[Question:]{.underline} Is it permissible for representatives to vote in favor or a law banning partial abortion, but permitting some exceptions, such as the protection of the life of the mother?
[Answer:]{.underline}The moral dilemma about voting for such a law is that by so doing one actually gives the impression of approving the consequence of the law, namely that there could be some partial birth abortions, even if greatly reduced in number. Is it not a cause of scandal to vote for such a law. How can one give one’s approval to a law that permits evil? It is certainly understandable that some pro-lifers would refuse to support a local bishop who encourages his faithful to support the law, as does Archbishop Sheehan of Santa Fe for the proposed New Mexico ban on partial abortions.
It is certainly true that “cooperation in evil legislation is sinful” (Jone, Moral Theology, p. 140), and that a law that permits any abortions is evil. However, there can be some exceptions to this rule. This can happen when the cooperation is only material, that is, when we do not accept the evil will of the principal agent (here the legislature as a whole), and consequently do not share in the evil. We do not have any intention to make some abortions possible, but our intention is to do all that we can to stop as many abortions, as much evil, as we can.
It is similar to the case in which it is permissible to advise a lesser sin, if the sinner cannot otherwise be deterred from committing the greater sin (i.e. all abortions are permitted). (cf. Jone, p.90; Slater, Moral Theology, p.131). “To lessen sin is surely to do good. This is the more probable opinion, according to St. Alphonsus”.
Here the voting for a law that would occasionally permit abortions (instead of regularly) is not an immediate cooperation, even material. It is only very remotely that our vote would permit the sinful action of some abortions. “As a rule, this time of cooperation is also wrong. It may be permitted, however, if the rules of the double effect may be applied — of the act performed is not intrinsically evil, for example, and if a correspondingly good reason is present” (Cunningham, The Christian Life, p. 183). To participate in a legislative act to stop partial birth abortions, as much as possible, is not intrinsically evil, and there is a proportionate reason for the unavoidable evil consequence (the occasional abortions on the grounds of the mother’s health), namely that many abortions will be prevented from happening.
Jone admits that this applies to the case of cooperation in evil legislation: “The only exception admitted is the case in which such representatives might avoid a greater evil by their cooperation; in such cases, however, they must make clear their position”. (Ib. p. 140) A Catholic representative or voter must make it perfectly clear that he does not support the exceptions involved in the bill to ban partial birth abortions, so as to avoid giving scandal. However, having done so he is free to vote for it, in order to avoid a greater evil. It is for similar reasons that it is permitted for Catholic representatives to give their approval to laws promoting freedom of religion, if they do this in order to avoid a greater evil (Cf. Prummer, I, p. 29).
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.