The recent articles regarding Hillary Clinton have been quite popular. I am following up with a series of interviews with friend, colleague and presidential historian Paul Kengor regarding the role of faith and social policy in the upcoming election. This interview presents Paul’s take on the religious views of front-runners Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, specifically with regard to abortion policy. Would Rudy be denied communion? Does Hillary think of abortion as a kind of sacred right? Read on…
THROCKMORTON: Just a basic question for foundation: Why do you believe that the religious views of politicians are relevant to their campaign for the presidency?
KENGOR: To quote FDR, the presidency is preeminently a place of moral leadership, and religion is the foundation of morality. George Washington noted that religion and morality are the “indispensable supports” of a successful democratic republic. There is no such thing as a legislator or policy-maker who leaves morality out of his or her decision making. All of our figures impose some kind of personal morality, whether flawed or not. Religion is usually the basis for that morality, and, in American history, typically the Christian religion.
Presidential candidates often point to their faith as justification for the policies they promote during their campaigns.
I believe, the scandal is when you have a liberal Democrat like John Kerry who stated in the final 2004 presidential debate, “My faith affects everything I do, really,” and then cites how his faith influences his desire to end poverty, to clean up the environment, to hike the minimum wage, but then, suddenly, completely separates his Roman Catholic faith from life-death issues like abortion and embryonic research. In my view, that’s outrageous. Kerry does it, Mario Cuomo does it, Ted Kennedy does it, and, most recently, from the Republican side of the aisle, Rudy Giuliani is doing it.
THROCKMORTON: Your new book examines the religious views of the current democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton. How about the Republican leader, Rudy Giuliani? What is his religious background?
KENGOR: He says that he studied theology for four years in college, after completing 12 years at a Catholic private school. By studying theology, I think he means that he was probably required to take some religious education courses at Manhattan College, which was the Catholic college that he attended, where I believe he studied politics and philosophy. He says that at one point he considered becoming a priest.
THROCKMORTON: What are his current religious leanings and how will these impact his policy making?
KENGOR: He has been quite private about that, knowing that any mention of his faith will get him in hot water as the first major pro-choice Republican with a legitimate crack at winning the party’s presidential nomination. The Republican Party has become the Party of Life, and nominating Rudy might well change that image. There are numerous pro-life Christians, Protestant and Catholic, who are going to fight that possible shift, from the likes of James Dobson at Focus on the Family to the pages of the National Catholic Register. They are not pleased that after all of these pro-life gains that have come only because of Republican presidents fighting abortion extermists in the Democratic Party, there is a sudden chance of a course reversal under a Republican president named Rudy Giuliani, no matter what his guarantees about appointing “strict constructionist” judges. They understand that in the real world there will be an untold number of pro-abortion executive orders and initiatives and decisions that would come across a President Giuliani’s desk, and that concerns them. As president, he might at best get to appoint two Supreme Court justices, but he will constantly be dealing with a flurry of pro-life and anti-life legislation.
THROCKMORTON: I have heard Mr. Giuliani say, I hate abortion. How does he reconcile this statement and his Catholic affiliation with his abortion public policy?
KENGOR: Hopefully, everyone hates abortion. The burning question in response would be to ask him why he hates abortion. Naturally, one would presume, he would say that he hates abortion because it terminates a human life. That being the case, how can one support the termination of human life? Once he concedes that point, he knows he’s in trouble. His church is very clear on this, from encyclicals like Humanae Vitae to Evangelium Vitae to Veritatis Splendor to the Catechism to the very recent eloquent remarks from Pope Benedict XVI.
Imagine this striking scenario: a Catholic president of the United States who is denied Holy Communion in certain dioceses because of his stance on abortion. That would be truly remarkable.
Non-Catholics have trouble understanding this, so let me try to explain Catholic thinking: Catholics believe that at Holy Communion they receive the literal body and blood of Christ. The recent Vatican document Redemptionis Sacramentum affirms Church teaching that “anyone who is conscious of grave sin should not celebrate or receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession.” The document restated the church’s position that anyone knowingly in “grave sin” must go to confession before ingesting the consecrated bread and wine that Catholics consider the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. Cardinal Francis Arinze said that “unambiguously pro-abortion” Catholic politicians are “not fit” to receive the sacred elements.The Vatican has spoken on this. It is up to American bishops to decide whether to carry out the policy.
In 2004, a number of Catholic archbishops suggested or flatly stated that if a President John Kerry presented himself for communion in their diocese he would be turned away. Among others, these included Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes of New Orleans, and even Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston—Kerry’s home diocese. Most recently, in Giuliani’s case, Archbishop Burke has spoken up.
THROCKMORTON: Compared to Hillary Clinton, who would be most pro-choice, if such a comparison can be made?
KENGOR: That’s a no-brainer: Hillary Clinton. If you’re a pro-lifer, and if no issue is more important to you than the right of an unborn child to have life, then nothing could be more calamitous than a President Hillary Clinton. I don’t know of any politician who is more uncompromising and extreme on abortion rights than Hillary Clinton. I know this well and don’t state it with anger or hyperbole. Her extremism on abortion rights was the single most shocking, inexplicable find in my research on her faith and politics. I couldn’t understand it. No question. It is truly extraordinary. Nothing, no political issue, impassions her like abortion rights. For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.
By the way, speaking of Catholics, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II saw this abortion extremism in Hillary, and both confronted her on it repeatedly, especially Mother Teresa, right up until the day she died. I have a chapter on this in the book. It’s a gripping story.
THROCKMORTON: Of Hillary and Rudy, who would most likely make abortion rights a litmus test for Supreme Court appointments?
KENGOR: Hillary, no question. She has made that clear. Rudy would not.
Sanctity of life! It sounds so high and mighty. But life from conception to the grave is what Mike Huckabee is fighting for. To care for the defenesless in the womb and the lonely, needy elderly. Gov Mike Huckabee will be a wonderful president whose ideas are about tax reform, school reform, and of course sanctity of life!
Jag,
The two examples you cite (health and rape) are certainly justification for saving the emotional and physical life of the woman over the continuation of a pregnancy. A very difficult decision yet one that I feel is valid when faced with the circumstances you illustrated.
Dear Frog,
Can you show how the people of Baghdad were guilty of anything yet we bombed them! Not Saddam but the ordinary people of Baghdad.Did you cry out for them?So being innocent does not help in the argument against killing does it?
The Christian churches have always made a distinction between fetuses and children. Only children were baptized in the early church Even today many ministers refuse to baptize fetuses. Even the state does not pursue criminal charges when fetuses are identified.You get around the issue by calling then children Try registering a fetus at a kinder garden and you will find most people do not consider them children. Everything that is alive is not a person.
I can no more explain when a person emerges from the combination of the egg and the sperm than anyone can but that does not make the mess that becomes a person also a person,just as the plant is not the flower neither is the fetus the person.
You seem to imply that we can kill after we decide that someone should be killed.(Not just prison time but actually killing just like stoning in biblical times)Seems like very Divine Power there. Sitting in God’s seat seems to make you comfortable. I don’t question the crime but the punishment.If it meets our standards we kill.right!
I do not think we should judge the moral behavior of others. Courts say you are guilty before the Law not morally guilty. Courts say we are guilty before Man’s laws not before God’s Laws.”Forgive us as we forgive” is how Jesus taught us to pray.”Judge not that Ye shall not be judged” was his admonition.Follow the word of Jesus if you would be Christian.
Sincerely Andy.
Gordon –
I was commenting on Joseph’s statement that “abortion is always murder,” and that because it is murder, it should not be considered. I would argue that Capitol Punishment – guilty or not, is also always murder. Whether or not one believes it is justifiable is a completely different matter – it is the taking of another life intentionally, without question. So, your question as to whether a baby is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” is really quite irrelevant.
You also state: “Perhaps you can explain why you think we shouldn’t judge. And then, why do we have judges?”
“judge not lest ye be judged” – I let the judging up to God. I feel I have enough judging to do by looking inward and improving myself. As an ordinary citizen (not in the judicial field) it seems a waste of energy. I try the radical notion of leaving the judging to higher authorities than myself. I try looking inward as a first measure and usually find plenty of work to do…try it, I’m sure you’ll find the same.
The last thing you asked:
“With regards to the different stages of development in a living human, if not at conception, where does a human non-person become a human person? If through birth, can you explain how this takes place?”
Personally, I think that if it came down to me in my 2nd trimester (with a child inutero), and I was going to die because of the effects of the pregnancy, I would have a difficult choice. But forcing women to give up their life seems wrong to me. Not allowing women to be internally cleansed immediately after a rape seems wrong to me also. Although, according to you, it is a possible life-in-progress.
I never argued when “life” begins – because you and I both do not know anything about when a soul occurs and there is no scientifically verifiable way to examine that. I just stated that this argument isn’t easy and that many individuals are inconsistent. If life does indeed begin at conception, then using birth control should also be outlawed – since it is, essentially, preventing the possible creation of life. I am not Catholic, and this is not my particular belief, but I hope others are consistent on this.
I find people tend to be consistent when it doesn’t interfere in the norms of their own behaviors. Doing without birth control might just be a tad to inconvenient for consistency.
to me, the determining factor of whether there is life or not is based on this – if you have to terminate a life through abortion, then there was life there to begin with. If there is no life, then nothing has to be done. Preventing a life through contraceptives is not the same as terminating a life. Most people will attach religious values to this but I am stating it without any religious attachment. What a woman decides, is what she will decide – I just think it is important not to diminish the facts to make the process easier. Sometimes when a woman knows the facts, she chooses for life.
Jag,
The death penalty. Hmm. If you can show that a baby is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of a capital crime, to a jury, then maybe people will consider the death penalty as a reasonable objection.
“I also don’t know if anyone can judge.”
Perhaps you can explain why you think we shouldn’t judge. And then, why do we have judges?
With regards to the different stages of development in a living human, if not at conception, where does a human non-person become a human person? If through birth, can you explain how this takes place?
Joseph –
I’m wondering…you stated:
“Abortion is always murder. It shouldn’t be considered. God makes the decisions.”
Do you support the death penalty?
I also think that it isn’t always such a cut-and-dry issue…what is abortion and what is not? As I have stated before, if a woman is raped and goes to the ER to be “cleaned out,” is this not a form of abortion? or because we do not know if a life has resulted is it not?
If a mother’s life is at risk in continuing the pregnancy, should she be forced to die? There are so many factors.
While I do not believe I would have one, I cannot answer those questions above for anyone else…nor can I judge those who have answered them differently than I would have.
I also don’t know if anyone can judge. After all, many (if not most) Americans have used some form of birth control…isn’t that the ultimate? That is preventing a life from existing in the first place, that may have existed otherwise.
I’m not sure where people draw the line, but I know that making blanket statements as you did, certainly isn’t accurate. Heck, most can’t agree on when it’s even abortion…let alone that it is always murder. Is it abortion when it’s a blastocyst (grouping of cells)? Is getting rid of cells in this stage murder?
So many questions…
Andy,
Government cannot do everything – it is the ordinary person who does extroidinary things and can make a difference. No one should be excluded from the right to life or the right to protection under law. I learned a long time ago to look at my own contribution before I lay blame on someone else or an organization for not doing their part or what I think they should or shouldn’t be doing. It puts things into perspective.
I cannot but be impressed by the Republican support for the life of the unborn. Would that they cared for all life as deeply.The life of the poor, those in prison, those killed by war(Shock and Awe), the life of hungry children of America.Those dying from starvation in Africa. Would that they eagerly disabused themselves of their wealth to follow the words of Jesus, (go sell what you have,give to the poor and come follow Me). My beloved Republican friends words are cheap,doing is difficult but it is the proof of your commitment to the Life you so cherish for others.
Ken, are you saying that it is just your personal view that legislating personal views is wrong, or that this applies to other people, including myself?
If it is just your personal view, that does not apply to others, then you have no right to tell me that your view on this applies to what I can or cannot do.
Else, if you believe that it applies to everyone, and therefore should be legislature (you seem to mean this, or you would not post the view publicly) then you are saying that your personal views should be legislature. (the very thing you are saying is right.
As it turns out, whether or not a view is personal or religious has nothing to do with whether it should be legislature or not. The only thing that effects whether something should be legislature is whether it is a right view or a wrong view.
You have not shown that my view is a wrong view, only that it is a personal view and a religious view. And this in itself is not an argument against implementing it.
Gordon Fogus asked in post 54767:
Can you explain why protecting the population is a good thing?
Perhaps after you address the questions I asked in post 54688 about why legislating religious views are wrong.
Gordon–
I see your number 6–up in post 43907, and like you, I do believe it answers the question. I believe most of us were satisfied with your response; you’ll have to decide whether it’s worth pursuing further to satisfy Jayhuck.
Gordon,
I’m slipping and backtracking??????? It seems that you are trying your best not to answer the question.
Ken:
You said, “Murder is illegal to protect the population.”
7. Can you explain why protecting the population is a good thing? [Your view comes from the religion of humanism [in case you hadn’t noticed], which you seem to think is ok to legislate on people. Why is it ok for you to legislate your humanist views, but it’s not ok for me to legislate my religious views. Your problem will eventually be that there is no ultimate grounding for humanism, to be specific, there is no god to appeal to for authority.]
8. With your explanation for why murder is illegal, would it be a good idea to legalize murder if the population got too big?
I already answered this objection/question; see further my response #5.
Jayhuck:
You said, “… Should she go to jail for those things?”
I already answered this objection/question; see my response #6.
You are now backtracking from your original claim that slipping and falling and causing death accidently is manslaughter.
~fogus
Gordon,
My understanding of involuntary manslaughter is an act that results in death which is done in a “reckless, or grossly negligent manner”. I can think of many reckless things a woman might do – without malice I might add – that could lead to the death of a child. Should she go to jail for those things?
Ken,
Amen!
Taad,
What in the world does slavery have to do with abortion?
Gordon said in post 53907:
4. Why not? [why not legislate religious views?]
Because not everyone shares your religious views and the majority should not be able to force the minority to adhere to them. Would you be willing to accept laws requiring all males to be circumcised? That no one may work on Sundays (I know a lot of football fans who would be upset with that one)?
This doesn’t mean laws can’t coincide with religious views. Murder is illegal to protect the population. The fact that some people have strong religious beliefs against killing doesn’t make it a law based on religion.
Would we say that slavery is wrong, but that it should be safe, legal and rare? And Bank Robbery? Rape? What’s the difference?
As far as the church denying communion, it makes perfect sense. The key here is between what is PRIVATE and PUBLIC. While the burden is always on the individual to examine themselves for serious sin prior to receiving Our Lord in Communion. St. Paul says that to unworthily receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord makes us worse off than if we hadn’t. He says you eat your condemnation when you do so. This is a serious matter for everyone who goes to Communion to consider. (years ago not as many people would go to communion being aware of this. Today we all think we are saints!) The other aspect is that Church must try to avoid scandal or giving the impression that what that person is saying or doing publicly is okay (On a serious matter). A public figure who is widely known by the community to be in a state of heresy or serious sin and refuses after repeated requests to repent or to voluntarily refrain from taking Communion, can be denied Communion. It happened in Germany during the WWII and some priests paid for it with their lives. Communion is the Ultimate sign of unity with Christ and the community, so it is a lie to receive it when you don’t believe what Christ or His Church teaches.
jayhuck:
Just noticed you also said: “Don’t try and legislate your religious beliefs onto others who don’t believe as you do…”
[i will continue my numbering to make it easy to respond to my questions]
4. Why not? [why not legislate religious views?]
[in any effort you make to persuade me to agree with you, you will show that you are trying to legislate your religious beliefs onto me, and therefore that you believe that it is ok to do so]
5. If it is my religious view that murder is wrong, how is it wrong for me, if I were a government official, to legislate my religious views onto the common people? [it is this act [legislating religious views] that has brought law [and, with enforcement, order] to this country. laws ultimately come from a being outside of our universe. belief in such a being is considered a religious belief.]
You also said “I’m just curious – using your line of thinking, if a pregnant woman accidently slips and lands on her stomach causing a miscarriage, should the woman be accused of involuntary manslaughter and sent to trial? If abortion is simply murder, I’m not sure how you could say no to this?”
6. In defense of our laws, and Tracia:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Involuntary_manslaughter
Manslaughter under one of the following categories:
# 2.1 Criminal negligence
# 2.2 Recklessness
# 2.3 Vehicular or intoxication manslaughter
# 2.4 Misdemeanor manslaughter
Accidentally slipping and falling and causing the death of someone is considered an accident, not manslaughter. However if someone is criminally negligent, reckless, intoxicated, at fault for a traffic accident, or committing another crime at the time that they cause the death of a human [these are from the wiki], YES, they are guilty of manslaughter.
~fogus
jayhuck:
You said: “I still like what president Clinton said about abortion – it should be “safe, legal and RARE””
You also said: “they were done in unsafe and unclean places sometimes by unlicensed people”
You also said: “sometimes both the mother and the child would lose their lives because of this.”
Some questions for you to think about:
1. How does making something free and legal make that thing be rare? [given that you say that you like the statement that abortion should be safe legal and rare]
2. Obviously you agree that a child loses his life during abortion [“…mother and the child would lose their lives…”]. When a person takes the life of another lawfully innocent person, this is called murder [by definition]. Since you consent that abortion is murder, but also say that it should be legal, you are saying that murder should be legal, are you not?
3. How then could murder ever be safe? Do you mean that it should be safe for the murderer? [it is obviously not safe for the victim] Why does that make you sound like you are on the hit-man’s union? Or rather the hit-woman’s union in this case?
Yes, abortion is murder [as you suggest].
No, murder should not be legal. It should be in the highest crime bracket.
No, murder should not be safe for the murderer. It should be as risky and dangerous as possible.
No, murder should not be free. It should be as costly as possible.
Hillary Clinton Will Win the Catholic Vote in 2008
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16844
I fail to see why anyone would like Hillary Clinton, especially progressives. She is as slippery as Bill Clinton: She triangulates, she plays word games, she claims to support everything and nothing. She supported the invasion of Iraq for the wrong reasons, and continues to support the war with no intelligible plan for us to win or get out. Her new health plan was written by the businesses that would have to support it. In terms of homosexual/gay issues, she has historically supported discrimination in the military and she opposes marriage.
Luckily (or not), with a soaring federal debt and a plunging dollar, whoever is elected will have no money to enact significant new programs. A whopping chunk of our annual taxes are already being wasted on payment of interest on that debt, and that will continue to worsen. Neither the GOP supporters of war nor the Democratic supporters of childcare are willing to pay for their runaway passions; they simply charge it all to our children and grandchildren.
Ann,
No worries – I understand about HRC – you either like her or you don’t, there’s very little in between when it comes to her 🙂 I absolutely agree with you regarding abortion though!
Mary T –
Thank you for your reference, and your time in writing your response.
Jayhuck,
ok, I don’t like HRC and cannot listen to her – too many reasons why to talk about here, however, I completely agree with what you said regarding government and religion staying out of someone’s personal decisions regarding choices of abortion. As with other things, I believe the person should have all the information available to them and then make a decision based on that – hopefully, from my personal perspective, it is to save both lives – emotionally and physically.
I agree that abortion is awful and should be prevented if at all possible, but I don’t agree that it should be illegal. Anyone who thinks it needs to be illegal should be reminded of what life was like when abortion WAS illegal. Abortions still happened, but they were done in unsafe and unclean places sometimes by unlicensed people – sometimes both the mother and the child would lose their lives because of this.
I still like what president Clinton said about abortion – it should be “safe, legal and RARE”
It is your right to believe that, but not all people believe as you do. That is all I’m saying
Jayhuck,
Thank you for being so fair – I think if this was the general theme in communication on this blog and elsewhere, we would have more resolution than contention.
Hello
Abortion is always murder. It shouldn’t be considered. God makes the decisions.
Sincerely
Joseph J. Wagner
Mary T –
It is your right to believe that, but not all people believe as you do. That is all I’m saying.
Mary T,
They could have also been our daughters or sons, brothers or sisters. It takes an unselfish mind to consider these lost children.
Tricia,
Count me as one who understands and agrees with you. It is only when the two people that are involved are treated as equals in the right to life that any real discussion can take place. To compromise one life in favor of another for the sake of convenience is one of the worst hate crimes that can ever be commited. I also think when this subject stops being rationalized and the mother can receive all the facts and resources available to her, abortions will become less frequent.
Tricia,
I’m just curious – using your line of thinking, if a pregnant woman accidently slips and lands on her stomach causing a miscarriage, should the woman be accused of involuntary manslaughter and sent to trial? If abortion is simply murder, I’m not sure how you could say no to this?
The other day, a woman was sentenced for killing the mother of an unborn baby. The mother died, yet the baby lived. The arms of the mother died with the mother, as did the mother’s legs, heart, brain, etc. Is it not clear to any reasonable and rational person that we are clearly talking about TWO SEPARATE BODIES?
Think about it – if there was a crash and a pregnant woman was blown to pieces, the rescue crew would think they had two different bodies, because the bodies are different, down to the DNA. Stop kidding yourself about it. Abortion is murder.
Abortion is not simply an isolated event that is somebody else’s private decision, and so we should not “force” our religious beliefs onto others. As we can see, an entire generation is missing over one million young people who should be alive today, but because of abortion, are not. Those who have died because of abortion and are not here would have been our soldiers, sailors, doctors, lawyers, teachers. They were our next generation. Their absence leaves a deafening vaccuum.
I might be wrong, but this sounds like another one of those issues that should be dealt with personally. Don’t try and legislate your religious beliefs onto others who don’t believe as you do – that should be pretty simple but we seem to want to make it complicated!
Hi Jag, I read your comments to Mary Parks. I think you asked some good questions. You are right about the Church’s position on birth control and premarital sex as being serious sins. I don’t think the Church is being inconsistent in punishing promoters of abortion and not the other sins, because the politicians in question, as far as I know, are not rallying and embracing a “pre-marital sex” and “birth-control” platform. If a public Catholic figure promised, say, free birth control to his constituents, even though he never used it himself, the Church would have cause to excommuinicate him, because he is a public figure going against Church teaching. Does this help? If not, try this: http://www.catholicanswers.com. I think their answer will be better than mine. Good luck.
Mary Parks –
You stated:
“Catholic politicians who publicly support and promote abortion are denied Communion because they are in a state of obstinate sin that gives public scandal, AND because they are denying one of the truths of the Catholic faith. As such, they are heretics, and therefore are not in union with the Church.”
I am not catholic, so I am not aware…but is the Catholic church inconsistent in its policy of communion? By this, I mean that even using birth control is preventing a life according to the Catholic Church, and not in line with the faith. Are they denied? Are those denied who are having premarital sex? etc… I am not asking to be malicious, I genuinely do not know.
—
As for the Rudy vs. Hillary ticket…I’m with Eddy on this one, and would vote for Hillary. At least you have a pretty good idea where she stands. Rudy also, as Eddy mentions, strikes me as a used car salesman.
But as of now, we still don’t know who the final candidates are going to be.
Regardless, I suppose I would not consider myself a “values voter,” and the larger issues of foreign policy, etc. are of more concern to me. Either way, I have to be frank and state that I don’t see Kengor as an expert on this topic, or an unbiased objective political expert.
If I had a choice between Rudy or Hillary, it would have to be Rudy. I just hope we get a pro-life president. Rudy is probably getting alot of funds from planned parenthood, would not trust him to pick a pro-life (sane) supreme court judge.
Since we haven’t even had the first PRIMARY yet, I’m unwilling to accept that Hillary and Rudy are my choices. If it came down to the two of them, though, I’d go with Hillary. My sound, philosophical, political reasoning: Something about Rudy bugs me…a bit of a ‘wheeler dealer’ thing in his personality. Well, there you have it.
If the two nominees were Hillary and Rudy, could a Catholic, in good conscience, pull the lever for Rudy? He says he would appoint strict-constructionist judges (the type who are most likely to overturn RoeV.Wade) …
I’m torn. Sit on the sidelines and let Hillary win or vote for an apostate Catholic (the lesser of two evils) …
The same is true, Mary, of politicians who (like too many pro-lifers) are anti-life on the numerous other sanctity-of-life issues.
The single biggest reason why the culture war has gotten us nowhere is that both pro-choicers and pro-lifers are neither. Many pro-lifers support politicians who recklessly degrade and destroy life after conception, and many pro-choicers oppose choice not only for the child before birth, but also for mothers who would choose alternatives if not for peer pressure and career and financial penalties that are imposed upon mothers.
Those social and financial penalties against mothers are imposed by both pro-lifers and pro-choicers, often under the guise of helping women or defending morality.
Catholic politicians who publicly support and promote abortion are denied Communion because they are in a state of obstinate sin that gives public scandal, AND because they are denying one of the truths of the Catholic faith. As such, they are heretics, and therefore are not in union with the Church. It is only logical, therefore, that they may not participate in the central act of that union, communion in the Body and Blood of the Lord.