Pro-Life Progressivism

Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Last spring I participated in a symposium at the University of St. Thomas School of Law on “pro-life progressivism.” The proceedings have now been published in the school’s law review, which is available here.

To simplify, the conference was designed to explore the possibility of extending the political and intellectual appeal of a position that is against abortion and the death penalty, and left-leaning on economic policy. To the organizers’ credit, they invited the airing of opinions critical of pro-life progressivism from various perspectives. My role was to question the “progressive” part of the equation, which I did, somewhat indirectly, with a brief history of “conservative” Catholic social thinkers.

Not part of the conference, but included in the published journal, is an extremely interesting piece by Patrick Shrake. Shrake argues that the privacy jurisprudence of the last 40 years should be overturned and that the kind of state anti-contraception laws that started the mess could be upheld. Catholics and others who both accept the moral case against artificial birth control and are wary of an activist state will view the article ambivalently, but it is at the least a serious and thought-provoking argument.
Bookmark Pro-Life Progressivism  at del.icio.us Digg Pro-Life Progressivism Bloglines Pro-Life Progressivism Technorati Pro-Life Progressivism Bookmark Pro-Life Progressivism  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Pro-Life Progressivism  at Furl.net Bookmark Pro-Life Progressivism  at reddit.com Bookmark Pro-Life Progressivism  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Trackbacks

  1. No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  1. Patrick Shrake says:

    Kevin - thanks for the praise of my article. I just wanted to note for your readers that, although I might conclude that banning contraceptives would become a good policy choice at some point, my article focuses on the question of whether such a legislatively enacted policy choice would be constitutional.

    Thanks again.


Add Comment


Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.