From: Sue Lopez
Date: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 12:46 AM
Dear pro-life friends,
The election of our next governor may be up to you. Either Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman will be elected. No other candidate will be elected, regardless of whether or not you vote. Meg Whitman is pro-choice, but supports some limitations on abortion. However, the real issue here is Jerry Brown, and his uncompromising position on abortion. Here are 10 reasons why we don’t want him to be the next governor of California.
1. Jerry Brown is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California Inc. They have given him a 100% pro-choice rating
2. He supports funding for family planning services (Planned Parenthood voter guide)
3. He opposes restrictions on funding for family planning services (Planned Parenthood voter guide)
4. He believes that "reproductive health care" services is an essential part of health care services, and should be included in health care reform (Planned Parenthood voter guide)
5. He supports comprehensive sex education in schools (Planned Parenthood voter guide)
6. He opposes bans on late term abortions (Planned Parenthood voter guide)
7. He opposes legislative or judicial restrictions that impede or delay access to abortion, such as mandatory reflection periods or counseling (Planned Parenthood voter guide)
8. He opposes parental notification laws (Planned Parenthood voter guide)
9. He supports embryonic stem cell research
10. He supports gay marriage. He refused to defend Proposition 8 as Attorney General. He is endorsed by Equality America ( LGBT) on his website
There is only one way to prevent Jerry Brown from becoming the next governor, and that is by voting for the only viable candidate who has a chance to beat him, and that is Meg Whitman. Nothing else you can do will keep him out of office. This is not a glowing endorsement of Meg Whitman, it’s just a fact.
Below is what Planned Parenthood says about Meg Whitman in their voter guide:
“Ms. Whitman’s limited support for access to abortion, clear opposition to healthcare reform, and uncertain commitment to state-funded family planning programs compels PPAC to oppose Ms. Whitman’s candidacy for governor of California.”
MEG ON ABORTION
“I am pro-choice. Personally, I don’t want to take the choice away from women and their doctors. The U.S. Supreme Court has fully established a woman’s right to choose. I do however support reducing the number of abortions in America and believe there are limits that can be put in place to achieve this objective. I believe for minors parental consent should be required.”
-The above is a direct quote from Meg Whitman’s website.
Regarding not voting for any viable candidate, please read Paragraphs 42 and 43 from Archbishop Raymond Burke below.
Below are excerpts from two documents that state that it is morally acceptable to vote for a candidate who supports abortion, over another, more unsuitable candidate, in order to limit the circumstances when a procured abortion would be considered legal. In other words, it is acceptable to vote for a candidate that will do less harm.
The first excerpt (8. Distinguish "choosing evil" from "limiting evil." is from Father Frank Pavone’s "10 easy steps to voting with a clear conscience". The document can be viewed in its entirety at:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/vote/votingwithclearconscience.htm.
The second excerpt farther below is from a 2004 pastoral letter on voting from Archbishop Raymond Burke. The document can be viewed in its entirety at:
http://www.catholicaction.org/archbishop-burke-s-column/pastoral-letter-on-voting.html
8. Distinguish “choosing evil” from “limiting evil.”
What happens if two opposing candidates both support abortion?
First of all, refrain from putting any labels or endorsements on anyone. Don't call them anything. Or, if you prefer, call them both pro-abortion. Then just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?
For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that's the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.
One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.
In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not "choosing the lesser of two evils." We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.
You oppose the evil of abortion, in every circumstance, no matter what. You know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is OK, you don't agree.
But by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it's not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer -- in the case described above -- is yes.
Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. If all candidates support "abortion rights" equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).
In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.
Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.
********************************************************************************
The Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke
Archbishop of St. Louis
October 1, 2004
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
Introduction…
35. If one candidate alone upholds the moral law in its integrity, then the
decision to vote for him or her is clear. But, what does a Catholic do, if no candidate
upholds the moral law in its integrity, that is, if all candidates hold some position
which is in opposition to the moral law, as is so often the case in today’s society?
When all candidates for a particular office fail, in some regard, to support the moral
law and thus foster the common good in its entirety, some Catholics simply decide
not to vote at all. The decision not to vote at all, however, fails to take responsibility
for any advancement of the common good, even if limited by some false positions
taken by a candidate.
38. The Church, however, also recognizes that it is sometimes impossible
to avoid all cooperation with evil, as may well be true in selecting a candidate for
public office. In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible for a Catholic to
vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other
immoral practices. Catholic moral teaching refers to actions of this sort as material
cooperation, which is morally permissible when certain conditions are met. With
respect to the question of voting, these conditions include the following: 1) there is
no viable candidate who supports the moral law in its full integrity; 2) the voter
opposes the immoral practices espoused by the candidate, and votes for the candidate
only because of his or her promotion of morally good practices; and 3) the
voter avoids giving scandal by telling anyone, who may know for whom he or she
has voted, that he or she did so to advance the morally good practices the candidate
supports, while remaining opposed to the immoral practices the candidate endorses
and promotes.
41. A CATHOLIC MAY VOTE for a candidate who, while he supports an evil
action, also supports the limitation of the evil involved, if there is no better candidate.
For example, a candidate may support procured abortion in a limited number
of cases but be opposed to it otherwise. In such a case, the Catholic who recognizes
the immorality of all procured abortions may rightly vote for this candidate over
another, more unsuitable candidate in an effort to limit the circumstances in which
procured abortions would be considered legal. Here the intention of the Catholic
voter, unable to find a viable candidate who would stop the evil of procured
abortion by making it illegal, is to reduce the number of abortions by limiting the
circumstances in which it is legal. This is not a question of choosing the lesser evil,
but of limiting all the evil one is able to limit at the time.
42. In Evangelium vitae, our Holy Father provides an example regarding the
voting of a Catholic legislator, which may be helpful, by analogy, in understanding
the action of a Catholic voter. He writes about the legislator who votes for legislation
which limits the moral evil of procured abortion, even though it does not
eliminate it totally. The Holy Father observes:
[W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion
law, 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. This does not in fact represent an
illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper
attempt to limit its evil aspects (Evangelium vitae, n. 73c).
Thus, a Catholic who is clear in his or her opposition to the moral evil of procured
abortion could vote for a candidate who supports the limitation of the legality of
procured abortion, even though the candidate does not oppose all use of procured
abortion, if the other candidate(s) do not support the limitation of the evil of
procured abortion. Of course, the end in view for the Catholic must always be the
total conformity of the civil law with the moral law, that is, ultimately the total
elimination of the evil of procured abortion.
43. In such cases, would it be better not to vote at all? While I respect very
much the sentiments of those who are so discouraged with the failure of our public
leaders to promote the common good that they have decided not to vote at all, I
must point out that the Catholic who chooses not to vote at all, when there is a
viable candidate who will advance the common good, although not perfectly, fails to
fulfill his or her moral duty, at least, in the limitation of a grave evil in society.
44. Clearly, the moral questions surrounding voting are complex for Catholics,
especially in our totally secularized society. The teaching of the Church regarding
our civic responsibility for the common good must be our guide in making prudent
decisions. Only by prayer and good counsel will a Catholic voter be able to make a
prudent decision regarding what best serves the common good.
Conclusion
45. GOD OUR FATHER, through the inner voice of our conscience, asks us each
day about our brothers and sisters whose lives are being taken through abortion,
embryonic stem-cell research and euthanasia. Through our conscience, he asks us,
too, about our protection of the sanctity of marriage and the family, in accord with
His divine law. We are our “brother’s keeper.” Our vocation and mission in life, a
true share in the vocation and mission of Christ our Savior, is to love our neighbor
without boundaries. In our democratic republic, one of the important ways in which
we fulfill our civic responsibility for the common good is by electing government
leaders who respect and uphold the moral law.
I hope I have provided you with enough information to help in a most difficult voting decision - Roger
