe v. Wade. It began with prayer vigils, sidewalk protests, demonstrations, and greater support for pro-life education. But then, the plan gradually evolved into public advocacy to support legal protections for the right to life and even early attempts to support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. These goals were activated by the creation of pro-life organizations at the state, diocesan, and parish levels. Thus, an organizational structure was put in place to inform the public about the immorality and problems associated with abortion, as well as to assist women to make moral decisions for life.

From Roe to Dobbs

19

In 1985, the Pastoral Plan was reaffirmed,44 and in 2001 it was revised with a broader and deeper commitment to advance a pro-life public policy. In its millennial teaching, the USCCB detailed a program of specific actions designed to instill a respect for the Catholic doctrinal issues on the issue of life and a reversal of Roe.45 On the state level, the USCCB called for coordination and cooperation on matters of public policy among its leaders, who bore the titles of conference directors and pro-life directors. They were called on to monitor social, legislative, and political trends; to assess their implications for the pro-life effort, to evaluate their own progress; and to analyze their relationships with political parties and coalitions. On the diocesan level, pro-life committees were headed by pro-life directors and a Respect for Life coordinator. They were appointed by and responsible to their bishop; tasked to coordinate activities from the USCCB’s Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment; as well as to work with representatives of diocesan agencies and lay organizations on pro-life issues. These included organizations on family life, education, youth ministry, a postabortion ministry, diocesan newspapers, liturgy, health apostolate and social services. Representatives of lay organizations included, but were not limited to the Knights of Columbus, Catholic Daughters of the Americas, Daughters of Isabella, Council of Catholic Women, the Holy Name Society, Students for Life, Priests for Life, and others. Groups such as medical organizations, legal firms such as the Becket Fund, and public affairs officials, along with financial advisers; representatives of local pro-life groups such as state Right to Life organizations, pregnancy aid centers; and representatives of parish pro-life/respect life committees were also part of their network. This grassroots infrastructure, though pastoral in its religious nature, but pragmatic in its purpose, was also augmented by the establishment of facilities such as maternity homes after Roe. They provided housing for women during their pregnancies, and some still do so for up to a year after the delivery of their babies.46 All these activities were to be supplemented by providing information, advertising, education, and support for local programs that counseled and assisted women with problems related to pregnancy or postabortion needs. They were also to provide support for the care of the dying, programs that dealt with the sanctity of life as well as local and national pro-life networks by communications with the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, and the local diocesan bishop. On the parish level, a pro-life committee appointed by the pastor of a specific church was called on to make the parish a center of life, particularly by meeting the needs of the vulnerable—especially mothers and their unborn children. Its structure and membership were to include adults and

20

Chapter One

youth groups, persons with disabilities, minorities, teachers, and those responsible for pastoral care. Their purpose was to implement a Respect Life Program47 and discussion programs, as well as to assist with pregnancy counseling, maternity services, and postabortion counseling. More broadly they were to create an awareness of the law and legislation that would impact the dying, the disabled, and death row inmates. They were also tasked to communicate information about legislation on life issues and “building effective mechanisms for lobbying elected officials and candidates for public office to support effective legal protection of human life from conception to natural death.”48 Further, the plan called for and encouraged collaborative work and coalition building with other religious groups to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court decision. Besides these grassroots efforts, the USCCB also began to stress the religious responsibilities of lay Catholics and Catholic politicians regarding issues that had moral as well as political and partisan implications. In 1976, they issued “Political Reflections on an Election Year.”49 by the American hierarchy. They clearly explained and emphasized the religious responsibilities of the church as well as the political priorities of the State through a moral lens and during each election cycle after that time, they continued following the principles in their original writing that: The application of Gospel values to real situations is an essential work of the Christian community. Christians believe the Gospel is the measure of human realities. However, specific political proposals do not in themselves constitute the Gospel. Christians and Christian organizations must certainly participate in public debate over alternative policies and legislative proposals, yet it is critical that the nature of their participation not be misunderstood. . . . We specifically do not seek the formation of a religious voting bloc; nor do we wish to instruct persons on how they should vote by endorsing candidates. We urge citizens to avoid choosing candidates simply on the personal basis of self-interest. Rather, we hope that voters will examine the positions of candidates on the full range of issues as well as the person’s integrity, philosophy, and performance. We seek to promote a greater understanding of the important link between faith and politics and to express our belief that our nation is enriched when its citizens and social groups approach public affairs from positions grounded in moral conviction and religious belief.50

In short, the American bishops set out the church’s role in the political order: to educate and analyze issues with social and moral dimensions; to measure public policy against moral values, as well as to participate and speak out on issues of human rights, social justice, and the role of the church in society. Its first issue of concern, however, without reference to political candidates, parties, or platforms, was abortion.

From Roe to Dobbs

21

Thus, the bishops continued to reiterate the church’s unwavering, basic theological teaching and wrote: The right to life is a basic human right which should have the protection of law. Abortion is the deliberate destruction of an unborn human being and therefore violates this right. We reject the 1973 Supreme Court decisions on abortion which refuse appropriate legal protection to the unborn child. We support the passage of a constitutional amendment to restore the basic constitutional protection of the right to life for the unborn child.51

These teachings were soon reinforced by the election of a new pope in 1979, John Paul II, whose moral agenda was predicated on the protection of life.52 During his papacy, John Paul wrote and preached extensively on this issue, his most significant pastoral work being the encyclical Evangelium Vitae,53 that is, on The Value and Inviolability of Human Life. It supported the moral doctrine that held abortion was a sin and the murder of an innocent being, while simultaneously attacking the social and legal implications of such acts and policies. Thus, the USCCB and the papacy were unified geopolitically in their pastoral teachings. They developed a strong twenty-five-year symbiosis in which Pope John Paul advocated for a universal pro-life agenda through his homilies, travels, and castigation of political leaders and others who disrespected life. These pastoral tactics were implemented on local, national, and international levels, eventually resulting in increased USCCB and Vatican documents that discussed the political implications of moral questions more intensely. A second document known as “Catholics in Political Life,”54 reiterated the same message. It said: It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord’s own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God’s grace. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church. It is, as well, the conviction of many other people of good will. . . . To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law

22

Chapter One

therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.55

Essentially, the involvement of Catholics in politics was expected to provide an unequivocal commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural death. Within the context of that obligation, the document maintained that the teaching on human life and dignity should be reflected in all parishes, educational institutions, and health-care and human service agencies. And, in a more forceful point, the bishops added that “the Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”56 Soon thereafter, the Vatican issued a clarification in “A Doctrinal Note on Some Questions regarding ‘The Participation of Catholics in Political Life,’”57 which showed an evolution toward a more pragmatic stance, one that recognized that limiting abortion must be accepted if it were not possible to end it. It stated: The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent. The democratic structures on which the modern state is based would be quite fragile were its foundation not the centrality of the human person. . . . John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them. . . . As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. . . . When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia. . . . By its interventions

From Roe to Dobbs

23

in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends—as is its proper function—to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good.58

For its part, the American hierarchy continued to respond by preaching about the principles of the church’s social doctrines in the context of the political role of Catholics in the United States. In 2007, the USCCB issued a document titled “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility,”59 which clarified and defended the church’s strengthening moral and political advocacy to protect life. It stated in part: Some question whether it is appropriate for the Church to play a role in political life. However, the obligation to teach the moral truths that should shape our lives, including our public lives, is central to the mission given to the Church by Jesus Christ. Moreover, the United States Constitution protects the right of individual believers and religious bodies to participate and speak out without government interference, favoritism, or discrimination. Civil law should fully recognize and protect the right of the Church and other institutions in civil society to participate in cultural, political, and economic life without being forced to abandon or ignore their central moral convictions. Our nation’s tradition of pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religious groups and people of faith bring their convictions and concerns into public life. Indeed, our Church’s teaching is in accord with the foundational values that have shaped our nation’s history: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” . . . The Catholic community brings important assets to the political dialogue about our nation’s future. We bring a consistent moral framework—drawn from basic human reason that is illuminated by Scripture and the teaching of the Church—for assessing issues, political platforms, and campaigns. We also bring broad experience in serving those in need-educating the young, serving families in crisis, caring for the sick, sheltering the homeless, helping women who face difficult pregnancies, feeding the hungry, welcoming immigrants and refugees, reaching out in global solidarity, and pursuing peace. We celebrate, with all our neighbors, the historically robust commitment to religious freedom in this country that has allowed the Church the freedom to serve the common good.60

But the most crucial part of the document on forming consciences was this statement: A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or racism if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At

24

Chapter One

the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.61

This statement was followed by a deeper theological perspective by Pope Benedict in his encyclical Sacramentum Caritatis in 2007.62 This apostolic exhortation discussed the social implications of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and the church’s social teaching that could be applied to the question of abortion and political actors. In time, it became a matter that would have serious implications during the presidency of Joe Biden. Pope Benedict wrote: Here it is important to consider what the Synod Fathers described as eucharistic consistency, a quality which our lives are objectively called to embody. Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. . . . These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature. . . . There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist. . . . Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them.63

Increasingly, then, the thrust of these papal documents evolved from the use of a pastoral approach to teach against abortion to discussions of increasingly complex political realities and choices. In short, they dealt with the relationship of the church’s religious tenets and the implementation of its social doctrines within the context of public policy. In the aggregate, church documents laid down four basic moral imperatives for the Catholic faithful and Catholic politicians to consider when dealing with pro-life issues. The first was a call for a personal involvement in politics, an action which their leaders now stressed as a virtue and referred to as a “moral obligation.”64 The second was the requirement for moral coherence or a “unified and integrated religious, personal and political approach to life.”65 Defined as an indivisible conscience, the hierarchy pointed out that “There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called ‘spiritual life,’ with its values and demands; and on the other, the

From Roe to Dobbs

25

so-called ‘secular’ life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture.” In their statement, the religious leaders said: Living and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or . . . confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person.66

The third imperative demanded Eucharistic or moral consistency by the laity and politicians. It held that all life issues were intertwined; that it was not possible to simply pick and choose which ones to support. Indeed, the religious leaders wrote that “The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.”67 These moral imperatives were also defined as more than the “public witness”68 of one’s Catholic faith, that is merely openly admitting one’s moral views on life issues. It was expected, fourth, that Catholics would evangelize for their values and beliefs as well.69 Thus, speaking out on moral issues was expected of Catholic politicians and those in positions of authority. These requirements could be considered as the official standards of the church to encourage and ensure its religious priorities for the protection of human dignity and all life through moral, rather than partisan means. At the same time, these imperatives also enjoined Catholic political actors to recognize their religious obligations and to consider the role of one’s conscience in decision-making, a moral order to be the voice of the voiceless, and the protectors of the marginalized and most vulnerable in society.70 Catholic operational tactics into the millennium, then, began to evolve from a pastoral approach to teach about pro-life issues into increasing demands for political behavior intended to advance the church’s moral agenda. For example, in the United States, the USCCB worked though the Hyde Amendment to bar the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest. It opposed financial support for family planning clinics that counseled abortions in consistent lobbying against such legislation in 1982, 1985, and 1987. Eventually, though, it became obvious to pro-life supporters that pastoral tactics had to be supplemented with more aggressive actions to limit Roe. While there was some limited attention to reversing the decision, and even minor legal victories, positive Catholic steps were mostly met with defeat.

26

Chapter One

Thus, while the USCCB and others moved gradually to default to a policy focused on curbing, rather than repealing, abortion policy, a curious political surrogacy was emerging on behalf of pro-life policies. It was what might be considered as a cautious presidential guardianship of the principle, seemingly cultural but personally acceptable. For example, President Carter, a born-again Christian, was a human rights activist, as well as the first leader of the United States who hosted the pope at the White House, thus sending the signal that there was a place for religious input into his political thinking. His successor, President Ford, similarly, was on the record as saying “I support the Republican platform which calls for a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortions. I . . . would turn over to the States the individual right of the voters in those States . . . to make a decision by public referendum.”71 In 1985, President Reagan openly told antiabortion protestors in Washington that “I feel a great sense of solidarity with you. The momentum is with us.”72 In fact, he cut off aid for international population control as a sign of his commitment. President George H. Bush opposed partial-birth abortions and RU-486 and supported adoption tax credits.73 President Clinton espoused a qualified pro-choice position: abortion to him was meant to be “legal, safe and rare” even though he eventually supported the use of Medicaid funds for abortions in cases of rape and incest. President George W. Bush, a Methodist Evangelical, ran on a platform that supported a culture of life. He opposed partial-birth abortion, federal funding for abortion, and a global gag order on family planning. He also supported adoption tax credits, as well as a limited use of RU-486 and embryonic stem cell research.74 The only Catholic candidate for the Presidency after the Roe decision was John Kerry, a pro-choice advocate—who was defeated. Subsequently, however, with the election of President Obama and the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the presidential policy position on abortion changed. States were now able to use their own funds to pay for elective abortions, but a compromise with the president, known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, prohibited federal funding in the ACA except to pay for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. It was solidified by Executive Order 3535 in 2010. The actual implementation of the specifics of the Order, however, was unclear. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), a part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), decided that all twenty contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be covered by Obamacare. HHS, however, exempted religious employers, nonprofit organizations that objected to any required contraception, employers providing grandfathered plans, and employers with fewer than fifty employees. Seeking clarity, challenges to this accommodation occurred as more groups claimed exceptions that could more broadly and indirectly limit reproductive

From Roe to Dobbs

27

rights. They were essentially moral questions raised by insurers and employers, rather than the USCCB specifically, and were centered on religious freedom and their right to deny access to contraception that could lead to abortion. In 2014, a major case brought this issue to the fore. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores75 the Supreme Court allowed privately, held for-profit corporations to be exempt from federal regulations that compromised their religious beliefs, but only if there were less restrictive means to do so. Upholding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, then, which laid out the principles76 to be applied in such cases, the high court opened the door for two major Catholic challenges several decades later. After the election of President Trump, federal policies on abortion reverted to pre-Obama positions and were strengthened by the new leader’s open support for a pro-life public policy and agenda. He took specific actions beginning with his own Executive Order 13798. In 2017, Trump urged all departments dealing with the ACA to issue a conscience-based exemption for the contraception mandate that would allow insurers and employers to opt out of the requirement to provide birth control. They would now cover churches and their integrated auxiliaries, other not-for-profit, education, and for-profit entities that have sincere religious or moral objections to providing contraceptive coverage. Then, in 2018, Donald Trump was the first president to attend the March for Life in Washington, DC, and clearly stated: “Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the ‘right to life.”77 He also reinforced his regulations by ending the funding of abortion to foreign countries, supporting the House of Representatives’ bill to end late-term abortions nationwide, encouraging a proposal to protect conscience rights and religious freedoms of doctors, nurses, and other medical professions, and calling for a policy reversal disallowing state officials to direct Medicaid funding away from abortion facilities that violated the law. The situation began to change even more radically after a commitment by President Trump to support the appointment of conservative justices to the Supreme Court and lower courts. The total number of Trump nominees confirmed by the U.S. Senate was 234: three associate justices to the Supreme Court, 54 judges for the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 174 judges for the U. S. District Courts, and three judges for the US Court of International Trade.78 Clearly, these ideological appointments and confirmations had a significant effect on many conservative issues, but especially abortion, and must be considered as playing a major role in the Dobbs decision.

28

Chapter One

JUDICIAL TACTICS During the time between the decisions in Roe and Dobbs the Catholic leadership stepped up its operational tactics and started a third significant effort: to use judicial means to overturn the decision that they deemed morally unacceptable. The crux of this involvement during the half century of the pro-choice policy, however, was limited—intended to challenge the courts’ legal arguments on the merits of each individual case.79 The underlying moral principles on which they rested, though, were much broader—based on theological principles, the natural law, and the church’s magisterium, or social teachings. Essentially the Catholic legal challenges dealt with definitions of life,80 the relationship of the law to society and its values,81 the interrelationship of interests and rights,82 the protection of the family,83 principles of informed consent and privacy,84 as well as the regulation of the “abortion industry.”85 Their involvement, then, was carried out mainly by filing amicus briefs and acting as litigants in significant major cases. The more recent judicial challenges have dealt with religious exemptions and the interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), as mentioned earlier. Two main cases have dealt with these issues: Zubik v. Burwell,86 and The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania.87 In 2015, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the religious exemption policy of HHS that allowed religious institutions other than churches to be exempt from the contraception mandate of the ACA. That policy allowed a) religious nonprofits to opt out of complying with the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandate, but b) required that they submit a form either to an insurer or to the federal government to request such an exemption on religious grounds. Zubik argued to do so was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because it added a burden to their right of religious freedom. The court, skirting the issue, explicitly stated in 2016 that it would not rule on the merits of the case and instead remanded it to various appellate courts to resolve a means that would meet both religious freedom rights and health needs. But the challenges to the merits of the case did not end there. The Little Sisters of the Poor, seeking a definitive decision, also raised similar issues to those in Zubik in 2015. Their case was also appealed in various courts and was finally resolved after new regulations issued by President Trump’s Executive Order 13798 in 2017. Those rules now protected churches and their integrated auxiliaries, other not-for-profit, education, and for-profit entities that had sincere religious or moral objections to

From Roe to Dobbs

29

providing contraceptive coverage that could result in an abortion. The nuns had also opposed the federal requirement that they fill out special forms for a religious exemption claiming that it would create a substantial burden on their already existent right to religious freedom. Their arguments were heard by more conservative ears, leading the Supreme Court to hold for the Little Sisters of the Poor. It ruled in 2020 that they and similar groups would not have to provide objectionable insurance information or file forms to request exemptions; that the president had the right to issue the new directives, and that filling out forms for rights that were already granted were an unnecessary burden on religion. These cases showed that issues argued by the Legal Department of the USCCB earlier were now being taken on by other religious groups, as well as supportive law firms, and individuals who also made significant challenges to the decision in Roe.88 Thus, a confluence of judicial tactics, some instituted by the Catholic leadership and its associated supporters, coupled with the conservative ideological appointment of judges by President Trump, provided the perfect storm to wash away the holdings and policies for pro-choice adherents in the United States when the Dobbs case was decided in 2022. The Catholic bishops were elated. They immediately issued a statement that continued to reject the normalization and legalization of abortion resulting from the decision in Roe, and again challenged elected officials to enact laws and policies to protect the most vulnerable. On their part, the bishops promised to serve those who faced difficult pregnancies and surround them with love.89 They also praised the effectiveness of their past efforts to work for the repeal of Roe and their future intentions to try to heal the divisions that the decision had created. They wrote: Today’s decision is also the fruit of the prayers, sacrifices, and advocacy of countless ordinary Americans from every walk of life. Over these long years, millions of our fellow citizens have worked together peacefully to educate and persuade their neighbors about the injustice of abortion, to offer care and counseling to women, and to work for alternatives to abortion, including adoption, foster care, and public policies that truly support families. We share their joy today and we are grateful to them. Their work for the cause of life reflects all that is good in our democracy, and the pro-life movement deserves to be numbered among the great movements for social change and civil rights in our nation’s history. . . . Now is the time to begin the work of building a postRoe America. It is a time for healing wounds and repairing social divisions; it is a time for reasoned reflection and civil dialogue, and for coming together to build a society and economy that supports marriages and families, and where every woman has the support and resources she needs to bring her child into this world in love. . . . As religious leaders, we pledge ourselves to continue our

30

Chapter One

service to God’s great plan of love for the human person, and to work with our fellow citizens to fulfill America’s promise to guarantee the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all people.90

The real war, however, was about to get even tougher: the Biden administration would begin to fight a more vigorous battle in church-state politics and policies that had begun in 2022 and strengthened in 2023 after the midterms. For his part, the president started the new year by attempting to end the policy of his predecessor that gave employers more flexibility in declining to offer birth control coverage on moral grounds.91 It had allowed easier access to birth control for women based on the Affordable Care Act. The Administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, assured the public within the plan, that if it were finalized, individuals who have health plans that would otherwise be subject to the ACA preventive services requirements but do not have contraceptive services because of a moral or religious objection, would now have access. Just recently, however, the preventive services in the ACA are being questioned and may be eliminated. This announcement about the ACA was part of an earlier policy that established a public awareness website that convened a meeting with health insurers to clarify federal law and regulations to protect individuals’ private medical information when seeking abortion. It provided nearly $3 million in new funding to bolster training and technical assistance for the nationwide network of Title X family planning providers, and issued guidance to roughly 60,000 US retail pharmacies in preparation for the potential sale of abortion drugs. It also clarified obligations under federal civil rights laws and proposed rules that would strengthen the nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act while making clear that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on pregnancy or related conditions, including “pregnancy termination.” What would happen next? NOTES 1. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). https:​//​supreme​.justia​.com​/cases​/federal​/us​ /410​/113/. 2. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). https:​//​supreme​.justia​.com​/cases​ /federal​/us​/381​/479/. 3. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). https:​//​supreme​.justia​.com​/ cases​/federal​/us​/505​/833/.

From Roe to Dobbs

31

4. The Code of Canon Law, accessed on 10 July 2023. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/ archive​/cod​-iuris​-canonici​/cic​_index​_en​.html. 5. The Canon Law states: “Can. 455 §1. A conference of bishops can only issue general decrees in cases where universal law has prescribed it, or a special mandate of the Apostolic See has established it either motu proprio or at the request of the conference itself. §2. The decrees mentioned in §1 . . . to be enacted validly in a plenary meeting, must be passed by at least a two-thirds vote of the prelates who belong to the conference and possess a deliberative vote. They do not obtain binding force unless they have been legitimately promulgated after having been reviewed by the Apostolic See. §4. In cases in which neither universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See has granted the power mentioned in §1 to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent,” accessed on 10 July 2023. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/archive​/cod​-iuris​ -canonici​/eng​/documents​/cic​_lib2​-cann431​-459​_en​.html​#CHAPTER​_IV. 6. In two telephone interviews with this author on 15 February 1995 and 25 February 1995, Mr. George Reed of the Legal Counsel to the NCWC at the time, recounted that for “strategic reasons” the organizations decided not to file an independent or amicus brief at either the jurisdictional or merit stage of the case, but rather to participate in the development of the argument of the National Right to Life Committee. 7. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) made it illegal for states to reimburse the salaries of teachers who taught in private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. Many of the teachers in Catholic schools were affected by this decision. The court also established a three-prong test to ensure that issues of church-state concerns remained separate. It stated that 1) statutes must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) they must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) may not create an entangling alliance between church and state. https:​//​supreme​.justia​.com​/cases​/federal​/us​/403​/602. 8. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ June 24, 2022. https:​//​www​.supremecourt​.gov​/opinions​/21pdf​/19​-1392​_6j37​.pdf. 9. For more definitive information see: Ellena Erskine, “We Read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to,” SCOTUSblog, 30 November 2021, accessed on 15 January 2023. https:​//​www​.scotusblog​.cpm​/2021​/11​/we​-read​-all​-the​-amicus​-briefs​ -in​-dobbs​-so​-you​-dont​-have​-to. 10. First posted by Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward on Politico, 5 May 2022, final decision issued on 24 June 2022 by Supreme Court. 11. President Joe Biden, “Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade,” 24 June 2022, accessed on 17 September 2022. https:​ //​www​.whitehouse​.gov​/briefing​-room​/speeches​-remarks​/2022​/06​/24​/remarks​-by​ -president​-biden​-on​-the​-supreme​-court​-decision​-to​-overturn​-roe​-v​-wade. 12. Dr. Jill Biden, “It’s over,” The Washington Times, accessed on 7 July 2022. https:​//​www​.washingtontimes​.com​/news​/2022​/jul​/20​/jill​-to​-joe​-biden​-its​-over. 13. Dobbs, op. cit., 5, 6. https:​//​www​.supremecourt​.gov​/opinions​/21pdf​/19​-1392​ _6j37​.pdf.

32

Chapter One

14. Adam Liptak, “Alito Says Roe Leak Altered ‘Atmosphere,’” New York Times, 26 October 2022, A22. 15. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479  (1965), https:​//​supreme​.justia​.com​/cases​ /federal​/us​/381​/479/; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), https:​//​supreme​.justia​ .com​/cases​/federal​/us​/539​/558/; Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), https:​//​ supreme​.justia​.com​/cases​/federal​/us​/576​/14​-556. 16. Gamble v. United States 587 U.S. ___, ___ (2019) and Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) where Justice Thomas had issued concurring opinions. 17. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Washington, DC, 2009), 104–8, questions 230–38. 18. Ibid. 19. Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 30 December 1987, accessed on 4 November 2022. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​/john​-paul​-ii​/es​/encyclicals​/ documents​/hf​_jp​-ii​_enc​_30121987​_sollicitudo​-rei​-socialis​.html. 20. Ibid., section 6, paragraph 41. 21. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, op. cit., paragraph 163, 72. 22. Ibid., paragraph 196, 87. 23. Ibid., chapter 5, 114. 24. See questions 2270, 2271 and 2272 of the Catechism, accessed on 27 October 2022. https:​//​cogforlife​.org​/the​-catechism​-of​-the​-catholic​-church​-on​-abortion/. E.g., 2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. 2271 Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sentinae,” (CIC, can 1398) “by the very commission of the offense” (CIC, can 1314) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. (Cf. CIC, cann. 1323–24). “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard, every human beings right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death” (CDF, Dominum Vitae III). 25. For hospital and care facilities see: Facts - Statistics (chausa.org), accessed on 26 August. For information on Catholic universities see: Catholic Education (usccb. org), accessed on 26 August 2022. 26. For a history of the church’s theology and interpretations see: John T. Noonan Jr., “Abortion and the Catholic Church: A Summary History,” Notre Dame

From Roe to Dobbs

33

Law School, NDLS Scholarship, accessed on 10 September 2022. www​ .http:​ //​ scholarshiplawandedu​/ad​-naturallaw​-forum​/126. 27. Majority Report of the Papal Commission on Birth Control, accessed on 9 September 2022. http:​//​ldysinger​.stjohnsem​.edu​/@magist​/1963​_paul6​/068​_hum​ _vitae​/majority report.pdf. Calling for responsible parenthood, the theologians also maintained that to “observe and cultivate all the essential values of marriage, married people need decent and human means for the regulation of conception. . . . The reasons in favor of this affirmation are of several kinds: social changes in matrimony and the family, especially in the role of the woman; lowering of the infant mortality rate; new bodies of knowledge in biology, psychology, sexuality and demography; a changed estimation of the value and meaning of human sexuality and of conjugal relations; most of all, a better grasp of the duty of man to humanize and to bring to greater perfection for the life of man what is given in nature. . . . A further step in the doctrinal evolution, which it seems now should be developed, is founded less on these facts than on a better, deeper and more correct understanding of conjugal life and of the conjugal act when these other changes occur. The doctrine on marriage and its essential values remains the same and whole, but it is now applied differently out of a deeper understanding.” 28. Pope Paul IV. Humanae Vitae, 25 July 1968, accessed on 7 October. https:​ //​www​.vatican​.va​/content​/paul​-vi​/en​/encyclicals​/documents​/hf​_p​-vi​_enc​_25071968​ _humanae​-vitae​.html. 29. Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitiae, 19 March 2016, accessed on 15 July 2023. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​/francesco​/en​/apost​_exhortations​/documents​/papa​ -francesco​_esortazione​-ap​_20160319​_amoris​-laetitia​.html. 30. Pope John Paul II., Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 30 December 1987, accessed on 10 September 2022. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​/john​-paul​-ii​/en​/encyclicals​ /documents​/hf​_jp​-ii​_enc​_30121987​_sollicitudo​-rei​-socialis​.html. See section III, paragraph 26: “as a sign of respect for life—despite all the temptations to destroy it by abortion and euthanasia—is a concomitant concern for peace, together with an awareness that peace is indivisible. It is either for all or for none. It demands an ever greater degree of rigorous respect for justice and consequently a fair distribution of the results of true development.” Section 6, paragraph 40–41, “The teaching and spreading of her social doctrine are part of the Church’s evangelizing mission. And since it is a doctrine aimed at guiding people’s behavior, it consequently gives rise to a ‘commitment to justice,’ according to each individual’s role, vocation and circumstances.” 31. The American Hierarchy, “Human Life in Our Day,” (Washington, DC; USCCB, 1968). 32. Ibid., 18. 33. Ibid., 27–28. 34. Hugh Nolan, “Pastoral Letters of the United States Catholic Bishops,” Vol. III 1962–1974. (USCCB: Washington, 1983). Statement of 17 April 1969, “Statement on Abortion,” 198–99. 35. Walter M. Abbott, gen. ed., The Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder & Herder, 1966). “Lumen Gentium,” Section 42, 241. 36. Roe v. Wade, op. cit., section VI.

34

Chapter One

37. Nolan, op. cit., “Declaration on Abortion,” November 18, 1970, 271. 38. Ibid. November 1971 (revised in 1975). “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Facilities,” 275–76. 39. Ibid. See for example: “Pastoral Message on Abortion,” 13 February 1973, 367–69; “Pastoral Guidelines for the Catholic Hospital and Catholics Health Care Personnel,” 11 April 1973, 170–74; “Resolution on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, 12 November 1973, 386–87; and “Statement on the Anti-Abortion Amendment,” 18 September 1973, 377. 40. Ibid. “Statement on the Anti-Abortion Amendment,” 18 September 1973, 377, and “A Resolution on the Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment,” 18 November 1973, 384. 41. Testimony of His Eminence John Cardinal Krol Archbishop of Philadelphia before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 7 March 1974, accessed on 28 July 2022. https:​//​www​.usccb​.org​ /issues​-and​-action​/human​-life​-and​-dignity​/abortion​/upload​/Testimony​-of​-Cardinal​ -John​-Krol​.pdf. 42. Ibid. 43. Nolan, op. cit., “Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities,” 20 November 1975, 81–91. 44. U.S. Catholic Bishops, Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities: A Reaffirmation (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1985). 45. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities: A Campaign in Support of Life,” 2001 November, accessed on 21 August 2022. https:​//​www​.usccb​.org​/about​/pro​-life​-activities​/pastoral​-plan​-prolife​-activities​ .cfm. 46. There are now approximately 250 maternity support centers such as these across forty-four states in the United States. One such group of maternity homes is Good Counsel. Its facilities provide classes on life skills, budgeting, vocations, parenting, nutrition, spirituality and chastity, and health as well as AIDs education and postabortion healing. This latter function is handled by “Lumina,” an adjunct counseling arm that provides health and healing after an abortion. 47. Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, 3211 Fourth St., NE, Washington, DC 20017. Telephone (202) 541-3070; fax (202) 541-3054; see also www​.respectlife​.org. 48. USCCB, op. cit., Pastoral Plan 2002. National Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA). For information concerning efforts to pass pro-life legislation see:  www​.nchla​.org. 49. Administrative Board of the USCCB. “Political Responsibility: Reflections on an Election Year,” 12 February 1976, section 2, paragraph 16–17, accessed on 27 October 2022. https:​//​www​.priestsforlife​.org​/magisterium​/bishops​/76​-02​ -12politicalresponsibilityuscc​.htm. 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid., section 3, paragraph 20. 52. Jo Renee Formicola, John Paul II: Prophetic Politician. (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2002).

From Roe to Dobbs

35

53. Pope John Paul II. 25 March 1995, accessed on 22 August 2022. https:​//​www​ .vatican​.va​/content​/john​-paul​-ii​/en​/encyclicals​/documents​/hf​_jp​-ii​_enc​_25031995​ _evangelium​-vitae​.html. 54. USCCB. “Catholics in Political Life,” 2004, accessed on 9 September 2022. https:​//​www​.usccb​.org​/issues​-and​-action​/faithful​-citizenship​/church​-teaching​/ catholics​-in​-political​-life. A revised version in 2012 called for teaching, persuading, communicating, and helping to form consciences. 55. Ibid., Introduction, l. 56. Ibid., 2. 57. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “A Doctrinal Note on Some Questions regarding ‘The Participation of Catholics in Political Life,’” 21 November 2002, accessed on 9 September 2022. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/roman​_curia​/congregations​/ cfaith​/documents​/rc​_con​_cfaith​_doc​_20021124​_politica​_en​.html. 58. Ibid., section 5, paragraph 6. 59. USCCB, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” 14 November 2007, new edition February 2020, accessed on 9 September 2022. https:​ //​ www​ .usccb​ .org​/issues​-and​-action​/faithful​-citizenship​/upload​/forming​-consciences​-for​-faithful​ -citizenship​.pdf. 60. Ibid., paragraphs 11, 12, and 13. 61. Ibid., paragraph 14. 62. Pope Benedict XVI. Sacramentum Caritatis, issued 22 February 2007, accessed on 27 October 2022. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​/benedict​-xvi​/en​/apost​ _exhortations​/documents​/hf​_ben​-xvi​_exh​_20070222​_sacramentum​-caritatis​.html. 63. Ibid., paragraph 83ff. 64. Ibid. 65. Congregation for the Defense of the Faith, op. cit., section 6. 66. Ibid. 67. Ibid., section 2 paragraph 4. 68. Pope Paul VI, Evangelii Nutiandi, 8 December 1975, paragraph 76–79, accessed on 30 March 2023. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​/paul​-vi​/en​/apost​_exhortations​/ documents​/hf​_p​-vi​_exh​_19751208​_evangelii​-nuntiandi​.html. 69. Conference of Latin American and Caribbean Bishops, The Aparecida Documents, 13 May 2007. See also “Letter of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI,” 13 May 2000, accessed on 15 May 2023. https:​//​www​.celam​.org​/aparecida​/Ingles​.pdf. 70. For further information see: Jo Renee Formicola, “Catholic Moral Demands in American Politics: A New Paradigm,” Journal of Church and State 51, no. 1 (Winter 2009): 4–24. 71. On the Issues, “Gerald Ford on Abortion,” accessed on 1 August 2022. https:​//​ www​.ontheissues​.org​/Celeb​/Gerald​_Ford​_Abortion​.htm. 72. Dudley Clendinen, “President Praises Foes of Abortion,” New York Times, 23 January 1985, A1, accessed on 8 August 2022. https:​//​www​.nytimes​.com​/1985​/01​ /23​/us​/president​-praises​-foes​-of​-abortion​.html. 73. “George W. Bush on Abortion,” accessed on 1 August 2022. https:​//​www​ .ontheissues​.org​/George​_W​_​_Bush​_Abortion​.htm.

36

Chapter One

74. “George H. W. Bush on Abortion,” accessed on 1 August 2022. https:​//​www​ .ontheissues​.org​/Celeb​/George​_W​_​_Bush​_Abortion​.htm. 75. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 U.S. 682 (2014). https:​//​supreme​.justia​ .com​/cases​/federal​/us​/573​/682/. 76. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103–141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993). The law stated that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” However, the law provided an exception if two conditions were met. First, the burden must be necessary for a compelling government interest, that is based on a core constitutional issue and second, only after “strict scrutiny,” it must be shown to be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. 77. President Trump’s Speech to 2018 March for Life, accessed on 15 September 2022. https:​//​www​.lifesitenews​.com​/news​/full​-text​-president​-trumps​-historic​-speech​ -to​-march​-for​-life/. 78. See Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public-domain publication of the  Federal Judicial Center. https:​//​en​.wikipedia​.org​/wiki​/Biographical​_Directory​_of​ _Federal​_Judges. 79. This term refers to cases whose decisions rest upon the law as it is applied to evidence and facts present in a specific situation. It is different from a case whose decisions rest on procedural grounds. A case decided on the merits cannot be appealed, but a case decided on procedure can be revisited. Often precedents from church-state cases were used in arguments based on First Amendment freedoms, education, and other issues to bolster “merit” arguments. 80. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Amicus Brief. Missouri v. Danforth 428 U.S. 52 (1976)96 S. Ct. 2831. Amicus argued that the court inappropriately abandoned a biological or medical standard of life for a legal, consensual one; that it should not divide life into distinct parts i.e., prenatal and viable, and that life exists from the time of conception. 81. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Amicus Brief. Harris v. Mc Rae. 448 U. S. 297 (1980). The amicus argument here was that the law not only regulates, but also articulates values, and thus states should enforce the compelling interest to protect viable fetal existence and regulate the abortion industry. 82. United States Catholic Conference of Bishops. Amicus Brief. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. 492 U. S. 490 (1989). It supported the right of the state of Missouri to impose restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and the employees who were involved in performing, assisting, or counseling women on abortion. https:​//​supreme​.justia​.com​/cases​/federal​/us​/492​/490/. 83. Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 (1976). The USCCB supported a Massachusetts law requiring parental consent to a minor’s abortion, under the provision that “if one or both of the [minor]’s parents refuse . . . consent, consent may be obtained by order of a judge . . . for good cause shown.” https:​//​supreme​.justia​.com​/cases​/federal​/us​ /428​/132/. 84. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). The USCCB supported the right of the state to require parental consent for a minor’s abortion, require a waiting period between seeking and obtaining an abortion, and require detailed “informed

From Roe to Dobbs

37

consent” including medical information about the abortion. Casey abandoned the trimester framework, replacing it with pre- and post-viability tests for constitutionality. Roe was reaffirmed—although “liberty” replaced “privacy” as the alleged constitutional interest. https:​//​supreme​.justia​.com​/cases​/federal​/us​/505​/833/. 85. Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986). The USCCB supported Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act of 1982 by challenging the argument that the law was unconstitutional because its purpose was not to subordinate constitutional privacy interests and concerns with maternal health in the effort to deter a woman from making a personal decision with her physician. https:​//​supreme​.justia​.com​/cases​/federal​/us​/476​/747/. 86. Zubik v. Burwell 576 U.S. 1049 (2015). 87. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020). 88. Taken from: Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. Opinion of the Court 2015. Within the opinion of the court issued prior to its final holding, the following organizations were noted as participating in the major case on religious exemptions: “The Little Sisters of the Poor were joined in raising Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenges to the self-certification accommodation. The Trump administration also participated in the suit along with religious nonprofit organizations and educational institutions across the country, most resulting in rulings that the accommodation did not violate RFRA. See, e.g., East Texas Baptist Univ. v. Burwell, 793 F. 3d 449 (CA5 2015); Geneva College v. Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 778 F. 3d 422 (CA3 8) Priests for Life v. United States Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 772 F. 3d 229 (CADC 2014); Michigan Catholic Conference v. Burwell, 755 F. 3d 372 (CA6 2014); University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 743 F. 3d 547 (CA7 2014); but see Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 801 F. 3d 927 (CA8 2015); Dordt College v. Burwell, 801 F. 3d 946 (CA8 2015). We granted certiorari in cases from four Courts of Appeals to decide the RFRA question.” Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U. S. (2016) (per curiam). 89. USCCB Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, 24 June 2022, accessed on 15 November 2022. https:​//​www​.usccb​.org​/news​/2022​/usccb​ -statement​-us​-supreme​-court​-ruling​-dobbs​-v​-jackson. 90. Ibid., 24, 202. 91. Department of Health and Human Service, “Biden-Harris Administration Proposes New Rules to Expand Access to Birth Control Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act,” accessed on 30 January 2023. https:​//​www​.hhs​.gov​/about​/news​/2023​ /01​/30​/biden​-harris​-administration​-proposes​-new​-rules​-expand​-access​-birth​-control​ -coverage​-under​-affordable​-care​-act​.html.

Chapter Two

From Dobbs Forward President Biden Reacts

The civil reactions to the Dobbs decision have been varied and persistent, much like the early religious responses of the Catholics to Roe in the immediate aftermath of that case. But, from the beginning, the strategy of President Biden and his administration has been clear: to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision regarding abortion, and to reinstate reproductive rights uniformly across the United States. The difference between the Catholic reactions of a half century ago and the pro-choice responses of today, however, is that the strategy of the Biden administration is being implemented with different operational tactics. The pro-life supporters used moral values as the theological underpinning to advance their social doctrines. And they implemented them through pastoral teachings, grassroots political activism, and limited judicial challenges. President Biden and his administration, on the other hand, reframed the government’s pro-choice policy in terms of constitutional rights and protections. They carried out the White House agenda uniformly through three tactics: 1) using the media, 2) instituting official, government pro-choice action plans, and 3) pursuing an identity-defined and partisan base to garner votes for the 2020 midterms. TACTICAL USE OF REFRAMING THE ISSUE President Joe Biden has always identified as a Catholic, a Democrat, and a middle-of-the-road pragmatist. As a religious adherent, however, he has often raised critical questions about his religious commitments, leading many of his critics to question if a unique, Catholic individualist such as himself, can be a successful president of the United States. This is due, in part, to his political views on abortion and immigration, issues that he emphasizes as existential 39

40

Chapter Two

and constitutional threats, rather than moral and social challenges to democracy, freedom, equality, and human rights. The only other Catholic to hold the presidency, John Kennedy, summed up his answer about how to handle moral-political quandaries during a campaign speech to the Houston Ministerial Meeting in 1960. Although he did not have to deal with the same problems as President Biden, his political decisions were based on the need to balance his conscience with the national interest. If he could not do so, Kennedy said he would resign. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject—I will make my decision . . . in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. . . . I do not speak for my church and my church does not speak for me. . . . But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.1

Joe Biden has not taken such a view. In his autobiography, Promises to Keep,2 the president recounted claims that he was always personally opposed to abortion, but did not think it was right for him to impose his faith on others. The president has interpreted his view to mean that he would not vote to overturn Roe or curtail a woman’s right to choose abortion, nor use federal funds to pay for abortion.3 And, he admitted that by taking such positions, he made life difficult for himself “by putting intellectual consistency and personal principle above expediency.”4 Prior to being elected president, then, Biden attempted to follow a personal and dual ethical standard. It could be characterized as a norm that employed a pragmatic approach to the difficulty of balancing his personal religious values with conflicting political and partisan stances. He has said: My religion defines who I am. And I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position that life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and—I just refuse to impose that on others. . . . I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. . . . And the Supreme Court—I’m not going to interfere with that.5 [emphasis added]

From Dobbs Forward

41

This stance was evident in his campaign for the presidency in 2020. He said he no longer supported the Hyde Amendment and promised that he would restore funding to Planned Parenthood that had been restricted by his presidential predecessors. Soon after the election however, the president changed his thinking on abortion even further. He basically rejected his former standard on abortion by admitting publicly that he no longer believed his church’s stance that life begins “at the moment of conception.”6 This was a stunning personal departure from his original religious beliefs, a divergence which immediately opened the door for criticism by American Catholic leaders and conservatives. Some bishops, through their national organization, the USCCB, questioned both his religious and political views based on theological tenets and the church’s magisterium. They specifically raised questions about his adherence to the principle of “eucharistic consistency.” That responsibility had been addressed by Pope Benedict in the encyclical Sacramentum Caritatis. He wrote: Here it is important to consider what the Synod Fathers described as eucharistic consistency, a quality which our lives are objectively called to embody. Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. . . . It is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. . . . These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature. . . . There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist. . . . Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them.7

Thus, various Catholic bishops, leaning on this encyclical, challenged statements that President Biden had made on abortion, but then, they went even further. They challenged new views that were being articulated by the current pontiff, Pope Francis, as well. In 2016, the pope had issued an Apostolic Letter8 designed to remove any religious obstacles that might limit a woman’s reconciliation with God due to abortion. He said:

42

Chapter Two

I henceforth grant to all priests, in virtue of their ministry, the faculty to absolve those who have committed the sin of procured abortion. The provision I had made in this regard, limited to the duration of the Extraordinary Holy Year . . . is hereby extended, notwithstanding anything to the contrary. I wish to restate as firmly as I can that abortion is a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life. In the same way, however, I can and must state that there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father. May every priest, therefore, be a guide, support, and comfort to penitents on this journey of special reconciliation.9

This statement was a shift in the former theological position of the Vatican about the forgiveness of the grave sin of abortion. It reversed Canon 15 of the church’s religious law that had stated that Catholics who had committed a grave sin were not allowed to receive Holy Communion. His predecessor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the man who would later become Pope Benedict XVI and the official defender of church orthodoxy, had clarified that matter earlier. In an official memo,10 he wrote that Catholic politicians who are “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” are formally cooperating in the grave sin of abortion, in a “manifest” way. In such cases, Ratzinger said, the pastor of such an official must meet with that person and admonish them, instructing them that they cannot receive communion. If the politicians persist in their proabortion advocacy, the minister of communion “must refuse to distribute it.”11 So, Pope Francis’s views and actions intensified a growing hierarchical split as he continued to emphasize the importance of forgiving those who had made difficult life choices in a speech at St. Peter’s Square.12 There he announced that the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, or communion, was “not as the reward of saints, [but as] the Bread of Sinners.”13 He emphasized that priests exercise compassion and reconciliation dealing with the sin of abortion in the confessional. Thus, conservative bishops within the American Catholic hierarchy soon began to clash with liberal and even Catholic pro-choice political advocates.14 They disagreed with how to respond to abortion in the context of a more formidable and compassionate Pope Francis and the pro-choice president in the United States. At about the same time, in June 2021, the USCCB president, Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez, raised the question of whether a politician who supported abortion could receive Holy Communion. At the organization’s semiannual meeting, the assembled bishops agreed to draft a document that could provide guidance on how to resolve the problem created by President Biden’s reception of the Eucharist. The effort to arrive at a policy was futile however,

From Dobbs Forward

43

due to Vatican rules on the formulation of national religious policies, statements by doctrinal leaders, and the bylaws of the USCCB itself.15 Thus, Pope Francis’s directive on compassion and forgiveness was accepted by the US hierarchy, and the Biden question was simply abandoned. It was, however, given a reality check when President Biden was to meet with the pontiff later in the year. Church authorities canceled a request by the president’s aides for the chief executive to attend Mass at the Vatican. The decision was neither approved nor explained.16 Emphasizing the diplomatic part of his visit instead, the media reported that the two leaders discussed issues of international importance17 such as the environment, the COVID-19 pandemic, problems of migration, human rights, and religious freedom. Conspicuous by its absence in the talks was the question of President Biden being able to receive communion since he did not subscribe to the church’s pro-life teachings.18 His recollection about the pope’s concern for his pro-choice stance was simply that “We just talked about the fact he was happy I was a good Catholic and keep receiving Communion,”19 However, after their meeting, the pope reconsidered the president’s recollection and characterized the president’s stand as an “incoherence,”20 during an interview with Univisión and Televisa. Stating that he would leave it to Biden’s “conscience,” the pope recommended that he talk to his pastor about that incoherence.21 Questions about the president’s stand on abortion by the US hierarchy and the papal ambiguity toward Biden’s support of abortion seemed to show a breach in the official Catholic stance on pro-life support. While Pope Francis had earlier reiterated the serious responsibility of action on the part of the church “to participate in shaping the moral character of society . . . a requirement of our faith,”22 many Catholic religious leaders also believed that some of his later stances regarding abortion could also be construed to mitigate the president’s agenda and support his policies on pro-life matters. They were encouraged later, however, by the USCCB’s reinforcement of traditional Catholic social teachings on abortion, and its clarifications about church political involvement. It reiterated doctrines and reminded church leaders to be nonpartisan based on section 501(c)(3) of the US tax code. Thus, as a charitable, community, and religious organization they could not endorse political candidates, use parish facilities for political meetings, authorize the distribution of political materials, or invite politicians to speak at church.23 So, to solidify a potential change in social doctrine into public policy, then, President Biden had to gain support for his pro-choice stance by emphasizing his own larger constitutional concerns and social justice imperatives. He began by making that shift through his next tactical step: using the media as a surrogate political megaphone to support Dobbs.

44

Chapter Two

Tactical Use of the Media The American “bully pulpit” has been an effective way to provide presidents with an opportunity to speak out, be heard, and advance their specific political agendas. Joe Biden has taken advantage of that platform, using it as a tactic to advance his own political narrative—that those who support the Dobbs decision are bringing about a crisis of democracy. For example, immediately after the decision he said: Today is . . . a very solemn moment. Today, the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized. They didn’t limit it. They simply took it away. That’s never been done to a right so important to so many Americans. But they did it. . . . Now, with Roe gone, let’s be very clear: The health and life of women in this nation are now at risk. . . . I believe Roe v. Wade was the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy. It was a decision on a complex matter that drew a careful balance between a woman’s right to choose earlier in her pregnancy and the state’s ability to regulate later in her pregnancy. A decision with broad national consensus that most Americans of faiths and backgrounds found acceptable and that had been the law of the land for most of the lifetime of Americans today. And it was a constitutional principle upheld by justices appointed by Democrat and Republican Presidents alike. . . . It was three justices named by one President—Donald Trump—who were the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country. Make no mistake: This decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law. It’s a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view. . . . The Court’s decision to do so will have real and immediate consequences. State laws banning abortion are automatically taking effect today, jeopardizing the health of millions of women, some without exceptions. . . . It just stuns me [emphasis added]. . . . Let me be very clear and unambiguous: The only way we can secure a woman’s right to choose and the balance that existed is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade as federal law. No executive action from the President can do that. And if Congress, as it appears, lacks the vote—votes to do that now, voters need to make their voices heard. This fall, we must elect more senators and representatives who will codify a woman’s right to choose into federal law once again, elect more state leaders to protect this right at the local level. We need to restore the protections of Roe as law of the land. We need to elect officials who will do that. This fall, Roe is on the ballot. Personal freedoms are on the ballot. The right to privacy, liberty, equality, they’re all on the ballot. Until then, I will do all in my power to protect a woman’s right in states where they will face the consequences of today’s decision . . . I hear you. I support you. I stand with you. . . . This decision must not be the final word. My administration will use all of its appropriate lawful powers.

From Dobbs Forward

45

But Congress must act. And with your vote, you can act. You can have the final word. This is not over.24

Thus, he immediately gave a series of verbal clues as to how he would fight the Dobbs decision. The president said he would use all his executive powers; that is, a whole of government response that would empower political processes and government agencies to deal with health care and allied problems such as a woman’s right to an abortion. He promised that he would challenge the credibility of the Supreme Court, place blame on former President Donald Trump, and enlist Congress as well as voters and other segments of society to reject the pro-life holding in the 2020 midterm elections. Several months later, with the midterm political campaigning in full swing, the president forcefully began to reset the political narrative for his strategic effort to bring about the reversal of the Dobbs decision. He did it by an appeal to protect the constitutional values that he painted as embodying the soul of the nation and democracy. In a speech at Liberty Hall in Philadelphia, Biden aggressively declared that democracy was under fire and that the extremism of Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters, rather than all Republicans, had now threatened the very foundations of the American Republic.25 But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country. . . . And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. . . . MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards—to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love. . . . And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. . . . MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards—backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love. . . . They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country. . . . They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on January 6th—brutally attacking law enforcement—not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger to the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots. . . . And they see their MAGA failure to stop a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections. . . . They tried everything last time to nullify the votes of 81 million people. This time, they’re determined to succeed in thwarting the will of the people. . . . And, folks, it is within our power, it’s in our hands—yours and mine—to stop the assault on American democracy.

46

Chapter Two

. . . We’re all called, by duty and conscience, to confront extremists who will put their own pursuit of power above all else. . . . Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans: We must be stronger, more determined, and more committed to saving American democracy than MAGA Republicans are to—to destroying American democracy. . . . MAGA Republicans look at America and see carnage and darkness and despair. They spread fear and lies—lies told for profit and power. . . . The soul of America is defined by the sacred proposition that all are created equal in the image of God. That all are entitled to be treated with decency, dignity, and respect. That all deserve justice and a shot at lives of prosperity and consequence. And that democracy must be defended, for democracy makes all these things possible. Folks, and it’s up to us.26

Thus, the media battle for the midterms had been laid out. First, MAGA Republicans were accused of trying to destroy constitutional values. And second, the right to abortion, contraception, and gay marriage would be placed squarely on the Biden agenda to maintain the Democrats’ power. Front-page stories such like those in the New York Times and other newspapers reinforced the Biden narrative, citing threats to governing ideals, such as democracy, “in unchartered territory.”27 The president’s media calls to save democracy were quickly heeded by a growing number of corporations and reported in the papers. Companies such as Salesforce, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Tesla, Citigroup, Yelp, Match, Bumble, and Levi Strauss supported pro-choice policies. Starbucks and Comcast were among the early businesses willing to report that they would pay for the transportation of women to states where abortion would be legal. Other activists sought to ease the provision and delivery of abortion pills. And the listing of start-up companies that supported reproductive rights were made public for those who wanted to make investments in their new businesses—they were listed on the Alinea app. Individuals such as Gov. Gavin Newsom reportedly urged filmmakers to return to Hollywood from Georgia and other more conservative states and support his state’s liberal values. The public pro-choice media rally had begun in earnest. With new social media and aggressive messaging in today’s persuasion and advertising world, the Biden administration has been able to develop and incorporate a myriad of modern tactics to explain and defend the president’s political agenda. One critical survival tactic in this new way of campaigning takes place in a world of political texting. Reports indicate that an estimated 1.29 billion messages28 related to the midterms went out to cell phones in just one month. At the same time, an ever-growing vocabulary to advance the president’s political narrative also emerged via the internet and cable networks as well as ideological radio and television programs.

From Dobbs Forward

47

Traditional and social media, now, can influence individuals about any, and all issues 24/7. That advantage, however, can also enable both pro-choice and pro-life supporters to make daily, hourly, or minute-by-minute compelling cases for and against reproductive rights. Currently, the refined use of new media is being used aggressively by the Biden administration to advance political positions in a variety of ways. These include different forms of techniques and reliance on viral videos and posts. Recently, Elon Musk revealed the use of “shadow banning” or virtual censorship by certain members of the Biden administration to control the types of stories viewed on Twitter. Therefore, at the same time, it is possible to see how using or abusing social media can elicit positive and negative optics as well as unique branding to separate pro-choice and pro-life supporters. New forms of communication such as virtue signaling, that is, making public expressions of opinions or sentiments to demonstrate good character, a social conscience, or moral correctness, are increasingly becoming part of the political rhetoric to advance policy positions. These surrogate, negative, red-flag messages are now part of the normal political lexicon. Terms like semi-fascists, communists, chumps, deplorables, Jim Crow 2.0, Armageddon, and ultra-MAGA people are applied divisively to those who oppose “De Satan,” new political “stunts,” and other negative political narratives. Even white suburban women have been referred to as “roaches waiting for Raid” on The View, while the print media has lately recognized them as more than just soccer moms—indeed, in some places women are now being understood as significant political players! Rather than providing multicultural political space, the political use of the media by the Biden administration has epitomized the use of identity politics, ways to “weaponize” issues and the need to fact check misinformation and disinformation. All the while, however, press secretaries and political supporters often blame the use of such divisive rhetoric as the impersonal actions of algorithms and bots. While social media today can enable greater citizen journalism and participation in politics by the multiplication of communication channels, it can also lead to greater and immediate reactions to statements and policies of political leaders, even those of President Joe Biden, who is often criticized for his blunders and lack of knowledge on many issues. No surprise then, that the president used the full force of the media as a closing argument for votes in the 2022 midterm campaign. He used his midterm election narrative in Philadelphia as mentioned above. He included the assault on Speaker Pelosi’s husband as a repeat of the “storming” of the Capitol on January 6th by an “enraged mob whipped into a frenzy by a president repeating . . . that the election of 2020 had been stolen.”29 His speech was an ardent call to confront lies with truth because the nature of the US democracy depended on it. He called the election a defining moment, indeed,

48

Chapter Two

an inflection point requiring unity against voter intimidation and political violence. He clearly stated: Make no mistake, democracy is on the ballot for all of us. We must remember that democracy is a covenant. We need to start looking out for each other again, seeing ourselves as we the people, not as entrenched enemies. This is a choice we can make. Disunion and chaos are not inevitable. There’s been anger before in America. There’s been division before in America. But we’ve never given up on the American experiment. And we can’t do that now.30

Tactical Use of Political Power The Dobbs decision precipitated the need for President Biden to reframe the political significance of his pro-choice policy. Thus, the abortion issue was cast as a constitutional rather than a moral or social issue. By doing so, President Biden could, and did, forcefully use his most powerful political weapon to advance his pro-choice agenda in the United States: the Executive Order. He began with a clear public policy directive on abortion, much like that of the Catholic leadership after Roe, except for its direction and timing. It appeared quickly, within a month after the case was handed down.31 It was an order to defend, explain and safeguard the standards of all the federal policies on reproductive health-care services, as well as the privacy, security, autonomy, freedom and equality of patients, providers, and clinics. They were to be applied to all civilian women, federal workers, and those in the military.32 More specifically, the president’s executive order called for the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to submit a report within thirty days on the following issues: outreach and education services as well as efforts to bring volunteer lawyers, bar associations, and public interest organization to “encourage robust legal representation” in support of all those seeking or offering reproductive health-care services. The order also tasked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to protect consumer privacy and fraudulent practices, as well as to protect sensitive health information. Within the next month, President Biden issued a second Executive Order,33 with the purpose of moving from planning to implementing the means to access reproductive and other health-care services decided in the Dobbs case. It supported the travel cost for out-of-state medical care and required that health-care providers comply with federal nondiscrimination laws as well as compile data on maternal health outcomes. Most importantly, it established the Task Force on Reproductive Healthcare Access that was to be chaired by the secretary Health and Human Services

From Dobbs Forward

49

(HHS) at the time, Xavier Becerra, and the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, Jennifer Klein. The job of the task force was to coordinate efforts across the federal government to protect access to reproductive health-care services and defend reproductive rights. The agencies were all inclusive, formidable, and powerful,34 and have responded within their parameters to the president’s executive order in response to the ruling in Dobbs. Since the creation of the Task Force on Reproductive Health Care Access, many actions have been taken to implement the president’s executive orders on abortion. Indeed, this began to emerge as the issue President Biden increasingly saw as a path to victory for the Democrats before the 2022 midterms. A hundred days prior to the election, Biden unveiled new measures to protect access to abortion, especially to young voters. At the meeting of Biden’s Task Force on Reproductive Access, the Department of Education reported that it would send universities reminders that students could not be discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy. The Department of Health and Human Services announced that it would give $6 million in grants to family planning clinics that receive Title IX funding. Then, during the meeting of the task force, the president also turned the issue of abortion into a partisan reason to win the election. Toward the end of the discussion, he added that “Right now we’re short a handful of votes” and the “only way it’s going to happen is if the American people make it happen.”35 He claimed that even if “extremist Republicans aren’t running, your right to choose will still be at risk.”36 As the midterms drew closer, and other issues such as inflation, crime, education, and immigration began to also take center stage as voters’ concerns increased, the president persisted in making abortion the primary focus of his political agenda. With only two weeks to go, Biden spoke at the Howard Theatre in Washington, DC, pledging that the first bill he would send to Capitol Hill after the election would be one that would codify abortion rights, even though such efforts had failed in the past. Then, further advancing the president’s agenda though the government infrastructure, the Secretary of Defense sent out a directive two days later, reassuring service members that the government would provide travel funds to those who wanted to leave states that outlawed abortion.37 As time began to run out, the abortion issue appeared to be losing ground as well. Some senators, however, were better prepared to attack the impending Dobbs decision even before the president saw the issue as an existential one within a democracy context. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), for example, wrote a letter challenging the president of Heartbeat International, a Catholic crisis pregnancy center (CPC) for collecting data from women who “misleadingly believe they can seek legitimate abortion and reproductive

50

Chapter Two

health care services” at more than two thousand centers while also demanding to know if, and how, the organization collects and uses personal information restricted by HIPAA regulations.38 On EWTN, a Catholic television station, the president of the organization responded by simply saying that their actions were “safe, secure and legal,”39 without providing any further answer to the allegations. Then, other senators, again led by Warren, went one step further to restrict the actions of pro-life groups in 2022, immediately after the Dobbs decision was handed down. Joining Warren, Congresswomen Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), and Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act to end what they called “false advertising that crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) employ to dissuade patients from getting the reproductive care they need, including abortion care.”40 The bill, with support from an overwhelming number of pro-choice agencies41 directed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue rules to prohibit deceptive or misleading advertising related to abortion services, to enforce these rules and also to collect penalties from organizations in violation. The bill, however, has not advanced beyond the committee process. Vice president Kamala Harris attempted to support the president’s pro-choice executive actions soon after the Dobbs decision was handed down, but did not do so preemptively as did Senator Warren. Harris spoke to women’s groups and made television appearances. On Meet the Press, Harris castigated the Supreme Court for its “activist” ruling, claimed that its decision in Dobbs led to “suffering” after the removal of privacy rights, and ultimately challenged the “legitimacy” of the court.42 Harris, however, ignited a retort from the chief justice, leaving her criticism moot to many supporters of the court. Chief Justice Roberts said: The court has always decided controversial cases and decisions always have been subject to intense criticism and that is entirely appropriate. . . . You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is. And you don’t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is.43

Harris’s question about the credibility of the court, however, did not seem to gain significant traction or end the controversy about the decision in Dobbs, but the president still had an ally in the speaker of the House at the time. Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat who also happens to be a Catholic, had the opportunity even before the decision to give support to the issue of reproductive rights as well as deliver a win to the president. Pelosi had openly supported privacy rights during her long career in the House of Representatives and, before Dobbs, attempted to get the Congress to codify the right to abortion. She introduced a bill to prohibit states from

From Dobbs Forward

51

passing most abortion restrictions prior to fetal viability, which passed in the House 219 to 210. But soon after, the Senate voted 46–48 to block the bill to codify abortion rights into federal law ahead of the expected Supreme Court decision that would allow states to make decisions on the policy. The national legislative path seemed to be closing. Tactical Use of Judicial Challenges The Biden administration also looked for other openings to advance its prochoice policy by trying a third operational tactic: to support judicial challenges to the Dobbs ruling. However, prior to Dobbs, there were reports44 that states had already proposed legislation to establish “fetal personhood” rights, which could result in challenges to courts to set the standard that a fetus is a person and therefore entitled to protections and guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendment, including the right to life. The justices in Roe, however, had made no ruling on when life begins. They maintained instead, that “viability” or the time that a fetus can survive outside the womb, is when the state can begin to consider abortion for the health of the mother. The justices in Dobbs did not discuss the issue either. Nevertheless, the issue, nearly fifty years later, was opened by Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the court’s majority opinion in Dobbs. He made startling arguments in the eyes of the Biden administration and pro-choice advocates. As previously noted, he said that Roe was an egregious error, on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided, and that the decision perpetuated Roe’s errors by essentially limiting the right of pro-life advocates to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. His exact words were that “The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.”45 At the same time Alito argued that Casey “abandoned any reliance on privacy rights and grounded its support of abortion on due process,” thus rejecting Roe’s trimester scheme,46 as being unworkable because the “line between permissible and unconstitutional restrictions has proved to be impossible to draw with precision.”47 In a final argument, the justice maintained that weighing the relative importance of the interests of the fetus and the mother were a departure from the “original constitutional proposition” and that “courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.”48 Alito ended on a somber note saying that “abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority.49

52

Chapter Two

The Justice’s decision for the majority in Dobbs quickly opened the door for many potential legal challenges, especially those concerned about fetal personhood and “fetalcide.” State government officials, pro-choice politicians, and other activists proposed legislation to protect the life of a fetus from conception by those who claimed that personhood is only an acquired characteristic. Such challenges emerged soon after the Dobbs decision in Oklahoma, Iowa, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia.50 Accurate information is still dependent on the timing and number of states that are likely to prohibit or consider restricting abortion in the future, however. Current information from experts reveals there have been twenty-six states with such challenges and the rest expected to continue to protect or expand reproductive rights.51 In November 2022, a pro-life organization known as the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a case challenging the authority of the Federal Drug Administration. Known as the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM v. FDA),52 the organization alleged that the FDA exceeded its regulatory authority to approve the use of the abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol by using its accelerated drug approval authority and thus, ignored the potential impacts of a hormone-blocking regime on adolescent girls. It also sought to overturn an 1873 anti-obscenity law, the Comstock Act, which prohibited the mailing of any medications used for abortions. The Food and Drug Administration, through its Risk and Mitigation Assessment Strategy, in January 2023, however, allowed the use and sale of mifepristone and misoprostol, with certain qualifications. They were to be dispensed by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber or by certified pharmacies for prescriptions issued by certified prescribers. Under the Mifepristone REMS Program, mifepristone could be dispensed in person or by mail. These requirements for the providers of the medications, however, were placed in a difficult position, as the FDA’s approvals required that mifepristone must be prescribed by a health-care provider that meets certain qualifications and is certified under the mifepristone REMS Program. The other difficulty, however, arose in the requirements for the certification of pharmacies to dispense the drugs. They require that prescriptions 1) must be issued by a certified prescriber, 2) who has completed a Pharmacy Agreement Form, 3) the ability to ship mifepristone using a shipping service that provides tracking information and 4) ensure that mifepristone is dispensed to the patient in a timely manner.53 Walgreens, the nation’s second-largest pharmacy chain, responded that it would not dispense abortion pills in several states where they remain legal— acting out of an abundance of caution in a shifting policy landscape, threats

From Dobbs Forward

53

from state officials, and pressure from antiabortion activists.54 These included nearly two dozen Republican state attorneys general who threatened legal action if the company began distributing the drugs, the nation’s most popular method for ending a pregnancy. Governor Gavin Newsom of California reacted as well, and said that his state would not be doing business with Walgreens or “any company that cowers to the extremists and puts women’s lives at risk.”55 Immediately, Wyoming became the first state to outlaw pills for medical abortions. Judge Matthew Kacsmayrk heard the case and suspended the FDA’s approval of the sale of the abortion drugs. His procedural reasoning questioned the FDA’s expedited risk assessment because it contained legal errors,56 “stonewalled judicial review;” and was “substandard.” The judge also argued that the FDA’s “reconsidered” policy on mifepristone that offered “two new justifications” were not found in prior orders and did not meet previous legal standards. Then, he argued, substantively, that such FDA inaction affected the public and necessitated the withdrawal of the drug. He maintained that medical associations and organizations had standing to sue and that plaintiffs alleged injuries were concrete, redressable, reviewable, and within the “Zone of Interests” of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”) and the Comstock Act. And then, the judge’s argument ended with the point that the secretary of the FDA has the authority to determine that drugs with “known serious risks” may be dispensed “only in certain health care settings, such as hospitals.” In sum, then, the holding in the Alliance case was twofold. First, it held that the FDA could not shield its decisions from judicial review merely by characterizing its actions as exercising “enforcement discretion,”57 especially if they are “likely to result in individual injustice” or cause “irreparable injury.”58 And second, that the FDA’s combined response time of over sixteen years to plaintiffs’ two previous petitions showed their procedures had been inadequate and totally failed to provide any evaluation of the psychological effects of the drug or an evaluation of the long-term medical consequences of the drug. But it was Judge Kacsmaryk’s final point that may have caused the most partisan difficulty. He claimed that there was also evidence indicating that the FDA faced significant political pressure to forgo its proposed safety precautions to better advance the political objective of increased access to chemical abortion.59 Immediately, Wyoming became the first state to outlaw pills for medical abortions. Drug executives condemned the ruling of Judge Matthew Kaczmaryk for suspending the FDA approval of mifepristone. The pharmaceutical industry, with four hundred leaders on board, maintained that if “courts can overturn drug approvals without regard for science or evidence or for the complexity required to fully vet the safety and efficacy of new drugs,

54

Chapter Two

any medicine is at risk for the same outcome as mifepristone.”60 The case has been appealed, but the fight over abortion pills is still ongoing. Just recently, a panel of advisers to the FDA has agreed that the benefits of making birth control pills available without a prescription are not outweighed by health risks, a step that might affect the legalization of medications for abortion as well in the future. At this point, the involvement of the Biden administration in such cases like this and others will continue to occur. It filed an emergency request to a federal appeals court to block the order in the Alliance case. But disputes over the power of the FDA, the meaning of several laws such as the Administrative Procedure Act, and a reconsideration of other judicial precedents are all in legal limbo awaiting a potential Supreme Court hearing and decision in the case. All of this is part of the festering and ever-growing abortion policy in the United States. However, one of the White House considerations will most likely also be the number of conservative attorneys general, justices on the Supreme Court, and lower courts, who can have a significant impact on pro-life cases that come before the bar. Thus, the choices left on the judicial front for the president and pro-choice advocates appear to be mixed. All the cases provide different interpretations of the legal implications of Dobbs as well as various statistical computations to explain them—but, in their own way, they all are significant when trying to understand the future of the prochoice movement. For example, challenges to state statutes over the rights of the fetus to protection, women to privacy, and the state to be involved in reproductive autonomy in the early stages of pregnancy will continue. Prochoice advocates claim that such laws have other implications: problems that emerge from racial and economic disparities, and the potential expansion of criminal laws to deal with abortion. The National Conference of State Legislatures, in its most current statistic in 2018, reported that at least thirty-eight states had fetal homicide laws and that twenty-nine of them applied to the earliest stages of pregnancy. This includes “any state of gestation/development,” “conception,” “fertilization” or “post-fertilization.”61 The theoretical question associated with the legal definition of personhood did become a realistic and unique challenge in the fall of 2022 prior to the midterms with the case of Doe et al v McKee.62 Two parents, on behalf of their children along with a pro-choice group, Catholics for Life, sued the governor of Rhode Island, Daniel McKee, over a state law that upheld abortion rights in that state. However, they lost their case. Next, the petitioners sought a writ of certiorari, requesting the US Supreme Court to take up their petition without asking it to adopt any theory of life. They asked the court instead 1) to identify the guarantees of any unborn plaintiff regardless of gestational

From Dobbs Forward

55

age under the Fourteenth Amendment, and 2) whether unborn human beings would categorically be denied access to the courts to challenge an abortion law. However, their writ was denied, in effect rejecting their claims and the cause of “personhood.” Although many believe that the issue concerning when life begins is now moot, other challenges to fetal rights remain and are also in stages of appeal. For example, “trigger bans,” that is, state laws created to automatically ban abortion if Roe was reversed, could come into practice, thus making it a felony to perform an abortion as well as increasing the criminal penalties for anyone providing or assisting in an abortion. In other states, violations could lead to prison sentences and significant fines and include performing surgical procedures as well as prescribing abortion pills administered any time after conception. Early adopters of these laws have included Idaho and Oklahoma. In the post-Dobbs world, experts are trying to calculate the potential shift in state abortion laws resulting from the holding. The New York Times, for example, reported that thirty states could prohibit or restrict abortion laws, that twenty states and the District of Columbia could likely retain or expand reproduction laws, and that ten states are still uncertain as to how their state legislatures will proceed.63 Legal challenges, however, were initially mounted by pro-choice advocates in Florida and Texas, but only five states ultimately proposed amendments to their state constitutions that would include the right to abortion as the Dobbs decision had required. These states were California, Vermont, Michigan, and Kentucky. After the midterms Californians voted yes to amend the state’s constitution and added the right to an abortion. In Kentucky, over half of its voters rejected trigger laws that would have ended constitutional protections for such legal actions. In Michigan, voters approved an amendment to the state constitution giving every individual a right to reproductive freedom. And in Vermont almost 75 percent of voters asserted an individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy.64 Clearly, where abortion was on state ballots, the issue was recognized as one of constitutional rights and support for potential future state changes in constitutions. Meanwhile, other judges in states like Indiana have allowed a ban on most abortions to stand.65 The president, as well, launched a “whole of government response” to Law SB 8 in the Lone Star State. That law provided private citizens a $10,000 incentive to sue health-care providers, family members, and friends who assisted a woman to receive an abortion by playing a part in her decision-making. In another judicial tactic, an indictment was brought against Chester Gallagher and eleven coconspirators in 2021 for violating the FACE ACT.66 With regard to abortion, that law banned the use of force or the threat of force or the physical obstruction of any person seeking to obtain

56

Chapter Two

an abortion by intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering in that purpose. It also outlawed the intentional damage or destruction of a reproductive health-care facility or a place of worship. It was quickly challenged by HR 8926 in the House of Representatives a month later by Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey.67 It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but has not yet moved beyond that process for discussion or debate. The Gallagher case, and that of coconspirators, however, was heard in court. They were alleged to have used social media to promote a series of antiabortion events to coordinate travel and logistics to identify activists to participate in a rescue blockade of the Carafem Health Center Clinic. There was a Facebook livestream that broadcast the blockade, and another that showed the blockade preventing a patient and an employee from entering the clinic, as well as an attempt to engage a patient who was described as a “mom coming to kill her baby.” The indictment in this case also alleged that eleven individuals, aided and abetted by one another, used force and physical obstruction to intimidate patients. The case has been investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by the Civil Rights Coordinator of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and trial Attorneys of the Department’s Civil Rights Division.68 This case is still pending. In 2021, the FBI pursued another case involving an incident at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Philadelphia. Mark Houck, a Catholic “sidewalk counselor,” was accused of shoving a pro-choice activist volunteer outside the clinic. The indictment claimed that Houck had done so to interfere with the abortion clinic’s work. Houck, on the other hand, claimed that he shoved a volunteer who had engaged in vulgar and harassing behavior toward his son; that he was protecting his child. Local police had filed no charges against Houck; his accuser had violated the Planned Parenthood “nonengagement policy,” and, in the end, the FBI decided not to prosecute Houck. He was acquitted in late January 2022. These cases, however, are an indication of more aggressive government action against pro-life supporters, but it appears that a growing number of cases will probably be decided on the merits in each legal challenge, requiring state and federal courts to deal with a myriad of procedural as well as judicial complexities that could possibly end in a long waiting line for the Supreme Court to take up the various issues. Coupled with the proliferation of conservative justices who have tilted the ideology of state courts, there is also the likelihood that their decisions can and will impact pro-life legal holdings on public policy in much of the United States in the future, leaving the Biden administration without a strong state or clear federal judicial path to reverse Dobbs or other issues that emerge from its holding.

From Dobbs Forward

57

APPEALING TO MINORITY VOTERS What effective and immediate means, then, did the Biden administration have to advance its pro-choice policies after the Dobbs decision? It was the appeal to minority voters, specifically diverse groups of women, which became the third tactic the Biden administration used to advance its political agenda. The president’s supporters called it outreach to marginalized and often victimized women. His detractors called it the use of divisive identity politics. What appears to be certain, however, is that the statistical information gathered by campaign consultants has often become the basis for political judgments about who to target on specific issues. And, in the case of the abortion issue, data justified the rationale for the White House engagement with certain segments of women on reproductive rights. At the same time, however, the Biden organization also had to assess the statistics of the claims of pro-choice and pro-life pollsters and consider how or if, their findings were valid and could serve as the rationale for their political projections and justify the proposed actions of the president on behalf of reproductive rights. For example, despite the administration’s outreach to minorities, the week before the midterms the Wall Street Journal reported that the Republicans had made unexpected gains among white suburban women, a forgotten nonminority of economically concerned persons who made up 20 percent of the electorate!69 In an surprise turn of events at the end of the midterms, however, white women voted significantly for the pro-choice position of Democrats across the United States, thus leading to festering questions about the reliability of polling since the miscalculations in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. Nevertheless, most campaigns have, and continue to, rely on organizations that gather information on abortion statistics in the United States, although new data collectors have come on the scene. The main ones are the Guttmacher Institute, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Pew Research Center. Each define themselves in different ways. The Guttmacher Institute describes itself as an independent research organization funded by Planned Parenthood; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), considers itself as the US government’s leading science-based, data-driven, service organization that protects the public’s health, and the Pew Research Center characterizes itself as a nonpartisan “fact tank” that provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends in the United States. One of the newest data collecting agencies, WeCount, is a national abortion reporting project of the Society of Family Planning, an abortion and contraception science group that collects data from medical offices, hospitals, telemedicine providers, and clinics. However, it cannot provide a total statistical picture

58

Chapter Two

of abortion since it does not report on self-medication or procedures outside professional institutions. The Guttmacher Institute,70 with a reported income of $1.714 billion during the 2020–2021 fiscal year, reflects many of the concerns of pro-choice advocates. Their positions were made clear in the amicus brief71 presented to the Supreme Court with arguments from academicians and medical professionals during the deliberations on the Dobbs case. With medical, social, and financial credibility, the Guttmacher Institute argued two reasons to preserve reproductive rights for women who have unintended pregnancies: first, that abortion plays an essential role in women’s health, and second, that abortion access is related to healthy pregnancy and childbirth. The brief argued that to deny, delay, and impede access to abortion services increased a women’s risk of injury or death, and that to coerce women to carry unintended pregnancies to term could lead to adverse health and social outcomes for women, and their families.72 It stressed that these could include depression, poor birth outcomes, interpersonal violence, and psychological distress as well as elevated risks to maternal and infant mortality, prematurity, developmental difficulties, and increased likelihood of exposure to significant traumas and adverse physical and mental health effects that could trigger intergenerational harm.”73 More specifically the brief introduced evidence that health risks are “compounded for women of color . . . that pregnancy-related mortality rates for black women are over three times higher than for white women; [and that] rates for Native American and Alaska Native women are over two times higher compared to rates for white women.74 The Pew Research Center also reported that a survey by their organization found that 62 percent of US adults said that abortions should be legal in all or most cases, while 36 percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases. It also showed that relatively few Americans took an absolutist view on the issue.75 Their arguments, however, were not the issues that were considered by the justices in the Dobbs decision. Instead, they decided the case on the matter of states’ rights rather than individual health and social outcomes. As a result, it is possible to conclude that opposition to the ruling for reasons other than women’s health essentially played a more influential role in galvanizing the judicial holding based on state, rather than individual rights. With the Biden administration beginning to fall behind in many polls as the midterms approached, the president appealed to minority women. A strong effort to gain pro-choice votes for the Democratic Party in the midterms and beyond to the 2024 election, the president’s tactic was a way to assure the implementation of a partisan, executive agenda, that is, policies and power

From Dobbs Forward

59

to control and reverse the Supreme Court’s decision on reproductive rights in the United States. Biden’s challengers consisted of pro-life groups such as the National Right to Life Committee, the Republican National Coalition for Life, and major Catholic and other religious organizations, as well as conservative individuals who supported the pro-life stance for moral and ideological reasons. They were heavily outnumbered by pro-choice and reproductive interest groups. The Pew Research Center reported that some of the activists on the left76 such as the Campaign for Working Families, CitizenLink, Democrats for Life of America, Emily’s List, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Population Action International, Population Connection, the Population Institute, the Susan B. Anthony List, and the Women’s Campaign Fund were also joined by Catholics who did not agree with their church, namely Catholics for Choice. Within these major organizations were subsets of ethnic, generational, ideological, and demographic, groups of women who could be mobilized by specific identity politics and agendas. It is specific persons within these groups that the Biden administration targeted to gain support for the reversal of Dobbs. Keeping in mind that all statistics are a snapshot in time, however, some polling information confirmed the Biden administration’s decision to pursue the women’s minority vote. Ethnically, Hispanic women were a major target of the president’s midterm campaigning. Various polling data websites prior to the midterms showed that they were likely to support the party’s pro-choice agenda after the Dobbs decision. For example, Future Majority77 found that 69 percent of Hispanic women were more motivated to vote post-Roe, in contrast to black (66 percent) and white (55 percent) women.78 Data from the Public Religion Research Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to conducting independent research at the intersection of religion, culture, and public policy, reported that Hispanic women (21 percent) were twice as likely as white women (10 percent) to favor restrictions on birth control, but due to small sample sizes they did not differ significantly from Black women (13 percent) or multiracial, Asian, and Native American women (15 percent).79 Data from the CDC in 2020 also revealed that 620,327 legal induced abortions were reported from forty-nine reporting areas; that the abortion rate was 11.2 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and that the abortion ratio was 198 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2019 to 2020, the number of abortions decreased 2 percent and compared to previous years, in 2020, women in their twenties accounted for more than half of abortions (57.2 percent). More significantly, perhaps, was that the CDC also revealed

60

Chapter Two

that 38 percent of all women who had abortions in 2019 were non-Hispanic Black, while 33 percent were non-Hispanic White, 21 percent were Hispanic, and 7 percent were of other races or ethnicities.80 The final statistics on the Catholic vote, which was seemingly not considered as a target for Republican campaign outreach, revealed several significant patterns. Real Clear Politics,81 a polling aggregator that prides itself on its ideological diversity, surveyed and analyzed election data on the Catholic vote in the 2022 midterms82 and found some startling results: that Catholics favored upholding Roe v. Wade by a 47 to 42 percent margin, with little or no gender gap differences. Digging deeper into these numbers showed that party affiliation was the most influential factor in whether respondents favored or opposed overturning Roe v Wade. Republican Catholics supported the Dobbs decision while Catholic Democrats strongly opposed it by a 58 to 33 percent margin. Real Clear Politics also found that a significant percentage of Catholics, by a 65 to 23 percent margin, recognized that abortion conflicts with Catholic teaching, and by a 68 to 23 percent margin, they also approved of parental consent in cases where minors pursued an abortion. The survey also showed that most Catholics oppose unfettered access to abortion, and that just 18 percent of those surveyed said abortion should be available to a woman at any point during her pregnancy, while 32 percent said abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the woman. Only 9 percent said it should never be permitted under any circumstance, down from 11 percent in 2020. Catholic voters (62 percent) were also aware that a decision to overturn Roe v. Wade would result in federal and state legal challenges while, by a 59 to 30 percent margin, they supported the “conscience rule” that allows health-care workers to opt out of procedures (such as abortion, sex-reassignment therapy, physician-assisted suicide) that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs.83 Overall, then, these surveys demonstrate two things. First, the Catholic laity understands its church’s moral positions on abortion. And second, that certain subsets of Catholic adherents differ from the social and political views of the American bishops which appear to have been softened by the compassionate views of the pope. Thus, the many different findings from various research organizations also serve as a cautionary tale. They reveal the challenge of political parties and religious activists to develop viable and unifying campaign choices, targets, and tactics to deal with issues like abortion. This will depend on their ability to identify and respond to unspecified issues and unexpected factors that could complicate the best-laid agendas and policies for all. Currently, there is significant data that measures the impact of others on the decision-making of women who are considering abortion. This is specifically

From Dobbs Forward

61

important as it relates to the influence and potential voting choices of men who often have economic and emotional ties as the fathers of unborn children. The New York Times, for example, identified voting “ambivalence” on the part of men and reported that only 49 percent of men versus 63 percent of women found the issue to be “very important to them” in their voting.84 As the midterms drew closer, however, this gap became the impetus for the Republican and Democrat full-court press to win the Black, male vote in Georgia. There, both parties emphasized winning the senate by supporting Reverend Donald Warnock, the pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, over Hershel Walker, a former football player. Walker was caught up in an abortion scandal after hypocritically purporting to be the pro-life candidate. Warnock’s win, therefore, brought greater attention to the importance of the male demographic and will probably be given more attention in future campaigns. Second, the perception of women as divided into two camps—feminists who believe in equity and freedom above all else while claiming “my body, my choice,” versus holier-than-thou, rosary-toting women—is also too simplistic to consider within the appeal to the parental orbit. There are significant nuances within these stereotypes. On the spectrum of views, they range from no abortion from the moment of conception to freedom of choice even after birth. Third, a broad consensus needs to be found between personal and fetal rights couched in church versus state power. This is the challenge of political leaders, legislators, and judicial interpreters chosen by an educated and informed electorate and the moral leaders of the country. Currently, there are few studies that measure the “center,” that is, the groups of people who are willing to support restrictions as well as rights within certain religious and personal parameters. Every campaign will have to be adjusted to balance the concerns of the current divided electorate with the values and public policies of national and local candidates to find ways to reverse or protect the Dobbs decision. Until this happens, the abortion issue will remain contentious, and both pro-life and pro-choice factions will have to deal with their limited Pyrrhic victories. NOTES 1. John Kennedy, “Speech to the Houston Ministerial Meeting, 12 September 1960, accessed on 10 January 2022. https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/ historic-speeches/address-to-the-greater-houston-ministerial-association. 2. Joe Biden, Promises to Keep (New York: Random House, 2007). 3. Ibid., 105. 4. Ibid.

62

Chapter Two

5. On the Issues. “Joe Biden on Abortion.” 11 October 2021, accessed on 11 August 2022. https://www.ontheissues.org/joe_biden.htm. 6. Christine Rousselle, “Contradicting past statements, Biden says he doesn’t believe life begins at conception.” Catholic News Agency, 3 September 2021, accessed on 11 August 2022. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248878/ president-joe-biden-says-he-doesnt-believe-life-begins-at-conception-contradictingpast-statements. 7. Sacramentum Caritatis, op. cit., section 3, para. 83. 8. Pope Francis. Apostolic Letter, “Misericordia et Misera,” 20 November 2016, accessed on 28 August 2022. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html. 9. Article 12. 10. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “Worthiness to Receive Communion,” 1 July 2004, accessed on 3 April 2023. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ worthiness-to-receive-holy-communion-general-principles-2153. 11. Ibid, paragraph 5. “Regarding the gave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia law), his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Eucharist.” 12. Pope Francis, Angelus. 6 June 2021, accessed on 28 August 2022. http://www. vatican.va/content/francesco/en/angelus/2021/documents/papa-francesco_angelus_20210606.html. 13. Ibid. 14. See for example: Catholics for Choice (catholicsforchoice.org). 15. National organizations of Catholic bishops are limited in their ability to impose or direct religious policies. Any proposals for national religious policies require a two-thirds vote of approval by Vatican authorities, and the USCCB bylaws require a unanimous vote to impose any such policies as well. Luis Cardinal Ladaria, head of the office of religious orthodoxy at the Vatican, sent an official reminder to the American hierarchy and warned the American bishops not to use abortion as a political weapon. Accessed on 20 September 2023 @ Cardinal Ladaria to US Bishops: Debate on Communion, 12 May 2021, accessed on 20 September 2023. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2021-05/vatican-letter-ladaria-bishops-us-communionpolitics-abortion.html. 16. “Vatican Cancels Morning Mass Between Pope Francis and Pro-Abortion Joe Biden.” Accessed on 20 September 2022, lifenews.com. 17. Carol Glatz, “U. S President Biden visits Pope Francis at the Vatican,” Catholic News Service, October 2021, accessed on 28 August 2022. https://www.catholicregister.org/home/international/item/33666-u-s-president-biden-visits-pope-francis-atthe-vatican. “Reportedly they discussed the protection and care of the planet, the healthcare situation and the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, refugees, and assistance to migrants, as well as the protection of human rights, including freedom of religion and conscience, the current international situation, in the context of the

From Dobbs Forward

63

imminent G20 summit in Rome, and on the promotion of peace in the world through political negotiation.” There were no reports of a discussion of abortion. 18. Kara Fox, Aditi Sangal, Kathryn Snowdon, Melissa Macaya, Meg Wagner, and Adrienne Vogt, “Biden meets with Pope and Macron ahead of G20 Summit,” CNN, 29 October 2021, accessed on 15 September 2023. https://www.cnn.com/world/ live-news/biden-europe-trip-10-29-21-intl. 19. Ali Shirin, “Pope blesses Biden’s ability to receive communion despite beliefs,” 29 October 2021, accessed on 15 September 2023. https://thehill.com/changing-america/ enrichment/arts-culture/579163-pope-blesses-bidens-ability-to-receive-communion/. 20. Catholic News Service, “Pope Francis considers it an ‘incoherence’ that President Biden, a Catholic, supports abortion rights,” 12 July 2022, accessed on 26 August 2022. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251772/ pope-francis-incoherence-biden-supports-abortion-rights. 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid., paragraph 9. Taken from his encyclical, Evangelium Gaudium, no. 182. 23. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Do’s and Don’ts Guidelines During Election Season,” 2016, accessed on 10 September 2022. https://www.usccb. org/resources/dos-and-donts-guidelines-during-election-season. 24. President Joe Biden. “Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.” 24 June 2022, accessed on 26 June 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/06/24/ remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-supreme-court-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade. 25. President Joe Biden. “Battle for the Soul of the Nation.” 1 September 2022, accessed on 5 November 2022. https://www.whitehouse. gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/09/01/remarks-by-president-biden -on-the-continued-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-nation/. 26. Ibid. 27. David Leonhardt, “Democracy Challenged,” New York Times, 18 September 25, 2022, 1. 28. Natsaha Singer, “Political Text Gone Wild,” New York Times, 7 November 2022, B1. 29. President Joe Biden. “Full Transcript of President Biden’s Speech on Democracy,” delivered in Philadelphia on 22 November 2022, accessed on 15 September 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/us/politics/transcript-biden-speech-democracy. html. 30. Ibid. 31. President Joe Biden, “First Executive Order (#14076) on Abortion,” 8 July 2022, accessed on 4 August 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-sign-executive-order-protecting-access-to-reproductive-health-care-services/. 32. Ibid. 33. President Joe Biden, “Second Executive Order (14079) on Abortion,” 3 August 2022, accessed on 4 August 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ statements-releases/2022/08/03/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-executive-order-atthe-first-meeting-of-the-task-force-on-reproductive-healthcare-access-2/.

64

Chapter Two

34. These include the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. 35. Allan Rapperport, “Biden Urges Voter Action as White House Steps in to Protect Abortion Access,” New York Times, A15. 36. Ibid. 37. Helen Cooper, “Defense Secretary Seeks to Reassure Service Members on Access to Abortion,” New York Times, 2 October 2022, A16. 38. Senator Elizabeth Warren, “Letter to Jor-El Goodsey, President of Heartbeat International,” 19 September 2022, accessed on 8 November 2022. https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2022.09.19%20Letter%20to%20Heartbeat%20International%20re%20Privacy%20Concerns.pdf. 39. Interview with Jor-El Godsey, President of Heartbeat International on EWTN, “News in Depth” October 21, 2011. 40. Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act. Currently Bill S4459 is in the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation awaiting action. 41. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Center for Reproductive Rights, Advocates for Youth, American Atheists, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Public Health Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Black Mamas Matter Alliance, Brooklyn for Reproductive and Gender Equity, Catholics for Choice, Clearinghouse on Women’s Issues, Families USA, Feminist Majority Foundation, Guttmacher Institute, In Your Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, Jewish Women International, Medical Students for Choice, MomsRising, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, National Birth Equity Collaborative, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Jewish Women—New York, National Council of Jewish Women—Greater Miami, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, National Health Law Program, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Women’s Health Network, Nurses for Sexual and Reproductive Health, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Population Institute, Power to Decide, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Reproductive Equity Now, Sexuality Information Education Council of the U.S., SisterReach, and United for Reproductive & Gender Equity. 42. Kamala Harris on “Meet the Press,” 9 September 2022, accessed on 21 September 2022. VP Harris: ‘This is an activist court’ (yahoo.com) and (msn.com). 43. Michael Barnes and Michael Karlik, “Roberts says Supreme Court will reopen to public and defends legitimacy,” The Washington Post, 10 September 2022, accessed on 23 September 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ politics/2022/09/10/supreme-court-roberts-legitimacy/.

From Dobbs Forward

65

44. Kathryn Underwood, “Several States Have Introduced Fetal Personhood Laws,” Market Realist, 12 July 2022, accessed on 23 September 2022.  https://marketrealist.com/p/states-with-fetal-personhood-laws/. 45. Dobbs. op. cit. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37. pdf. 46. Ibid. Syllabus argument (page 6) is that viability has changed over time and is heavily dependent on factors—such as medical characteristics of a fetus. When Casey revisited Roe almost 20 years later, it reaffirmed Roe’s central holding, but pointedly refrained from endorsing most of its reasoning. The Court abandoned any reliance on a privacy right and instead grounded the abortion right entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 505 U. S., at 846. The controlling opinion criticized and rejected Roe’s trimester scheme, 505 U. S., at 872, and substituted a new analysis, failed to remedy glaring deficiencies in Roe’s reasoning, endorsed what it termed Roe’s central holding while suggesting that a majority might not have thought it was correct, provided no new support for the abortion history, or precedent, 45–56. (3) 47. Ibid., 6. 48. Ibid., 7. 49. Ibid., 8. 50. Ibid. 51. New York Times, “How State Abortion Laws could Change if Roe is Overturned,” A12. 2 June 2022. 52. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) vs. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Case 2:22-cv-00223. Document 1 Filed 18 November 2022, accessed 15 March 2023. https://clearinghouse.net/case/43886/. 53. Food and Drug Administration, “Information about Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy Through Ten Weeks Gestation,” 24 January 2023, accessed on 15 March 2023. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-informationpatients-and-providers/information-about-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation. 54. Daniel C. Gray, “Letter to Attorney General Kobach of Kansafdas,” 17 February 2023. https://ag.ks.gov/docs/default-source/documents/dg-mifepristone-letter-toks-ag.pdf. 55. Wall Street Journal Editorial, “President Newsom Strikes Again,” 11 March 2023, A12. 56. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, op. cit. 57. Ibid., 26. 58. Ibid., 29. 59. Ibid., 57 60. Pam Belluck and Christina Jewett, “Drug Executives Condemn Ruling on Abortion Pill,” 11 April 2023, 1. 61. National Conference of State Legislatures, “State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women,” May 1, 2018, accessed on 22 September 2022. https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.

66

Chapter Two

62. Doe v McKee. No. 22-201, accessed on 30 October. https://www.supremecourt. gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-201.html. 63. New York Times, op. cit., A12. 64. Cassie Buchman, “How abortion did in 5 states with it on the ballot,” News Nation Now, 9 November 2022, accessed on 12 January 2023. https://www.newsnationnow. com/politics/elections-2022/how-abortion-did-in-5-states-with-it-on-the-ballot/. 65. Eliza Fawcett, “Judge Stays Indiana’s ban on Most Abortions,” New York Times, 23 September 2022, A20. 66. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE or the Access Act, Pub. L. No. 103-259, 108 Stat. 694) (May 26, 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 248) In this particular case, United States v. Gallagher, 3:22-cr-00327, (M.D. Tenn.), if convicted, those charged with conspiracy face up to 11 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000. Others face up to one year in prison for the misdemeanor offense and fines of up to $10,000. 67. Introduced on 20 September 2022 with co-sponsors Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, Mrs. Lesko, Mrs. Hinson,  Mr. Banks, Mr. Harris, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mr. Norman, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Guest, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Feenstra, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. C. Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. Babin, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Latta, Mr. Bentz, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Gooden of Texas, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Buck, Mr. Mann, and Mr. Duncan). https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8926/ text/ih?overview=closed&format=txt. 68. Department of Justice. US. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Tennessee. “Eleven Charged With FACE Act Violations Stemming From 2021 Blockade OF Mount Juliet Reproductive Health Clinic,” 5 October 2022, accessed on 4 November 2022. https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdtn/pr/eleven-charged-face-act-violationsstemming-2021-blockade-mount-juliet-reproductive. 69. Catherine Lucey, “GOP Gains in Poll Among White Suburban Women,” Wall Street Journal, 3 November 2022, A4. 70. All American Life League, “Abortion Statistics: Current United States Data,” accessed on 28 September 2022. https://all.org/abortion/abortion-statistics. 71. Amicus Curiae Brief of 547 Deans, Chairs, Scholars, and Public Health Professionals, the American Public Health Association, the Guttmacher Institute, and the Center for U.S. Policy, in Support of Respondents, accessed on 21 September 2022. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/193302/20210921172339465_19-1392%20Brief.pdf. 72. Ibid. 4. 73. Ibid., 10. 74. Ibid., 15. 75. Jeff Diamant and Besheer Mohamed, “What the data says about abortion in the U. S.” Pew Research Center, 24 June 2022, accessed on 28 September 2022. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/28/ what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/.

From Dobbs Forward

67

76. “National Special Interest Groups” Project Vote Smart - American Government, Elections, Candidates and Voting. Project Vote Smart, n.d. web, 15 July 2015. List of Interest Groups and Vote Smart Interest Groups (weebly.com and votesmart.org). 77. According to its website: “This organization was founded in 2017 to fill the need for an outside, non-biased, data-driven strategy center focused on brand, storytelling, and policy to advise leaders as they think about issues and governing,” accessed on 12 January 2022. https://futuremajority.org/about/. 78. Simon Rosenberg, “New Future Majority Polling Memo on Hispanics, Abortion and the End of Roe,” 23 June 2022, accessed on 28 September 2022. https:// www.ndn.org/polling-memo-hispanics-abortion-and-end-roe. 79. Diana Orces, “Which Women Most Likely to Favor Abortion Restrictions?” 29 July 2022, accessed on 28 September 2022. https://www.prri.org/spotlight/ which-women-most-likely-to-favor-abortion-restrictions/. 80. Centers for Disease Control. “Abortion Surveillance—Findings and Reports,” accessed on 16 January 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/ss/ss7110a1. htm. 81. RealClearPolitics. “Real Clear Politics—2022 Latest Polls,” accessed on 15 July 2022. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/2022/. 82. Susan Crabtree, “Catholic Voters Sour on Biden, Split over Midterms,” 15 July 2022, accessed on 18 January 2023. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/07/15/catholic_voters_sour_on_biden_split_over_midterms_147885.html. 83. Ibid. 84. Kate Zernike, “Ambivalence of Men In Abortion Debate Could Swing Election,” New York Times, 8 November 2022, 12.

Chapter Three

Catholics, Biden, and Immigration

Abortion remains an unsolved, festering policy quandary for President Biden, but immigration is another major problem for him as well. It challenges his religious, political, and partisan decision-making to deal with the urgent humanitarian crisis at the southern border. In the past, immigrants were a welcome asset for the development of the United States. Economically, they provided badly needed workers committed to building this country into the strongest and most powerful nation in the world. Socially, they helped to unite people from around the globe to become part of a national “melting pot,” a diversity of people to complete the American democratic experiment. Morally, they served as an opportunity to provide charity, compassion, care, and service for the poor and marginalized. Today, however, these goals and values have either been misunderstood, forgotten, or simply rejected by Joe Biden, the second Catholic president. His detractors have criticized him for being partisan by appealing to certain wings of his party; trying to win the votes of minorities by refusing to enforce existing laws on immigration, and ending the Republican policies of his predecessor, Donald Trump. This has included Biden’s decision to end the construction of the wall between the United States and Mexico. Others opposed the president for overlooking increased human trafficking, the power of cartels, and drug smuggling. They claim his policies have enabled such results. His Catholic opponents, however, take a different view. They treat his policies as misguided and an ill-conceived political approach to immigration. Instead, they advocate for reform, love, compassion, and moral values to counter the president’s politics. The USCCB has made its views very clear and set out the church’s commitments and work to help migrants. Without condoning undocumented migration, the Church supports the human rights of all people and offers them pastoral care, education, and social services, no matter what the circumstances of entry into this country, and it works for 69

70

Chapter Three

the respect of the human dignity of all—especially those who find themselves in desperate circumstances. We recognize that nations have the right to control their borders. We also recognize and strongly assert that all human persons, created as they are in the image of God, possess a fundamental dignity that gives rise to a more compelling claim to the conditions worthy of human life. Accordingly, the Church also advocates legalization opportunities for the maximum number of undocumented persons, particularly those who have built equities and otherwise contributed to their communities.1

As a result, Catholic leaders and activists who are concerned with the current crisis at the southern border have responded to the president’s policies by pursuing a strategy for comprehensive immigration reform that reflects their moral views. They are employing both pastoral and nonpartisan political tactics to bring about substantial changes to the ineffective Biden approach to deal with immigration. It is surprising that comprehensive reform efforts are not part of the president’s agenda, because the US government has always reflected the principles of the Catholic social mission in the past. The church’s teachings, based on the theological principle of imago dei, were an integral part of the government’s own underlying constitutional principles, as well—to respect the dignity, worth, and freedom of every individual created by God. As these principles have evolved over time, church and state pursued similar values with Catholicism infusing its theological beliefs into social doctrines, as well as humanitarian and political imperatives. Church policies were reaffirmations of actions recounted in the Scriptures giving credence to the prophetic mission of Moses, who taught truth to power by calling for the exodus of the enslaved Jewish people from Egypt in God’s name. They also reflected the salvation quest of Jesus and His family seeking asylum after Herod feared the loss of his throne due to the birth of the “King of the Jews.” Later, Christian leaders added to this prophetic tradition by adding social responsibility to their sacred mission to save souls. Thus, they pursued meaningful political engagement, public witness to their religion, and social service to fill public voids in charity, education, health, and governance. The Catholic social mission in the United States emerged after the large influx of Irish immigrants during the 1840s, a result of the potato famine. Because the Irish immigrants were rejected from and discriminated against in the workforce by certain segments of society, the church worked to provide many basic opportunities for those without options. The work of individual pastors and bishops helped immigrants seeking a new life, and then inspired greater efforts among its adherents to help resettle refugees through the 1920s and beyond. Catholic religious, social, and political concerns intensified after World War II within the context of the tragedy of the Holocaust, the Cold

Catholics, Biden, and Immigration

71

War, and its potential for nuclear war. As social and political challenges were exacerbated, the church increasingly became involved in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, questioning the war in Vietnam and the use of nuclear weapons, and reconsidering the role of morality in foreign policy in the US political agenda. Catholic scholars in the United States even began to call for a revised model of politics that would recalibrate the church’s religious role and social purpose. They started to move from narrow interpretations of life issues, such as abortion, to discussions of larger social justice concerns such as the support for church activities to inject moral values into political decisions about human rights, disarmament, and the economy. Early exponents of this school of thought that encouraged broader Catholic involvement in the political process included Jesuit theologians such as David Hollenbach, J. Bryan Hehir, and John Coleman.2 Hollenbach argued that the pursuit of human rights had moral, economic, political, and social ramifications, all of which justified Catholic involvement in the political process. Hehir believed that it was important for the church to enrich the public debate on such issues as well, and act as a moral critic on public policy. Coleman went even farther, calling on the church to act institutionally to intervene on political and economic affairs as part of its evangelizing mission and mobilization for social action. This discussion about the role of the church in US politics reflected a similar debate going on in Latin America. There, priests such as Gustavo Gutierrez3 had argued for “liberation theology,” that is, church involvement in partisan political activities to overcome the continent’s autocracy and corruption and replace them with options for the poor. Such involvement, however, was prohibited by Pope John Paul II in the 1980s. He denied the liberation theologians’ catechesis of Jesus as a revolutionary, their Marxist ideas, and the pursuit of clerical partisan political activities. Those papal directives about the proper role of priests remain till today. The rejection of liberation theology, then, posed a leadership problem for Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who would become the primate of the Jesuits in Latin America, archbishop of Argentina, then cardinal, and the future Pope Francis. From his earliest days as a priest, he had to deal with the reality of the religious, economic, and social problems on his continent and try to find a middle path to foster the church’s social mission without resorting to political partisanship. While this was the future pope’s domestic challenge to his leadership potential in an autocratic country and one that he would carry with him to the papacy later, a second international phenomenon also posed serious problems for those working with the poor and marginalized on his continent: globalization. That movement brought about the mass migration of peoples, all of

72

Chapter Three

whom were seeking freedom, opportunities, and new possibilities for safety, social advancement, and economic well- being. One area that the future pope continually emphasized during this tenure in Latin America was his pastoral teaching on the need for the church to help those who could not help themselves. His actions and writings became a voice for religious change in thinking and acting toward the helpless and hopeless and have become the basis for his papal commitment to the poor and marginalized today. CATHOLIC PASTORAL TACTICS The Catholic Church is strategically committed to bring about a policy of comprehensive immigration reform in the United States. Its first tactic to accomplish this goal is to use pastoral means, that is religious teachings and advocacy, to influence President Biden’s thinking and political approach to the growing crisis. Based on religious writings such as papal encyclicals, bishops’ statements, and documented principles, the church uses these teachings as the rationale to call for government support for the dignity and respect of all peoples. At the same time, these writings reinforce the church’s moral obligation to treat the stranger as they would treat Christ. Taken together, the pastoral writings and actions, then, emphasize hospitality, community, diversity, solidarity, and evangelization through diocesan assistance, national organizations, and humanitarian movements. In short, they are used to bring attention and support for the care of migrants, refugees, and travelers. In 1999, Pope John Paul II wrote the encyclical Ecclesia in America.4 It articulated the festering problem of migration within the southern hemisphere. He began by calling for conversion, communion, and solidarity among peoples to provide unity in diversity for those who were migrating. A culture of solidarity, he said, needs to be promoted to inspire initiatives to support the poor and the outcast, especially refugees forced to flee violence. He called on the US government to work with international agencies to pursue the common good, the equitable distribution of goods, and the integral development of peoples. Immigrants, he said, can bring Americans to a conversion of mind and heart, enabling them to offer a genuine welcome and the ability to work to improve the quality of life for society’s marginalized members.5 The next year, the pontiff celebrated a special Mass for migrants and refugees in St. Peter’s Square for over 50,000 migrants, refugees, people on the move, and their chaplains from all over the world. He preached in his homily that:

Catholics, Biden, and Immigration

73

In many regions of the world today people live in tragic situations of instability and uncertainty. It does not come as a surprise that in such contexts the poor and the destitute make plans to escape, to seek a new land that can offer them bread, dignity, and peace. This is the migration of the desperate: men and women, often young, who have no alternative than to leave their own country to venture into the unknown. Everyday thousands of people take even critical risks in their attempts to escape from a life with no future. Unfortunately, the reality they find in host nations is frequently a source of further disappointment. . . . At the same time, States with a relative abundance tend to tighten their borders under pressure from a public opinion disturbed by the inconveniences that accompany the phenomenon of immigration. Society finds itself having to deal with the “clandestine,” men and women in illegal situations, without any rights in a country that refuses to welcome them, victims of organized crime or of unscrupulous entrepreneurs.6

Soon after recognizing that cultural pluralism was the common heritage of all Americans, the American bishops also called for unity in diversity and gathered in Mexico with their counterparts at a meeting known as Encuentro 2000. It highlighted the “many faces of God” and started a collaborative hierarchical commitment to advocate for solutions to the problems of a new wave of immigration at the southern border. In 2001, the USCCB issued a pastoral letter, “Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity,”7 in which they called upon the Catholic faithful to a conversion of minds and hearts for unity and solidarity with diverse newcomers. They entreated the laity to find new and meaningful ways to welcome immigrants into local parishes, schools. and communities. They wrote: In many regions of the world today people live in tragic situations of instability and uncertainty. It does not come as a surprise that in such contexts the poor and the destitute make plans to escape. We are challenged to get beyond ethnic communities living side by side within our own parishes without any connection with each other. We are challenged to become an evangelizing Church open to interreligious dialogue and willing to proclaim the Gospel to those who wish to hear it. The new immigrants call most of us back to our ancestral heritage as descendants of immigrants and to our baptismal heritage as members of the body of Christ.8

At the same time, the beginnings of a church pastoral and advocacy plan for a humane migration policy also emerged with calls for specific compassionate actions and legal reforms. We bishops commit ourselves and all the members of our church communities to continue the work of advocacy for laws that respect the human rights of immigrants and preserve the unity of the immigrant family. We encourage the

74

Chapter Three

extension of social services, citizenship classes, community organizing efforts that secure improved housing conditions, decent wages, better medical attention, and appropriate educational opportunities for immigrants and refugees. We advocate reform of the 1996 immigration laws that have undermined some basic human rights for immigrants. We join with others of good will in a call for legalization opportunities for the maximum number of undocumented persons, particularly those who have built equities and otherwise contributed to their communities.9

Soon after, the bishops of the United States, together with the bishops of Mexico, began to collaborate on a pastoral initiative for humane migration. They issued a statement titled “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope,”10 that acknowledged that the immigration system between the two countries was in need of reform. Their document also offered a comprehensive set of recommendations to change US laws and policies. But they claimed that the ultimate resolution of the problems associated with forced migration and illegal immigration were the result of the conditions that drove persons from their countries of origin. Thus, they urged that: the governments of the world, particularly our own government . . . promote a just peace in those countries that are at war, to protect human rights in those countries that deny them, and to foster the economic development of those countries that are unable to provide for their own peoples. We also urge the governments of the “receiving” countries to welcome these immigrants, to provide for their immediate needs, and to enable them to come to self-sufficiency as quickly as possible. . . . They are to support options for the poor and integrate immigrants into the US. Thus, it is the Church’s social mission to help the marginalized find employment, receive an education, and secure housing.11

By 2007, the pastoral teaching of the Latin American hierarchy (CELAM) known as the Aparecida Documents12 appeared as part of a meeting of Catholic bishops on their continent. Influenced and edited by the president of the organization and the future pope, Francis, the document began to gain traction around the world. This was because it renewed the church’s focus on mission. The pastoral document reminded the hierarchy and clergy that its purpose is based, first, on love, because the love of God is expressed in the love of others. And while the teaching reinforced the fact that bishops are uniquely charged with the pastoral care of all people, it also emphasized that everyone is responsible to the world around them. Thus, the document called for people to love their neighbors, neighborhood, and social reality. It taught that love is part of each person’s transformation in Christ and challenged everyone

Catholics, Biden, and Immigration

75

to solve problems that appear to be the most intractable. The Aparecida Documents, then, called all Catholics to be missionary disciples, to evangelize, to work for the poor, and to help them by sharing Christ’s love for all of humanity. These ideas flourished throughout Latin America, displacing much of liberation theology, and had an impact throughout the world. In their own way, they became part of a significant move toward dealing with migration on the level of love rather than politics or power. Later, when Pope Francis was elected to the papacy and began to become a moral force in geopolitics, he was able to influence political agendas and policies to aid the vulnerable migrants around the world. Such pastoral teachings, then, have also given impetus to the growth of American Catholic organizations that work with the poor. They recognize that the complex challenge to help the marginalized has become one of the most serious problems of domestic and foreign policy for the US government because it raises not only moral questions but also issues about borders, national security, and sovereign rights. For the Catholic Church, its leaders, volunteers, and adherents, immigration brings to the fore the reality of human needs, civil and natural law, citizenship, and religious freedom.13 In short, the universality of these beliefs can also serve as an area of mutual moral and political unity, rather than conflict, for both the Catholic Church and the Biden administration. The USCCB, as the institutional Catholic coordinator and administrator of migration programs in the United States, has dealt with almost 3 million people in the first two years of the Biden administration, Therefore, it is in a unique position to provide guidance and support for a reformed Biden immigration policy as well as provide workers as a vital resource for the resettlement of peoples who are flowing through the southern border. A working relationship between the USCCB and the government, however, must overcome political barriers as well as moral questions within their own humanitarian orbits. For example, this includes Catholic Charities, which publishes on its website that it works closely with local, state, and federal governments. As a nonprofit, Catholic Charities uses its staff and hundreds of volunteers to do the work on the ground that the government cannot do, and has reported helping close to 400,000 people in 2021.14 Catholic Charities describes itself as a humanitarian agency rather than a political one because of its underlying commitment to the church’s theological belief in imago dei. Built on this religious tenet, Catholic Charities has translated its beliefs into a social doctrine that defines its mission on principles that hold 1) migration is a fundamental right to preserve lives and families, 2) that current US immigration policies have long been unsustainable, and 3) that Congress should begin comprehensive reform of this broken system.15

76

Chapter Three

Although Catholic Charities has a history of working with multiple presidential administrations, the nonprofit also recognizes the inherent complexity of the task for the Biden administration to solve the current dilemma of increased immigration by pursuing legislative reform and social justice. Thus, it has called on the government to avoid politicizing the marginalized while it works to counsel and combat those who have been involved in human trafficking by referring cases of abuse to local, state, and federal government agencies. It has also recognized the quandary of trying to balance the regulation of the US border, with the task of its policymakers to create humane, orderly, and sustainable processes, and leaving the execution of these means to the providers.16 Another Catholic agency involved in helping migrants is Catholic Relief Services. Established in 1943, it is engaged in humanitarian relief and development efforts in nearly one hundred countries worldwide. Its website reports17 that it works with partner organizations, strengthening their capacity to respond to emergencies, fight disease and poverty, nurture peaceful and just societies, and promote human development. Of significant interest here is the US government funding to NGOs, specifically, to Catholic social services. During the first year of the Obama administration, there was a $120,000,000 increase in Catholic Relief Services funding while $91,000,000 was paid directly to the USCCB. A public accounting of the funds that Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services received in 2016 has revealed that the US government gave $202,000,000 and $426,943,000 respectively to them in that year. For CRS, federal monies accounted for 64.7 percent of its total annual budget, and for Catholic Charities, 11 percent. In total, Catholic institutions in the United States received over $500,000,000 in federal funding in 2016.18 Nevertheless, in 2017, a meeting of grassroots leaders from across the United States, along with representatives from twelve countries met for the First U.S. Regional Meeting of Popular Movements in Modesto, California, on February 16–19, 2017. Two dozen US Catholic bishops, staff members from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, and the Vatican department for the Promotion of Integral Human Development were present. Their discussions led to the publication of the Letter from Modesto,19 which called for greater church and state action to help migrants. The activists called for sanctuary, disrupting oppression and dehumanization, bold and prophetic leadership from faith communities, and a unified fight against corporate and political elites that were dividing those who sought to help migrants. Further, they called for strong efforts to gain political power to build families, protect Catholic values, institute massive efforts to reach voters, and hold elected officials accountable for the common good. These original pastoral responses to the immigration problem continued to escalate as well.

Catholics, Biden, and Immigration

77

This can be seen in the work of a century-old agency that works with migrants: Catholic Extension. It has partnered with dioceses and parishes, religious sisters and priests, and various faith-based nonprofits to offer direct pastoral and charitable care to immigrant families on the southern border. In the last ten years, it claims that it has funded more than $20.8 million in assistance to border regions.20 Among a myriad of other Catholic organizations supported by individual bishops and parishes is the Hope Border Institute. It brings the perspective of Catholic social teaching to bear on what it calls “the realities unique to our US-Mexico border region” by a program of research and policy work and leadership development and action as well as work to build justice and deepen solidarity across the borderlands.21 In 2020, as the border surge began to evolve into a crisis, the Biden administration built on previous US support for NGOs through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It announced that it would give $110 million to organizations providing food and shelter to migrants encountered at the southern US border. It was distributed by DHS agents to nonprofits and other organizations through the National Board for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program. That money was part of $510 million available to the Emergency Food and Shelter Program under the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act.22 Thus, pastoral means could be a source for equitable and humanitarian assistance for migrants, and Catholic leaders, activists and NGOs could become significant partners with the US government if President Biden was more receptive to their approach to immigration policy. CATHOLIC POLITICAL TACTICS FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM The Catholic Church has matured politically in the United States during the last half century by infusing its theological beliefs into social doctrines, but its political imperatives about immigration are not being addressed by President Biden today. What the church’s leadership has done, however, is to vigorously employ its internal structures and processes to assist those migrants in need of compassion and help. Increasingly, the USCCB relies on the Department of Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) within its larger organizational structure to deal with the movements of peoples. That agency participates as one of nine national resettlement agencies that provide immediate services and longer-term integration assistance to newcomers through a network of local diocesan service providers. Along with USCCB, the International Rescue Committee,

78

Chapter Three

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Church World Service, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) and World Relief, it works cooperatively on agreements with the federal government. The USCCB/MRS also works in coordination with those partner agencies around the United States to welcome and ensure that the basic needs of each arriving refugee are adequately met. Thus, MRS plays a critical nonpartisan but political role in advancing the overall strategy of immigration reform by carrying out special projects and initiatives that promote awareness of, and collective responses to, the immigration problems in the United States. It pursues advocacy efforts for migrants through various avenues. These include: the development and distribution of policy position papers and resources, as well as planning and carrying out of fact-finding trips where there is a threat or other migration related crisis. MRS makes public statements on a range of migration issues, even providing expert testimony to Congress and urging the passage of humane legislation that will provide needed protections to migrant populations. It implements national educational initiatives and works with a wide range of coalitions on protection-focused legislation that provides dignity for the most vulnerable among us: migrant children and women, undocumented immigrants, and victims of human trafficking.23 MRS has advocated for reform of major immigration laws as far back as 1996. At that time, it opposed laws that had an adverse impact on immigrants such as (1) the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), (2) the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), and (3) the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). The thrust of opposition to these laws was that they undermined the due process protections for immigrants and drove more immigrant families into poverty by mandatory detention and deportation, caused family separation, allowed judicial discretion for individual immigration cases, and increased the requirements to obtain relief from deportation. While some policies have been restored, many legal immigrants who entered the United States after 1996 remain ineligible for other needed benefits.24 Along with the USCCB and MRS, Catholic charitable agencies also play an extensive role in the church’s mission by implementing social services. The challenge to help the marginalized has become one of the most serious problems of American domestic and foreign policy for the US government. It raises questions about borders, national security, and sovereign rights. For the Catholic Church, it brings to the fore human needs and civil and natural law as well as citizenship and religious freedom.25 In short, these beliefs can serve as an area of mutual moral and political concern for the Catholic Church and the Biden administration.

Catholics, Biden, and Immigration

79

What can the USCCB, and its affiliated supporters, do to alleviate the immigration problem within this context? As mentioned previously, the Catholic Church has laid out a strategy to bring about immigration reform based on pastoral as well as nonpartisan political actions. A synthesis of its policy recommendations to accomplish this includes the following. First, the USCCB supports the passage of legislation to protect Dreamers, that is those children who were brought to the United States by their parents, and offer them a path to citizenship. Second, it approves of government policies to ensure a path to citizenship for other individuals, as well, who have personal ties that are closely associated with US interests, such as US-citizen children, businesses, and home mortgages. Third, it encourages government policies to maintain at a minimum, existing avenues for family-based and diversity-based exemptions based on the common good.26 Those in Catholic leadership and humanitarian agencies, because of their experience and work on the ground with the poor and marginalized, can advise the government on immigration policy and support a legislative, codified solution to the problem. Clearly however, such action, would require presidential support through an agenda priority that would begin with President Biden. However, he has chosen a different and preferred political process to accomplish his immigration goals. Specifically, he has issued executive orders to ensure the implementation of his struggling immigration policy. Thus, for many reasons, immigration, which is viewed in a positive way by Catholic leaders, has become the source of a bifurcated partisan policy, a fight between compassion and security, and eventually a system of users and abusers, resulting in the suffering of the victimized and marginalized. Along the way, immigration has lost the possibility and dream of creating a path to a better life in the United States, has brought wealth and power to politicians, and has lost its opportunity to provide charity and empathy for those in need. PRESIDENT BIDEN AND IMMIGRATION POLICY By the time Donald J. Trump was elected president in 2016, immigration was a steadily growing economic and security problem with more and more people seeking political asylum and social advancement. The president viewed such a challenge through the prism of power. The need to protect American jobs and its industries could assure the ability of the American economy to thrive without competition from outside sources. His followers agreed—with 75 million voters approving his position on the need to “build a wall.” To deal with the escalating problem of immigration, the new president began his quest for economic power by issuing the first of three executive

80

Chapter Three

orders that set the tone for his policy within days of taking office. His first executive order in January 2017 dealt with “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.”27 It called for the expanded use of detention facilities, limits on access to asylum, enhanced enforcement along the US/ Mexico border, and the construction of a two-thousand-mile border wall. Along with adding five thousand new border agents, the order directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to allocate unused funding to build a wall and undertake a comprehensive study on the security of the southern border. Additionally, it also called for new asylum officers and immigration judges to detain noncitizens and to provide guidance to end the policy of “catch and release.” The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was given expanded duties: to remove illegal migrants throughout the country, to limit humanitarian parole on a “case by case” basis; to train personnel to protect trafficked migrant victims; and to determine “reasonable fear” in removal hearings. President Trump quickly followed up with a second immigration-related executive order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” also in January 2017.28 It focused on sanctuary cities and local-federal immigration enforcement cooperation. These included enforcement priorities and the reinstatement of a former Secure Communities program, which would require local jurisdictions to issue “detainers” on unauthorized immigrants in their custody and increased the number of ICE agents by ten thousand. It ended the designation of “sanctuary” jurisdictions from receiving federal grants, except those that were necessary for enforcement purposes. The executive order also expanded a list of noncitizens subject to deportation, people charged with a criminal offense or acts that constituted a criminal offense, individuals who engaged in fraud related to public benefits, persons who were ordered to leave the country but did not, and those who were a risk to public safety. President Trump completed his plan for immigration reform through a third executive order in March 2017. It dealt with “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals.”29 It suspended the issuance of visas to nationals from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen for 120 days and reduced the number of refugees to be admitted to the United States in FY 2017 from 110,000 to 50,000. Further, it halted the resettlement of Syrian refugees indefinitely and set up a screening mechanism for the entry of foreign nationals to be expedited by DHS. More broadly, the executive order required uniform screening standards for all immigration programs, with risk assessment for national security. The secretary of state, the secretary of DHS, and the director of national intelligence were to decide if sufficient safeguards were in place for individuals to remain in the country. It continued the processing of refugees on a “case-by-case” basis. Individuals

Catholics, Biden, and Immigration

81

with religious-based persecution claims would receive priority once the program resumed. In addition, it suspended the resettlement of Syrian refugees indefinitely. These executive orders of President Trump, along with extended actions of some of his cabinet members as well, were soon challenged by the president of the USCCB at the time, Cardinal Daniel Di Nardo, the Archbishop of Galveston-Houston. He called many of the administration’s actions “immoral” and excoriated the decision of Attorney General Jeff Sessions to change certain processes about immigration to be able to make decisions by himself. The Catholic leader said: At its core, asylum is an instrument to preserve the right to life. The Attorney General’s recent decision potentially strips asylum from many women who lack adequate protection. These vulnerable women will now face return to the extreme dangers of domestic violence in their home country. This decision negates decades of precedents that have provided protection to women fleeing domestic violence. Unless overturned, the decision will erode the capacity of asylum to save lives, particularly in cases that involve asylum seekers who are persecuted by private actors. We urge courts and policy makers to respect and enhance, not erode, the potential of our asylum system to preserve and protect the right to life. . . . Additionally, I join Bishop Joe Vásquez, Chairman of USCCB’s Committee on Migration, in condemning the continued use of family separation at the U.S./Mexico border as an implementation of the Administration’s zero tolerance policy. Our government has the discretion in our laws to ensure that young children are not separated from their parents and exposed to irreparable harm and trauma. Families are the foundational element of our society, and they must be able to stay together. While protecting our borders is important, we can and must do better as a government, and as a society, to find other ways to ensure that safety. Separating babies from their mothers is not the answer and is immoral.30

The Attorney General had also simply declared the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program initiated under President Obama as unconstitutional. He was subsequently fired by the president, and the Supreme Court rescinded Sessions’s action in a 5–4 decision.31 No surprise, then, that after the victory of Joe Biden over his Republican rival, different immigration policies would emerge. On his first day in office, the new president began by issuing his own forceful executive orders to signal a different immigration strategy: to reverse the former policies of Trump. Biden claimed that he did this based on the national interest, humanitarian challenges, and moral values. In the first “Executive Order on the Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities,”32 he wrote:

82

Chapter Three

The task of enforcing the immigration laws is complex and requires setting priorities to best serve the national interest. The policy of [an] Administration is to protect national and border security, address the humanitarian challenges at the southern border, and ensure public health and safety. We must also adhere to due process of law as we safeguard the dignity and well-being of all families and communities. My Administration will reset the policies and practices for enforcing civil immigration laws to align enforcement with these values and priorities.33

As part of his new immigration policy to enhance public safety at the southern border for US security, the president gave the authority to review past immigration policies to the secretary of state, the attorney general, the secretary of homeland security, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, and the heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies.34 The new president, it became clear, intended to pursue actions such as issuing revised guidance on immigration norms that would be appropriate and consistent with applicable law that could advance his partisan policy agenda. A second executive order issued on 2 February 2021, the “Executive Order on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans,”35 further clarified and implemented the Biden policy: immigration processes and other benefits were to be delivered effectively and efficiently and the federal government would eliminate sources of fear and other barriers that prevent immigrants from accessing government services available to them. To that end, the president declared that the White House Domestic Policy Council (DPC) would convene executive departments and agencies to coordinate, formulate, and implement the administration’s domestic policy objectives. These were to welcome and support immigrants, including refugees, and quickly help state and local integration and inclusion efforts. It was to do this by establishing a Task Force on New Americans. The secretary of state, the attorney general, and the secretary of homeland security were to restore trust in the US legal immigration system. They were to review existing regulations, orders, documents, policies, and any other agency actions that might be inconsistent with the Biden policy, especially those related to inadmissibility and deportability and public health. Their purpose was to reduce fear and confusion among impacted communities. This executive order was also concerned with promoting and improving the naturalization process. The secretary of state, the attorney general, and the secretary of homeland security were to develop a plan to reduce naturalization processing times, make the naturalization process more accessible to all eligible individuals, and review policies as well as practices regarding

Catholics, Biden, and Immigration

83

denaturalization and passport revocation. They were to do this by implementing a reduced naturalization fee and fee waiver process, especially for eligible candidates born abroad and members of the military, and establish an Interagency Working Group on Promoting Naturalization to develop a national strategy to promote naturalization. The secretary of state, the attorney general, and the secretary of homeland security were to submit a report how to implement the plan within ninety days while the Naturalization Working Group was required to submit a strategy to the president outlining steps the federal government should take to promote naturalization, including the potential development of a public awareness campaign. Section 6 of this executive order was also to bring about another crucial change in immigration policy. It revoked President Trump’s Memorandum of May 23, 2019, “Enforcing the Legal Responsibilities of Sponsors of Aliens,” and tasked the heads of relevant agencies to review any investigations or compliance actions initiated and to suspend any such actions inconsistent with the new Biden policy. The implementation of these orders, however, did not bring about the original intent of the president, that is, to make immigration safer, equitable, and humanitarian. His own policies have, in fact, led to the escalating crisis at the southern border and brought President Biden to the immigration quandary he faces today. For example, his actions caused the Supreme Court to be the policymaker of last resort to resolve conflicting claims about how to alleviate the problem of unvetted migrants streaming across the southern border in December 2022. It imposed the reinstitution of Title 42, or the “Remain in Mexico” policy of the Trump administration. The original purpose of the policy was to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic and required asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico for a ruling on their asylum claims before they could enter the United States. When the pandemic ended, the Biden administration continued to use Title 42 to limit immigration in the United States, but was denied the right to do so by the Supreme Court. Thus, the president had to revise his policy approach to Title 42 and involve government agencies that were also inextricably part of the government policies to an effective, efficient, and viable plan to deal with the immigration problem. Specifically, this involved the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that enforces the bulk of the Biden policies. The secretary of the agency, Alejandro Mayorkas, claimed that his agency was “executing a comprehensive and deliberate strategy to secure our borders and build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system.”36 But, as the deadline was nearing for the end of Title 42, he finally admitted that immigration was a “hemispheric challenge” that required a “hemispheric solution.” He also saw the border

84

Chapter Three

problem as a “humanitarian obligation” to end the smuggling of people and drugs because of “a dramatic rise in the reach, sophistication, and cruelty” of their organizations over the “past ten years and the challenges that it presents.”37 He said: Everyone agrees—everyone agrees—our immigration system is outdated and badly broken. We must tackle the challenges before us together. This includes the potential for increases in migration after May 11 and the strain it will place on our communities, our workforce, and our system. This includes surging resources at the border, modernizing processes, attacking smuggling organizations with unprecedented law enforcement forces, strengthening our immigration enforcement tool of expedited removal, working to increase information sharing and resources—having distributed over $130 million this fiscal year with 290 more to be awarded in the coming weeks—for local communities and their non-profit organizations. We are partnering with nations in the region to address the challenges of unprecedented migration throughout the hemisphere. This re-programming of existing funds will not meet our longer-term needs for securing our border and enforcing our laws. But he said, the US needs help from its regional partners, and needs the Congress to provide needed resources.38

At the end of April, then, about two weeks before Title 42 was scheduled to be discontinued, the DHS secretary, Mayorkas, along with the secretary of state, Anthony Blinken, issued a statement explaining the purpose and processes that they intended to use to handle the increasing demands to enter the United States. These were to 1) reduce the number of migrants, 2) create legal pathways for entrance into the United States, 3) impose consequence for violators, and 4) increase regional processing centers to qualify migrants. According to the secretaries, this would be accomplished in conjunction with the countries that border on the United States. The way that the Biden administration intended to implement its response to the challenges to immigration after the end of Title 42, however, would be to return to a revised version of the basic policy on immigration and naturalization: Title 8 of the United States Code of Laws. The processing of migrants was to be swift and immediate and allow the government to impose stiff consequences for irregular migration. This included at least a five-year ban on reentry and potential criminal prosecution for repeated attempts to cross the US border unlawfully. Nevertheless, Mayorkas could not promise that this would happen. He said his office still expected that crossings at the southern border would continue to increase, and that smugglers would try to take advantage of this change in the law by using propaganda. His strongest statement was: Our border is not open and will not be open after May 11.

Catholics, Biden, and Immigration

85

He was counting on the cooperation of partner governments to stave off illegal entry by returning migrants to their home countries or be subject to at least a five-year ban on admission to the United States, face criminal prosecution for any subsequent attempt to cross the border illegally. Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans would not be eligible for the parole processes and the policy would extend to arrivals at US maritime borders. DHS would also use the US Alternative to Detention Programs for families and single adults. At the same time, the presence of United States Coast Guard was to be enlarged to interdict migrants trying to reach the United States by sea. But, prior to this last-minute attempt to solve the immigration crisis, Catholic leaders, activists, and volunteers at the southern border also questioned the Biden administration’s attempts to accomplish its goal. In defense of his agency, Secretary Mayorkas took a partisan stance and said that President Biden had inherited a broken and dismantled policy, and that his own agency had “confiscated more drugs and disrupted more smuggling operations than ever before.”39 Of course, he also blamed the usual bureaucratic obstacles: the need to repurpose existing funds, the allocation of more resources, and help from Congress. Mayorkas had defended the DHS in the past by touting the implementation of three main “pillars” of the Biden administration’s immigration tactics. According to him, these included 1) providing resources for border security, 2) creating administrative efficiency, and 3) using various means to disrupt transnational criminals. These pillars, however, relied on supplementing border guards and resources, as well as sharing government responsibility for such endeavors with other countries in the western hemisphere as well as with NGOs. But none of this was done during the Biden administration even though the administration knew that the day of reckoning for Title 42 was being considered for more than a year and a half after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was an important lack in the president’s immigration policy, and one that could have been addressed by a stronger collaboration with Catholic immigration services. It is the relationship between Catholic NGOs and the Biden administration, then, that is important to the success of the Biden immigration policy. That is because the USCCB, as a significant partner in dealing with immigration, has laid out a different strategy, social doctrine, and means to deal with the increasing influx of migrants into the United States. It is based on theological principles and pastoral actions. Now, however, nonprofits such as Catholic agencies are bring required by the Biden administration, because of their tax-exempt status, to provide migrants with more, and other necessary, services between their processing and potential immigration removal proceedings. This is more than a policy

86

Chapter Three

request. The evidence of a mutual need to provide serious survival services and moral claims place church workers in difficult positions, trying to implement public policies that are becoming more overwhelming and complicated as time passes. For example, at the beginning of 2023, the Biden administration introduced revised policies to try to stem unlimited, disorderly, and unsafe migration into the United States. A precursor to the response to the court’s rejection of Title 42, these requirements included increasing anti-smuggling operations, as well as expanding the coordination and support for border cities and nongovernmental organizations.40 The reconsidered plan called for new regulations for a pathway to legal migration and extended to nationals from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Cuba. It was expected to impact over 30,000 individuals per month from these countries, according to the White House, and would require those migrants to have an eligible sponsor, be vetted, and pass background checks. Today, Venezuelans have been provided with work visas as well. Others would be eligible to enter the United States for a period of two years and receive work authorization. This would not extend to individuals from those countries who irregularly cross the Panama, Mexico, or US border. Instead, they would face expulsion to Mexico. The final part of the new Biden plan established a more efficient means of scheduling appointments for resettlement, as well as the expansion of legal immigration from Colombia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Belize. The government promised that it would provide close to $23 million in additional humanitarian assistance in Mexico and Central America to expand capabilities and technologies to support faster processing. The administration, in its continued dependence on NGOs, promised to mobilize faith-based and nonprofit organizations that supported migrants, including those providing temporary shelter, food, and humanitarian assistance before often reuniting with family as they await the outcome of their immigration proceedings. This meant that the Biden-Catholic nexus for immigration would continue as a marriage of convenience, since the nonprofits were expected to comply with new processing rules. The Catholic Church as a major NGO partner in this revised immigration process prior to the end of Title 42 tried to continue to support and advance the president’s policies to alleviate the escalating immigration quandary at its source. But the failure of the president to go to the southern border for two years, the inability of the vice president to get to the source of the problem as the border czar, and the insufficient implementation of existing laws justified the reasons that the church, as well as the government, are losing control of the appropriate means to deal with immigration into the United States.

Catholics, Biden, and Immigration

87

In early 2023, soon after the new Biden policy was announced, a pastoral letter issued by the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States41 called on elected officials, policymakers, enforcement officers, residents of border communities, and providers of legal aid and social services to support the basic moral principles of migration. These included the right to seek opportunities in one’s homeland or to emigrate to support themselves and their families; to seek asylum, and be afforded protection by sovereign nations who have the right to control their border for the common good.42 The combined members of the hierarchy rejected control of immigration when it is used for acquiring wealth, and claimed that “more powerful economic nations have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows.”43 With no response to their calls for a more humane response to the floundering immigration policy of the Biden administration, strong opposition from the USCCB’s Chairman of the Bishops Migration Services, Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, wrote in desperation: We welcome the announcement of new legal pathways to the United States, but it is difficult for us to consider this progress when these same pathways are contingent on preventing those forced to flee their native land from availing themselves of the right to seek asylum at our border. Under this approach, many of the most vulnerable will be excluded from relief and subjected to dangerous circumstances, contravening U.S. and international refugee law, as well as Catholic social teaching. . . . It simply defies reason and lived realities to require those facing persecution, trafficking, and torture to only pursue protection from within those potentially life-threatening situations. This is a drastic departure from the Administration’s promise to create a “fair, orderly, and humane” immigration system and will only exacerbate challenges on both sides of our border. Even for those who are permitted to enter the United States, we continue to be concerned about their access to housing, work authorization, legal services, and other pressing needs. . . . The Catholic bishops of the United States are among those religious leaders referenced by the President who have consistently called for a comprehensive reform of our immigration system, and we share the President’s disappointment regarding a lack of bipartisan cooperation in Congress on this issue. We also wholeheartedly agree that to truly address the irregular movement of people in our hemisphere, we must tackle the root causes of forced migration, promoting integral human development in sending countries so people may flourish there. . . . We urge the Administration to reverse its present course in favor of humane solutions that recognize the God-given dignity of migrants and provide equitable access to immigration and humanitarian pathways.44

This criticism of the Biden administration’s inability to bring together a viable policy to deal with the immigration policy even prior to the end of Title 42 is significant because the Catholic Church is a major actor seeking a long-term solution to the festering immigration crisis. The Catholic bishops

88

Chapter Three

and the church’s on-the-ground facilities are increasingly pursing an effort to influence nonpartisan but political efforts to bring about support for the legalization of comprehensive immigration reform. The church’s tactics are pastoral and implemented in a non-partisan, rather than a political way. Even more importantly, the USCCB/MRS also works in coalition with other Catholic organizations such as Catholic Organizations Against Human Trafficking and Justice for Immigrants. It is such agencies and their leaders coming together with Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Extension, and other organizations of clerical and lay volunteers who have the expertise and experience to advise and provide direct assistance to migrants and the government in the escalating crisis that is occurring. One positive result of Catholic involvement in immigration could be the creation of a type of compassionate social symbiosis between the Biden administration and religious NGOs within the White House. Such an office could work collaboratively to develop a policy that is responsive to both the political problem of illegal immigration and the religious mission to provide sanctuary and legal asylum for the marginalized. Catholic social justice principles, especially those embodied within immigration, could serve as the start of an innovative, communal, and humanitarian nexus between church and state, a relationship that can be recalibrated within the calculus of need and security for all. What both institutions have in common is the similar commitment to safely, equitably, and humanely treating migrants who are seeking a better life in this country. Unfortunately, it is the means, rather than the end, that needs to be the center of attention to accomplish that goal. A WAY FORWARD? While Catholic leaders and charitable organizations are trying to provide services to poor and marginalized migrants, they are also working to reform and find solutions to other aspects of the immigration crisis. This includes broader issues such as policies that deal with family, freedom, equality, social justice, and human rights. To reconcile these moral and constitutional principles, both church and state must be willing to place organizational efficiency and safety above the institutional, partisan, and personal interests of politicians. What more can the USCCB and its affiliated supporters do to alleviate the immigration problem within the context of President Biden’s policies? The Catholic Church has laid out its own immigration concerns and suggestions for immigration reform to the Biden administration and the Congress. It has carried out pastoral and nonpartisan political action to accomplish its goals.

Catholics, Biden, and Immigration

89

Now, it must continue and intensify its pursuit of those ends though religious means to accomplish its humanitarian and social missions. Indeed, the larger question is: what can President Biden, the second Catholic president, do to build on the work and principles of Catholic leaders and organizations to create a more viable, humane, safe, and equitable immigration policy? Are there any political lessons about leading and governing that could help him? NOTES 1. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity,” 15 November 2000, accessed on 15 April 2023. https://www.usccb.org/committees/pastoral-care-migrants-refugees-travelers/ welcoming-stranger-among-us-unity-diversity. 2. See: David Hollenbach, Claims in Conflict (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1979). J. Bryan Hehir and J. Hehir, “There’s No Deterring the Catholic Bishops,” Ethics and International Affairs 3 (1): 277–96. John Coleman, An American Strategic Theology (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1979). 3. Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1971). 4. Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia in America,” 22 January 1999, paragraph 52, accessed on 17 April 2023. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/ documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america.html​​​​​​​. 5. Ibid. 6. Pope John Paul II, “Message of the Holy Father for the World Migration Day 2000,” paragraph 4, 21 November 1999, accessed on 18 April 2023. http:// www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/migration/documents/hf_jp-ii_ mes_21111999_world-migration-day-2000.html. 7. USCCB, “Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity.” 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. USCCB, “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope: A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration from the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States,” 22 January 2003, accessed on 20 April 2023. https://www.usccb.org/issuesand-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/strangers-no-longer-together-on-thejourney-of-hope​​​​​​​. 11. Ibid. 12. Fifth General Conference of Latin American Bishops. Aparecida Documents. 31 May 2007, part I, section 1.3, paragraph 30–32. 13. Daniel G. Groody in “Theology in the Age of Migration,” 14 September 2009, accessed on 26 January 2023. https://www.ncronline.org/news/world/ theology-age-migration.

90

Chapter Three

14. Catholic Charities USA, “FAQs About our Service to Immigrants,” accessed on 15 November 2022. https://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/our-vision-and-ministry/ immigration-refugee-services. See also: Catholic Charities USA, “Immigration Advocacy and Refuge Assistance,” accessed on 16 November 2022. 15. Ibid. “FAQs About our Service to Immigrants.” 16. Brian Anderson, “How Catholic Charities Lost Its Soul.” https://www.cityjournal.org/article/how-catholic-charities-lost-its-soul. See also: “Catholic Church collects $1.6 billion in U.S. contracts, grants since 2012.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/24/catholic-church-collects-16-billion-in-us-contract. 17. Catholic Relief Services, CRS Farmer-to-Farmer. https://farmertofarmer.crs. org. 18. Deal W. Hudson, “Catholic Bishops Caught in Conflict of Interest Over Immigration,” 30 March 2017. https://www.newsmax.com/dealhudson/ usccb-catholic-bishops-immigration-trump/2017/03/30/id/781583/. 19. World Meeting of Popular Movements, “Message from Modesto,” 16–19 February 2017, accessed on 10 May 2023. http://popularmovements.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/02/USWMPM-synthesis-FINAL.pdf. 20. Catholic Extension. “Five Catholics Ministries Helping Migrants at the Border,” 27 June 2019, accessed on 21 November 2022. https://www.catholicextension. org/stories/5-catholic-ministries-helping-migrants-border. 21. Hope Border Institute, “About Us,” accessed on 20 November 2022. https:// www.hopeborder.org/about-us. 22. Evie Fordham, “FEMA gives $110 million to emergency fund for migrant care as Biden admin refuses to admit ‘crisis,’” 18 March 2021, accessed on 28 January 2023. https:// www.foxnews.com/politics/fema-110-million-border-migrants-emergency-biden. 23. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Migration Policy and Advocacy,” accessed on 19 April 2023.  https://www.usccb.org/migrationpolicy. 24. Ibid. 25. Groody, op. cit. 26. Migration and Refugee Services/Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Catholic Church’s Position on Immigration Reform,” August 2013, accessed on 19 April 2023. https://www.usccb. org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform​​​​​​​. 27. President Donald J. Trump, “Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.” 25 January 2017, accessed on 1 February 2023. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-bordersecurity-immigration-enforcement-improvements/​​​​​​​. 28. Ibid. 29. President Donald J. Trump. “Executive Order 13780 on Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” 6 March 2017. https:// www.dhs.gov/publication/executive-order-13780-protecting-nation-foreign-terroristentry-united-states-initial. 30. Archbishop Daniel Di Nardo, “Statement on New Asylum, Immigration Policies,” 13 June 2018, accessed on 3 February 2023. https://www.miamiarch.org/

Catholics, Biden, and Immigration

91

CatholicDiocese.php?op=Article_cardinal-dinardo39s-statement-on-new-asylumimmigration-policies. 31. United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Regents of the University of California, et. al. 140 S. Ct. 1891; 207 L. ED. 2d 353 accessed on 2 February 2020. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf. https:// supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/18-587/​​​​​​​. 32. President Joe Biden, “Executive Order on the Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities,” 20 January 2021, accessed on 1 February 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/ executive-order-the-revision-of-civil-immigration-enforcement-policies-and-priorities. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid. 35. President Joe Biden, “Executive Order on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans,” 2 February 2021, accessed on 3 February 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/02/02/executive-order-restoring-faith-inour-legal-immigration-systems-and-strengthening-integration-and-inclusion-effortsfor-new-americans. 36. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, “Memo to Interested Parties on Plan for Southwest Border Security and Preparedness,” 26 April 2022, accessed on 15 November 2022. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/22_0426_dhs-plan-southwestborder-security-preparedness.pdf. 37. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, “Secretary Mayorkas Remarks at a Press Conference on New Regional Migration Management Measures,” 28 April 2023, accessed on 4 May 2023. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/04/28/ secretary-mayorkas-and-secretary-state-blinken-remarks-press-conference-april-27 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid. 40. The White House Fact Sheet, “Biden-⁠Harris Administration Announces New Border Enforcement Actions,” 5 January 2023, accessed on 29 January 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/05/ fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-border-enforcement-actions. 41. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration from the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States,” 22 January 2003, accessed on 27 November 2022. https:// www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/ strangers-no-longer-together-on-the-journey-of-hope. 42. Ibid., paragraph 6. 43. Ibid., paragraph 36. 44. Bishop Mark J. Seitz, “U.S. Bishops Migration Chairman Dismayed by Continued Reliance on Harmful Policies over Humane Solutions,” accessed on 27 January 2022. https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/us-bishops-migration-chairman-dismayedcontinued-reliance-harmful-policies-over-humane.

Chapter Four

Pyrrhic Victories

King Pyrrhus won two major conflicts defending his fellow Greeks against the Romans, one at Heraclea and a second at Asculum. Despite these victories, however, he suffered the loss of such a high number of soldiers that his army was devastated at the Battle of Beneventum, and eventually lost the larger war. Therein lies an important lesson; the futility of winning at all costs, now known as a Pyrrhic victory. President Biden is like King Pyrrhus. He continues to fight both the abortion and immigration policy wars, challenged by pro-life activists and others concerned with migrant safety and national security at the southern border. The result: a decreasing possibility that he can win his reelection bid in 2024. In fact, two days before he announced his run for the presidency, an NBC poll revealed that 70 percent of Americans did not want him to run for office.1 That date reveals a major question about the public’s confidence in Biden’s credibility and competence to lead. Even though the “red wave,” that pollsters predicted did not happen in the 2022 midterm congressional elections, the Democrats held the Senate, and democracy did not crumble as the president had warned. Republicans, instead, took the House; the Dobbs decision was left standing, and the number of undocumented migrants continued to escalate, causing a problem the president failed to recognize or alleviate. For both political parties and the president, personally, the midterm elections and their consequences turned out to be Pyrrhic victories. The 2020 midterms were also a sign of a Pyrrhic victory for Catholics. Although they had won the Supreme Court battle in Dobbs, only five states upheld constitutional referendums to limit abortion across the United States after the elections. Instead, other states were subsequently challenged through pro-choice and government actions that weakened their stances, not only on abortion, but immigration as well. The point is, that the 2022 midterms clearly had no major impact on, what many believed to be, “the Catholic vote.” They had forgotten that the 93

94

Chapter Four

perceived constituency was, historically and rarely, the deciding coalition in any presidential election. And, true to form in the midterms, Catholics did not emerge as a voting “bloc” due to the size of their population, diversity, and past political patterns. This resulted in an inevitable split within their own perceived religious orbit as a nuanced part of the electorate. But even though Catholics were never the voters who decided a close election, they had always been part of the electorate coalition that chose the winning candidate for US president. It is hard to determine if this trend will continue for either the Catholic Democrat in the White House or his opponents in their churches. BIDEN AND HIS IMMIGRATION “VICTORIES” Immigration is the domestic issue that is dividing the United States and quickly losing the potential to bring about a policy consensus for the common good. It is time for the president to consider this matter as the critical one that he can pursue to unite moral and political actors who are seeking to alleviate the problems that now exist on the southern border. Complex social problems in the western hemisphere, as well as policy choices and administrative appointments have brought President Biden to the immigration quandary he faces today. His actions have been challenged by Catholic leaders and activists, vilified by Republicans, but viewed as a godsend by migrants. Immediately after the new year, the president introduced revised policies to try to stem the unlimited immigration that his earlier plan had not accomplished. The reconsidered plan,2 as discussed earlier, called for new regulations to create larger and broader pathways to legal migration, a more efficient means of scheduling appointments for resettlement, the inclusion of more diverse migrants from countries in the southern hemisphere, as well as greater financial resources to carry out these tasks. Due to the administration’s continued dependence on NGOs and its promises to mobilize faith-based and nonprofit organizations to support migrants, the Biden-Catholic nexus continued. Catholic charitable organizations could still be valuable allies in implementing these changes today, as they provide services while also working to reform and find solutions to issues, like the immigration crisis. At the same time, they can also create a unity of purpose and a true political and moral victory for the president. Better collaboration offers the president the opportunity to show that he espouses basic humanitarian principles and is willing to accept input from groups working to find solutions to the crisis at the southern border. Their work, in the long term, could find the source and reasons

Pyrrhic Victories

95

for the mass migration into the United States, and in the short term, expedite and clarify processes for those seeking to enter the country. The point is that many Catholic organizations, large and small, are also involved in major humanitarian and nonpartisan political efforts to bring about values that both the church and the government purport to espouse. These are the support of families, freedom, equality, social justice, and human rights. But to reconcile these moral and constitutional principles, both church and state must be willing to place immigration policy reform and organizational efficiency above institutional and partisan interests and the personal interests of politicians. The president has tried to do this alone, through his executive orders, which are essentially fiats. His intent is to impose a whole of government response implemented mainly by administrative actions. In the aggregate, the strategy of his policy can be synthesized as a plan designed to reverse and reset the Trump policies of the past to reflect his own political ideology. First, he revoked the former president’s means to limit immigration on national security concerns for partisan reasons. Second, he called for a value-oriented policy based on humane, safe, equitable principles. Third, he proposed a pragmatic implementation for change based on efficiency in processes that deal with naturalization and deportation. None of these tactics, however, have met with success. This is because President Biden’s policies, as stated in his first State of the Union Address, reflected his early concerns for growing immigration and the need for its reform as a congressional responsibility and an economic opportunity that needed protection. It was a policy, historically and tactically, much like that of the Catholic leadership: a call for a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, and a status for temporary visa recipients, farmworkers, and other essential workers who could ease labor shortages. He maintained that to implement such a policy would continue the tradition of the United States as a nation of welcoming immigrants and allowing families to reunite. Then in a value judgment, he ended by saying “economically [it is] the right thing to do.”3 In his second State of the Union Address in 2022, however, there was a shift in the president’s approach to the immigration problem that grew into a crisis during his tenure. He summed up the situation in a few sentences: . . . let’s also come together on immigration and make it a bipartisan issue like it was before. We now have a record number of personnel working to secure the border, arresting 8,000 human smugglers and seizing over 23,000 pounds of fentanyl in just the last several months. Since we launched our new border plan last month, unlawful migration from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela has come down 97%. But America’s border problems won’t be fixed until Congress

96

Chapter Four

acts. If you won’t pass my comprehensive immigration reform, at least pass my plan to provide the equipment and officers to secure the border. And a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, those on temporary status, farm workers, and essential workers.4

This appeal for a bipartisan congressional approach by President Biden, after a year in office, seemed to portend a signal for greater White House outreach to Congress, and possibly even Catholic NGOs that had been at the forefront of trying to provide humane, safe, equitable, and viable long-term solutions to immigration policy. So far, though, attempts to assess the effectiveness of the president’s policy to pass comprehensive immigration reform is questionable given the continuing number of unchecked migrants entering the United States. Even though there are policy commonalities with NGO’s, there are still political barriers to reconsider if greater collaboration between the Biden administration and the Catholic Church on immigration can become a means to resolve a major domestic policy crisis and begin to unify this country. This is part of the president’s major policy problem at the border. Another way to look at President Biden’s Pyrrhic victory on immigration is to examine his appointments of vice president Kamala Harris as the “border czar,” and Alejandro Mayorkas as secretary of homeland security. Their accomplishments, and lack thereof, have received mixed reviews by the press, members of the Democrat and Republican parties, and the public. Some characterizations of Harris and her ability to deal with the border crisis have been negative, while others contend that she has not been given the opportunity to work on issues where the vice president was better prepared to use her own talents. They maintain that she was “underestimated, over scrutinized, and unfairly criticized.”5 Mayorkas has been depicted as overwhelmed and inept, at best. He has been asked to resign by members of the Republican Party. And calls for his impeachment were introduced in the House as soon as the Republicans gained a majority after the 2022 midterms. The tenures of Harris and Mayorkas, then, serve as an opportunity to examine their political competencies and examine the validity of President Biden’s appointment decisions. Are they a part of a chain of Pyrrhic policy errors in his administration? Are these two key appointees responsible for hindering the president’s ability to solve the immigration situation at the southern border? Can they help him create innovative solutions? Develop unity? Even more complicated are the personal debates that revolve around ideological, racial, and party lines. The choice of Kamala Harris and her appointment as the “border czar,” can serve to shed some light on her value to the Biden administration through the lens of her problem-solving abilities.

Pyrrhic Victories

97

Harris attended Howard University and law school at the University of California. She worked as a prosecutor within California’s state legal system and was later elected attorney general of the state. She signed an accord with the attorney general of Mexico to improve the coordination and integration of law enforcement resources to target transnational gangs engaging in the sale and trafficking of human beings crossing at the California border. She also led a bipartisan delegation of state attorneys general to Mexico City to discuss transnational crime and then convened a summit focused on the use of technology to fight it with state and federal officials from the United States, Mexico, and El Salvador. In 2016, she was elected to the United States Senate. Within three years, senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed the idea of a Biden–Harris ticket for the 2020 election. During the Democratic primaries, Biden won a landslide victory in South Carolina due to the efforts of the state’s congressman and House whip, Jim Clyburn. With that win and others that followed on Super Tuesday, Clyburn suggested that Biden choose a woman of color as his running mate as a gesture of loyalty to the party for its support. The candidate agreed and chose Harris for the Democratic ticket. Three months after his election, President Biden tasked Harris to focus on two issues: curbing the flow of migrants from the southern border and implementing a long-term strategy to address the root causes of migration. She accomplished neither. The White House announced that Vice President Harris would go to Mexico and meet with the leaders of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador to develop programs, create the political will to mobilize US government resources, and coordinate a needs-based and geographic approach to curb immigration.6 To accomplish this, she was expected to work with, and rely on, the expertise of a wide range of US departments and agencies, international governments, public, private, and multilateral organizations, including financial institutions, and the US Congress. It was expected that she would develop partnerships with Latin American leaders to a) address economic insecurity and inequality; b) combat corruption, strengthen democratic governance as well as the rule of law; c) promote respect for human rights, labor rights, and free press; d) counter and prevent violence, extortion, and other crimes perpetrated by criminal gangs, networks, and other organized criminal organizations; and, e) combat sexual, gender-based, and domestic violence. Harris set up future dialogues and discussions with those in Mexico and Central America to talk about weapons and drugs, the establishment of an Anticorruption Task Force, an Anti-Migrant Smuggling Task Force. and a potential United Nations commitment for a regional Humanitarian Response Plan. To be known as a “Call to Action,” it was anticipated to serve as a vehicle for private donor support for El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras

98

Chapter Four

for economic opportunities. In the end, her meeting with leaders at the southern border provided one realistic, short-term deliverable: US money for relief. A year later, the White House reported that she met with regional leaders, launched a new initiative, and raised $1.2 billion through her “Call to Action Program.”7 Much of this came from companies such as Microsoft, Nespresso, Mastercard, Parkdale Mills, PepsiCo, and Grupo Mariposa. Many of Harris’s accomplishments were routine expected meetings. But the story behind the story reveals that US government initiatives coupled with private financial resources provided only short-term solutions to a long-term and increasing crisis. Money, alone, appeared to be the answer to support economic recovery in the region. The report showed that the United States gave $100 million in financial aid, free COVID-19 vaccines, and medical help to Central America. It included $26.4 million to El Salvador, $81.5 million to Guatemala, and $57.1 million to Honduras and $300 million to the Centroamérica Local initiative that empowered local organizations to address the drivers of what was called “irregular migration” though subsidies for farm families and producers and food.8 The report also showed that a Corruption Task Force was operating and enforcing US sanctions and visa restrictions, training five thousand civilian police in the region. It also touted the establishment of a new task force to prevent migrant smuggling and human trafficking and claimed that it was disrupting trafficking operations. And it proudly mentioned that work had already led to the indictment of eight leaders of human smuggling organizations. But the bottom line here is that the number of “achievements” were ineffective; the number of migrants increased, and the ability of the task forces to limit their entry to the United States decreased. Meanwhile, the government update claimed that new government programs and scholarships provided access to education for nearly 18,000 returning/potential migrants and at-risk youth, creating job opportunities for indigenous women and girls, and helped youth to resist gang recruitment. But their continued and realistic flight to the United States simply could not sustain that claim. On a closer look, however, the vice president had initially failed to bring the most significant stakeholders to the table to discuss the realities of the immigration problem, such as government leaders, NGO operators, volunteers, and representatives of the marginalized who were seeking to migrate to the United States. Nor did Harris follow up and clearly address the American public about why growing and uncurbed migration was continuing to occur at the southern border. The president of Guatemala complained publicly that the vice president never returned his phone calls. As a result, her critics questioned whether her delivery of financial resources instead of creating a viable process for a long-term solution to the crisis was the best way to alleviate the immigration crisis. There was no open follow-up to her visit, and to the

Pyrrhic Victories

99

average person, it appeared as though everything in Central America—from education and employment to crime and corruption, was both insoluble and intolerable. At best, her solutions to the root causes appeared to be short-term financial fixes rather than long-term social and political solutions. As a result, Vice President Harris has not been celebrated as a person with an immigration vision of her own or one that is helpful to, or compatible with, President Biden’s. Nor has she provided a solution that reflects the political acumen needed to generate creative solutions to complex problems. The fact that she visited the southern border once in 2018 earlier in her career, and once in her role as border czar, did not help her political brand or image, either. The optics of her involvement with and attitude toward the immigration crisis did little to dispel public dissatisfaction with her original charge from the president: to establish a more efficient, equitable, and humane means to curb the flow of migrants from the southern border while implementing a long-term strategy to address the root causes of migration. Instead, the vice president appeared to some, as having declared victory, abrogated her responsibility for immigration, and quickly returned to performing the more traditional, ceremonial roles of her office. Her duty then, to deal with the border problem, fell by default to the secretary of homeland security, Alejandro Mayorkas. He has drawn fire from those who believe that he has not done enough to solve the immigration situation at the southern border as well. Mayorkas’s supporters, however, believe that he has been able to bring a new dimension to solving the problem, that is, one of diversity, to his role as cabinet secretary. Alejandro Mayorkas is the first refugee and first person born in Cuba to lead the Department of Homeland Security. He earned a law degree from Loyola Marymount University and later worked as an assistant United States attorney in California. He served as a member of the presidential transition team for Barack Obama and was appointed by him to become the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USIS) within the DHS, and then as deputy director of homeland security. Mayorkas’s administrative qualifications were based on his efficiency, management skills, and fiscal acumen, as well as his commitment to safeguard the integrity of the immigration system. With that background, President-elect Biden nominated Mayorkas as secretary of homeland security soon after his own election. During his appointment hearings before the Senate, the potential DHS secretary clearly said he would be privileged to work with Congress to pass immigration reform legislation and a “path to citizenship that provides a clear solution to what is clearly a broken system.”9 He was quickly approved along partisan lines. Mayorkas’s competence, however, was challenged soon after the Republicans gained the majority in the House after the 2022 midterms. It was rumored that as part of his bid to win the speaker’s gavel, Kevin McCarthy

100

Chapter Four

promised certain members of his party that he would work to ensure a border security plan. His top deputy, House majority leader Steve Scalise, supposedly outlined bills and resolutions in December to be sent to the floor immediately within the first two weeks of the new Congress. However, Representative Andy Biggs of Texas with more than thirty members of the House introduced HR 89,10 as early as February 1, that accused the DHS secretary of high crimes and misdemeanors before any legislation could be considered. It claimed that Mayorkas engaged in a pattern of conduct that was incompatible with his duties and that he failed to maintain operational control over the border. The resolution, HR 89, was quickly referred to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). It was essentially a challenge to Biden’s immigration policies as implemented by Mayorkas. Specifically, it opposed the secretary’s actions to terminate policies such as “Remain in Mexico” (Title 42). In essence, it restricted immigration at the southern border by allowing US authorities to turn away asylum-seekers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, Mayorkas was also charged with a “reckless abandonment” of border security and immigration enforcement, thus leaving the nation at greater risk of terrorism, and increasing the problems of fentanyl, crime, and human trafficking. Biggs et al., claimed that these problems were increasing the power of cartels and providing enough drugs to kill every American ten times over, as well as controlling of the lives of young people and women to work off the cost of their illegal entry into the United States. Statistics on border crossings are difficult to assess. Evidence of a growing number of undocumented migrants, many of whom are both culpable for, and victims of, many types of crimes have been reported in Customs and Border Protection data.11 They show that the number of illegal crossings in 2022 topped 2.76 million people, more than a previous record of 1 million. These numbers, however, do not include “gotaways,” with the CBP also attributing these events to COVID-19. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security continues to challenge those numbers, claiming that “the pace of border apprehensions dropped to the lowest rate since February 2021—to about 5,000 per day and that the trend continues to be downward.”12 Even with all this information, Secretary Mayorkas continues to see domestic terrorism as the main problem of homeland security, and, in a final remark to the House Appropriations Committee hearings in 2022, maintained that DHS had “operational control” of the border,13 even though it had taken nearly fourteen months to get his approach to border control in place. The head of the Border Patrol agents, Chief Raul Ortiz, testified that this was not the case,14 contradicting the words of his boss, homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Pyrrhic Victories

101

Secretary Mayorkas is also under fire for another issue that involves the credibility of the DHS, that is, his responsibility for problems with cybersecurity.15 He has made known that his strategy to protect the American way of life and defend it is based on free and secure cyberspace that is resilient, innovative, resourced, and ready; carried out with the private sector; and based on diversity, equity, and inclusion. To the secretary, developing sound public policy requires diverse perspectives from communities that represent America. He says that it requires “the recruitment, development, and retention of diverse talent as well as equal access to professional development opportunities”16 to fill cyber vacancies across the government that threaten the ability of the US workforce to compete in a geopolitical world. To others, it is simply making choices based on identity politics and ideology rather than competence and merit. In either case, the secretary has commented that he is ready to answer the congressional charges against him. By early 2023, the House Oversight and Senate Judiciary committees carried out hearings about the situation at the border. The House Judiciary Committee, as well, held early field meetings in several states, but the Democrats on the Committee refused to participate. The GOP members highlighted their anger and sorrow for the migrant victims of crime and the frustration of the members of law enforcement who lacked government support to curb illegal entries into the United States. Various members of both congressional committees called Secretary Mayorkas to testify. He was questioned, threatened with impeachment, and asked to resign. The New York Times reported his “savage” treatment by angry Republican senators, who blamed him for the fentanyl epidemic that occurred on his watch. Almost at the same time, in March 2023, Secretary Mayorkas visited Arizona and Texas. He met with governors, mayors, and border enforcement officials while he attended meetings and gave out awards. He also announced a new coordinated surge operation designed to target the smuggling of fentanyl, two years after his leadership to control the border problem. He also maintained that there is a “significant challenge” at the border, but not a crisis. He also announced that he would be going to the border in preparation for the end of Title 42. The president’s management of immigration policies, then, leads to significant, broader questions about his leadership and only Pyrrhic victories on immigration. At the same time, the Catholic Biden must also consider the challenges from abortion as well.

102

Chapter Four

CATHOLICS AND ABORTION “VICTORIES” Indeed, the midterm results showed that Catholic leaders also suffered midterm losses. They revealed that the laity was committed to more than just the moral issue of abortion and proved it by the way they cast their votes. Statistics about Catholic voters revealed that only 10 percent of Catholics agreed that abortion was the most important concern facing the nation, even though it was the top issue among the Hispanic Catholic electorate.17 Nevertheless, the lack of significant lay support for abortion did not stop the Catholic leadership from continuing to view the decision in Dobbs as one of the most critical moral issues of the time. The hierarchy still advanced a strategic effort to implement pro-life policies based on the church’s theological tenet of imago dei, as well as its social doctrines. The USCCB, specifically, did this by continued tactical responses to secular challenges, changing social mores, and judicial holdings. So, the American bishops, in a morally consistent way, continued to protect the unborn. Through a type of nonpartisan political adaptability that broadened their pro-life agenda, the hierarchy advocated for the support of traditional marriage and the family, fetal rights, and support for pregnant women. They carried out pro-life rallies and supported efforts to ban abortion pills. Peripheral to those concerns were the bishops’ opposition to gay marriage, gay adoption, and gender fluidity policies. But, after Dobbs and the midterms, the tenuous church-state relationships that had existed historically regarding other social justice issues such as homelessness, education, and employment were reconsidered by the Catholic leadership. They intended to exert influence on other moral concerns more intensely and began to seek a renewal of the church’s social mission to retain a relevant, values-based future. For example, during the last half century, the church had openly emphasized that Catholic politicians must adhere to the principles of moral coherence, eucharistic consistency and public witness. But then, only six months after Dobbs, its hierarchical leadership was faced with a test of its unspoken, historical symbiosis with the Democratic Party, one that had been developed over decades on economic, racial, and social justice issues. The challenge to the church on abortion and immigration by the Catholic president, Joe Biden, threatened a potential split between the political and moral orbits of the hierarchy. Its leadership had even wavered on holding Biden accountable for a lack of moral coherence to uphold the church’s pro-life position on abortion, and quietly dismissed its concerns due to more conciliatory statements made by Pope Francis. The American hierarchy also had to deal with opposition

Pyrrhic Victories

103

by the Catholic electorate to the church’s stance on abortion, and Catholic pro-choice groups who were becoming more vocal within the political arena. Most significant among these Catholic pro-choice activists are the Catholics for Choice (CFC). On its website, CFC describes itself as a nonprofit organization that represents Catholics who believe in reproductive freedom. They equate that value with other Catholic social values, and in this way, justify the purposes of its work. The CFC’s mission is threefold. First, its purpose is to dismantle religious-based obstructions to abortion care. Second, it intends to protect contraceptive access and comprehensive health care. And third, CFC carries out these policies to remove the barriers that disproportionately affect people of color, the poor, and the vulnerable.18 Thus, the CFC aligns itself with pro-choice activists on the left of the religious spectrum and the political aisle by attempting to seek ways to integrate its values with constitutional rights. The organization sees its work in terms of a larger social symbiosis, allowing others to pursue their own beliefs without imposing them on others—much like the view of the current president. As a result, Catholics for Choice has worked in coalition with liked minded groups such as the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice, Sister Song, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Latina Institution for Reproductive Justice and Faith Aloud.19 As a coalition, they have challenged the dominant views and actions of the Catholic leadership and pro-choice activists, demonstrating that the church’s traditional views of abortion were no longer acceptable to more modern, secular groups within Catholicism. The CFC has begun serious outreach efforts to Hispanic Catholics, some of whom had admitted to making pro-life issues a significant part of their political decisions. Two years ago, CFC launched a monthly Spanish-language social media push and webpage to expand the collaborate with Latinx organizations and community leaders to provide pro-choice Catholic resources in Spanish across the United States and Latin America. CFC claims that: About 40% of the Catholic population in the United States identifies as Hispanic, and anti-choice forces continue to target and manipulate this community through a narrative that misrepresents them and their support to reproductive freedom. But after Roe v. Wade was overturned, a study from the Public Religion Research Institute found that 75% of Latinx Catholics support safe and legal abortion.20

Soon after the 2022 midterm elections and the apparent Catholic ambivalence about, and even opposition to, pro-life teachings among the lay electorate, the assembled members of the hierarchy at its semiannual meeting met to elect a new slate of leaders. Their choice of officials clearly hinged on a referendum

104

Chapter Four

to either support the continued priority of a pro-life agenda as a significant part of its planning or to emphasize social justice concerns that could most likely dominate the future path of their mission. Having chosen two conservative leaders, as mentioned previously, the Catholic bishops continued to stress life issues as well as an array of other social concerns.21 They were, however, issues peripheral to abortion such as the sanctity of marriage, as well as the role and example of parents in teaching their children about sexual behavior. Catholics were being put on the defensive. The Congress was the first to challenge the Catholic position on abortion after the midterms. The Protection of Marriage Act, introduced earlier by Senator Elizabeth Warren, and supported by Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the House, reemerged between the midterms and the swearing in of the new politically divided legislature in January 2023. With a slight Republican majority, the bill was resuscitated as the Respect for Marriage Act, partially to counter the response of Justice Thomas in Dobbs. It was introduced by Representative Jerrold Nader (NY-D). During the hearings on reconsidering Roe, Thomas had raised concerns about revisiting certain judicial precedents, particularly those dealing with gay marriage. It was also expected that the Supreme Court was intending to hear a new case of an artist who opposed providing wedding services for a homosexual couple’s marriage ceremony. The Respect for Marriage Act mandated federal recognition of same sex marriage by providing statutory authority for same sex and interracial marriages throughout the United States. It repealed and replaced provisions that defined, for purposes in federal law, marriage as being only between a man and a woman. It required states to recognize same-sex marriage from other states that denied such provisions based on sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.22 The bill then moved to the House where it passed with bipartisan support, and was signed into law by President Biden. It soon became clear that abortion was not the only moral value that was going to be challenged by the White House as the president moved forward with his political agenda. Soon after the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, pro-life supporters came together for their annual March for Life, in January 2023. They united after the Dobbs decision to celebrate, what they perceived to be a victory for their cause, but the abortion question came front and center again. Behind and beyond the celebration, there were many violent reactions from pro-choice opponents in the aftermath of the holding in the case that coalesced pro-life advocates. Even though the president called for peaceful reactions to the decision in Dobbs, FBI director Christopher Wray testified before a Senate hearing on the “Threats to the Homeland.” He reported that 70 percent of targeted

Pyrrhic Victories

105

threats after Dobbs were aimed at pro-life centers,23 and that he considered racial assaults, hate crimes, voter suppression, and preventing access to clinic entrances as the most “egregious violations of federal law.”24 His concerns were questioned by Catholic activists, however, after several of their publications and even the general press quickly pointed out that six months after the Dobbs decision, the FBI had not yet made one arrest in attacks on either churches or pregnancy centers.25 Fox News Digital reported that more than a dozen attacks were carried out by a group known as Jane’s Revenge. The Family Research Council, an evangelical organization, also claimed that at least thirty-eight churches were “firebombed, smashed, ransacked, or vandalized with pro-abortion graffiti.”26 On the day of the March for Life in 2022, pro-life supporters tried to respond. They protested on the Capitol Mall, as well as at the Washington headquarters of Planned Parenthood. They carried signs, and collected signatures and donations for their organizations. Their efforts will continue in broader areas as questions of sexual fluidity, personal rights, and gay marriage are still considered threats to their moral beliefs about the value of life from the moment of conception until natural death. Then, in April 2023, Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) reported that information from an FBI source revealed that the agency had been attempting to use local conservative Catholic religious organizations as new avenues to gain informants and sources. Issuing new subpoenas to the FBI, he demanded information about how and why this recruitment of parishioners was occurring in Catholic churches in Richmond, Virginia. Beside these physical attacks by various dissidents, the Catholic moral and political support for Dobbs is also under governmental attack. The continued division and contention over more nuanced and escalating life issues is not the way to handle such problems if the president is a middle-of-the-road politician, as well as a Catholic supporter of social justice, or a Democrat who advocates for constitutional rights in his political role, as he contends. If this is the case, then his leadership must be focused on a way to ease political discord, moral alienation, and meet at a point of social consensus. So far, then, the limited successes on both abortion and immigration policies have been Pyrrhic victories for the second Catholic president, Joe Biden, and his church. But perhaps it is possible for Biden to instill a sense of national unity to work together with others to create viable, acceptable nonpartisan public policies. Indeed, it is a political imperative because both issues are questions that meet at the nexus of social, political, and moral concerns and can help to ease other policy dilemmas that politicians and religious leaders have neglected or created. What must the president do?

106

Chapter Four

NOTES 1. Haley Chi-Sing, “Huge majority of Americans oppose Biden running again, citing one ‘major’ factor: poll,” 23 April 2023, accessed on 24 April 2023.  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/huge-majority-of-americans -oppose-biden-running-again-citing-one-major-factor-poll/ar-AA1aevjr. 2. White House, “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Border Enforcement Action,” 5 January 2023, accessed on 1 May 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/05/fact-sheet-biden-harris -administration-announces-new-border-enforcement-actions/. 3. President Joe Biden, “President Biden’s State of the Union Address,” 1 March 2022, accessed on 8 February 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2022/. 4. President Joe Biden, “Remarks of President Biden: State of the Union Speech,” 7 February 2023, accessed on 8 February 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/02/07/remarks-of-president -joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address-as-prepared-for-delivery/. 5. Donna Brazil, “Give Harris the Credit She Is Due,” New York Times, 4 March 2023, A20. 6. National Security Council. “Vice President’s Cover Letter: U.S. Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America,” accessed on 28 February 2023. http​.whitehouse​.gov​/wp​-conps:​//​wwtent​/uploads​/2021​/07​/Root​-Causes​ -Strategy​.pdf. 7. White House Report: FACT SHEET: Update on the U.S. Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America, 19 April 2022. https://www. whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/19/fact-sheet-update-onthe-u-s-strategy-for-addressing-the-root-causes-of-migration-in-central-america/. 8. Ibid. 9. Bart Jansen, “GOP senators question Biden’s DHS nominee Alejandro Mayorkas over immigration enforcement, visas,” USA Today, 19 January 2021, accessed on 1 March 2023. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/01/19/ bidens-dhs-nominee-mayorkas-faces-questions-confirmation-hearing/4214673001/. 10. “Text of House Resolution 89,” 118th Congress (2023–2024); Introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Texas), accessed on 1 March 2023. https://www.congress.gov/ bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/89/text?s=1&r=95. 11. U. S. Customs and Border Protection, “Southwest Land Border Encounters,” 10 February 2023, accessed on 1 March 2023. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/ southwest-land-border-encounters. 12. Quinn Owen, “House Republicans hold 1st border hearing of new Congress,” 1 February 2023, accessed on 1 March 2023. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ house-republicans-hold-1st-border-hearing-new-congress/story?id=96769162. 13. Alejandro Mayorkas, “Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee,” 28 April 2022, accessed on 15 March 2023. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=1c_MZVP_Dys.

Pyrrhic Victories

107

14. Priscilla Alvarez, “Border chief disputes DHS has ‘operational control’ of the entire US southern border,” CNN, 15 March 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/15/politics/border-control-hearing/index.html. 15. Alejandro Mayorkas, “Secretary Mayorkas Outlines His Vision for Cybersecurity Resilience,” 31 March 2021, accessed on 29 February 2023. https://www.dhs.gov/ news/2021/03/31/secretary-mayorkas-outlines-his-vision-cybersecurity-resilience. 16. Ibid. 17. Crystalina Evert, “Election Day 2022: Here’s what we know about Catholic voters,” accessed on 28 January 2023. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ news/252757/election-day-2022-here-s-what-we-know-about-catholic-voters. 18. Catholic for Choice, Who We Are – Catholics for Choice. https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/who-we-are. 19. See: Catholics for Choice (catholicsforchoice.org), Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice (rcrc.org), SisterSong (sistersong.net), National Council of Jewish Women (ncjw.org), National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice (latinainstitute.org), and Faith Aloud (faithaloud.org). 20. Catholics for Choice, quoted from the Public Religion Research Institute (www.prri.org), July 2022. 21. Elizabeth Dias, “Catholic Bishops in US Elect Leaders Amid Abortion Battle,” New York Times, 16 November 2022, A13. 22. Representative Jerrold Nadler, “Respect for Marriage Act,” H. R. 8404. https:// www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404. 23. Christopher A. Wray, Testimony Before the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, “Threats to the Homeland,”17 November 2022, 14–15, accessed on 27 January 2023. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ Testimony-Wray-2022-11-17.pdf. 24. Ibid. 25. Mary Margaret Olohan, “After 160 Attacks on Churches and Pregnancy Centers, FBI Hasn’t Arrest a Single Person,” Life News, accessed on 28 January 2023. https://www.lifenews.com/2022/10/19/after-160-attacks-on-churches-andpregnancy-centers-fbi-hasnt-arrested-a-single-person. 26. “More than 100 Pro-life Organizations, Churches Attacked since Dobbs Leak,” accessed on 25 January 2023. https://www.foxnews.com/ politics/100-pro-life-orgs-churches-attacked-dobbs-leak.

Chapter Five

Leading and Governing

Ideally, political power in a democratic government is vested in the person who is elected as the leader. As a result, that individual is empowered to make decisions, create policies, set priorities, as well as establish a political and personal agenda through a constitutional infrastructure. Getting to that leadership position, however, is a long, hard road and becomes even more difficult to travel when the leader must make good on promises and govern. Read any president’s memoirs. Campaign managers and consultants pave the way to the White House by selling a candidate to voters like a tube of toothpaste. They build a “brand” to show the uniqueness of their clients. They define them succinctly. “He kept us out of war,” told of the peace commitment of Woodrow Wilson; “HOPE,” characterized the optimism of Barak Obama and “It’s the economy, stupid!” explained the agenda of Bill Clinton. The bottom line of campaign hocus-pocus is that the road to victory might start with uniqueness and smart words, but it does not necessarily end with competence. Take for example, the main tactics of campaign teams: optics and communications to make candidates seem accessible and human. They hold rallies. They go on television. They Tweet. And yes, they still kiss babies. They try to show that their candidate is a relatable person, rather than emphasizing the individual’s expertise, experience, and gumption to do what needs to be done when it comes to governing the country. This campaign approach is designed to get voters to identify with the humanity of the candidate and eventually bond with that person; to give the impression that the concerns of various constituencies are the same those of the candidate who is running. In a larger sense, however, consultants have a deeper intention: to apply the candidates’ compatibility with “Joe Six Pack” or others to larger values such as patriotism, social justice, law and order, or possibly, compassion—as the underlying justification to vote for their particular candidate. But every leader who has ever been elected cannot just follow a simple campaign template to get elected. Their campaigns must acknowledge 109

110

Chapter Five

problems and provide solutions within a national context. This is because every candidate who becomes the President is ultimately limited by the legislation of the Congress, the rulings of Supreme Court, and the power of unelected organizations such as big tech, the media, banks, universities, labor, big pharma, and various lobbyists. Add to this, the changing ideological, moral, social, economic, and political views of the times, and in the end, the choice of a candidate for president is essentially a personal, values-oriented decision. It is a choice created by consultants and activists designed to mold the voter’s perception that their candidate is the only one able to represent their own concerns. While elections justify governing, the actual preparation for running the White House begins the day after the election. That is when the complexity of setting priorities and agendas meets the reality of presidential policymaking, formulation, and implementation. Taken together, these aspects of governing are often considered as the bases for deciding if a president is going to be judged as successful or transformational or, simply, an adequate leader. This happens in the United States because an election empowers the President to do extraordinary things. As the country’s leader, the President can issue executive orders or mandates, hire and fire those who are meant to carry out his policies, and direct the bureaucracy to implement every aspect of his agenda. These actions, of themselves, institutionalize presidential initiatives and policies while in office and does not allow opponents to countermand them. While governing grants political prerogatives to the President, it also puts personal responsibilities on the leader as well. It is a truism in politics that success has many parents, but failure is an orphan. In many instances, a president is often independent but limited in governing and as the leader, must continually try to enhance his own position by playing a major part in program formulation. He can initiate substantive as well as management changes in specific policies, as President Biden has done on matters of abortion and immigration. So far, however, no one is claiming a parental relationship for any of these policies. Governing, then, is real, and often lonely. It goes beyond the promises and rhetoric of the candidate and requires the hard work of making good on pledges. History has shown that it involves an innovative process created with, and carried out by, a knowledgeable group of people led by the president. In short, governing is different from an election because rather than being individually led, it is a group, plan-oriented effort designed to help all people in need of specific government help. This occurs through policy formulation, that is, when a particular situation, event or crisis arises that needs an incremental or complete solution. It involves recognizing the problem, and then getting input for ways to deal

Leading and Governing

111

with it from stakeholders, experts, and interest groups. Led by the President or his appointees, they can also employ appropriate agencies or individuals who can assess the validity or effectiveness of the processes that they have developed and make changes as appropriate, and often limited. Studies about policy development emphasize the importance of the actions of the creators and implementers of plans or programs. They point out that such people must be able to communicate strategies and tactics within their groups and the elected leader, connect with key partners, especially legislators, and figure out clear steps to make change happen. In short, they must be capable of creating, analyzing, and generating solutions. To do this however, they must be willing to consult with others, even opponents, and be able to deal with a performance monitoring and evaluation of themselves. To put such a policy team together is obviously no easy task for any leader, President Biden included. PRESIDENTIAL ATTRIBUTES: LEADERSHIP Most scholars who examine leadership constructs conclude that they are based on a foundational philosophy.1 That is, they conclude that what a president believes the role of government is, what its priorities should be, as well as his own understanding of how to attain them, determine the type of leadership he will pursue and implement. Doris Kearns Goodwin, the Pulitzer Prize presidential historian, has offered guidance on this subject, by analyzing the basic attributes a president must have to lead effectively. Using case studies, she examined Abraham Lincoln and his ability to deal with slavery and the Civil war. She wrote about Theodore Roosevelt, who walked softly, carried a big stick, and still won the Nobel Peace Prize; Franklin Roosevelt, who in hundred days got the depression under control and then later helped to win World War II. She described the actions of Lyndon Johnson, as well, who dealt with the challenges of the Viet Nam War and the evolution of civil rights.2 Goodwin contends that presidents who have successfully handled these critical issues in American history possessed similar traits and behaviors. Through her research, she provided evidence that they were each committed to values such as humility, empathy, resilience, and courage. Beyond this, Goodwin stressed their ability to maintain their energy, listen to diverse opinions, control negative impulses, connect with all manner of people, communicate through stories, and keep their word. She wrote that this is brought the country forward. Just as importantly, however, she also maintained that a country must have a shared political truth. This, she concluded, provides unity, and gives

112

Chapter Five

direction to the country even with different leaders when conditions and situations change. The search for a lasting vision, then, can also be considered as necessary and justifies the expectation of many Americans, especially those who want to see President Biden succeed and be transformative. But the jury is still out on both his vision and his legacy. Richard Pious, another renowned presidential scholar, also sheds light on the potential for a President’s future success. Based on his own studies of leadership. Pious looked at governing from a different perspective and asks: Why do presidents fail?3 Drawing on several major policy errors as examples, he pointed out surprising reasons. He argued that some former presidents often misused their constitutional powers for their own personal agendas, or agreed with Congress on new legislation that failed, went public at the wrong time on certain matters, or instead, operated secretly behind closed doors. Pious concludes that these presidential errors happened at both the start of first terms as well as after they had some experience in the White House. How true! One only needs to look at John Kennedy’s incursion at the Bay of Pigs, and Richard Nixon’s cover-up of Watergate. Pious’ extensive case studies, thus, led him to conclude that there are “black holes,” or singularities of presidential decision-making that defy the usual laws of politics, and that there is any such a thing as presidential “business as usual.” Richard E. Neustadt, both a presidential staffer and an academic at Columbia University, looked at the presidency from a power perspective. He wrote about the importance of being on top of the political system in name as well as, in fact. He showed, through case studies as well, that the personal influence of the leader to persuade and use ones’ professional prestige and reputation could bring about bi-partisan policies, and that doing so could bring energy to government. Neustadt also showed, from his days at the White House, that others need the president’s initiatives and that they create an important dependence on him. In short, he argued that innovative presidential public policies can become a leader’s governing advantage—if he meets the needs of the people.4 Others assess Presidential leadership from a management perspective. They agree with historians that leaders must have a strong vision for the country’s future, but also say that it is important for them to put their projections into the context of history even if their views are different from those around them. As difficult as it seems, they must also have the courage to make unpopular decisions. Lincoln never disavowed the Emancipation Proclamation or the just cause of the Civil War. Truman never second guessed dropping the atomic bomb in World War II, instead, he is remembered for his willingness to take responsibility by the famous sign on his desk: “The Buck Stops Here.”

Leading and Governing

113

On top of this, presidents are expected to have crisis management skills, character and integrity, the sense to make wise appointments, and the ability to work with Congress, leading some to wonder if a president is supposed to be a saint, a guru, or a mind-reader! One leadership consultant put these expectations into simple terms. She claimed that her firm looks to help leaders of all kinds, and mentor them to “uncover their individual potential—their truth, [emphasis added] which is what the journey is all about.5 So, what is the “truth” as some consultants call it? Is it absolute, the result of contemplation and thoughtful judgement? Or something else? Is it a personal interpretation of the truth? Ethicists, who deal with such complex questions, and others who see personal values as an inherent part of political leadership, maintain that normative questions can be asked to assess a president’s capacity and willingness to make difficult decisions. They argue that political values broadly include a commitment to freedom, democracy, sovereignty, security, equality, education, health, and inclusion; the principles that leaders use today to justify political policies and decisions. The political scientist, A. J. Simmons,6 cautious of a total reliance on such values, claims that if undefined, unchecked, and couched within larger notions of patriotism, they can also lead to an unquestioned nationalism, self- righteousness, and militarism. He argues that this could potentially result in public cynicism and a total rejection of civil loyalty. Political values, then, according to Simmons, should apply to a commitment to ones’ community rather than to a leader or a party. And, he maintains that such actions should be implemented with a sense of impartial morality, a love of liberty and a belief in the worthiness of governmental institutions and its authorities.7 On the other hand, sociologists, such as Robert Bellah,8 argue that political values can also lead to a “civil religion.” He says that American values are influenced by religion, and that ideas about God and human goodness are imperatives shared by every American. His supporters would agree, by pointing to the fact that these norms are a remnant of Puritan thinking. But it is also worthwhile to add the influence of the Protestant “social gospel,” the Quaker commitment to pacifism, Evangelical support for school prayer and creationism, Catholic programs for social reconstruction, and Jewish support for civil rights. In simpler, more concrete terms, however, civil religion in the United States can be interpreted as a type of public, cultural heritage. In the United States, such a religion could be understood as a profession of faith in a public dogma, such as the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution; or one that consists of rites such as elections and singing the National Anthem, and portrayed as rituals through events such as national

114

Chapter Five

holidays. Thus, civil religion can also be considered as a creed, a series of beliefs that provide a sense of belonging to people and a means to harmonize both religious and political beliefs. In this sense, the practice or commitment to such a heritage can help legitimize political loyalty, and provide support for a path of righteousness. It was how President Lincoln thought, and why Dr. Martin Luther King could use his pulpit to challenge Americans about segregation. Thus, some contend that civil religion, today, can be used to also include both a civil and a religious commitment to the oppressed and the marginalized. Other sociologists such as Robert Wuthnow,9 however, raise a red flag and fear that civil religion can lead to an idolatrous worship of the state and a righteous duty to redeem the rest of the world. Such beliefs, he argues lead to splits among ideologues who advance conservative and liberal notions of political holiness and a sense of moral legitimacy. Thus, the relationship between political leadership and a president’s values is still a matter of debate. This could be the result of many varying characterizations of political leadership that overlook, and even unconsciously denigrate, another aspect of political leadership that also has critical significance. It is known as “servant leadership,” a paradigm developed by Robert K. Greenleaf.10 His work focused on leadership that was concerned, primarily, with the growth and well-being of individuals and their communities. He contended that the means to do this was by putting their needs first, and helping them to develop and to perform to their maximum potential. Greenleaf challenged the conventional top-to-bottom leadership strategy in management and instead put the demands of subordinates ahead of their own agendas. He called on the servant leader to foster an atmosphere in which everyone feels valued. He wrote: . . . This my thesis: caring for persons, the more able and the less able serving each other, is the rock upon which a good society is built. Whereas, until recently, caring was largely person to person, now most of it is mediated through institutions—often large, complex, powerful, impersonal; not always competent; sometimes corrupt. If a better society is to be built, one that is more just and more loving, one that provides greater creative opportunity for its people, then the most open course is to raise both the capacity to serve and the very performance as servant of existing major institutions by new regenerative forces operating within them.11

Perhaps, even more pertinent to this examination of the political leadership of President Biden as a Catholic, are Catholic religious teachings on service

Leading and Governing

115

as well. They can provide principles to help politicians such as him focus on moral-political quandaries they will face during their tenure. American Catholic theologians, as mentioned earlier, weighed on this issue by focusing on the need to broaden Catholic values and the role that they should play in the development of the U.S. political agenda.12 What some might call a form of political theology, they began to move from narrow, interpretations of life issues to discussions of larger social justice concerns. They began to call for the Church to inject moral values into matters such as human rights, disarmament, and the economy. In 1984, Joseph Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago also addressed the issue of the role of political values in political leadership at a conference at Fordham University in New York City. His views broadened Church interests and involvement as part of a unified concern for all life. He argued: If one contends, as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus, then our moral, political, and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. Such a quality-of- life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care. Consistency means we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.13

Pope Francis has become a major teacher and exponent of such values. After his election as Pope, he put his ideas forward and in one speech particularly, where his words served as the basis for a homily in 2016. He opened an inquiry into the question of political leadership, a matter that had been equated mainly with administration, responsibilities, and collaboration with government in many parts of the world, especially in Latin America, but also increasingly in Asia, and Africa. He brought the discussion to a higher level, by looking at leadership through the lens of service. As his pastoral approach evolved, Pope Francis officially broadened the view of political involvement, moral consistency and coherence, the Church’s main responsibilities of Catholic politicians, to a new internal conversation among Catholics. He asked a seminal question: what is a leader? Pope Francis answered much like Greenleaf did: that such a person is a servant.14,15 The Pontiff, however, supporting such a role, also cautioned that the desire for

116

Chapter Five

power and money are obstacles that can keep leaders from the true freedom and that can only be found when serving others. In the traditional thinking of Pope Francis’s religious order, the Jesuits, he also added a new dimension to the discussion of leadership. He counseled those in power to consider “discernment” as a condition of their need to govern as well in their decision-making. He emphasized that discernment is: . . . itself as an exercise of intelligence, and also of skill and also of will, to seize the opportune moment: these are the conditions for making a good choice. It takes intelligence, skill, and also will to make a good choice. And there is also a price required for discernment to become effective . . . Everyone has to make decisions; there is no one to make them for us. At a certain point, adults can freely ask for advice, reflect, but the decision is our own . . . and for this reason, it is important to know how to discern . . . The Gospel suggests another important aspect of discernment: it involves the emotions. It is the joy of those who have found the Lord. Making a good decision, a right decision, always leads you to that final joy; perhaps along the way you have to suffer a bit of uncertainty, thinking, seeking, but in the end the right decision blesses you with joy . . . And in a good decision . . . there is an encounter between God’s will and our will; there is an encounter between the present path and the eternal . . . So: knowledge, experience, emotion, will . . . Discernment . . . involves hard work . . . we do not find set before us, pre-packaged, the life we want to live. We have to decide it all the time, according to the reality that comes. God invites us to evaluate and choose: He created us free and wants us to exercise our freedom. Therefore, discerning is demanding . . . Discernment is that reflection of the mind, of the heart, that we have to do before making a decision . . . To learn to live, one must learn to love, and for this it is necessary to discern: what can I do now, faced with this alternative? Let it be a sign of greater love, of greater maturity in love.16

Again, his recent encyclical, Tutti Fratelli,17 Pope Francis repeated his call for a better type of politics and politician. He maintained that both should be based on the biblical model of the Good Samaritan and emulate the traveler’s three actions with the stranger: dialogue, encounter, and solidarity. In the encyclical, the Pope first calls on political leaders practice a type of dialogue that recognizes and respects the valuable contributions of conflicting points of view. Second, he says that personal encounters are rooted in a sense of belonging and foster reconciliation through open, honest, and patient negotiation. And third, Francis holds that practicing solidarity is a way for leaders to practice thinking and acting in terms of community, thus recognizing the rights and privileges of being human. He reminds everyone in his writing that the dignity of others is to be respected in all circumstances because human beings possess an intrinsic worth that comes from God.

Leading and Governing

117

Realistically, as well, Pope Francis also recognizes that perfection does not exist. He does believe, however, that hope in a better life, does. Thus, he prayerfully reminds people that God continues to send seeds of goodness to members of the human family so that they can work for the common good. Thus, by the inclusion of discernment in decision-making, Pope Francis has moved the notion of leadership beyond the Catholic realm of required responsibilities such as political involvement, moral consistency, eucharistic coherence, and public witness. Instead, he has broadened the role of a leader to encompass more humane aspects of governance such as the need for inclusive dialogue, personal encounters, and communal thinking. Such a different leadership paradigm could possibly help to remove both division and partisanship, and provide a template for needed unity in the world of politics. This is especially true in the US where issues such as abortion and immigration are becoming totally non-negotiable. Just recently, Pope Francis’s views on servant leadership were discussed at Harvard Law School in a symposium that presented a realistic approach to negotiating critical issues in politics. An article written by Alex Green18 applied the role of servant leadership through a case study of global interests and negotiations on climate change. Green interpreted the Pontiff’s encyclical, Laudatudo Si,19 which dealt with environmental justice, as an example of how to view solutions that seem to have no resolution. Green pointed to the need to stress issues rather than positions; to focus on the obscured interests of those in need rather than the personalities of those representing them, and to expand values especially as they can affect more expansive collective ones.20 Today, then, political, ethical, business, and religious models of Presidential decision-making are focusing on how a leader can unite disparate ideas and parties, with positive transformation being the most significant result. It is also the most needed requirement and responsibility placed on whoever holds the highest office in the United States. This is still s quandary, however, for Joe Biden, who remains unable to accomplish unifying goals as a Catholic, a Democrat and a pragmatist. How can he incorporate and use the advice of the experts mentioned above to bring his politics beyond partisanship?” All these studies provide clues and have one thing central theme: the need for every president to use his leadership skills to pursue a higher order of governance. It must be one devoid of extremism and partisanship and infused, instead, with compassion, conversation, compatibility, and collaboration. Some Church-State scholars call this paradigm, the practice of “prophetic politics.” It is a leadership model that is found in antiquity, when religion, culture, and politics were intertwined. Religious leadership and spiritual rule were embodied in one person then, when the roles of king and high priest

118

Chapter Five

were singular and symbiotic. In the past, there was often little distinction between the sacred and the secular, and it was the prophets, who were inspired by God, often showed rulers Among thee visionaries who saw the relationship between the prophetic and the political, Neal Riemer, in his seminal work, The Future of the Democratic Revolution: Toward a More Prophetic Politics,21 made a valuable argument. He claimed that only a transcendent, universal politics can transform the struggle for power into a rational means to implement civilizing values such as peace, human rights, economic well- being, and environmental justice. According to him, this could be done in three ways. First, by openly articulating a commitment to transcendent and constitutional values. Second, by a fearless critique of existing political structures. And third, by a search for creative breakthroughs to solve the problems of humankind. These goals, of course, led to realistic political questions. Can and do such goals and ideals transcend a politician’s own beliefs and party? Indeed, are such achievements the greatest measure of success? A practitioner of this type of leadership could be seen in Pope John Paul II, who is credited by scholars22 and politicians, alike, as the man who brought down communism in much of the world. The pontiff was able to make major prophetic change by castigating past dictators such as Fernando Marcos of the Philippines and Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire for their treatment of the poor, supporting workers’ rights as he did in Poland with his aid to the union, Solidarity, and instituting outreach to marginalized people in parts of the world that had been left without hope. He pursued pastoral teaching through his 18 encyclicals and global engagement with over 180 states, participating in international organizations and using the geopolitical platform of the Vatican to call for governments to embrace peace, human rights, and social justice. Both President Biden and the Catholic leadership, working together, can achieve such prophetic, political goals. But both the leaders of Church and State must want to work together for a unified purpose and similar values. For his part, President Biden can start such a collaboration by restoring trust in government. This could be the start of creating a positive attitude within the public that can develop a social consensus on the two most contentious domestic policies in the United States; abortion and immigration. The Pew Research Center, in a study of the American political system,23 found that the level of personal trust in government is based on race, ethnicity, age, education and views of the federal government and the media. Responders believed that both institutions withhold important and useful information and cause them to question the truth of what elected officials say. How can such a sense of bewilderment be rectified?

Leading and Governing

119

TRANSPARENCY TO TRUST For President Biden to begin to be a transformative leader, one with a vision, a man who can unite the public and prove his commitment to serve the common good, he must make basic personal changes. The first is his need to communicate through what is called a type of rhetorical leadership. Martin J. Medhurst,24 discusses the difference between wisdom and eloquence and the need to use proper imagery, style, metaphors, and analogies as president. It is important, he says, to achieve a specific goal with a particular audience. But a president’s philosophy, personal characteristics and relationships can often place constraints on his ability to get things done. Accordingly, lacking in such skills or using trickery and lies can only end with opposition, greater negative narratives, and the need for greater discourse. With the issue of immigration specifically, the President must clearly explain his policies and goals to the American public by articulating answers to difficult questions from voters as well as unelected power brokers. These include parties such as the media, religious leaders, lobbyists, and other critics. The President cannot ignore questions or refuse to hold press conferences. The public wants to know if or how his policies affect them personally. Are the President’s policies based on his religious beliefs? Are they purely humanitarian? Is immigration a first or secondary priority on his political agenda? Why has the President refused to visit the southern border? Do his goals have a partisan purpose to gain voters? More broadly, is the President aware of the social and economic implications of his actions? Has he been duped by some who have ulterior motives? Is he a truly compassionate man who is living out his moral beliefs within the political process that he controls? At the same time, the Catholic leadership, if it wants to continue to work with the president on immigration policy and services must provide answers for its motives too. What responsibility is the Church willing to assume for welfare, education, and the health of migrants? Is the Church willing to forgo American sovereignty, security, as well as law and order for compassion? Does it put the needs of migrants over citizens and other immigrants who used legal means to enter the United States? How does the Church intend to help lessen human trafficking and drug wars that accompany illegal immigration? Is the Catholic Church willing to support President Biden in his quest for transparency, consistency and hopes for reconciliation? Is there an ideological split within the hierarchy as well as the hierarchy and the laity that mitigates against Church authorities playing a more critical role in trying to influence immigration policy? The USCCB and Catholic NGO’s must also be more transparent. Who are these agencies exactly? What do they do? How much government funding do

120

Chapter Five

they get? Why? Are they working at the border to gain adherents? What is expected of them in return? The public needs to know these, and other questions, as opposition to immigration grows daily. The important policy question, however, is whether politicians and religious leaders are willing to assess, in real time, how their policies are working or failing. TRUTH AND CLARITY: THE BEGINNING To bring Church and State together on abortion and immigration, Biden and Church leaders must be clear and transparent in order to gain trust for their policies. On the one hand, the President cannot pretend to support the Church and his personal sense of Catholicism while, on the other, carry out a political policy that is essentially designed to obliterate his religion’s most basic precept, that is, the protection of life for all. Such actions lead to distrust. The promise of George H. Bush serves as a reminder. While campaigning, he told the public, “read my lips: no new taxes.” But into his first term, the President proceeded to do just the opposite when economic difficulties occurred. It cost him a second term, and he publicly regretted his decision for losing the trust of the voters. A similar situation occurred just recently. President Biden was confronted by a reporter on Twitter who claimed that Catholic bishops were demanding federal money be withheld to fund abortions.25 The President responded that bishops were not doing that, nor was the Pope. Immediately, however, he found himself rebuked by Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas who accused Biden of twisting the words of the Pope. The Bishop implored “the Vatican press office to emphatically clarify that Pope Francis rightly calls abortion murder. It is time to denounce Biden’s fake Catholicism.”26 The President’s words caused disdain among many within the Church leadership who see the President’s ambiguous and often incorrect statements as duplicitous at best. His attempts to protect his religion while still using every available executive action and government agency to advance his pro-choice views and open immigration policies only encourage distrust within the Catholic hierarchy. The Catholic leadership as well, must be clear, transparent, and able to instill trust with its adherents. Mario Cuomo, the former Catholic governor of New York tried to find an answer to the similar moral-political quandary that faces President Biden, but rightly, also questioned the motives of its leadership. In a major address at Notre Dame University, the Governor asked if Americans should allow their religious values into the conduct of public affairs. Admitting that questions of values were too broad to cover all issues

Leading and Governing

121

and could not provide a definitive answer, he did say that including religious values would: . . . create our public morality through consensus and in this country that consensus reflects to some extent religious values of a great majority of Americans. But [if]“no,” all religiously based values don’t have an a priori place in our public morality. The community must decide if what is being proposed would be better left to private discretion than public policy; whether it restricts freedoms, and if so to what end, to whose benefit; whether it will produce a good or bad result; whether overall it will help the community or merely divide it.

At the same time, Cuomo recognized that there is a difference in degree and quality in life and death issues, as opposed to other problems. Therefore, he believed in the need to respect Church leaders and the need for careful consideration to engage the political system as part of public morality, doctrine, or prudential political judgment. But Cuomo’s problem of trying to make political decisions for the good of all, did not stop him from excusing religious authorities to make appropriate responses to abortion. He made the question of resolving Church-State relations even more difficult by challenging the Catholic leadership. He asked the hierarchy if the Church were asking government to make criminal what it believed to be sinful because the Church could not stop committing the sin itself. He maintained that the failure to stop abortion was not the state’s responsibility, but the Church’s. His answer? Pastoral responses. We should provide funds and opportunity for young women to bring their child to term, knowing both of them will be taken care of if that is necessary; we should teach our young men better than we do now their responsibilities in creating and caring for human life. . . . Without lessening their insistence on a woman’s right to an abortion, the people who call themselves “pro-choice” can support the development of government programs that present an impoverished mother with the full range of support she needs to bear and raise her children, to have a real choice. Without dropping their campaign to ban abortion, those who gather under the banner of “pro-life” can join in developing and enacting a legislative bill of rights for mothers and children, as the bishops have already proposed. . . . Approval or rejection of legal restrictions on abortion should not be the exclusive litmus test of Catholic loyalty. We should understand that whether abortion is outlawed or not, our work has barely begun: the work of creating a society where the right to life doesn’t end at the moment of birth; where an infant isn’t helped into a world that doesn’t care if it’s fed properly, housed decently, educated adequately; where the blind or retarded child isn’t condemned to exist rather than empowered to live. . . . We can be fully Catholic; proudly, totally at ease with ourselves, a people in the world, transforming it, a light to this nation. Appealing to the best in our people not the worst. Persuading

122

Chapter Five

not coercing. Leading people to truth by love. And, all the while, respecting and enjoying our unique pluralistic democracy. And we can do it even as politicians.27

Although Cuomo’s answer to the religious-political quandary of abortion for Catholic politicians was far from definitive or adequate for those who came after him, it gave rise to a discussion that had not been broached before so publicly. It also appeared as the only plausible answer for John Kerry, a Catholic, who ran for the presidency in 2004. Challenging the incumbent, George W. Bush, and his opponent’s support for a culture of life, Kerry supported abortion rights instead, for adult women and minors as well as the holding in Roe v Wade. Trying to defend his position, Kerry tried to show that his personal views were in line with his Catholic faith, a mistake that he could not overcome. At the same time, he also maintained that the principle of separation of church and state demanded that he not impose his religious beliefs through legislation on those who disagreed with him. That stance is the one that President Biden follows today. Questioned about some Catholic archbishops who said that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate because he supported a woman’s right to choose, Kerry answered: I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many. I can’t legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn’t share that article of faith. I believe that choice is a woman’s choice. It’s between a woman, God and her doctor. That’s why I support that. I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.”28

The quandary, however, is even more complex today with the holding in Dobbs and the advances in modern medicine, specifically the ability to have an abortion by pill. Legal and scientific stumbling blocks that existed for the last 50 years have been removed, giving states the right to make constitutional changes on abortion, as well as federal and corporate funding that pays for the travel of pregnant women to states that allow abortion. These changes opened the door for a potential unifying policy to allow freedom to both states and individual women to make choices about their futures. Questions of appointments are also part of the leadership and governance equation. Dealing with personal responsibilities and beliefs within a political context does not have to paralyze the leadership of presidents. Scholars such as I. Thomas Wren and Terry Price,29 point out that there are important linkages between leaders and social actors that can clarify government intentions and policies to work toward, and attain, political end-values Starting from

Leading and Governing

123

that premise, it is also possible to articulate and examine the interactions between the president and his appointees to determine if their connections help or hinder his values, policies, and agendas. In a broader sense, they can also help establish a paradigm for leading and governing to establish trust, transparency, and unity within an administration. The criticisms of the President’s misuse of Harris’ abilities and assignments, and allowing Mayorkas’ questionable handling of the events at the border continue to serve as a valid indictment of Biden’s poor leadership. The wise use of appointments is a critical part of governing, and in both the Harris and Mayorkas appointments, the buck does stop with the elected person sitting behind the desk. To restore trust in his leadership, then, President Biden must make a hard decision: to appoint more competent individuals who can assist him to carry out a potential, needed, evolving policy for the sake of his own presidency and unity of the country. OUTREACH, FLEXIBILITY, AND EVOLUTION Current history provides models of major policy changes that have been accomplished by Presidents who have pursued outreach and flexibility while progressing politically and personally during their terms in office. Taken together, these behavioral transformations have bridged social mores and political ones; judicial standards with religious concerns, and injected personal beliefs into public culture. One need only look to Franklin Delano Roosevelt for such an example. Coming into office during an economic depression and an impending war in Europe, he was able to envision and implement a “new deal” for America. It was based, first, on relief for the unemployed by social legislation and welfare programs; second, by the recovery of the economy through federal spending and job creation, and third, by the reform of capitalism through regulatory legislation. These innovative economic solutions to festering as well as impending problems enabled him to overcome serious challenges to the most critical aspects of American life and politics during his presidency. At the same time, he was able to see the criticality of working with others to do this. His “kitchen cabinet,” along with his political advisors, and religious organizations made these policies happen. There is a lesson here for President Biden. During the tumult of the Roosevelt presidency, the government, for the first time, co-operated with the National Catholic Welfare Council of Bishops, as it was known at the time. Together, they provided US ships and relief goods during World War II. The Church provided portage and distributed nearly 129 million dollars of food and other necessities during both the war and for post war efforts.30 This helped

124

Chapter Five

to create a positive relationship between Church and State, one that was reenforced by FDR’s appointment of Myron Taylor as the U. S. Representative to the Vatican during his tenure. President Carter, as well, was able to overcome his perceived southern conservative Baptist persona by pursuing pragmatism and an evangelical belief in a “born again” redemption. In his quest for the presidency and during his years in office, he worked to change the political environment created by Governor George Wallace and the other political segregationists who preceded him. He supported the Voting Rights Act of l965. He listened and learned from new political voices, specifically by engaging with blacks in the South. After his election as president, he went even further, establishing a foreign policy based on human rights, opposing oppressive Soviet emigration regulations, and welcoming dissidents to the U.S. He established the Office of Human Rights and Foreign Affairs within the State Department and put American foreign policy on a new footing by injecting constitutional concern and moral considerations as an essential and integral part of decision making for the common good of all. President Biden can also change policies that divide the nation if he chooses to do so. But he must instill trust in his motives, remove existential fear and hyperbole in his rhetoric, and cease to give credibility to those who would continue to divide the public. He can do this because he has “agency,” that is, the power of policy. He can pursue centrist legislation as the political leader of his party; foster bi-partisan approaches to abortion and immigration as a pragmatist, and values that reflect ethical, and moral standards in keeping with his personal religious views. The Catholic leadership can also make political changes as well. It can qualify or remove its political rigidity and policies hidden within its religious claims of infallibility. Pope Francis is key here. He can persuade the Catholic leadership to pursue values rooted in dogma, but not discouraged by it. He can exhort religious subordinates to move toward reconciliation, a process that will enable the Church to provide unity on the contentious issues of abortion and immigration. NOTES 1. Terry L. Price and J. Thomas Wren, The Values of Presidential Leadership. (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007), p. 216. 2. Doris Kearns Goodwin, Leadership: In Turbulent Times, (New York: Simon and Shuster, 2018). Doris Kearns Goodwin, “6 Essential Traits a President Needs.” https:// www.history.com/topics/doris-kearns-goodwin-on-presidential-leadership. Also see: Team of Rivals, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005).

Leading and Governing

125

3. Richard M. Pious, Why Presidents Fail: White House Decision Making from Eisenhower to Bush II, (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008). Accessed on 12 February 2023, https:​//​www​.jstor​.org​/stable​/40574651. Also reprinted at the archives at Buffalo University. “Why Do Presidents Fail?” accessed on 12 February 2023, p. 725. https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/PiousPresFailPresSQ.pdf. 4. Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power. (New York: Signet Books, 1960), p. 174. 5. Garcia, Deseri, “9 Things Great Presidents and Leaders Have in Common,” 14 August 2019, accessed on 6 February 2023. https://vidaaventura.net/about. 6.A. John Simmons, “Patriotic Leadership,” in Terry L. Price and J. Thomas Wren, The Values of Presidential Leadership. (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007) 7. Ibid., Chapter 2. 8. Robert N. Bellah, “Civil Religion in America,” Daedalus,  96, No. 1, Winter 1967, accessed on 25 February 2023, pp. 1–21. 9. Robert Wuthnow, The Restructuring of American Religion, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). 10. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, “What is Servant Leadership?” https:// www.greenleaf.org/what-is-servant-leadership/​​​​​​​. 11. Ibid. 12. See for example: David Hollenbach, Claims in Conflict (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1979). J. Bryan Hehir, “There’s No Deterring the Catholic Bishops,” in Ethics and International Affairs 3(1): 277–96; and John Coleman, An American Strategic Theology, (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1979). 13. Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, “A Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic Dialogue.” This address was published in Consistent Ethic of Life: Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, ed. Thomas Fuechtmann et. al., (Sheed and Ward, 1988), pp.1–2. https:// www.hnp.org/publications/hnpfocus/BConsistentEthic1983.pdf​​​​​​​. 14. Hannah Brockhaus, “What is a leader, really? A Servant, Pope Francis Says,” 8 November 2016, accessed on 23 February 2023. https://www.catholicnewsagency. com/news/34888/what-is-a-leader-really-a-servant-pope-francis-says. 15. Robert K. Greenleaf, The Power of Servant Leadership, (Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, l998). 16. Pope Francis, “Speech at General Audience.” 31 August 2022, accessed on 18 February 2023. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2022/ documents/20220831-udienza-generale.html. 17. Pope Francis, Tutti Fratelli, 3 October 2020, accessed on 22 February 2023. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html. 18. Alex Green, “Pope Francis and the Benefits of Servant Leadership in Negotiations,” 5 September 2019, accessed on 20 February 2023. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/leadership-skills-daily/ pope-francis-and-the-benefits-of-servant-leadership-in-negotiations/.

126

Chapter Five

19. Pope Francis, Laudatudo Si, 24 May 2015, accessed on 20 February 2023. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html. 20. Green, op. cit. 21. Neal Riemer, The Future of Democratic Revolution: Toward a More Prophetic Politics, (New York: Praeger, l984). 22. See for example: Jo Renee Formicola, John Paul II: Prophetic Politician, (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2002). 23. Lee Rainie, Scott Keeter and Andres Perrin, “Trust and Distrust in America.” Pew Research Center, 22 July 2019, accessed on 25 February 2023. https://www. pewresearch.org/politics/2019/07/22/trust-and-distrust-in-america/. 24. Martin J. Medhurst, “Rhetorical Leadership and the Presidency: A Situational Taxonomy,” in Wren and Price, op. cit., pp. 50–60. 25. Jean Mondoro, “Bishop Strickland slams Biden for ‘aggressively denying his Catholic faith’ with abortion advocacy,” 23 January 2023, accessed on 15 Feburary 2023. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-strickland-slams-biden-for-aggressively-denying-his-catholic-faith-with-abortion-advocacy/. 26. @gregprice11 on X (formerly known as Twitter) on 11 January 2023. 27. Governor Mario Cuomo, “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor's Perspective,” 13 September 1984, accessed on 1 February 2023. https:// archives.nd.edu/sitemap/index.htm. 28. “On the Issues,” Third Bush-Kerry Debate, 13 October 2004, accessed on 26 February 2023. https://www.ontheissues.org/Social/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm. 29. Wren and Price, op. cit., p. 215. 30. Jo Renee Formicola, The Catholic Church and Human Rights, (Garland Publishing: New York, 1988), p. 23. Interview with Bishop Edward Swanstrom, 20 May 1980.

Chapter Six

Epilogue

This epilogue is a summary of how Joe Biden, the second Catholic president, has led and governed the United States on the issues of immigration and abortion, two policies that are of critical importance to the social doctrines of his church. He has been at odds with the teachings of Catholicism, given little to no visible consideration to balancing his beliefs with his political agenda, and placed his partisan interests above the moral compass of this country. The termination of Title 42 served as the impetus and opportunity for the Committee on Homeland Security of the Congress to hold hearings1 during June 2023 to investigate the president’s ineffective immigration policy. It scrutinized the security costs and consequences of his actions particularly as they were implemented by his DHS appointee, Alejandro Mayorkas. First, it found that the Biden administration, at the direction of the president and his most senior officials, terminated, suspended, or rolled back numerous effective border-security policies. These actions, according to the committee, created a policy of open borders, a catastrophic loss of human life and dignity, record fiscal costs to the federal and state governments, and unprecedented profits for agencies operating in Mexico to help migrants. The committee also maintained that Secretary Mayorkas, as the head of DHS, “bears . . . responsibility for the devastating crisis that has unfolded and expanded on his watch and due to his policies.2 Second, the report also provided significant information about the consequences of the Biden/Mayorkas immigration policy: that apprehensions along the Southwest border rose, that Chinese nationals increasingly crossed the northern border illegally, that Mayorkas ultimately only removed a third of the criminal aliens that he had targeted up to 2023, and that nearly 600,000 illegal aliens were released without court dates.3 Third, while the opportunity for meaningful cooperation with NGOs still existed after the termination of Title 42, the House Homeland Committee also found that, in effect, the Biden-Mayorkas policies also “empowered a vast NGO network to facilitate illegal immigration.”4 This, it maintained, served 127

128

Chapter Six

the government’s purpose of avoiding embarrassing options at overcrowded facilities, facilitated logistical support that the border patrol could not; and gave hundreds of millions of dollars through FEMA to purchase services for illegal aliens. In short, the Committee accused the president and the secretary of using the facilities and resources of the government to fund its ineffective immigration policies. President Biden’s policies, discussed in detail in chapter 3, showed how his agenda was counterintuitive to the purposes of Catholic charitable efforts. Volunteers, working in an NGO capacity, saw the problems at the border firsthand and called for comprehensive immigration reform specifically designed to eliminate human trafficking and drug smuggling. Their concerns were part of a moral rebuke that was either overlooked or simply denied by the president as he developed his own measures to implement the unchecked migration of people at the US borders. A review of events leading up to the end of Title 42 and after, shows that there were Biden policy blunders and various attempts by others to correct them. Two weeks before Title 42 was set to expire on May 11, 2023, the president announced a new plan to augment his immigration policy. He allocated $25 billion more for U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to fund new ways to deal with migrants coming from Venezuela, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Cuba. It was also meant to limit asylum for migrants if they failed to apply for protection granted by another country before reaching the United States, but the subsequent congressional investigation of that plan proved that these measures did not work. A flurry of congressional legislation also appeared around the same time to counter the growing crisis at the southern border. For example, Pramila Jayapal, (D-WA) Corey Booker, (D-NJ), Joseph Manchin, (D- WV), and Christopher Smith (R-NJ), introduced a bill in the Senate on April 19, the “Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act.”5 Essentially, it carved out exemptions and protections for anyone applying to enter the United States. It defined vulnerable migrants as persons under twenty-one or over sixty years of age; pregnant, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex; and as victims or witnesses of a crime. It called for the government to protect them for a variety of reasons, even if they had limited English-language proficiency; were not provided access to appropriate and meaningful language services; experienced severe trauma; or were survivors of torture or gender-based violence. In short, the bill allowed most migrants to enter the United States. Several weeks later, on May 2, Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla) and Congressman Tom McClintock (R-Cal) introduced the “Secure the Border Act of 2023.”6 It was a compendium of approximately twenty earlier bills that the Republican-led Homeland Security, Judiciary, and Foreign

Epilogue

129

Affairs committees passed in April in direct opposition to the earlier bill of the Democrats. Its purpose was quite simple: to secure the border and combat illegal immigration by government action. It called for the Biden administration to restart construction of the border wall; deploy technology to the southern and northern borders to counter illegal immigration; increase the number of Border Patrol agents and provide them with bonus pay; require transparency regarding illegal crossings from the Department of Homeland Security; strengthen current law to protect unaccompanied children from human trafficking; end catch and release; end abuse of executive immigration authority; as well as strengthen and streamline the asylum process.7 Its timing, however, was such that there was no way that it could be considered before the expected surge of migrants before the end of Title 42. Then, ten days before Title 42 was set to expire, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Senator Krystin Sinema (I-AZ), tried to save the president’s new immigration policy from a total disaster and the congressional infighting that had ensued during the waning days of the “Remain in Mexico” policy. They introduced a bipartisan bill to allow the government to extend a two-year window to deport illegal migrants,8 but it went nowhere. The presidential and congressional urgency that was suddenly palpable revealed that no one person or group was going to be able to fix the Biden crisis that was growing exponentially as May 11 approached. Nevertheless, there were no meetings led by the president with bipartisan congressional or religious leaders, nor input from stakeholders or volunteers to help solve the surge that was expected at the border. At this point, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas decided to take security matters to another level since his state was the main entry point for illegal migrants at the southern border. In the last four days before the expected migrant surge, Abbott approved the building of a barbed wire wall along the border between Texas and Mexico, called up a special unit of the Texas National Guard, and ordered it to turn back migrants. The Governor also placed a thousand-foot floating barrier in the middle of the Rio Grande River to hinder the continued incursion of migrants. He is currently being challenged by the Department of Justice for his actions and appeals are pending. Eight days before Title 42 was set to end, Vice President Harris, the former border czar, was named as the new artificial intelligence czar. While at a fundraiser in Georgia, Harris took no responsibility for events at the southern border that occurred on her watch. In fact, she said: “The bottom line . . . is that this issue of immigration falls squarely within the responsibility of the United States Congress.”9 Alejandro Mayorkas, due to his touted past expertise on efficiency and diversity, then, was the last man standing who was expected to implement

130

Chapter Six

President Biden’s biggest immigration shift in US history. He sent 1,500 additional border agents to the crossing areas, but the hope of them providing better security faltered when it became known that they were only there to expedite visas for those who declared themselves as vulnerable persons, asylum seekers, or victims of crimes. There were no new border agents tasked with arresting illegal migrants or securing the border. The day before the closure of the border, Mayorkas appeared on television to blame Congress for the crisis and its lack of providing enough financial resources or personnel to stem, what he continued to call, a “challenge.10 He made no mention of his unsuccessful or ineffective tactics that he had instituted during the last year and a half to secure the safety of the migrants or the Americans who had to deal with the human trafficking or drug smuggling during his tenure as Secretary of Homeland Security. Nor was he able to disprove what the head of the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) had said up to that point: that that border was not within the government’s operational control. At the same time, thousands of migrants waited to cross into the United States, with estimates of eight thousand a day or more projected to enter until DHS could impose order. Cities along the border and other recipients of growing numbers of migrants declared emergencies: El Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville, as well as New York and Chicago. Suburban cities and counties balked at becoming default sanctuary areas for illegal migrants being sent by the federal government and governors of border states that could not accommodate them. Soon, the crisis turned into a catastrophe as major cities called for more federal money to pay for the needs of the migrants and sought places to house them. Three weeks after the end of Title 42, U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul L. Ortiz retired. Secretary Mayorkas gave the impression that they had been in complete agreement about how to deal with the border problems,11 a fact that had been challenged by Chief Ortiz’s earlier testimony before Congress. Mayorkas, however, was quick to fill the vacancy with Jason Owens, the leader of the Del Rio division of the Border Patrol in Texas, whom he described as “talented” and “selfless.”12 Then a few weeks later, the secretary created a School Safety Advisory Council, and appointed Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, as a member of the group. A questionable addition to the DHS team, she had opposed calls to reopen schools in September 2022 as “reckless, callous, cruel” during the waning days of the COVID-19 pandemic.13 Thus, questions of Mayorkas’s appointments continue to be an issue of his own competence and, in this case, Weingarten’s actual ability to play a productive role at DHS. President Biden’s immigration policy, in essence, did not change after the expiration of Title 42. Pressures and other demands, especially from

Epilogue

131

Catholics who worked in an NGO capacity and saw the problems at the border firsthand, intensified their calls for comprehensive immigration reform and governmental measures to eliminate human trafficking and drug smuggling. The church’s moral concerns remained unanswered by the rules kept in place by the president and DHS because they simply imposed more efficient immigrant processing at the southern border.14 The hierarchy saw the policy for what it was in reality: a weakening of the asylum access for those most in need of relief, their exposure to further danger, and a system imposed by the government at the expense of vulnerable persons seeking protection at the US border.15 The testimony of the inspector general of DHS, Dr. Joseph Cuffadi, before a committee of the House of Representatives,16 provided evidence that the policies and consequences of the Biden/Mayorkas immigration policies negatively impacted the health and morale of CBP and ICE employees. Cuffadi gave statistics that showed migrant encounters doubled between 2019 and 2022, which resulted in “inefficient” staffing that left workers feeling “overworked,” performing “duties are not germane to their mission,” and “pressured to release and process migrants as quickly as possible.”17 The Inspector General also warned that attrition rates could rise, that required overtime would be unsustainable, and the current resource allocations would be detrimental to the health, safety, and morale of those working at the southern border. His recommendations? A full assessment of staffing needs after action reviews of priorities and further assessment of DHS work along the southern border. His findings give credence to the fact that the immigration policy of the president remains untenable and requires more, not less, attention to get the situation under control. At the end of June, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that broadly allowed Biden and DHS to set immigration policies that dealt with the national security, public safety, and border security. Texas and Arizona had sued the government for the priorities that the president had established to deal with the humane treatment of undocumented immigrants in 2021 and called for more aggressive measures to detain or deport migrants.18 The case was heard and appealed until 2023, when the Supreme Court acknowledged the difficulty of the situation, but upheld, 8–1, the right of the executive branch to create policies to try to solve the immigration problem. Thus, it maintained that Texas and Arizona could not order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest procedures to jail more migrants. Instead, it held that the court was not the proper forum for the dispute and did not make any decisions on the president’s immigration policy. It ruled that states could pursue recourse through other means, however, including congressional oversight and appropriations or policy changes.

132

Chapter Six

At the same time, however, these options appeared bleak. The House leader, Kevin McCarthy, admitted that he did not have the support or votes to impeach Secretary Mayorkas for dereliction of duty. House committees, therefore, are continuing to investigate and press for the impeachment or firing of the head of DHS, rather than pursuing congressional action for comprehensive immigration reform or pressuring for a policy reset at the White House. What is still evident, however, is that President Biden’s immigration policy, supposed to be a revised and more effective plan, remains lacking in enforcement and long-term solutions. Although it is unacceptable to his opponents in Congress as well as his disappointed allies in the Catholic Church, the Biden plan has simply been able to kick the can down the partisan road again. Thus, it has allowed his ineffective policy to continue due to a complicit and ideological Congress along with a judiciary that has taken a hands-off approach to policy and decided the issue of immigration on the legality of executive authority rather than on the security of the nation. The administration has also gotten a free pass from the media, which continues to allow the president to appear as a victim; the inheritor of a problem that he did not cause. The New York Times reported that an expected surge of migrants was a worldwide phenomenon, as Mayorkas had claimed earlier, and the fault of former President Trump. The lead story on page 1 of the paper said: It [the surge] is the result of global shifts in migration patterns as economic and political forces displace millions across the globe, sending many to the United States to seek refuge. It comes two years in which a Democratic-led overhaul of the immigration system has stalled in the face of Republican opposition and the Biden Administration has leaned on some of former President Donald J. Trump’s harsh border positions.19

There were few media reports that mentioned that approximately 85,000 people did come over the border in the three days before Title 42 ended. Nor did they report that each migrant received a free cell phone, a travel voucher, food and shelter, and a court date to apply for legal status into the United States. These required appearances went as far into the future as 2027 and beyond. The complications of the new border rules also allowed those who crossed illegally with a pathway to asylum, if they could prove their cases and navigate the rules of what only some press reports were willing to call a “chaotic system.”20 Partisan excuses and global conditions were used to explain the immigration debacle through media narratives. There was little mention of the twoyear preparation period led by incompetent presidential appointees who were

Epilogue

133

supposed to have formulated viable solutions to a situation that needed better enforcement. The president simply reassigned Vice President Harris to different duties and left Mayorkas to implement border efficiency above all other considerations. More collaborative and less emergency work with NGOs, as well as the lack of bipartisan efforts to solve the problem remain without any outreach from the president to attempt to solve the immigration crisis that has turned into a catastrophe. That, however, is only part of President Biden’s political, partisan, and moral decision-making quandary. His abortion policy also continued to become more divisive as the first anniversary of the Dobbs case approached in the spring of 2023. Speaking out in June on the day the decision was handed down, Biden rallied pro-choice supporters by warning them of the “devastating effects” of the ruling and that it was simply a step to further attacks on personal freedom and privacy in the future. The president, again, turned to divisive, ideological, and partisan rhetoric to use the abortion issue as part of his reelection campaign rather than to help to bring about unity and deal with the broader moral consequences of his stance. By the time the president gave that speech, the abortion map of the United States showed a deep moral, cultural, and partisan divide. Twelve states had already enacted a total abortion ban, and fourteen states had allowed total access to abortion. The rest established time frames for abortion, nonenforcement policies, or access protections.21 States such as Florida have limited abortion to six weeks. North Carolina limited it to twelve weeks, and then overrode a gubernatorial veto with the Republican supermajority in the statehouse. Iowa’s law that banned abortions past six weeks has been challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other abortion providers and awaiting its next hearings. Governor Katie Hobbs of Arizona signed an executive order that stripped local prosecutors of the power to criminally charge abortion providers. A Texas legal decision is on appeal, brought by two women prosecuted for helping a friend get an abortion, now a crime under the state constitution. More than thirty private abortion providers have been closed, but Planned Parenthood, funded by the government, is still able to carry out its services.22 At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry, with more than five hundred signatories to its lawsuit, urged the courts to preserve access to a new abortion pill. The FDA has already approved the selling of birth control pills over the counter, thus expanding access to contraception and the potential need for abortions. In July 2023, Representative Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) reintroduced the “Providing for Life Act,” that had been introduced in the Senate earlier by Marco Rubio (S. 4868). It would expand the Child Tax Credit to cover the unborn for working and adoptive parents, providing up to $4,500 for parents

134

Chapter Six

if their children are five years old or younger and $3,500 if their children are between the ages of six and seventeen. These types of legislation and litigation, based on individual merits, will continue to emerge before the courts and continue to proliferate via government policies at all levels. Wyoming had temporarily blocked a ban on abortion pills. Indeed, the Supreme Court is likely to hear an appeal from the Fifth Circuit Court on the legality of prescribing abortion medication by mail regardless of lower court decisions on either side of the issue. And, New York State has already passed a bill to let doctors mail abortion pills to states with bans, another issue that will challenge states’ rights as well. The governor, Kathy Hochul, has also signed a bill protecting abortion rights. Politically, abortion also remains an unresolved issue for the president, the congress, and the courts. The issue has been reported as a litmus test for Democrats according to the New York Times, which showed that it will be the most important issue for 41 percent of its membership.23 Some states in the preelection primary mode are already looking to run candidates on the abortion issue. This political fact has not been ignored by the Republican House, which used its own power and passed the 2023 annual defense bill with financial restrictions for the Department of Defense (DOD) due, in part, for its funding for abortion access. It leaves the Senate to deal with a potential fight over raises, appointments, and promotions. Thus, it will most likely remain a partisan stance that will be a significant part of President Biden’s reelection bid for 2024. Adding to the abortion debate are reports that contraception will become the next state battle among reproductive rights advocates. And, in a move to support the Biden-Harris pro-choice views on abortion, Emily’s List,24 a PAC committed to support Democrat women political candidates who advocate for reproductive rights, revealed that it was donating ten million dollars to the vice president’s reelection campaign for 2024. Thus, there will continue to be uncertainty and division about the entire abortion question, related legal issues, and voting, for a significant time to come. The sad part of the president’s continuing controversies on both immigration and abortion policies is that they have been self-inflicted, challenged only by empty rhetoric, investigations, and significant follow-up actions from government officials. Thus, a divided public is left to try to find its own answers to what may be considered as, insolvable problems. It is Biden’s responsibility, however, as the president and as a Catholic, to pursue compromise and the common good by governing with values, as well as inclusion and diversity. There are individuals, agencies, and stakeholders deeply invested in trying to help him solve these problems, and willing to collaborate with him to develop and implement viable, pragmatic, and moral solutions to these policies. But his responses have simply been political

Epilogue

135

and partisan as exhibited with Catholic NGOs and pro-life advocates. The president could have had a significant moral ally if he chose to try to inject a sense of morality into his immigration and abortion policies. But he has been both unable and unwilling to either lead or govern or move beyond his own partisan and personal politics. As a result, he has not considered the long-term economic implications of immigration and abortion for education, the health-care system, the job market, nor the moral compass of society, all of which are larger questions that require a political vision, courage, and wisdom to bring safety, equity, and prosperity to all. On June 22, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-Colo) sent a measure to House committees to charge President Biden with high crimes and misdemeanors over his handling of the US border with Mexico, forcing a vote that resulted in a 219–208 partisan outcome. While it sent the matter of impeachment to congressional committees for consideration, Speaker McCarthy negotiated a deal with Boebert to send the Biden resolution for review to the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, thus fending off a vote for a future time. Subsequently, the Congress did open an impeachment inquiry into corruption charges against the President. There is so much more that the second Catholic president must and can do collaboratively with competent political appointees, committed NGOs, nonpartisan bureaucrats, and volunteers, to find long-term solutions to policies with ethical quandaries. If President Biden refuses to attempt to do this, he will never be able to end civil disunity, serve the common good, or reinstate a moral perspective within American society, politics, and culture. His Catholic and political legacies will simply be those of a president who squandered the opportunity to act as a visionary leader; one who could have transformed critical public policies into models of compassion and transcendent values that united America. But there is always hope. In October 2023, Secretary Mayorkas, after visiting the southern border, finally admitted that there was an acute and immediate need to waive a significant number of federal laws where illegal migration had surged. Within one day, President Biden, in a complete policy reversal, put politics aside and accepted reality. He rescinded twenty-six laws, began the deportation of illegal Venezuelan migrants, and ordered twenty miles of border wall to be constructed in Texas. NOTES 1. Committee on Homeland Security of the United States Congress, “Causes, Costs, and Consequences: Why Secretary Mayorkas Must Be Investigated for His Border Crisis,” 6 June 2023, accessed on 7 June 2023, 8. https://homeland.house.gov/

136

Chapter Six

media/2023/06/CHSpreliminaryreportfinal.pdf. It did this by examining seven major issues: 1) the advantages gained by cartels, 2) the potential national security threats of unlimited, open borders, 3) the fentanyl crisis, 4) the toll on law enforcement, 5) the impact of criminal illegal aliens, 6) the suffering of migrants from trafficking and death, and 7) the massive financial cost of open borders. 2. Ibid., 15. 3. Ibid., 16–17. 4. Ibid., 12. 5. Senators Jaypal, Booker, Manchin, and Smith. “Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act,” (S1208) 19 April 2023. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/ senate-bill/1208/text?s=1&r=81. 6. Kevin McCarthy, “Secure the Border Act of 2023,” (HR 2) 2 May 2023. https:// www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BorderSec_Imm_FA_xml.pdf. 7. Ibid. 8. Senators Thom Tillis and Krystin Sinema. https://www.sinema.senate.gov/sites/ default/files/2023-05/MDM23681.pdf. 9. Jenny Goldsberry, “Kamala Harris says issue of immigration ‘falls squarely’ within responsibility of Congress,” Washington Examiner, 13 May 2023, accessed 16 May 2023. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kamalaharris-says-issue-of-immigration-falls-squarely-within-responsibility-of-congress/ ar-AA1b9cqn. 10. J. J. Hensley, “DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ press conference on Title 42 ending,” USA Today, 10 May 2023, accessed on 10 May 2023. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/05/10/ watch-title-42-lifted-dhs-mayorkas-press-conference/70203423007/. 11. Alejandro Mayorkas, “Statement from Secretary Mayorkas on the Retirement of U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul L. Ortiz,” 30 May 2023, accessed on 1 June 2023. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/05/30/ statement-secretary-mayorkas-retirement-us-border-patrol-chief-raul-l-ortiz. 12. Eileen Sullivan, “New Border Chief named as Policies Face Scrutiny, New York Times, 11 June 2023, 20. 13. Randi Weingarten Appointed to DHS School Safety Advisory Council. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ randi-weingarten-appointed-to-dhs-school-safety-advisory-council/. 14. Bishop Mark J. Seitz, “U.S. Bishops’ Migration Chairman Denounces Proposed Limits on Asylum Access,” 23 February 2023, accessed on 8 May 2023. https://www. usccb.org/news/2023/us-bishops-migration-chairman-denounces-proposed-limitsasylum-access. 15. Ibid. 16. Dr. Joseph Cuffari, Inspector General of Homeland Security, Cuffari, “Testimony on Intensifying Conditions at the Southern Border are Negatively Impacting CBP and ICE Employees Health and Morale,” 6 June 2023, accessed on 7 June 2023. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/DHS_OIG_Written_ Testimony-June-6-2023-Hearing-COA.pdf. 17. Ibid., 5–8.

Epilogue

137

18. United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. ___ (2023). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/ federal/us/599/22-58/. 19. Miriam Jordan, Michael D. Shear, Maria Abi-Habib, and Simon Romero, “Surge at Border as U.S. Endeavors to Control Flow,” New York Times, 12 May 2023, A1. 20. Natalie Kitroeff, Christine Zhang, Miriam Jordan, and Eileen Sullivan, “Who Gets in?” New York Times, 17 May 2023, A11. 21. Laura Kusisto, “Abortion Battle Scrambles Politics,” Wall Street Journal, 24 June 2023, A9. 22. Allison McCann and Amy Schoenfeld Walker, “One Year, 61 Clinics: How Dobbs Changed the Abortion Landscape,” 22 June 2023. New York Times, 15. 23. Kate Zernike, “Abortion Views Sifted in Polls After Roe’s End,” 25 June 2023. New York Times, 18. 24. Emily’s List. https://emilyslist.org.

Bibliography

Abbott, Walter, M., gen. ed., The Documents of Vatican II. New York: Herder & Herder, 1966. Administrative Board of the USCCB. “Political Responsibility: Reflections on an Election Year,” Abortion - Pro Life - Political Responsibility - Statement issued by the USCC (February, 1976). https:​//​www​.priestsforlife​.org​/magisterium​/bishops​/76​ -02​-12politicalresponsibilityuscc​.htm. Ahmed, Azam, and Jim Yardley, “In Mexican Slum, Pope Laments Economic Gap,” New York Times, 15 February 2015, A8. Ahmed, Azam, Jim Yardley, and Paulina Villegas. “Pope Francis to Visit a Mexico Battling Many Ills,” New York Times, 12 February 2016, A4. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) vs. FDA. Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z Document 1 Filed 18 November 2022. https:​//​adfmedialegalfiles​.blob​.core​.windows​.net​/files​/ AllianceForHippocraticMedicineComplaint​.pdf. All American Life League, “Abortion Statistics: Current United States Data.” https:​//​ www​.all​.org​/abortion​/abortion​-statistics. Alvarez, Priscilla. “Border chief disputes DHS has ‘operational control’ of the entire US southern border,” CNN, 15 March 2023. https:​//​www​.cnn​.com​/2023​/03​/15​/ politics​/border​-control​-hearing​/index​.html. The American Hierarchy, “Human Life in Our Day.” Washington, DC: USCCB, 1968. Amicus Brief of 547 Deans, Chairs, Scholars and Public Health Professionals, The American Public Health Association, The Guttmacher Institute, and The Center for U.S. Policy, in Support of Respondents. https:​//​www​.supremecourt​.gov​/DocketPDF​ /19​/19​-1392​/193052​/20210920164243798​_19​-1392 Brief.pdf. Andersen, Brian. “How Catholic Charities Lost its Soul,” City Journal, Winter 2000. https:​//​www​.city​-journal​.org​/html​/how​-catholic​-charities​-lost​-its​-soul​-12150​ .html. Barnes, Michael, and Michael Karlik. “Roberts says Supreme Court will reopen to public and defends legitimacy,” Washington Post, 10 September 2022. https:​//​www​ .msn​.com​/en​-us​/news​/politics​/roberts​-says​-supreme​-court​-will​-reopen​-to​-public​ -and​-defends​-legitimacy​/ar​-AA11FPLa. Bellah, Robert N. “Civil Religion in America,” Daedalus 96, no. 1 (Winter 1967): 1– 12. https:​//​www​.jstor​.org​/stable​/20027022 139

140

Bibliography

Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 (1976). Belluck, Pam, and Christina Jewett, “Drug Executives Condemn Ruling on Abortion Pill,” 11 April 2023, 1. https:​//​www​.nytimes​.com​/2023​/04​/10​/health​/abortion​ -ruling​-pharma​-executives​.html Belluck, Pam, and Julie Creswell. “Walgreen’s Under Fire for Not Offering Abortion Pill in 21 States, New York Times, 8 March 2023, B1. Bernardin, Cardinal Joseph. Consistent Ethic of Life: Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, ed. Thomas Fuechtmann et al. Sheed and Ward, 1988. https:​//​www​.hnp​.org​/ publications​/hnpfocus​/BConsistentEthic1983​.pdf Biden, Dr. Jill. “It’s over,” The Washington Times, Accessed on 7 July 2022 https:​//​ www​.washingtontimes​.com​/news​/2022​/jul​/20​/jill​-to​-joe​-biden​-its​-over/ Biden, President Joe. “Battle for the Soul of the Nation.” 1 September 2022. https:​ //​www​.whitehouse​.gov​/briefing​-room​/speeches​-remarks​/2022​/09​/01​/remarks​-by​ -president​-bidenon​-the​-continued​-battle​-for​-the​-soul​-of​-the​-nation/ ———. “Executive Order on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans,” 2 February 2021. https:​//​www​.whitehouse​.gov​/briefing​-room​/presidential​-actions​ /2021​/02​/02​/executive​-order​-restoring​-faith​-in​-our​-legal​-immigration​-systems​-and​ -strengthening​-integration​-and​-inclusion​-efforts​-for​-new​-americans/ ———. “Executive Order on the Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities,” 20 January 2021. Accessed on 3 February 2023. https:​//​www​ .whitehouse​.gov​/briefing​-room​/presidential​-actions​/2021​/01​/20​/executive​-order​ -the​-revision​-of​-civil​-immigration​-enforcement​-policies​-and​-priorities/ ———. “First Executive Order (#14076) on Abortion.” 8 July 2022. Accessed on 4 August 2022. https:​//​www​.whitehouse​.gov​/briefing​-room​/statements​-releases​ /2022​/07​/08​/fact​-sheet​-president​-biden​-to​-sign​-executive​-order​-protecting​-access​ -to​-reproductive​-health​-care​-services/ ———. “President Biden’s State of the Union Address,” 1 March 2022. State of the Union Address (whitehouse.gov) ———. Promises to Keep. New York: Random House, 2007. ———. “Remarks of President Biden: State of the Union Speech,” 7 February 2023. https:​//​www​.whitehouse​.gov​/briefing​-room​/speeches​-remarks​/2023​/02​ /07​/remarks​-of​-president​-joe​-biden​-state​-of​-the​-union​-address ​-as​-prepared​-for​ -delivery/ ———. “Remarks by President Biden on the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade.” 24 June 2022. Accessed on 17 September 2022. https:​//​www​.whitehouse​ .gov​/briefing​-room​/speeches​-remarks​/2022​/06​/24​/remarks​-by​-president​-biden​-on​ -the​-supreme​-court​-decision​-to​-overturn​-roe​-v​-wade/ ———. “Second Executive Order (14079) on Abortion.” 3 August 2022. Accessed on 4 August 2022. https:​//​www​.whitehouse​.gov​/briefing​-room​/statements​-releases​ /2022​/08​/03​/fact​-sheet​-president​-biden​-issues​-executive​-order​-at​-the​-first​-meeting​ -of​-the​-task​-force​-on​-reproductive​-healthcare​-access​-2/ ———. “Speech on Democracy,” 2 November 2022. https:​//​www​.nytimes​.com​/2022​ /11​/02​/us​/politics​/transcript​-biden​-speech​-democracy​.html

Bibliography

141

Bliss, Erica, Joan Fleishman, and Michele Gomez. “Early Abortion Looks Nothing Like What You’ve Been Told,” New York Times, 23 January 2023, A18. Boin, Arjen, and Paul t’Hart, “Public Leadership in Times of Crisis: Mission Impossible?” Public Administration Review, 14 August 2003. https:​//​doi​.org​/10​ .1111​/1540​-6210​.00318 Bowen, Catherin Drinker. Miracle at Philadelphia. New York: Little, Brown, 2021. Brazile, Donna. “Give Harris the Credit She Is Due,” New York Times, 4 March 2023, A20. Brockhaus, Hannah. “What Is a Leader, Really? A Servant, Pope Francis Says,” Nov 8, 2016. https:​//​www​.catholicnewsagency​.com​/news​/34888​/what​-is​-a​-leader​-really​ -a​-servant​-pope​-francis​-says Buchman, Cassie. “How abortion did in 5 states with it on the ballot,” News Nation Now, 9 November 2022. https:​//​www​.newsnationnow​.com​/politics​/elections​-2022​/ how​-abortion​-did​-in​-5​-states​-with​-it​-on​-the​-ballot/ Buckley, David. Faithful to Secularism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2017. Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores. 573 U.S. 682 (2014) Catechism of the Catholic Church, https:​//​cogforlife​.org​/the​-catechism​-of​-the​-catholic​ -church​-on​-abortion/ Catholic Charities, USA. “FAQs About our Service to Immigrants.” https:​//​ www​.catholiccharitiesusa​.org​/and​-they​-shall​-know​-us​-by​-our​-love​/​#group​-section​ -FAQS​-ABOUT​-OUR​-WORK​-uJhc3UlfI1 ———. “Immigration Advocacy and Refuge Assistance,” https:​//​www​ .catholiccharitiesusa​.org​/our​-vision​-and​-ministry​/immigration​-refugee​-services/ Catholic Education Association. https:​//​www​.usccb​.org​/offices​/public​-affairs​/catholic​ -education Catholic Extension. “Five Catholics Ministries Helping Migrants at the Border,” 27 June 2019. https:​//​www​.catholicextension​.org​/stories​/5​-catholic​-ministries​ -helping​-migrants​-border/ Catholic Health Association. https:​//​www​.chausa​.org​/about​/about​/facts​-statistics Catholic News Agency, “Pope Francis considers it an ‘incoherence’ that President Biden, a Catholic, supports abortion rights,” 12 July 2022. https:​//​www​ .catholicnewsagency​.com​/news​/251772​/pope​-francis​-incoherence​-biden​-supports​ -abortion​-rights Catholic Relief Services. https:​//​farmertofarmer​.crs​.org​/publications/ “Catholics for Choice Announces Spanish-Language Website and Social Media Expansion,” 1 June 2023. www​.catholicsforchoice​.org​/press​-releases​/catholics​-for​ -choice​-announces​-spanish​-language​-website​-and​-social​-media​-expansion/ Catholics for Choice. https:​//​www​.catholicsforchoice​.org Centers for Disease Control. “Abortion Surveillance—Findings and Reports.” Accessed on 16 January 2023. https:​//​www​.cdc​.gov​/mmwr​/volumes​/71​/ss​/ ss7110a1​.htm​?s​_cid​=ss7110a1​_w Chi-Sing, Haley. “Huge majority of Americans oppose Biden running again, citing one ‘major’ factor: poll,” MSN.com, 23 April 2023. https:​//​www​.msn​.com​/en​-us​ /news​/other​/huge​-majority​-of​-americans​-oppose​-biden​-running​-again​-citing​-one​ -major​-factor​-poll​/ar​-AA1aevjr​#image​=1

142

Bibliography

Children of God for Life. The Catechism of the Catholic Church on Abortion. https:​ //​cogforlife​.org/ Clendinen, Dudley. “President Praises Foes of Abortion,” New York Times, 23 January 1985, A1. https:​//​www​.nytimes​.com​/1985​/01​/23​/us​/president​-praises​-foes​-of​ -abortion​.html The Code of Canon Law. “Book II: The People of God,” http:​//​canonici​/eng​/ documents​/cic​_lib2​-cann431​-459​_en​.html​#CHAPTER​_IV Coleman, John., S.J. An American Strategic Theology. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1979. Committee on Homeland Security of the United States Congress, “Causes, Costs, and Consequences: Why Secretary Mayorkas Must Be Investigated for His Border Crisis,” 6 June 2023. https:​//​homeland​.house​.gov​/media​/2023​/06​/ CHSPreliminaryReportFINAL​.pdf Conference of Latin American Bishops. Aparecida Documents. 7 May 2007. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. November 21, 2002. “A Doctrinal Note on Some Questions regarding ‘The Participation of Catholics in Political Life.’ https:​ //​www​.vatican​.va​/roman​_curia​/congregations​/cfaith​/documents​/rc​_con​_cfaith​_doc​ _20021124​_politica​_en​.html Cooper, Helen. “Defense Secretary Seeks to Reassure Service Members on Access to Abortion,” New York Times, 2 October 2022. Crabtree, Susan. “Catholic Voters Sour on Biden, Split Over Midterms,” RealClearPolitics, 15 July 2022. https:​//​www​.realclearpolitics​.com​/articles​/2022​ /07​/15​/catholic​_voters​_sour​_on​_biden​_split​_over​_midterms​_147885​.html Cuffari, Dr Joseph, Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, “Testimony on Intensifying Conditions at the Southern Border are Negatively Impacting CBP and ICE Employees Health and Morale.” https:​//​oversight​.house​ .gov​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2023​/06​/DHS​_OIG​_Written​_Testimony​-June​-6​-2023​ -Hearing​-COA​.pdf Cuomo, Governor Mario. “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor's Perspective,” 13 September 1984. https:​//​archives​.nd​.edu​/sitemap​/ index​.htm Demirjian, Karoun. “Taking Aim at Biden, Republicans Jab Chief of Homeland Security,” 29 March 2023, A15. Department of Health and Human Services, “Biden-Harris Administration Proposes New Rules to Expand Access to Birth Control Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act.” https:​//​www​.hhs​.gov​/about​/news​/2023​/01​/30​/biden​-harris​-administration​ -proposes​-new​-rules​-expand​-access​-birth​-control​-coverage​-under​-affordable​-care​ -act​.html Department of Homeland Security. “Readout of Secretary Mayorkas’s Trip to Arizona and Texas,” 23 March 2023. https:​//​www​.dhs​.gov​/news​/2023​/03​/22​/ readout​-secretary​-mayorkass​-trip​-arizona​-and​-texas ———. “United States and Canada Announce Efforts to Expand Lawful Migration Processes and Reduce Irregular Migration March 24, 2023.” https:​//​www​.dhs​ .gov​/news​/2023​/03​/24​/united​-states​-and​-canada​-announce​-efforts​-expand​-lawful​ -migration​-processes​-and

Bibliography

143

Department of Justice. US. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Tennessee. “Eleven Charged with FACE Act Violations Stemming From 2021 Blockade OF Mount Juliet Reproductive Health Clinic.” 5 October 2022. https:​//​www​.justice​.gov​/ usao​-mdtn​/pr​/eleven​-charged​-face​-act​-violations​-stemming​-2021​-blockade​-mount​ -juliet​-reproductive Di Nardo, Archbishop Daniel. “Statement on New Asylum, Immigration Policies,” 13 June 2018. https:​//​www​.miamiarch​.org​/CatholicDiocese​.php​?op​=Article​_ cardinal​-dinardo39s​-statement​-on​-new​-asylum​-immigration​-policies Diamant, Jeff, and Besheer Mohamed, “What the data says about abortion in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, 24 June 2022. Https://www​.pewresearch​.org​/short​ -reads​/2023​/01​/11​/what​-the​-data​-says​-about​-abortion​-in​-the​-u​-s​-2/ Dias, Elizabeth. “Catholic Bishops in US Elect Leaders amid Abortion Battle,” New York Times, 16 November 2022, A13. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization No. 19-1392, 597 U.S.  June 24,2022. https:​//​supreme​.justia​.com​/cases​/federal​/us​/597​/19​-1392/ Doe v McKee. No. 22-2022. 11 October 2022. https:​//​supreme​.justia​.com​/cases​/ federal​/us​/597​/19​-1392/ Dorsonville-Rodriguez, Mario E., Auxiliary Bishop of Washington, D. C. “On Anniversary of DACA, Migration Chairman Reaffirms Need for Congress to Act,” 15 June 2021. https:​//​www​.usccb​.org​/news​/2021​/anniversary​-daca​-migration​ -chairman​-reaffirms​-need​-congress​-act ———.. “Testimony of H.R.6, American Dream and Promise Act of 2021.” 14 June 2021, at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 106 Washington, D.C. https:​//​ justiceforimmigrants​.org​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2021​/06​/SJC​-H​.R​.​-6​-Testimony​.pdf Emily’s List. https:​//​emilyslist​.org/ Erskine, Ellena. “We Read all the Amicus Briefs in Dobbs so You Don’t Have To.” SCOTUSblog, November 30, 2021, 5:24PM. https:​//​www​.scotusblog​.com​/2021​/11​ /we​-read​-all​-the​-amicus​-briefs​-in​-dobbs​-so​-you​-dont​-have​-to/ Evert, Crystalina. “Election Day 2022: Here’s what we know about Catholic voters,” Accessed pm 28 January 2023. https:​//​www​.catholicnewsagency​.com​/news​ /252757​/election​-day​-2022​-here​-s​-what​-we​-know​-about​-catholic​-voters EWTN News in Depth. “Interview with Jor-El Godsey, President of Heartbeat International” October 21, 2011. Fawcett, Eliza. “Judge Stays Indiana’s Ban on Most Abortions, New York Times, 23 September 2022, A20. Faith Aloud. https:​//​www​.faithaloud​.org/ Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, https:​//​en​ .wikipedia​.org​/wiki​/Biographical​_Directory​_of​_Federal​_Judges Food and Drug Administration, “Information about Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy Through Ten Weeks Gestation,” 24 January 2023. https:​ //​www​.fda​.gov​/drugs​/postmarket​-drug​-safety​-information​-patients​-and​-providers​ /information​-about​-mifepristone​-medical​-termination​-pregnancy​-through​-ten​ -weeks​-gestation

144

Bibliography

Fordham, Evie. “FEMA gives $110 million to emergency fund for migrant care as Biden admin refuses to admit ‘crisis.’ https:​//​www​.foxnews​.com​/politics​/fema​-110​ -million​-border​-migrants​-emergency​-biden Formicola, Jo Renee. “American Catholic Political Theology,” Journal of Church and State 29, no. 3 (Autumn 1987): 457–74. Formicola, Jo Renee. “Catholic Moral Demands in American Politics: A New Paradigm,” Journal of Church and State 51, no. 1 (Winter 2009): 4–24. ———. Clerical Sexual Abuse: How the Crisis Changed U.S. Church-State Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. ———. John Paul II: Prophetic Politician. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2002. ———. “Papal Governance on Clerical Sexual Abuse,” in Cambridge University, A History of the Papacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2024. ———. Papal Policies on Clerical Sexual Abuse: God Weeps. New York: Peter Lang, 2019. ———. The Catholic Church and Human Rights. New York: Garland Press, 1988. Interview with Bishop Edward Swanstrom, 20 May 1980, 23. Fox News. “More than 100 Pro-life Organizations, Churches Attacked since Dobbs Leak,” https:​//​www​.foxnews​.com​/politics​/100​-pro​-life​-orgs​-churches​-attacked​ -dobbs​-leak Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE or the Access Act, Pub. L. No. 103–259, 108 Stat. 694) (May 26, 1994,  18  U.S.C. § 248). www​.justice​.gov​/crt​/ protecting​-patients​-and​-health​-care​-providers Friedman, Lisa. “With Few Options, Biden Freely Approves Alaska Drilling Project,” New York Times, 14 March 2023, A11. Future Majority. https:​//​futuremajority​.org/ Gamble v. United States 587 U.S. ___, ___ (2019) Garcia, Deseri. “9 Things Great Presidents and Leaders Have in Common,” 14 August 2019. https:​//​vidaaventura​.net​/about/ Gerstein, Josh, and Alexander Ward on Politico. 5 May 2022 @ 8:32 PM EDT; final decision issued on 24 June 2022 by Supreme Court. Glatz, Carol. “U.S. President Biden Visits Pope Francis at the Vatican” Catholic News Service. https:​//​www​.catholicregister​.org​/home​/international​/item​/33666​-u​-s​ -president​-biden​-visits​-pope​-francis​-at​-the​-vatican Goldsberry, Jenny. “Kamala Harris says issue of immigration ‘falls squarely’ within responsibility of Congress,” Washington Examiner, 13 May 2023. https:​//​www​.msn​ .com​/en​-us​/news​/politics​/kamala​-harris​-says​-issue​-of​-immigration​-falls​-squarely​ -within​-responsibility​-of​-congress​/ar​-AA1b9cqn Gomez, Jose H., Archbishop, and Bishop Mario E. Dorsonville-Rodriguez, “USCCB President and Migration Chairman Welcome House Passage of Bipartisan Immigration Reform Legislation, Urge Swift Senate Action,” 19 March 2021. https:​ //​www​.usccb​.org​/news​/2021​/usccb​-president​-and​-migration​-chairman​-welcome​ -house​-passage​-bipartisan​-immigration Goodwin, Doris Kearns. Leadership: In Turbulent Times. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2018.

Bibliography

145

———. Team of Rivals. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005. Gray, Daniel C. “Letter to Attorney General Kobach of Kansas,” 17 February 2023. https:​//​ag​.ks​.gov​/docs​/default​-source​/documents​/dg​-mifepristone​-letter​-to​ -ks​-ag​.pdf​?sfvrsn​=bc6bd1a​_2 Green, Alex. “Pope Francis and the Benefits of Servant Leadership in Negotiations,” 5 September 2019. https:​//​www​.pon​.harvard​.edu​/daily​/leadership​-skills​-daily​/ pope​-francis​-and​-the​-benefits​-of​-servant​-leadership​-in​-negotiations​/​#:​​~:​text​=In​ %20particular​%2C​%20Pope​%20Francis​%20showed​%20how​%20a​%20particular​ ,of​%20a​%20negotiation​%20on​%20the​%20issues​%20at​%20hand. Greenleaf, Robert K., The Power of Servant Leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1998. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. “What is Servant Leadership?” https:​//​www​ .greenleaf​.org​/what​-is​-servant​-leadership/ Griswold v Connecticut. 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Groody, Daniel G. “Theology in the Age of Migration,” 26 January 2023. https:​//​www​ .ncronline​.org​/news​/world​/theology​-age​-migration Harmony, Amy. “How Phrasing Has Intensified Abortion Battle,” 23 Mary 2019, New York Times, A1. Harris, Vice President, Kamala. “Harris says she’s not confident about the integrity of the Supreme Court.” https:​//​www​.msn​.com​/en​-us​/news​/politics​/kamala​-harris​ -says​-shes​-not​-confident​-about​-the​-integrity​-of​-the​-supreme​-court​-i​-think​-this​-is​ -an​-activist​-court​/ar​-AA11FCmq ———. “Meet the Press,” 9 September. https:​//​news​.yahoo​.com​/vp​-harris​-activist​ -court​-dobbs​-194509815​.html​?guccounter​=1 Hehir, J. Bryan, S.J. “There’s No Deterring the Catholic Bishops,” Ethics and International Affairs 3 (1): 277–96. Hensley, J. J. “DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ press conference on Title 42 ending,” 10 May 2023. USA Today. https:​//​www​.usatoday​.com​/story​/news​/nation​/2023​ /05​/10​/watch​-title​-42​-lifted​-dhs​-mayorkas​-press​-conference​/70203423007/ Hollenbach, David, S.J., Claims in Conflict. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1979. Hope Border Institute. “About Us,” https:​//​www​.hopeborder​.org​/about​-us “How State Abortion Laws could Change if Roe is Overturned,” New York Times, A12. 2 June 2022. Hughson, Thomas, S.J. The Believer as Citizen: John Courtney Murry in a New Context. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1995. Iman, Henna. “Lead Like the Pope: Six Lessons on Transformational Leadership,” 1 October 2015. https:​//​www​.forbes​.com​/sites​/hennainam​/2015​/10​/01​/lead​-like​-the​ -pope​-6​-lessons​-on​-transformational​-leadership​/​?sh​=472a021939cf ———. Wired for Authenticity. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2015. Jacobs, Elizabeth, “Two Years of Biden’s Immigration Policies,” Center for Immigration Studies, 31 January 2023. https:​//​cis​.org​/Report​/Two​-Years​-Bidens​ -Immigration​-Policies Jansen, Bart. “GOP senators question Biden's DHS nominee Alejandro Mayorkas over immigration, enforcement, visas,” USA Today. 19 January 2021. https:​//​

146

Bibliography

www​.usatoday​.com​/story​/news​/politics​/elections​/2021​/01​/19​/bidens​-dhs​-nominee​ -mayorkas​-faces​-questions​-confirmation​-hearing​/4214673001/ Jaypal, Senator Pramilla, Senator Corey Booker, and Senator Christopher Smith. “Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act,” (S1208)19 April 2023. https:​//​www​ .congress​.gov​/bill​/118th​-congress​/senate​-bill​/1208​/text​?s​=1​&r​=81 Jordan, Miriam, Michael D. Shear, Maria Abi-Habib, and Simon Romero, “Surge at Border as U.S. Endeavors to Control Flow,” New York Times, 12 May 2023, A1. Kelly, Kate. “North Carolina Faces Veto Fight on Abortion Bill,” 15 May 2023, A1. Kennedy, President John. “Speech to the Houston Ministerial Meeting, 12 September 1960. https:​//​www​.jfklibrary​.org​/learn​/about​-jfk​/historic​-speeches​/address​-to​-the​ -greater​-houston​-ministerial​-association Kight, Stef, W. “Jim Jordan Subpoenas FBI Over Allegedly Targeting Catholic Churches,” 11 April 2023. https:​//​www​.axios​.com​/2023​/04​/10​/jordan​-subpoena​-fbi​ -catholic​-church​-memo Kitroeff, Natalie, Christine Zhang, Miriam Jordan, and Eileen Sullivan, “Who Gets In?” New York Times, 17 May 2023, A11. Krol, John Cardinal Archbishop of Philadelphia. “Testimony before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.” March 7, 1974. https:​//​www​.usccb​.org​/issues​-and​-action​/human​-life​-and​-dignity​/abortion​ /upload​/Testimony​-of​-Cardinal​-John​-Krol​.pdf Kusisto, Laura. “Abortion Battle Scrambles Politics,” Wall Street Journal, 24 June 2023, p A9. Ladaria, Cardinal Luis. “Debate on Communion and abortion should not lead to division.” https:​//​www​.vaticannews​.va​/en​/vatican​-city​/news​/2021​-05​/vatican​-letter​ -ladaria​-bishops​-us​-communion​-politics​-abortion​.html Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) Leonhardt, David. “Democracy Challenged,” New York Times, 18 September 25, 2022, 1. Life News. “Vatican Cancels Morning Mass between Pope Francis and Pro-Abortion Joe Biden,” 15 June 2021. https:​//​lifenews​.com​/2021​/06​/15​/vatican​-cancels​ -morning​-mass​-between​-pope​-francis​-and​-pro​-abortion​-joe​-biden Liptak, Adam. “Alito Says Roe Leak Altered ‘Atmosphere,” New York Times, 26 October 2022, A22. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) Long-Garcia, J. D. “Pope Francis tells V Encuentro: ‘Tear down walls and build bridges,’ America Magazine, 21 September 2018,” https:​//​www​.americamagazine​ .org​/faith​/2018​/09​/21​/pope​-francis​-tells​-v​-encuentro​-tear​-down​-walls​-and​-build​ -bridges Lucey, Catherine. “GOP Gains in Poll Among White Suburban Women,” The Wall Street Journal, 3 November 2022, A4. Madera, Adelaide. “Preliminary Remarks on Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and on Its Impact on the Right to Conscientious Objection.” Anuario de Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado 37 (2021): 199–255.

Bibliography

147

Majority Report of the Papal Commission on Birth Control. Accessed on 9 September 2022. http:​//​ldysinger​.stjohnsem​.edu​/@magist​/1963​_paul6​/068​_hum​_vitae​/ majority​%20report​.pdf Maloney, Representative Carolyn. “Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act or the SAD Act.” H.R. 3210, 117th Congress. https:​//​www​.congress​.gov​/bill​/117th​ -congress​/house​-bill​/8210 Mayorkas, Alejandro. “Memo to Interested Parties on Plan for Southwest Border Security and Preparedness,” 26 April 2022. https:​//​www​.dhs​.gov​/sites​/default​/files​ /2022​-04​/22​_0426​_dhs​-plan​-southwest​-border​-security​-preparedness​.pdf ———. “Secretary Mayorkas Outlines His Vision for Cybersecurity Resilience,” 31 March 2021. https:​//​www​.dhs​.gov​/news​/2021​/03​/31​/secretary​-mayorkas​ -outlines​-his​-vision​-cybersecurity​-resilience ———. “Statement from Secretary Mayorkas on the Retirement of U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul L. Ortiz,” 30 May 2023. Accessed on 1 June 2023. https:​//​www​ .dhs​.gov​/news​/2023​/05​/30​/statement​-secretary​-mayorkas​-retirement​-us​-border​ -patrol​-chief​-raul​-l​-ortiz ———. “Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee,” 28 April 2022. https:​//​www​.youtube​.com​/watch​?v​=1c​_MZVP​_Dys McCann, Allison. “Where Restrictions on Abortion Pills Could Matter Most,” New York Times, 14 March 2023, A10 McCann, Allison, and Amy Schoenfeld Walker. “One Year, 61 Clinics: How Dobbs Changed the Abortion Landscape,” 22 June 2023. New York Times, 15 McCarthy, Speaker Kevin. “Secure the Border Act of 2023” (HR 2), 2 May 2023. https:​//​www​.speaker​.gov​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2023​/05​/BorderSec​_Imm​_FA​ _xml​.pdf Medhurst, Martin J. “Rhetorical Leadership and the Presidency: A Situational Taxonomy,” in Wrenn and Price, The Values of Presidential Leadership. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Meeting of Popular Movements. “Message from Modesto,” 19 February 2017. http:​//​ popularmovements​.org​/news​/message​-from​-modesto/ Mondoro, Jean. “Bishop Strickland slams Biden for ‘aggressively denying his Catholic faith’ with abortion advocacy,” 23 January 2023. https:​//​www​.lifesitenews​ .com​/news​/bishop​-strickland​-slams​-biden​-for​-aggressively​-denying​-his​-catholic​ -faith​-with​-abortion​-advocacy/ Nadler, Representative Jerrold. “Respect for Marriage Act,” H. R. 8404. https:​//​www​ .congress​.gov​/bill​/117th​-congress​/house​-bill​/8404 National Conference of State Legislatures, “State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women,” May 1, 2018. https:​//​ www​.ncsl​.org​/research​/health​/fetal​-homicide​-state​-laws National Council of Jewish Women. https:​//​www​.ncjw​.org/ National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice. https:​//​www​.latinainstitute​.org/ National Security Council. “Vice President’s Cover Letter: U.S. Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America,” Accessed on 28 February 2023 httw.whitehouse.gov/wp-conps://wwtent/uploads/2021/07/R oot-Causes-Strategy.pdf

148

Bibliography

“National Special Interest Groups” Project Vote Smart - American Government, Elections, Candidates and Voting. Project Vote Smart, n.d. Web. 15 July 2015. http:​ //​www​.votesmart​.org​/interest​-groups​/NA​#​.VaZ8uvnuNVY See also: List of Interest Groups - USA Political Database (weebly.com) Neustadt, Richard E. Presidential Power. New York: Signet Books, 1960, 174. Niebuhr, Reinhold. The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1944. Nolan, Hugh. Pastoral Letters of the United States Catholic Bishops. Vol. III 1962– 1974. Washington, DC: USCCB, 1983. Noonan, John T., Jr., “Abortion and the Catholic Church: A Summary History,” Notre Dame Law School, NDLS Scholarship. www​.http:​//​scholarshiplawandedu​/ ad​-naturallaw​-forum​/126 Obergefell v Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). O’Loughlin, Michael. “Biden says Pope Francis told him to ‘keep receiving Communion,’ Catholic New Service, 29 October 2021. https:​//​www​.americamagazine​ .org​/faith​/2021​/10​/29​/joe​-biden​-communion​-pope​-francis​-abortion​-241747 Olohan, Margaret Mary. “After 160 Attacks on Churches and Pregnancy Centers, FBI Hasn’t Arrest a Single Person,” Life News. 28 January 2023. https:​//​www​.lifenews​ .com​/2022​/10​/19​/after​-160​-attacks​-on​-churches​-and​-pregnancy​-centers​-fbi​-hasnt​ -arrested​-a​-single​-person/ On the Issues. “George H. Bush on Abortion,” https:​//​www​.ontheissues​.org​/George​ _W​_​_Bush​_Abortion​.htm ———. “Gerald Ford on Abortion,” https:​//​www​.ontheissues​.org​/Celeb​/Gerald​_Ford​ _Abortion​.htm ———. “Joe Biden on Abortion.” https:​//​www​.ontheissues​.org​/2020​/Joe​_Biden​ _Abortion​.htm ———. “Third Bush-Kerry Debate,” 13 October 2004. https:​//​www​.ontheissues​.org​/ Social​/John​_Kerry​_Abortion​.htm Orces, Diana. “Which Women Most Likely to Favor Abortion Restrictions?” 29 July 2022. https:​//​www​.prri​.org​/spotlight​/which​-women​-most​-likely​-to​-favor​-abortion​ -restrictions/ Owen, Quinn. “House Republicans hold 1st border hearing of new Congress,” 1 February 2023. https:​//​abcnews​.go​.com​/Politics​/house​-republicans​-hold​-1st​ -border​-hearing​-new​-congress​/story​?id​=96769162 Pious, Richard M. Why Presidents Fail: White House Decision Making from Eisenhower to Bush II. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. Also reprinted at the archives at Buffalo University. https:​//​www​.acsu​.buffalo​.edu​/​~jcampbel​/ documents​/PiousPresFailPresSQ​.pdf Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Washington, DC: USCCB, 2009). See questions 230–38, 104–8. Pope Benedict XVI. “Holy Mass for the Inauguration of the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean Homily.” 13 May 2007. https:​ //​www​.celam​.org​/aparecida​/Ingles​.pdf

Bibliography

149

———. Sacramentum Caritatis. 22 February 2007. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​ /benedict​ - xvi​ / en​ / apost​ _ exhortations​ / documents ​ / hf ​ _ ben ​ - xvi ​ _ exh ​ _ 20070222 ​ _ sacramentum​-caritatis​.html Pope Francis, “Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to Refugees Arriving in Europe Through Humanitarian Corridors and Representative of Receiving Institutions and Communities,” 18 March 2023. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​/francesco​/en​/ speeches​/2023​/march​/documents​/20230318​-famiglie​-rifugiate​.html ———. Amoris Laetitiae, 19 March 2016. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​/francesco​ /en​/apost​_exhortations​/documents​/papa​-francesco​_esortazione​-ap​_20160319​ _amoris​-laetitia​.html ———. Angelus. 6 June 2021. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​/francesco​/en​/angelus​ /2021​/documents​/papa​-francesco​_angelus​_20210606​.html ———. Apostolic Letter, “Misericordia et Misera,” 20 November 2016. https:​//​www​ .vatican​.va​/content​/francesco​/en​/apost​_letters​/documents​/papa​-francesco​-lettera​ -ap​_20161120​_misericordia​-et​-misera​.html ———. Laudatudo Si, 24 May 2015. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​/francesco​/en​/ encyclicals​/documents​/papa​-francesco​_20150524​_enciclica​-laudato​-si​.html ———.“Speech at General Audience.” 31 August 2022. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/ content​/francesco​/en​/audiences​/2022​/documents​/20220831​-udienza​-generale​.html ———. Tutti Fratelli. 3 October 2020. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​/francesco​/en​/ encyclicals​/documents​/papa​-francesco​_20201003​_enciclica​-fratelli​-tutti​.html Pope John Paul II. Evangelium Vitae 25 March 1995. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​ /john​-paul​-ii​/en​/encyclicals​/documents​/hf​_jp​-ii​_enc​_25031995​_evangelium​-vitae​ .html ———. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. 30 December 1987. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/ content​/john​-paul​-ii​/es​/encyclicals​/documents​/hf​_jp​-ii​_enc​_30121987​_sollicitudo​ -rei​-socialis​.html Pope Paul IV. Humanae Vitae, 25 July 1968. https:​//​www​.vatican​.va​/content​/paul​-vi​/ en​/encyclicals​/documents​/hf​_p​-vi​_enc​_25071968​_humanae​-vitae​.html Price, Terry L., and J. Thomas Wren, The Values of Presidential Leadership. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. “Protect Pregnancy Care Centers Act of 2022.” https:​//​www​.govtrack​.us​/congress​/ bills​/117​/hr8926​/text Raine, Lee, Scott Keeter, and Andres Perrin, “Trust and Distrust in America.” Pew Research Center. 22 July 2019. https:​//​www​.pewresearch​.org​/politics​/2019​/07​/22​/ trust​-and​-distrust​-in​-america/ Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, ___ (2020) “Randi Weingarten Appointed to DHS School Safety Advisory Council,” Randi Weingarten Appointed to DHS School Safety Advisory Council | National Review Rapperport, Alan. “Biden Urges Voter Action as White House Steps in to Protect Abortion Access,” New York Times, A15. 4 October 2022. https:​//​www​.nationalreview​ .com​/news​/randi​-weingarten​-appointed​-to​-dhs​-school​-safety​-advisory​-council/ Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph. “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles,” Released first week of July 2004. https:​//​www​.ewtn​.com​/catholicism​/ library​/worthiness​-to​-receive​-holy​-communion​-general​-principles​-2153

150

Bibliography

RealClearPolitics, Latest Election Polls, 2022. https:​//​www​.realclearpolitics​.com​/ epolls​/latest​_polls​/elections/ Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. https:​//​rcrc​.org/ Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Pub. L. No. 103–41, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993). Respect for Marriage Act. H. R. 8404 - 117th Congress (2021–2022). https:​//​www​ .congress​.gov​/bill​/117th​-congress​/house​-bill​/8404 Riddell, Kelly. “Catholic Church Collect 1.6 billion in U.S. Contracts,” Washington Times, 24 September 2015. https:​//​www​.washingtontimes​.com​/news​/2015​/sep​/24​/ catholic​-church​-collects​-16​-billion​-in​-us​-contract/ Riemer, Neal. The Future of Democratic Revolution: Toward a More Prophetic Politics. New York: Praeger, 1984. Rocca, Francis X. “Catholic Ideological Split Widens,” Wall Street Journal, 10 December 2022, A3. Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Rosenberg, Simon. “New Future Majority Polling Memo on Hispanics, Abortion and the End of Roe,” 23 June 2022. Accessed on 28 September 2022. https:​//​www​.ndn​ .org​/polling​-memo​-hispanics​-abortion​-and​-end​-roe Rousselle, Christine. “Contradicting past statements, Biden says he doesn’t believe life begins at conception,” Catholic News Agency, 3 September 2021. https:​//​ www​.catholicnewsagency​.com​/news​/248878​/president​-joe​-biden​-says​-he​-doesnt​ -believe​-life​-begins​-at​-conception​-contradicting​-past​-statements Rubio, Senator Marco. “Providing for Life Act.” Text - S.4868 - 117th Congress (2021–2022). https:​//​www​.congress​.gov​/bill​/117th​-congress​/senate​-bill​/4868​/text Salamon, Lester M. “The Resilient Sector,” 1–15. Brookings Institution, 2016. https:​ //​www​.brookings​.edu​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2016​/07​/thestateofnonprofitamerica2nd edition​_chapter​.pdf Seitz, Bishop Mark, J. “U.S. Bishops Migration Chairman Dismayed by Continued Reliance on Harmful Policies over Humane Solutions,” 22 January 2023. https:​ //​www​.usccb​.org​/news​/2023​/us​-bishops​-migration​-chairman​-dismayed​-continued​ -reliance​-harmful​-policies​-over​-humane ———. “U.S. Bishops’ Migration Chairman Denounces Proposed Limits on Asylum Access,” 23 February 2023. https:​//​www​.usccb​.org​/news​/2023​/us​-bishops​ -migration​-chairman​-denounces​-proposed​-limits​-asylum​-access Shanahan, Ed. “David Beckwith, 79, Who Scooped the Supreme Court on Roe,” New York Times, 9 October 2022, 30. Shear, Michael D., Eileen Sullivan, and Miriam Jordan, “Biden Announces New Crackdown on Migrants Crossing at the Border,” New York Times, 6 January 2022, A10. Simmons, John A. “Patriotic Leadership,” in Terry L. Price and J. Thomas Wren, The Values of Presidential Leadership. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Sinema, Senator Kristin, Senator Tom Tillis, Senator Joseph Manchin, and Senator John Cornyn. Bill to “To authorize the immediate expulsion of inadmissible aliens attempting to enter the United States by fraud or without a necessary entry

Bibliography

151

document, and for other purposes.” https:​//​www​.sinema​.senate​.gov​/wp​-content​/ uploads​/files​/2023​-05​/MDM23681​.pdf Singer, Natasha. “Political Text Gone Wild,” New York Times, 7 November 2022, B1. Sister Song. https:​//​www​.sistersong​.net/ Society for Family Planning. https:​//​societyfp​.org/ Sullivan, Eileen. “New Border Chief Named as Policies Face Scrutiny,” 11 June 2023, New York Times, 20. Text of House Resolution 89, 118th Congress (2023–2024); Introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Texas). https:​//​www​.congress​.gov​/bill​/118th​-congress​/house​-resolution​ /89​/text​?s​=1​&r​=95 Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986), Tillis, Senator Tom, and Senator Krystin Sinema. M https:​//​www​.sinema​.senate​.gov​/ wp​-content​/uploads​/files​/2023​-05​/MDM23681​.pdf Trump, President Donald J., Executive Order 13767 “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.” 30 January 2017. https:​//​www​.presidency​.ucsb​.edu​/ documents​/executive​-order​-13767​-border​-security​-and​-immigration​-enforcement​ -improvements ———. “Executive order 13780, 6 March 2017. “Executive Order 13780: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States Initial Section 11 Report. https:​//​www​.dhs​.gov​/sites​/default​/files​/publications​/Executive​ %20Order​%2013780​%20Section​%2011​%20Report​%20​-​%20Final​.pdf ———. “March for Life Speech,” 18 March 2018 Full text: President Trump's historic speech to 2018 March for Life. https:​//​www​.lifesitenews​.com​/news​/full​-text​ -president​-trumps​-historic​-speech​-to​-march​-for​-life/ Underwood, Kathryn. “Several States Have Introduced Fetal Personhood Laws,” Market Realist, 12 July 2022. https:​//​marketrealist​.com​/p​/states​-with​-fetal​ -personhood​-laws/ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Amicus Brief. Missouri v Danforth 428 U.S. 52 (1976)96 S. Ct. 2831. ———. Amicus Brief. Harris v Mc Rae. 448 U.S. 297 (1980) ———. Amicus Brief. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.492 U.S. 490 (1989) ———. “Catholics in Political Life,” 2004. Accessed on 9 September 2022 https:​//​ www​.usccb​.org​/issues​-and​-action​/faithful​-citizenship​/church​-teaching​/catholics​-in​ -political​-life ———. “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” 14 November 2007. New edition February 2020. https:​//​www​.usccb​.org​/issues​-and​-action​/faithful​-citizenship​/ upload​/forming​-consciences​-for​-faithful​-citizenship​.pdf ———. “Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities: A Campaign in Support of Life,” 200l November. Accessed on 21 August 2022. https:​//​www​.usccb​.org​/prolife​/pastoral​ -plan​-pro​-life​-activities ———.  “Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities: A Reaffirmation.”  Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1985. ———. Committee for a Human Life Amendment (NCHLA). https:​//​www​ .humanlifeaction​.org/

152

Bibliography

———. Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. https:​//​www​.respectlife​.org/ ———. “Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Dobbs v Jackson,” 24 June 2022. https:​//​www​.usccb​.org​/news​/2022​/usccb​-statement​-us​-supreme​-court​-ruling​ -dobbs​-v​-jackson ———. “Strangers No Longer Together on the Journey of Hope,” 22 January 2003. https:​ //​www​.usccb​.org​/issues​-and​-action​/human​-life​-and​-dignity​/immigration​/strangers​ -no​-longer​-together​-on​-the​-journey​-of​-hope ———. “Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity,” 15 November 2000. https:​//​www​.usccb​.org​/committees​/pastoral​-care​-migrants​-refugees​-travelers​ /welcoming​-stranger​-among​-us​-unity​-diversity United States Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Regents of the University of California, et al. 140 S. Ct. 1891; 207 L. Ed. 2d 353. https:​//​supreme​.justia​.com​/ cases​/federal​/us​/591​/18​-587/ United States v. Texas, 599 U.S. ___ (2023). U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Southwest Land Border Encounters,” 10 February 2023. https:​//​www​.cbp​.gov​/newsroom​/stats​/southwest​-land​-border​ -encounters Verma, Pranshu, “Pompeo Says Human Rights Must Reflect Religious Role,” New York Times, 17 September 2020, A 1 Wall Street Journal Editorial, “President Newsom Strikes Again,” 11 March 2023, A12. Warner, Carolyn. “Benevolent Secularism and the Recalibration of Church-State Relations in Ireland in the Aftermath of the Clergy Child Sex Abuse Scandals,” Journal of Church and State 62, no. 1 (Winter 2020): 86–109. https:​//​academic​.oup​ .com​/jcs​/article​-abstract​/62​/1​/86​/5735698​?redirectedFrom​=fulltext Warren, Senator Elizabeth. “Letter to Jor-El Goodsey, President of Heartbeat International,” 19 September 2022. https:​//​www​.warren​.senate​.gov​/imo​/media​/doc​ /2022​.09​.19​%20Letter​%20to​%20Heartbeat​%20International​%20re​%20Privacy​ %20Concerns​.pdf Warren, Steve. “Christ Statue Beheaded, Churches Torched, Vandalized with Satanic Symbols Across US and the World,” 21 September 2020. https:​//​www2​.cbn​.com​ /news​/us​/christ​-statue​-beheaded​-churches​-torched​-vandalized​-satanic​-symbols​ -across​-us​-and​-world White House Fact Sheet. “Biden-⁠Harris Administration Announces New Border Enforcement Actions,” 5 January 2023. https:​//​www​.whitehouse​.gov​/briefing​ -room​/statements​-releases​/2023​/01​/05​/fact​-sheet​-biden​-harris​-administration​ -announces​-new​-border​-enforcement​-actions/ ———. “President Biden Reestablishes the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships,” 14 February. https:​//​www​.whitehouse​.gov​/briefing​ -room​/statements​-releases​/2021​/02​/14​/fact​-sheet​-president​-biden​-reestablishes​-the​ -white​-house​-office​-of​-faith​-based​-and​-neighborhood​-partnerships/ ———. “Vice President’s Cover Letter: U.S. Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America,” https:​//​www​.whitehouse​.gov​/wp​-content​ /uploads​/2021​/07​/Root​-Causes​-Strategy​.pdf

Bibliography

153

White House Report: FACT SHEET: Update on the U.S. Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America, 19 April 2022. https:​//​ www​.whitehouse​.gov​/briefing​-room​/statements​-releases​/2022​/04​/19​/fact​-sheet​ -update​-on​-the​-u​-s​-strategy​-for​-addressing​-the​-root​-causes​-of​-migration​-in​-central​ -america/ Whitehead, Kenneth D, ed. The Catholic Citizen: Debating the Issues of Justice. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine Press, 2004. Wray, Christopher, A. “Testimony Before the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on ‘Threats to the Homeland,’” 17 November 2022, 14–15. https:​//​www​.hsgac​.senate​.gov​/wp​-content​/uploads​/imo​/media​/doc​/ Testimony​-Wray​-2022​-11​-17​.pdf Wren, Thomas I/, and Terry L. Price, eds. The Values of Presidential Leadership. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Wuthnow, Robert. The Restructuring of American Religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. Yardley, Jim, and Paulina Villegas. “At Mass, Pope Embraces ‘Misunderstood’ of Mexico,” New York Times, 16 February 2016, A6. Zernike, Kate. “Abortion Views Sifted in Polls After Roe’s End,” 25 June 2023. New York Times, 18. ———. “Ambivalence of Men In Abortion Debate Could Swing Election,” New York Times, 8 November 2022, 12. Zubik v Burwell 576 U.S. 1049 (2015)

Index

Abbott, Governor Greg, 129 abortion, 7, 11, 34n46, 61, 71; abortion pills, 30, 46, 52–55, 102, 122, 133–34; abortion statistics, collecting, 57–58; American Medical Association policy on, 16–17; Apostolic Letter on forgiving abortions, 41–42; Biden on, 1–3, 13, 39–41, 48–49, 69, 93, 101, 110, 120, 124, 134, 135; Catholic politicians, as a quandary for, 121–22; Catholics and abortion “victories,” 102–6; Catholic social doctrine on, 15, 18, 23–24, 43, 62n11, 127; CDC data regarding, 59–60; as a contentious domestic policy, 2, 117, 118; Evangelium vitae on, 23–24; FACE Act violations and, 55–56; fetal viability, 8, 10, 36nn80–81, 37n84, 51, 65n46; opposition from Catholic Church, 4, 12, 21–22, 28, 32n24, 33n30, 120; Pastoral Plan for ProLife Activities, 18–19; Pelosi bill on prohibiting abortion restrictions, 50–51; pro-life committees, services providing, 19–20; Trump abortion policy, 27; USCCB stance on, 9, 16, 25–26, 29, 36–37nn81–85, 62n15See

also Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization; Roe v. Wade Administrative Procedure Act, 54 Affordable Care Act (ACA), 26, 27, 28, 30 Alito, Justice Samuel, 11, 51 Alliance Defending Freedom, 52 Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM v. FDA), 52, 53, 54 American Civil Liberties Union, 133 American Medical Association (AMA), 16–17 Aparecida Documents, 35, 74–75 Becerra, Xavier, 49 Bellah, Robert, 113 Benedict XV, Pope, 8 Benedict XVI, Pope, 24, 41, 42 Bergoglio, Jorge Mario. See Francis, Pope Bernadin, Joseph, 115 Biden, Jill, 10 Biden, Joseph R., 11, 41, 104, 135; as a Catholic, 10, 12–14, 24, 75, 102, 105, 117, 120, 123–24, 127; Catholic NGOs, working with, 77, 85, 88, 94, 96, 135; democracy, on the dangers to, 1, 40, 44, 45–48, 49, 93; Dobbs decision and, 2, 3, 10, 44, 48, 56, 57, 155

156

Index

59, 93; immigration policies, 1, 70, 72, 76, 77, 79–88, 94–101, 129–32, 135; as a leader, 1, 2, 3–4, 110–11, 115, 118, 119, 123; as pro-choice, 39–40, 42–43, 48, 50, 51, 57–59, 120, 133, 134; State of the Union Address, 95–96; Trump, resetting policies of, 45, 69, 81–82, 95 Biggs, Representative Andy, 100 birth control, 40, 59; birth control pills, 7, 15, 54, 133; Church’s opposition to, 15–16, 33n27; employers, denying coverage for, 27, 30 Blinken, Anthony, 84 Boebert, Representative Lauren, 135 Bonamici, Representative Suzanne, 50 Booker, Senator Corey, 128 Border Patrol, 100, 128, 129, 130 Brooks-LaSure, Chiquita, 30 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 27 Bush, George H., 26, 120, 122 Bush, George W., 26 Call to Action Program, 97–98 Carafem Health Center Clinic blockade, 56 Carter, Jimmy, 26, 124 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 14 Catholic Charities, 15, 75–76, 88 Catholic Extension agency, 77, 88 Catholic NGOs, 3, 76; Biden working with, 77, 85, 88, 94, 96, 134; transparency, calls for, 119–20; US-Mexico border, presence at, 85–86, 128, 131 Catholic Relief Services (CRS), 76, 88 Catholics for Choice (CFC), 103 Catholics for Life, 54 “Catholics in Political Life” pastoral document, 21–22 Catholic social doctrine, 4, 17, 25, 33n30, 39; Biden and, 40, 77, 127; Catholic Charities, social doctrine of, 75–76; political engagement based on, 14, 18, 70, 77; public policy,

influencing in the context of, 24, 43; rationale to speak out, providing, 13, 22–23; USCCB as implementing, 15, 85–86, 102 Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 57, 59–60 Central America, 86, 97–99 Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (Niebuhr), 4 Child Tax Credit, 133 civil religion, 113–14 Clinton, Bill, 26, 109 Clyburn, Jim, 97 Code of Canon Law, 9 Coleman, John, 71 Comstock Act, 52, 53 Conference of Latin American and Caribbean Bishops (CELAM), 74 COVID-19 pandemic, 43, 62n17, 83, 85, 98, 100, 130 crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), 49–50 Cuba, 86, 95, 99, 128 Cuffadi, Inspector General Joseph, 131 Cuomo, Mario, 120–22 Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), 100, 130, 131 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), 81 democracy, 4, 11, 29, 113; Biden on the dangers to, 1, 40, 44, 45–48, 49, 93; Catholics and democracy, 22, 122 Democratic Party, 12, 39, 49, 58, 61, 93, 96, 102, 129, 132 Department of Defense (DOD), 134 Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 63n34, 80, 82, 101; FEMA aid, distributing, 77; Homeland Security Commission, 127, 128–29, 135; Mayorkas as Homeland Security secretary, 83–85, 96, 99–100, 123, 127, 132, 135n1; Title 42 and, 130–31 Department of Justice, 129 Diaz-Balart, Representative Mario, 128

Index

Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act, 128 Di Nardo, Cardinal Daniel, 81 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 15, 29, 61, 122, 133; background, 1–3; Catholic leadership’s reaction to, 13, 28, 102; judicial challenges to, 51–56; media coverage of, 43, 44–48; moral and political support from Catholics, 60, 93, 105; political power, tactical use in wake of, 48–51, 57; pro-life organizations supporting, 9–10; reactions to Dobbs decision, 11–12, 39; reversal of decision, efforts toward, 45, 59; state’s rights, justices ruling in favor of, 58; threats against pro-life centers after decision, 104–5 “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions regarding ‘The Participation of Catholics in Political Life,’” 22 Doe et al v. McKee, 54 Domestic Policy Council (DPC), 82 Dreamers and the path to citizenship, 79, 95–96 Ecclesia in America encyclical, 72 El Salvador, 97–98 Emily’s List, 59, 134 Eternal World Television Network (EWTN), 15, 50 eucharistic consistency, 24, 25, 41, 102 Evangelium Vitae encyclical, 21, 22 executive orders, 95, 110, 133; of Biden, 1, 3, 48–49, 79, 81–83; Executive Order 3535 on abortion, 26; Executive Order 13798 on contraception, 27, 28; Trump, three executive orders of, 80–81 FACE Act, 55 family planning, 25, 26, 30, 49, 57, 59 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 77, 128

157

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 53 Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 48, 50 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 26–27, 52–54, 133 Ford, Gerald, 26 Fourteenth Amendment, 7, 11, 12, 51, 55 Francis, Pope, 41–43, 71, 74–75, 102, 115–17, 120, 124 Future Majority organization, 59 The Future of the Democratic Revolution (Riemer), 118 Gallagher, Chester, 55–56 Gomez, José, 42 Goodwin, Doris Kearns, 111 Green, Alex, 117 Greenleaf, Robert K., 114, 115 Griswold v. Connecticut, 7, 12 Guatemala, 97–98 Gutierrez, Gustavo, 71 Guttmacher Institute, 57–58 Haiti, 85, 86, 95, 128 Harris, Vice President Kamala, 123; as border czar, 96–99; pro-choice views on abortion, 50, 134; reassignment from border duties, 129, 133 Health and Human Services (HHS), 26, 28, 48, 49–50 Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 26 Heartbeat International, 49–50 Hehir, J. Bryan, 71 Hinson, Representative Ashley, 133 HIPAA regulations, 50 Hispanic Catholics, 102, 103 Hobbs, Governor Katie, 133 Hochul, Governor Kathy, 134 Hollenbach, David, 71 Holy Communion, 42–43 Honduras, 97–98 Hope Border Institute, 77

158

Index

Houck, Mark, 56 House Bill HR 8926, 56 Humanae Vitae encyclical, 15–16 “Human Life in Our Day” pastoral letter, 15–16 Hyde Amendment, 25, 41 imago dei, theological doctrine of, 12, 70, 75, 102 immigration, 8, 49, 135; BidenMayorkas border actions, 127–30, 133; Biden policies on migration, 1, 4, 39, 79–88, 93, 94–101, 102, 105, 110; as a contentious issue, 117, 118, 124, 134; Encuentro 2000 meeting on, 73; immigration reform, 3, 70, 72, 74–76, 77–79, 80, 128, 132; Title 42 expiration, effect on, 128, 130–31; USCCB stance on, 69–70, 88, 119–20 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 80, 128, 131 Jayapal, Representative Pramila, 128 John Paul II, Pope, 13, 21–22, 33n30, 71, 72, 118 Johnson, Lyndon, 111 John XXIII, Pope, 15 Jordan, Representative Jim, 100, 105 Kaczmaryk, Judge Matthew, 53 Kennedy, John F., 40, 112 Kerry, John, 26, 122 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 114 Klein, Jennifer, 49 Krol, John, 17–18 Latin America, 71–72, 75, 97, 103, 115 Laudato Si’ encyclical, 117 Lawrence v. Texas, 12 Law SB 8 (TX), 55 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 9, 31n7 “Letter from Modesto” pastoral letter, 76 liberation theology, 71

Lincoln, Abraham, 111, 112, 114 The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints of Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 28–29, 37n88 magisterium of the Church, 23, 28, 41 Maloney, Representative Carolyn B., 50 Manchin, Senator Joseph, 128 March for Life, 27, 104, 105 Marcos, Fernando, 118 Mayorkas, Secretary Alejandro, 101, 132; Biden immigration shift, implementing, 129–31, 135; border security, in charge of, 84–85, 133; competency challenges from the right, 99–100; Homeland Security, as secretary of, 83–85, 96, 99–100, 123, 127, 132, 135n1; NGO network, empowering, 127–28 McCarthy, McCarthy Kevin, 99–100, 132, 135 McClintock, Representative Tom, 128 McKee, Daniel, 54 Medhurst, Martin J., 119 Meet the Press (television show), 50 Menendez, Senator Bob, 50 Mexico, 73, 97, 127; Catholic Bishops of Mexico, 74, 87; “Remain in Mexico” policy, 1, 83, 100, 129; US-Mexico border, 69, 77, 80, 86, 129, 135 mifepristone (RU-486), 26, 52–54 Migration and Refugee Services (MRS), 77–78, 88 minority voters, 10, 20, 57–61, 69 miscarriage, 7 misoprostol, 52 Musk, Elon, 47 Nadler, Representative Jerrold, 104 NARAL Pro-Choice America, 59, 64n41 National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC), 8, 31n6, 123 National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), 8

Index

Neustadt, Richard, 112 Newsom, Governor Gavin, 46, 53 New York Times (periodical), 46, 55, 61, 101, 132, 134 Nicaragua, 85, 86, 95, 128 Niebuhr, Reinhold, 4 Nixon, Richard, 112 Obama, Barack, 26, 76, 81, 99, 109 Obamacare. See Affordable Care Act Obergefell v. Hodges, 12 Ortiz, Chief Raul, 100, 130 Owens, Chief Jason, 130 Paul VI, Pope, 15–16 Pelosi, Representative Nancy, 15, 47, 50–51, 104 Pew Research Center, 57, 58, 59, 118 Pious, Richard, 112 Planned Parenthood, 41, 56, 57, 59, 105, 133 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 8, 37n84, 51, 65n46 Price, Terry, 122 pro-choice, 7, 8, 26, 47, 103, 121; Biden as pro-choice, 39–40, 42–43, 48, 50, 51, 57–59, 120, 133, 134; Dobbs decision and, 10, 11, 28, 29, 51–52, 58, 61, 93, 104; pro-choice activists and legal challenges, 54–56; pro-choice businesses and interest groups, 46, 59 pro-life, 7, 45, 47, 57, 61, 105; Biden and pro-life advocates, 39, 56, 93, 135; Catholic Church as pro-life, 9, 10, 21, 24–25, 43, 102–4; Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities, 18–19; pro-life activism, 8, 29, 50, 59, 121; Republican platform as pro-life, 26, 27; Roe v. Wade, efforts to reverse, 3, 14, 17; Supreme Court, pro-life cases before, 51–52, 54 Promises to Keep (Biden), 40 prophetic politics, 117–18 Protection of Marriage Act, 104

159

Providing for Life Act, 133 Pyrrhus, King, 93 Ratzinger, Joseph, 42. See also Benedict XVI, Pope Reagan, Ronald, 26 Real Clear Politics, 60 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 27, 28, 37n88 REMS Program, 52 Republican Party, 12, 57, 61, 94, 104, 134; abortion stance, 26, 49, 53, 59, 133–34; the House, gaining control over, 93, 96, 99; legislation, passing, 128–29; MAGA Republicans, 45–46; Mayorkas, opposing, 96, 99–101, 132; Republican Catholics, 60; Trump as a Republican, 69, 81 Respect for Marriage Act, 104 Respect Life Program, 20 Riemer, Neal, 118 Roberts, Chief Justice John, 15, 50 Roe v. Wade, 2, 10, 37n84, 39, 55, 104; Biden, reactions to, 40, 44, 48; bishops’ actions after passing of, 8–9, 15–17, 20–21, 29–30; “Catholics in Political Life” document inspired by, 21–22; constitutional principles, decision based on, 7–8; fetal viability as a factor in ruling, 8, 51, 65n46; Kerry as supporting, 26, 122; Latinx reactions after overturning of, 59, 103; Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities in response to, 18–20; reversing of, Catholic efforts toward, 3, 11, 14–15, 25–26, 60 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 111, 123–24 Roosevelt, Theodore, 111 Rubio, Senator Marco, 133 Sacramentum Caritatis encyclical, 24, 41 Scalise, Representative Steve, 100 Secure the Border Act, 128–29

160

Index

Seitz, Mark J., 87 servant leadership, 114, 117 Sese Seko, Mobuto, 118 Sessions, Jeff, 81 Shea and Gardiner law firm, 9 Simmons, A. John, 113 Sinema, Senator Krysten, 129 Smith, Representative Christopher, 56, 128 Society of Family Planning, 57 Sollicitudo Rei Socialis encyclical, 13, 33n30 Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act, 50, 64n40 “Strangers No Longer” pastoral statement, 74 Strickland, Joseph E, 120 Stupak-Pitts Amendment, 26 Supreme Court, 15, 20, 27, 56, 81, 104, 110, 131; legitimacy of court as questioned, 11–12; Little Sisters of the Poor, decision to hold for, 29; mail-order abortion pills, hearing appeal on, 134; Title 42 ruling, 1, 83; writ of certiorari put before, 54–55See also Dobbs v Jackson; Roe v. Wade Task Force on Reproductive Healthcare Access, 48–49 Taylor, Myron, 124 Thomas, Clarence, 12, 104 Tillis, Senator Thom, 129 Title 8 legislation, 84 Title 42 legislation, 86, 88, 101; border crossings prior to discontinuation, 129, 132; immigration policy hearings and, 127–28; personnel changes before expiration, 129, 130; as “Remain in Mexico” policy, 1, 83, 100, 129; Title 8 policies, returning to, 84 Title IX funding, 49 Title X family planning, 30 Truman, Harry, 112

Trump, Donald: Biden resetting policies of, 45, 69, 81–82, 95; border position, 79–81, 83, 132; Executive Order 13798, 28; Little Sisters of the Poor, participating in suit, 37n88; Supreme Court appointments, 27, 44 Tutti Fratelli encyclical, 116 Twitter, 47, 120 United States Catholic Conference (USCC), 8 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), 21, 27, 29, 102; abortion stance, 9, 16, 29, 36–37nn81–85; background on formation of, 8–9; Cardinal Krol as president of, 17–18; Catholic social doctrine, implementing, 15, 43, 85–86, 102; eucharistic consistency, concerns over, 41; “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” document, 23–24; government, working relationship with, 75–76; on migration, 69–70, 75, 79, 81, 85–88; MRS, partnering with, 77–78, 88; National Right to Life Committee as a major office of, 9, 31n6, 59; operational tactics, 14–15; “Political Reflections on an Election Year” document, 20–21; religious policies and, 42–43, 62n15; Roe v. Wade, efforts to reverse, 3, 14, 19, 25–26; transparency, calls for, 119–20; “Welcoming the Stranger Among Us” pastoral letter, 73–74 U.S. Alternative to Detention Programs, 85 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USIS), 99 Vásquez, Bishop Joe S., 81 Venezuela, 85, 86, 95, 128, 135 The View (television show), 47 Walgreens, 52–53

Index

Walker, Hershel, 61 Wallace, George, 124 Warnock, Donald, 61 Warren, Senator Elizabeth, 11, 49-50, 104 WeCount project, 57–58 Weingarten, Randi, 130

Wilson, Woodrow, 109 Wray, Christopher, 104 Wren, J. Thomas, 122 Wuthnow, Robert, 114 Zubik v. Burwell, 28–29

161

About the Author

Jo Renee Formicola, PhD, is professor of political science and public affairs at Seton Hall University. Her teaching and research revolve around the challenging relationships between religion and politics. She is the author and coauthor of ten books, as well as numerous peer-reviewed articles on Catholicism in the US political process. Formicola has also served as the editor of many special issues of journals on church and state and is often interviewed by the US and world press about her specific areas of expertise: papal policies, clerical sexual abuse, and the clashes between sacred and secular values in politics.

163