I encourage you to read an entire Q&A by Abp Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas with a more detailed explanation, defending his asking Gov. Sebelius to not present herself for Holy Communion. Here is just one of many, and this one is probably one of the most important from a fundamental standpoint (color text, and emphases in bold are mine).
Q. Governor Sebelius says that she is personally opposed to abortion, but she supports the law protecting the right of others to choose an abortion. Why is this not a morally acceptable position?
A. Freedom of choice is not an absolute value. All of our laws limit our choices. I am not free to drive while intoxicated or to take another's property or to assault someone else. My freedom ends when I infringe on the more basic rights of another. On a similarly grave moral issue 150 years ago, Stephen Douglas, in his famous debates with the future President Abraham Lincoln, attempted to craft his position as not favoring slavery but of the right of people in new states and territories, such as Kansas, to choose to sanction slavery. Being pro-choice on a fundamental matter of human rights was not a morally coherent argument in the 1850s, nor is it today. No one has the right to choose to enslave another human being, just as no one has the right to kill another human being. No law or public policy has the authority to give legal protection to such an injustice.
This is why even some atheists defend life. Other human beings don't have to die for the sake of someone else's convenience. I have often used the racism example myself. If a governor defended a racist policy, everyone would see it for what it was and come down against the action. But, some of the same people can't see the forest for the trees and they'll defend abortion right down to partial birth butchery or murdering the baby if it is born alive.
Michigan House votes to ban partial birth abortions....will Catholic Governor, Jennifer Granholm veto this one????
Te Deum Laudamus! Home