(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

... Doesn't Mean They're Not After You
12/31/2003

Ramesh Ponnuru — who, upon my asking, recently told me that he is an in-process convert to Catholicism — writes on the strategizing of the forces for abortion to use "international law" to bring abortion to the entire world, without reference to the will of the people... any people, anywhere:

The movement for legal and subsidized abortion in America has never had a particularly democratic character. Its signal victories have come through the courts. The Supreme Court in 1973 tossed out the laws of all fifty states to impose a more liberal regime in which abortion was permissible at any stage of pregnancy for any reason, and no state was allowed to legislate otherwise. In 2000, the Supreme Court held that states could not ban even partial-birth abortion, a type of abortion that a large majority of the public, and the governments of 30 states, rejected. The organizations that favor these legal outcomes were able to achieve them without having to win a social and political consensus for them—and without having to engage in the compromises that the formation of a consensus might have required.

A move to international law to achieve the same results was thus not much of a stretch. United Nations conferences during the 1990s saw several attempts to move toward the international recognition of abortion as a basic human right. What makes the memos politically embarrassing is their frankness in discussing the center's hope of bypassing legislatures here and abroad to impose its favored abortion policies: "Our goal is to see governments worldwide guarantee women's reproductive rights out of recognition that they are bound to do so."

Politically, practically, theologically... global government is a bad idea. As a realm of political power moves further from individual communities, it ought to have less specificity of power. At the international level, it ought to be nothing but a forum for nations of some degree of cultural agreement to exert what influence their common ties provide. To grant such a body rights to govern is the height of folly. As I wrote in an essay that is now only available in my Just Thinking book:

The wisdom of consolidation in any area of life depends hugely on the extent to which we trust the person or organization in which we vest responsibility. As a theoretical matter, it is best to spread power and influence as broadly as possible so those with ill intentions — the Devil, say, or even a run-of-the-mill con man or politician — cannot position themselves at the hub of too much of it.

ADDENDUM:
Incidentally, it is a matter of faith that we Catholics have trust in the organization in which we vest theological responsibility. And even then, we give varying degrees of weight to different types of pronouncements.

Posted by Justin Katz @ 11:15 PM EST