The Sad, Unprincipled Political Shifting of Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Sen. Bob Casey says he's "pro-life" but he's not.

Abortion

While Casey identifies as pro-life[88] and has publicly expressed support for overturning Roe v. Wade,[89] a 2018 Politico article indicated that "[a]fter a decade in the Senate, Casey has become an increasingly reliable vote in support of abortion rights — scoring as high as 100 percent on NARAL Pro-Choice America's vote tally in 2016 and 2017 ... although his 2018 rating is sure to be lower." Politico acknowledged that scorecards "are an imperfect calculation of a lawmaker's position", adding that Casey asserted that he had voted anti-abortion on 13 of the 15 abortion-related measures during his career.[88]

In 2005, Casey opposed the funding of embryonic stem cell research.[90] In 2006, Casey supported the DFLA's Pregnant Women Support Act,[91] which sought to reduce abortion by providing support to women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. However, Casey has voted against barring HHS grants to organizations that provide abortion services, where such services may often not be central to the organization's chief purpose.[92] Casey also supports over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception.[93]

In January 2010, during a debate on the Affordable Care Act, Casey was heckled for his handling of the abortion provisions in the health-care bill and for not taking an uncompromising pro-life stance. Casey was the primary sponsor of an amendment to prevent government funds from being used for abortion services, but when he tried to organize a compromise that appealed to both Democrats and the party's lone holdout (Sen. Ben Nelson), he angered some religious groups.[94][95] According to Politico, "Like conservative anti-abortion groups, [Casey] opposes the Roe decision and opposes the taxpayer funding of the [abortion] procedure. But like progressive abortion rights organizations, he supports Obamacare, access to contraception through programs such as Title X and funding for Planned Parenthood."[88]

In 2011, Casey was categorized by NARAL Pro-Choice America as "anti-choice" and was not endorsed in their election guide. That year, he voted against defunding Planned Parenthood, against H.R.1 and for cloture for the nomination of Goodwin Liu, earning him a 100% rating from NARAL.[96]

In 2017, Casey voted for legislation that would have overturned the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits foreign aid for organizations that provide or promote abortion[97][98] Casey's vote for overturning that policy prompted pro-life activists to question his commitment to the pro-life cause.[98][99] Casey was criticized by National Right to Life for his 2017 vote against the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States.[100][88]

In 2015 and 2018, Casey joined two other Democrats (Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly) by voting for bills that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.[101][102]

I was the youngest member of the Suffolk County Democratic Committee ion its history when I was appointed back in 1975 (while I was still in High School).  Did I leave the Democratic Party, or did it leave me?  I guess that really doesn't matter.  But someone tell me how I can look at someone like Bob Casey and say that his motivation comes from principled conviction and not political expediency.  The idea that BOB CASEY got a 100% from NARAL in ANY year is tragic.

And why, honestly, should any devout Catholic vote for a Democrat if this is what happens to even pro-life Democrats when they get into office?  Yes, I know, Casey's right on the Catholic positions on "immigration" and any number of foreign policy issues, but the Catholic Church's position on abortion is a far more central tenet of the faith; it goes to Human Life, itself:

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/respect-for-unborn-human-life

Given the scientific fact that a human life begins at conception, the only moral norm needed to understand the Church's opposition to abortion is the principle that each and every human life has inherent dignity, and thus must be treated with the respect due to a human person.  This is the foundation for the Church's social doctrine, including its teachings on war, the use of capital punishment, euthanasia, health care, poverty and immigration.  Conversely, to claim that some live human beings do not deserve respect or should not be treated as "persons" (based on changeable factors such as age, condition, location, or lack of mental or physical abilities) is to deny the very idea of inherent human rights.  Such a claim undermines respect for the lives of many vulnerable people before and after birth.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catholic-view-of-abortion-12146

Some academics still argue about when the embryo first has a human soul- and the Church does not purport to referee that dispute.( But precisely because of this controversy the only prudent course is to treat the unborn as an actual human person from conception. Just as a farmer seeing something moving in the distance which might be a kangaroo or might be a child cannot responsibly take the risk of shooting it until he knows for sure, so there is no stage of development during which the unborn can be `safely' destroyed without risking killing a human person. The most recent Vatican statement on this matter concludes:

"The fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence (i.e. the moment the zygote has formed), demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to human beings in their bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment her/his rights as a person must be recognized, among which the first is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life."(9)

These aren't political positions from which one can "evolve" toward or away from; these are foundational principles of the Church whose doctrine Bob Casey says he agrees with.  This is what he's walking away from for the sake of politics.  Think about that.  What could possibly bring about such an evolution of thought?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Casey's definitely not as principled on this as he used to be but the USCCB and EWTN aren't particularly good sources for which elements of Catholic moral teaching are foundational and which aren't. Here's the most recent magisterial (i.e., in this case, papal) teaching on this topic:

The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

(Paragraph 101 of this document.)

The USCCB is famous (among Catholics) for interpreting teachings like this in a more "abortion-first" way than other bishops' conferences. That's their prerogative, since bishops' conferences do have teaching authority. Especially since the USCCB is Casey's own bishops' conference (obviously), to the extent that he lacks principle on this, that is a problem. This is also reason #2 why I'd never be a Democratic officeholder above the local level myself, reason #1 being my impatience with things like protocol and rules of order. However, it's not really a sound basis for an Evangelical to tell Catholics which of their beliefs are more and less central.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

he has at least retained more of a pro-life position than most national Democrats who once held it.   many more politicians have abandoned it completely.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

he has at least retained more of a pro-life position than most national Democrats who once held it.   many more politicians have abandoned it completely.

Fun fact about Northeastern Catholic Democrats: Ted Kennedy was pro-life until he wasn't.

[Xeuma]

Catholics are WASPs now. With the collapse of our institutions, politicians no longer have a need to appeal to what we consider important. Great misfortune.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

"Casey also supports over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception."


....is this a thing that is supposed to be controversial and some people are opposed to. Why? I've had to, um, help pay for Plan B for uh, a friend. I am thankful that Plan B can be sold over-the-counter. Why should it not be sold over the counter?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Casey's definitely not as principled on this as he used to be but the USCCB and EWTN aren't particularly good sources for which elements of Catholic moral teaching are foundational and which aren't. Here's the most recent magisterial (i.e., in this case, papal) teaching on this topic:

The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

(Paragraph 101 of this document.)

The USCCB is famous (among Catholics) for interpreting teachings like this in a more "abortion-first" way than other bishops' conferences. That's their prerogative, since bishops' conferences do have teaching authority. Especially since the USCCB is Casey's own bishops' conference (obviously), to the extent that he lacks principle on this, that is a problem. This is also reason #2 why I'd never be a Democratic officeholder above the local level myself, reason #1 being my impatience with things like protocol and rules of order. However, it's not really a sound basis for an Evangelical to tell Catholics which of their beliefs are more and less central.

What his personal beliefs are is his business. 

When a politician comes into politics specifically advocating an issue position citing (amongst other things) his own religious beliefs and then he changes his position when his religion hasn't, that becomes a question of character.  It also confirms what I have come to believe; that there is no place anywhere for pro-life people to have any kind of role in the Democratic Party.  The abortion issue has clearly become a line of cleavage.  There are really NO pro-life Democrats in Congress with Collin Peterson's defeat. 

The "life" issue is, and ought to be, central for anyone who claims to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior.  Unbelievers feel quite free to tell pro-life Catholic officeholders what their position on immigration ought to be, citing statements from Catholic publications or Papal statements.  Are those folks here on a "sound basis"?  Do you not say so because you agree with those posters?

How much can any person believe in Jehovah God, and in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, believe that He is who He says He is, yet alter their positions on matters of Faith to accomodate their political party.  Liberals here are hard on Catholic legislators who are pro-Death Penalty or pro-This or That War and feel free to remind others what the Catholic Church says on those issues.  Why should conservatives view Catholic apostasy as any different?  Furthermore, if a man can blow off God, did he ever really believe, or has his character rotted over time?

[Calthrina950]

Casey's definitely not as principled on this as he used to be but the USCCB and EWTN aren't particularly good sources for which elements of Catholic moral teaching are foundational and which aren't. Here's the most recent magisterial (i.e., in this case, papal) teaching on this topic:

The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

(Paragraph 101 of this document.)

The USCCB is famous (among Catholics) for interpreting teachings like this in a more "abortion-first" way than other bishops' conferences. That's their prerogative, since bishops' conferences do have teaching authority. Especially since the USCCB is Casey's own bishops' conference (obviously), to the extent that he lacks principle on this, that is a problem. This is also reason #2 why I'd never be a Democratic officeholder above the local level myself, reason #1 being my impatience with things like protocol and rules of order. However, it's not really a sound basis for an Evangelical to tell Catholics which of their beliefs are more and less central.

What his personal beliefs are is his business. 

When a politician comes into politics specifically advocating an issue position citing (amongst other things) his own religious beliefs and then he changes his position when his religion hasn't, that becomes a question of character.  It also confirms what I have come to believe; that there is no place anywhere for pro-life people to have any kind of role in the Democratic Party.  The abortion issue has clearly become a line of cleavage.  There are really NO pro-life Democrats in Congress with Collin Peterson's defeat. 

The "life" issue is, and ought to be, central for anyone who claims to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior.  Unbelievers feel quite free to tell pro-life Catholic officeholders what their position on immigration ought to be, citing statements from Catholic publications or Papal statements.  Are those folks here on a "sound basis"?  Do you not say so because you agree with those posters?

How much can any person believe in Jehovah God, and in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, believe that He is who He says He is, yet alter their positions on matters of Faith to accomodate their political party.  Liberals here are hard on Catholic legislators who are pro-Death Penalty or pro-This or That War and feel free to remind others what the Catholic Church says on those issues.  Why should conservatives view Catholic apostasy as any different?  Furthermore, if a man can blow off God, did he ever really believe, or has his character rotted over time?

I certainly understand what you are saying, and abortion is obviously one of the major reasons why you've drifted to the Republican Party in recent years. I personally tend to lean more pro-life than pro-choice. I'd rather that abortion not have ever been conceived as a practice, and that adults who do not want a child consider alternatives such as adoption. However, I recognize that such an avenue is not a realistic one, as things stand now, and I have always been supportive of abortion in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, or threat to the life/health of the mother. Moreover, I support the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City policy-policies which are distinctly unpopular with most Democrats. I think they would be better served by supporting these policies, and perhaps shifting back to the "safe, legal, and rare" rhetoric of the Clinton Era.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The "life" issue is, and ought to be, central for anyone who claims to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior.  Unbelievers feel quite free to tell pro-life Catholic officeholders what their position on immigration ought to be, citing statements from Catholic publications or Papal statements.  Are those folks here on a "sound basis"?  Do you not say so because you agree with those posters?

Most of the sorts of posters who use rhetorical techniques like that are white noise to me, but when I notice it, yes, that bothers me too.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The "life" issue is, and ought to be, central for anyone who claims to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior.  Unbelievers feel quite free to tell pro-life Catholic officeholders what their position on immigration ought to be, citing statements from Catholic publications or Papal statements.  Are those folks here on a "sound basis"?  Do you not say so because you agree with those posters?

Most of the sorts of posters who use rhetorical techniques like that are white noise to me, but when I notice it, yes, that bothers me too.

Your reaction, then, is silence to promote a viewpoint you agree with and challenge to a viewpoint that you don't.

That's an observation.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The "life" issue is, and ought to be, central for anyone who claims to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior.  Unbelievers feel quite free to tell pro-life Catholic officeholders what their position on immigration ought to be, citing statements from Catholic publications or Papal statements.  Are those folks here on a "sound basis"?  Do you not say so because you agree with those posters?

Most of the sorts of posters who use rhetorical techniques like that are white noise to me, but when I notice it, yes, that bothers me too.

Your reaction, then, is silence to promote a viewpoint you agree with and challenge to a viewpoint that you don't.

That's an observation.

What viewpoint of yours, specifically, do you think I'm disagreeing with here? I count a few different related claims in your posts in this thread, some of which I'm more sympathetic to than others.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

"Casey also supports over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception."


....is this a thing that is supposed to be controversial and some people are opposed to. Why? I've had to, um, help pay for Plan B for uh, a friend. I am thankful that Plan B can be sold over-the-counter. Why should it not be sold over the counter?

There is some debate over whether it prevents implantation of a fertilized embryo rather than just fertilization, so some pro-lifers oppose it on grounds it is an abortificient.

[It’s so Joever]

Cool.
Now let’s talk about how you support a party propping up a healthcare system which murders millions simply because of wedge issues and cult-like devotion to an out-of touch Manhattan Elite.

[Hammy]

No Republican has a right to claim to be pro-life if they support the GOP response, philosophy, and rhetoric regarding the pandemic.

[TJ in Oregon]

Bob Casey hasn't been pro-life in any meaningful sense for decades. He is not his father.

[Former President tack50]

Fuzzy, an honest question: Why can't a person identify as (personally) pro-life yet support abortion being legal?

It is not hard for me at all to imagine a libertarian style argument along the lines of "I'd never get an abortion and I think it is immoral to get one; but it is not the job of the state to regulate morality".

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Reid was Pro life and a Morman but fought for pro choice Obama judges and was Senate Majority Leader. Casey is following Harry Reid

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

No Republican has a right to claim to be pro-life if they support the GOP response, philosophy, and rhetoric regarding the pandemic.

[Democratic Hawk]

No Republican has a right to claim to be pro-life if they support the GOP response, philosophy, and rhetoric regarding the pandemic.

For these Republicans life begins at conception but ends at birth

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

No Republican has a right to claim to be pro-life if they support the GOP response, philosophy, and rhetoric regarding the pandemic.

For these Republicans life begins at conception but ends at birth

I mean, Republicans support much harsher punishments for killing people who are already born than for killing the unborn.  Most Republicans value unborn life way less than born life.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No Republican has a right to claim to be pro-life if they support the GOP response, philosophy, and rhetoric regarding the pandemic.

For these Republicans life begins at conception but ends at birth

That's a catchy sound bite line, courtesy of Barney Frank, that in no way provides moral justification for the taking of innocent unborn human life.

[afleitch]

By UK and most European standards, he still would be. But that's because it's not a team sport over here.

[It’s so Joever]

No Republican has a right to claim to be pro-life if they support the GOP response, philosophy, and rhetoric regarding the pandemic.

For these Republicans life begins at conception but ends at birth

That's a catchy sound bite line, courtesy of Barney Frank, that in no way provides moral justification for the taking of innocent unborn human life.

When will you wake up and understand that the GOP doesn’t care about the lives of the unborn?
They have had several trifectas, a huge majority on the SCOTUS, and yet have barely done anything on the issue.
Do you really think the same party that props up a genocidal healthcare system for insurance companies actually gives a ^#*% about the lives of the unborn?
People like you are just a useful tool for the GOP. They throw a few empty platitudes about abortion, you and many others vote for them, and they do nothing except give tax breaks to their wealthy donors.
Dems are wrong on their abortion stance, but at least they are honest about wanting to let babies die.

[RINO Tom]

he has at least retained more of a pro-life position than most national Democrats who once held it.   many more politicians have abandoned it completely.

Fun fact about Northeastern Catholic Democrats: Ted Kennedy was pro-life until he wasn't.

Slightly OT, but this is a good example of why I think we should always be skeptical of people claiming that a random Republican/Democrat from decades ago would clearly be a Democrat/Republican today because of his stance on some hot button issue like abortion ... I would say there is much more historical precedent for that politician to adapt his views on the issues to stay in line with the party that more closely matches his philosophies and motives.

[It’s so Joever]

he has at least retained more of a pro-life position than most national Democrats who once held it.   many more politicians have abandoned it completely.

Fun fact about Northeastern Catholic Democrats: Ted Kennedy was pro-life until he wasn't.

Slightly OT, but this is a good example of why I think we should always be skeptical of people claiming that a random Republican/Democrat from decades ago would clearly be a Democrat/Republican today because of his stance on some hot button issue like abortion ... I would say there is much more historical precedent for that politician to adapt his views on the issues to stay in line with the party that more closely matches his philosophies and motives.

Aren’t there studies which show that voters don’t shift parties but instead shift on issues to stay in the same group?
I don’t remember where I saw it so don’t take it as gospel, but I wouldn’t be surprised.