Danforth was, as he notes, a reliable anti-abortion vote during his time in the Senate (although he came out in support of funding research on tissues taken from aborted fetuses toward the end of his time there). Many people claim that trying to outlaw abortion is an impermissible mixing of religion and politics. Generally, these people claim the same thing about attempts to outlaw cloning. How does Danforth distinguish between the two cases? “I am and have always been pro-life. But the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in the womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law.” (This, mind you, from a man who used to give speeches on abortion that ended with quotations from St. Paul.) So it’s okay to say “life begins at conception” when you’re trying to ban abortion, but not–oh, never mind, this argument isn’t worth anyone’s time. Basically, Danforth’s position boils down to this: Any religious-conservative initiative he supports doesn’t cross a church-state line, and any such initiative he opposes does. And when a religious conservative and Danforth disagree, it’s the former who’s being “divisive.” He used to be called “St. Jack.” I always thought that was a tribute to his decency, not his sanctimony.