Anyone who follows the politics of abortion in the United States knows that a lot of pro-life politicians never actually do any more for the pro-life cause than they absolutely have to in order to be called pro-life. They are, in a sense, uncommitted pro-lifers. They trot out their pro-life position come election time in a couple of carefully targeted speeches to groups of social conservatives, and, well, that's it really. They never commit in any serious way to the belief that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. If legislation emerges about abortion most of these politicians try not to get too involved in promoting it, but if eventually forced to vote on it they vote on the pro-life side (at least as long as the legislation is not too controversial). So pro-lifers sigh and go to the polls at election time and vote for these candidates, because they're better than nothing, or at least better than pro-abortion candidates. Such is life as a pro-life voter in the United States in 2004.

However, in addition to these lack-luster pro-life candidates, there have always been a few people in national politics who are widely considered "real" pro-lifers. These are the people who promote the major pro-life bills, the ones who aren't afraid to speak out openly about abortion even to audiences beyond the pro-life movement itself, whether it is election season or not. Unfortunately, they are few and far between, but because of that rarity they tend to be all the more valued among politically involved pro-lifers. Indeed, these politicians often gain national name recognition in pro-life circles, far beyond their own states or congressional districts. One of the best examples of this in recent years is Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a pro-life Senator and a practicing Catholic. I do not agree with him on everything, but I have always believed that his stand against abortion was sincere and not superficial, and he certainly has spoken out about abortion more clearly than anyone else of his stature on the national political scene.

Recently, Rick Santorum has again become involved in a controversial political battle that involves abortion, but this time, inexplicably, he is on the wrong side. Arlen Specter, the strongly liberal and pro-abortion Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, has faced a stiff primary challenge from pro-life Republican Congressman Pat Toomey. The race will conclude with the primary vote to be held tomorrow (April 27). Specter has been supported by the full force of the national Republican political establishment, including help with campaigning and fund-raising from President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and other prominent Republicans. Specter also received the endorsement of Rick Santorum. In itself, that is slightly disappointing, but perhaps not surprising. It would be very awkward for Santorum to endorse a primary challenger to the other Senator in his own state, and it would be nearly impossible for Santorum to do so as a member of the Senate Republican leadership. He may also feel that he owes something to Specter, since Specter has endorsed Santorum in past general elections (although only after attempting to recruit a pro-abortion primary opponent to run against Santorum the first time that Santorum ran for the Senate). Furthermore, if Santorum did not endorse Specter, and Specter won anyway, it could damage Santorum's political future. Given all that, one can perhaps understand Santorum formally endorsing Specter, even if one disagrees with it, as I do.

I also was not surprised to see Bush campaigning for Specter, although incumbent presidents more commonly do not campaign in person in Senate primaries. Bush has always been very obviously one of the uncommitted pro-lifers. He signed the partial birth abortion ban, but he certainly did not push for it be passed as soon as possible. He talks a decent game when addressing pro-life audiences, but other than that he clearly is not comfortable in dealing with the issue of abortion. Therefore, his active support of Specter as an incumbent Republican was to be expected. (That said, the fact that Bush campaigned for Specter, who will be the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee if he wins, should give pause to anyone who believes that Bush will try to get an anti-Roe v. Wade Supreme Court nominee through the Senate if he has the opportunity during his second term. Specter, after all, was one of the key Senators involved in killing the Robert Bork nomination back in the 1980s, and Specter has also speculated in the past that he might oppose any future Supreme Court nominee who did not explicitly state his or her support for Roe v. Wade.)

So, though I wish Bush had not campaigned for Specter, I can't say that I was disappointed about that, because I knew enough not to expect anything else from Bush. Also, I was only mildly disappointed that Santorum endorsed Specter. However, what is far more disappointing, and seems entirely without rational explanation, is the overwhelming enthusiasm with which Santorum has supported Specter. He has campaigned personally for and with Specter and against Toomey. He has participated in television ads for Specter. Above all, he has helped to spread the myth that Specter is somehow not all that bad, and he has supported the idea that Toomey is too conservative to win in Pennsylvania, which, with all due respect for Santorum, is just an outright lie, and no one should know that better than Santorum. If Toomey can't win in Pennsylvania, how did Santorum win it twice? Toomey is no more conservative than Santorum was when he ran for election. Nor is this all an academic issue in a non-competitive race. The race is close, and if Toomey loses a close race tomorrow it is quite possible that Santorum might be one of the key factors in his defeat.

Although I don't even live in Pennsylvania, I feel betrayed by Rick Santorum. Even now, as I write this, I just cannot understand why he would do this to the pro-life cause. Further, I had always thought that Santorum was a serious Catholic, but I do not understand how anyone who truly understands and accepts Catholic teaching on the issue of life could do what he has done. How could anyone who really believes that abortion is always an attack on innocent human life support so wholeheartedly a supporter of legal abortion against an opponent of abortion? One quote that I read from Santorum just keeps coming back to me as I sit here. In a television ad for Specter, Rick Santorum, erstwhile hero of Catholic pro-lifers in politics, told the voters of Pennsylvania that "Arlen is with us on votes that matter." That leaves me speechless (well, not quite speechless--I've managed to write this article). Santorum could hardly have slapped pro-lifers in the face any harder if he had tried. For what? To prop up a pro-abortion nominal Republican who never wanted Santorum in the Senate in the first place?

In an interview with Zenit News Agency in April of 2003 Senator Santorum stated that "in order for Catholic politicians to be faithful to moral teachings, they must be held accountable. Their elite status in society should not let others be dissuaded from criticizing them if they behave in an unprincipled way. The only way that immoral politicians will change is if the public has the courage to confront them. Only then, will these politicians be forced to act morally." In the commencement speech at Christendom College in May of 2003, he told the graduates: "I want to challenge each and every one of you to be a radical, to be a rebel, to rebel against the popular culture." Later in the same speech, he added, "In your rebellion against the culture, God does not call on you to be successful. He calls on you to be faithful." Does Santorum get a free pass from holding people accountable and rebelling against the culture? Is it fine for him to worry about being successful rather than faithful because he is a Senator? To paraphrase Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world ... but for Pennsylvania?

I almost hesitate to write anything negative about Santorum, because he has been so good to the pro-life movement in the past. Obviously, in a certain sense, most politicians today deserve far harsher criticism than Santorum does. However, I always knew that most other politicians were not really fully committed to the pro-life cause, while I honestly thought that Santorum was one of ours. It is hard to take what Santorum is doing now precisely because he was so good until now. As much as I would like to overlook it, his behavior in this primary has been simply inexcusable, and that is a real tragedy, because before this he was by far the best pro-life voice in the United States Senate. If he is going to actively take the pro-abortion side on anything, there will always be doubts in the future about the true depth of his pro-life rhetoric. He will join that big crowd of more or less nondescript uncommitted pro-lifers. With friends like this, who needs enemies?