ShareThis Page
News Columnists

Abortion has little effect on Catholic vote

| Sunday, June 27, 2004

"Will Catholics vote against Gov. Carter, Mr. Mayor, because of his abortion stand?" The mayor of Chicago stared at the reporter with the bemused frown he reserved for silly questions. "They don't vote that way." Twenty-eight years later, they still don't vote that way.

Nevertheless, in the run-up to the last seven presidential elections, experts on both sides have predicted that the "Catholic anti-abortion" vote would cause trouble for the Democrats, especially given the drift of Catholics from Democrat alignment. Both these "theories" -- a Catholic anti-abortion vote and a Catholic realignment -- are urban folk tales that float around in the collective consciousness of the media with very little basis in fact.

The definitive study of religious realignment in presidential elections was written by Jeff Manza and Clem Brooks in the July 1997 issue of the American Journal of Sociology. The two scholars found that when all relevant variables were taken into account, there had been two major religious realignments since 1950, both of them Protestant. Religiously liberal Protestants shifted to the Democrats and religiously conservative Protestants to the Republicans. Even in elections like the 1984 GOP triumph, when a majority of Catholics followed the national trend and voted for Reagan, Catholics didn't move to the right nearly as much as white Protestants did.

In the 2000 election, it would appear from available data that Catholics were more likely than white Protestants to favor Al Gore, by a margin of about 10 percentage points -- a similar margin to that of John Kerry in current polls. Indeed, according Voter News Service exit polls, Gore did well in states with a substantial number of Catholic voters -- margins of 30 percentage points among Catholics in Massachusetts, 17 in Illinois, 15 in New York, Maryland and Arizona. So much for the realignment to the Republicans.

But what about the Catholic pro-life vote• According to the National Opinion Research Center, Catholics and Protestants differ little on a battery of abortion questions; large majorities think abortion should be available when there is a risk of a defective child, a threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape, while similar majorities reject abortion if the woman is unmarried or cannot afford another child or simply doesn't want a child. Only 4 percent of American Catholics consider themselves pro-life on all seven survey questions, and a third of those voted for Gore anyway, despite his pro-choice stand. One might argue that Catholics should oppose abortion in all circumstances, but in fact they do not.

To rephrase the mayor's comment, most Catholics do not vote on the basis of the abortion issue, and those who do have little effect. What then of the publicity created by some bishops who say Kerry has no right to receive communion and by the bishop of Colorado Springs, Colo., who contends that Catholics will lose the right to the sacraments if they vote for Kerry• An ad hoc committee of the bishops on such issues is unlikely to endorse Draconian measures of this sort. Moreover, it is improbable that the Catholic hierarchy, disgraced and discredited as it is by the sexual abuse scandal, has the moral high ground to influence Catholic voters any more than it ever did, which was not at all.

Andrew Greeley is a priest and sociologist on the staff of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me