Obama: The Real Pro-Life Candidate

Obama has a huge opportunity to win over an unlikely voting bloc: pro-life voters. The debate over reproductive rights has for decades existed in the abstract; it's been a back and forth volley over "values" that's heavy on emotion and light on fact. But the facts reveal surprising truths and they ought to be hammered home by Obama. The data show that the pro-choice approach is more effective at achieving what the American public views as "pro-life" goals i.e. reducing the number of abortions, preventing late term abortion, than the so-called "pro-life" approach.

McCain may campaign on the "immorality" of abortion but the policies he supports seem to lead to lots more of them. Isn't it time to turn the tables? Obama should hold McCain and and other anti-choice leaders accountable for their failure to find solutions to the high rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. He has the opportunity to change the debate. It's not about abortion; it's about preventing unwanted pregnancy.

And it is the pro-choice movement that is finding effective ways to do that. This is the unacknowledged fact that should be broadcast loud and clear during this election campaign. Here's the message: It's pro-choice policies that result in dramatic declines in the need for abortion. That's a truth both pro-choice and pro-life voters would be interested to know.

The pro-choice movement, and pro-choice politicians, alone champion wider access to birth control, and birth control is the only proven way to reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion. Obama shouldn't get sucked into the silly debate about whether the pill is an abortifacient since even the anti-abortion movement's most respected physicians agree there's no scientific evidence that it is. He should ask why McCain hasn't championed campaigns to reduce unwanted pregnancies. The electorate should be reminded that it's the pro-choice movement and pro-choice elected officials that have fought for health insurance coverage for contraception as well as to bring new and more effective contraceptives to market. (Emergency contraception, for instance.) Also, let's not forget that the birth control pill itself is available to Americans entirely because of the efforts of the pro-choice movement.

Check out any NARAL affiliate's agenda and you'll see that most pro-choice work is devoted to increasing access to prevention. Up until Bush ordered it removed, the Centers for Disease Control's website had a "Programs that Work" area for sex education programs that quantitative data showed resulted in reductions in the teem pregnancy and STD rates. Every program was comprehensive sex-ed, the kind promoted by the pro-choice movement. Not one was abstinence-only, the program that preaches that teens simply shouldn't have sex, which "pro-life" forces favor. Obama supports the comprehensive sex-ed programs that have been proven to work, McCain supports no-sex-until-marriage programs which have been proven to fail.

Obama could remind the voter that only 11% of sexually active women don't use contraception and from this 11% comes 50% of the nation's abortions. Ninety-three percent of the American public strongly favors contraception because of this very reason. Very few voters are aware, however, that not one pro-life organization in the United States supports contraception. Or that instead, pro-life groups have been spearheading campaigns to prevent Americans from accessing birth control. No less than 80% of self-described pro-life voters strongly support contraception. Few know that McCain has a long legislative resume devoted to voting against access to contraception and prevention.

McCain and the right to life movement may have sanctimony on their side but, so far, sanctimony has proven ineffective at preventing abortion. Study after study suggests the right to life approach, which McCain has helped execute for decades, is actually the root of the problem: leading to more abortions and later ones too.

Obama should pose this question to McCain: Do you support couples having access to safe and effective birth control options, including emergency contraception? When questioned about his position last year McCain told a reporter: "I have to find out what my position was. Brian (a campaign staffer), would you find out what my position is on contraception...I'm sure I support the president's policies on it." (No president has led more attacks on the right to use contraception than Bush has.) Birthcontrolwatch.org, a group that alerts the public to attacks on the right to contraception, offers more questions Obama could ask McCain -- many would be devastating bombs to lob during, say, a televised debate.

Not only would it be refreshing to see Obama go on the offensive, it would be wise. Scanning the globe we discover the countries where abortion is most rare have the strongest pro-choice policies. The countries with the strongest "pro-life" policies are the ones with the highest abortion rates, often twice our national average. These are the nations that have implemented what our "pro-life" movement strives to: banning abortion, making contraception hard to come by, and preaching abstinence-only to teens.

The "pro-life" paradox appears everywhere its policies are in place. School districts in the conservative South are almost five times more likely than in the liberal Northeast to teach abstinence-only. Southern states also have the highest rate of new HIV/AIDS infections, the highest rate of STDs, as well as the highest rate of teen births. Whereas new cases of AIDS decreased or remained constant in the Northeast, Midwest, and West, the South alone experienced an increase.

Results should matter. The electorate, bamboozled and misled by the Bush administration on so many issues for so long, is hungry for fact, proof, and truth. Obama should not skulk and apologize for agreeing with the majority of the American public on reproductive rights. Allowing Americans to make their own important life decisions is a core conservative ideal. Not only is McCain mucking around with Americans' most important decisions, he's imposed policies that result in outcomes that, even by his own measures, should be considered disastrous.

If Obama takes the gloves off, he will discover a much larger cheering section. When the discussion is about prevention, contraception and results, the pro-choice candidate wins big. Obama should reveal to the American public that the pro-choice approach, his approach, is effective, safe and working wherever it's been tried.

Follow Cristina Page on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cristinapage

Comments

[booksnmore4you]

Some good points here but the reframing of the debate needs to dispense with the old label "pro-choice". No matter is said it won't be heard with that label attached to it.

[cadbury]

"Obama should hold McCain and and other anti-choice leaders accountable for their failure to find solutions to the high rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. He has the opportunity to change the debate. It's not about abortion; it's about preventing unwanted pregnancy."

Hmm. Sounds like a good strategy. But hasn't Hillary been saying this for years? That is, abortions should be safe and rare.

[IndependentMynd]

I am pro-choice. I've never had an abortion. I've never had a child out of wedlock. I've never had an STD. I was lucky because I had a mother who made sure that I was educated about sex from early childhood (3yrs & up). She answered my questions honestly and she gave me her opinions about things. She provided books (medical and otherwise) to help answer my questions. If I had been as ignorant about sex as some of the people I grew up with, I too, might have been pregnant at 13 yrs of age like two of my childhood friends. I knew of several girls who got pregnant very young and they were trapped in poverty and lost their childhoods. Because I did not want to be in their situation, I postponed sex until later. I can say from my own personal experience, that sex education does work. I was lucky enough to get that education from my mother but others aren't so lucky. If people on the far-right think that young people will just not have sex, they are living in some serious denial. The teens and pre-teens have resorted to having different kinds of sex (oral, anal, homosexual) rather than not have sex at all because they don't want sex to lead to pregnancy and have less access to birth control.

[nyckingpin]

In cases of rape and/or incest, I believe that the sins of the father are not the sins of the child. Although the biological father committed an evil and vile act, I dont think its fair to to abort the pregancy as a form of retribution to the father's aforementioned disgusting act of aggression.

However, I'll concede the point, because I think it would be greatly unfair to have the mother be revictimized by being forced to carry a pregancy to term in which she did not consent to sex. It may sound like I'm debating myself on this point, however I think it's necessary to play "devil's adovacte" and realize that even in this instance the case of abortion is not iron clad.

In cases in which the mother's life is at risk, I agree with you. Mainly, because the primary objective is not to terminate the pregancy but to save the mother's life. Even the most conserative religious minded individuals would allow for this exception (at least a great majority of them would).

[bgregs]

Of course it's not iron-clad. That's why those of us who are pro-choice are that way. In cases of rape, if the victim would like to carry the child to term, that's HER CHOICE. And if she chooses to abort such child because she doesn't want to be re-victimized, that's HER CHOICE. All that society needs to do is not make it illegal for her to MAKE that choice!

And while I agree that the sins of the father do NOT carry to the child, it's MORE unfair to the mother to force her to carry that child to term, and then possibly have the mother hate the child (which is NOT the child's fault) because of what the father did to her!

[nyckingpin]

To be a pro-life progressive is to be an odd political creature. It's about a consistent ethic of life. Respecting the sancity of life from the womb to the tomb. Which means, being against abortion and euthanasia. A non-starter for a lot of traditional liberals. However, it also means being against the death penalty, unilateral preemptive warfare (present ILLEGAL occupation of Iraq), and torture. It also means being for universal healthcare, a living wage (think FDR and the economic bill of rights), being pro-active on the front against world poverty, hunger, and whole other host of social justice issues.

Here's a few links that expound on what it means to be a prolife progressive:

http://media.www.thegeorgetownindependent.com/media/storage/paper136/news/2005/02/01/News/The-Rise.Of.ProLife.Liberals.Why.The.Abortion.Debate.Is.About.To.Change-848717.shtml

http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/pub-thelib-03.html

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/150/story_15032_2.html

[bgregs]

I'll agree with you on all those points with a small * after abortion. I'm opposed to it in most cases, as in, if I were a woman I would never get one except in cases of incest, possibly rape, or my own life was at risk. As a man I would NEVER encourage any woman to get one, but I would like to allow any who chooses to do so to have that choice.

[nyckingpin]

How do guys feel about pro-life progressives? Seriously, and no the term "pro-life progressive" is not an oxymoron.

[LisaSurfing]

I say welcome!! I often talk to pro-life voters, encouraging them to consider not making this the single issue that drives their voting or political leanings. Tell us more about what you feel is included in the term "progressive." We may have a lot in common.

[swkidder]

Both sides in the shouting match on abortion have been fundamentally dishonest.
For the Right, being “Pro-Life” equals fighting abortion. Life is sacred until birth, and the Death Penalty is “Justice.” Their business friendly social and economic policies are sometimes lethal. Electrical plants spew enough mercury vapor into the air that large numbers of young women are unable to bear a child without causing it neurological damage. Low-income mothers in 2-income marriages must choose between a pregnancy and feeding, clothing, and providing medical care to the children they already have. That's not “Pro-Life” – it’s a national disgrace.
The Left has trivialized the decision by insisting that it's about "when a fetus becomes viable." It isn't. Choosing an abortion is about turning down the chance for a miracle, and it's a moment for sober reflection - perhaps even for a period of mourning. It's also a decision that belongs between a woman, her partner, her physician and her God – no one else.
I'm a proponent of Choice. I also think it's time for a much deeper discussion of the value of human life. What's the whole spectrum of Pro-Life Values we support in this nation? When is it necessary and/or appropriate to consider taking a human life? We haven't had that hard discussion around our national kitchen table, and it's one in which the shades of gray predominate. I think it's time we quit shouting at one another and began to talk.

[bgregs]

The only reason that we talk about when the fetus is viable is to distinguish ourselves from the caricature created by the right: that all who support choice want to eliminate every child before it's born or use abortion for birth control. Using the argument about a viable fetus simply allows us to say that we do NOT always support an abortion, and that if there's a reasonable chance that the baby can survive outside its mothers body, then we need to be ESPECIALLY careful in making sure that such a human being has a chance. At the same time, before the viability of such a child, it is simply a symbiont with the mother, unable to do ANYTHING on its own, and therefore the overriding concern is for the mother.

[mulegino]

This is the kind of dialogue we need. I am against abortion in a moral sense, but I don't think that reverence for human life can be legislated. Abortion is a symptom of a society that has lost its fundamental bearings, reverting to a milieu which promotes isolated individualism over human solidarity, personal greed over the common good, indulgence over discipline, sensation over refection, and selfishness over love.
That having been said, I do know for a fact that many in the pro-life movement do do good work-I know of one couple that adopted at least two handicapped children who were mutilated in a Chinese abortion clinic, but lived. Many on these posts caricature all pro-lifers as hypocrites, or-as the common argument goes, "only worried about human beings until they're born"-which is grossly untrue.
However, there are many pro-lifers, who, although well intentioned, are dupes of the GOP. The cynical GOP committee people talk the pro-life talk to get elected, and then proceed to:

Cut taxes on the wealthy.

Cut social services and aid to the needy.

Cheerlead the outsourcing of our jobs, and the privatization of our infrastructure and resources.

Launch preemptive wars and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, both born and unborn.

Support the erosion of our constitutional rights by things like the "PATRIOT" act, etc. , etc.

[LisaSurfing]

We haven't trivialized it. What we've said is that the government should not make this decision.

[obamagal]

What a wonderful comment. I could not agree more. I also appreciate the comments of mulegino.

You are both absolutely right. An honest discussion is imperative.

[fiatpax]

Great comment. I couldn't agree with you more. It's time we took a good look at what "pro-life" really means, and be consistent.

If life is sacred, then it applies to ALL human life; not just the unborn, but the unwanted and uncared for, the homeless, the prisoner, and people who we characterize as our "enemies". If we are willing to take the lives of any of the above, we must be willing to accept responsibility for our decisions, and realize that there is no difference between them and us.

[LisaSurfing]

Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes - one child every five seconds. Imagine what could happen if some of the "pro-life" energy focused on living children.

[GloriaFeldt]

This is an important message about a critically important preventive health care, reproductive justice, and family well-being agenda that was handed to both Al Gore and John Kerry on a silver platter and they refused to champion it. Obama has not yet exhibited an interest in talking proactively bout the importance of family planning, medically accurate and comprehensive sex education, access to reproductive health care services in the U.S. and globally, and the like. I'm waiting for him to discuss his support for the Prevention First Act, for example, and to point out McCain's 100% anti-choice, anti-family planning voting record. I hope that articles like this one will move him to do so.

[IndependentMynd]

Speaking of McBush's anti-choice, anti-family stances....

http://www.newsweek.com/id/137529

http://www.womenforbarackobama.com/McCain.html

[ManyColored]

If you'd really like to do something constructive, give some money to Planned Parenthood. These people have stood on the front lines of reproductive rights while the vicious, evil, right-wing maniacs shoot, bomb, and intimidate them. It's not just supporting politicians who stand for pro-choice. It's helping those who must bear the brunt of the attacks from lunatics that care little about moral values other than their own agenda. These "pro-life" zealots are the scum of the earth.

[waynesr]

I once lent a friend of my girlfriend some money to get an abortion when I was in college. It was the early seventies. Her boyfriend did not have the money and he was an friend of mine. Years later when they were both married to other people we all met at a bbq and he had his three kids and she had none, she was trying to adopt as she could not have kids. I felt horrible because I felt it was my fault. Another friend of mine told me it was not my fault as she had six abortions after the one I financed. Did not make me feel any better as I was pro life by then. I am a black male catholic. Though I am pro life in my beliefs I will not impose my will on any one else because that is between that person and God.

Can't we make it easier on these women and young girls after they have birthed a child. We are rather heartless when it comes to that. Pro life to me means to have a heart and help some of these moms some single after the birth of the child. It means proper nutrition during pregnancy. It means giving proper education to birth control. If these things were made available to women maybe they would go through with their pregnancy. If it were up to men to have babies the world would be underpopulated because men can't handle it.

[AtomiClash]

The woman you mention clearly didn't understand pro-active birth control and it sounds like she used abortions as her only method of "contraception". That's unfortunate, as such a dramatic act should be a LAST resort, as it was for me.
But you make an excellent point. We do need to place more emphasis on the living. The single moms, the struggling families. Both pre- and post-natal. It's just one more way our system neglects those who need support the most.
And as an addendum - almost everyone in America knows at least one woman who has had an abortion, whether you're aware of it or not.

[MSGH]

Let's face it. Many, though not all, of the "pro-lifers" are not concerned with preventing unwanted pregnancy. Whether the woman wants a pregnancy, in their eyes, is irrelevant. If she gets pregnant, she should, as Genesis 3:16, " with pain . . . give birth to children," including the pain of an unwanted pregnancy. This pain is seen by them as God's punishment for the sin of Eve, and all women should be subject to it.

Genesis 3:16 also says that God told Eve, "Your desire will be for your husband,and he will rule over you." If women, in their eyes, need not pay the "penalty" of such pain for their desires, it would be more difficult for the man to "rule over" her.

[MourningDude]

You cite statistics comparing pro-choice and pro-life approaches, but neglect to mention that the pro-life approach has both its hands and one leg tied behind its back by the legality of abortion-on-demand.

Outlaw partial birth abortion, and then tell me if the number of them happening rises or drops. According to your argument, they would actually go up! That's utterly ridiculous and you know it.

Outlaw late term abortions, and then tell me if the number goes up or down. Again, you seem to be suggesting that they would rise! Again, ridiculous.

The fact of the matter is that for all the "framing", the pro-choice movement is ultimately just that. Pro-choice. Nothing else matters. The convenience of the mother is the only consideration, and the life of the unborn child is utterly meaningless.

[CanadianAmerican]

You've completely missed the point. Do you support contraception? If not, how can you claim to be in favor of reducing abortions? Outlawing abortions will not stop them, only drive them underground, making them (more) dangerous. Come on! The dark ages are over. Bloody bible thumpers.

[MourningDude]

I do support contraception. I don't support federal funding for it, though. If a community wants to implement "comprehensive" sex ed in their schools fine, but let them pay for it. If an adult wants to use it fine, but let them pay for it. There are plenty of options out there that are inexpensive, making mandatory health insurance coverage unnecessary.

[eternalkerri]

so if youre anti- abortion.

what should be the punishment for those women who do have abortions after they are illegal.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

Part I

YOUR reasoning is faulty. Yes, outlawing intact dilation and extraction will certainly reduce the number of those procedures LEGALLY done. Same for late-term abortions. It would certainly increase the number illegally done, as well.

The point of the article, however, is that the policies of comprehensive sex education and the easy accessibility of contraception products is far more effective at preventing UNWANTED pregnancies, and thus the number of abortions.

I'll admit that the abortion issue is one of competing interests: those of the woman who provides the egg, those of the man who provides the seed, and those of the gamete. Given that the woman must, at least during gestation, do all the work, I'm inclined to give her the decision-making authority over the other interests.

[bgregs]

partial birth abortions ARE illegal.

"pro-life" groups are NOT tied, they can do pretty much whatever they want, and what they want to do is prevent contraception and anything else which would limit the "punishment" that they want to impose on those who have sex for recreation.

[AtomiClash]

There is absolutely nothing convenient about abortion.
And I'll respect your opinion more once you sprout ovaries.

[SonofLiberty1]

Maybe just maybe, pro life folks live in a different reality..not one that is "World Centered" but
Christ Centered. Remember that he said although he lived in the world he was not "Of" the world.

There was a time..and still is today, that married folks understood that they needed to pace themselves. Nothing wrong with saying..hey I don't want to get pregnant so I won't have sex today.
The author must be smart enough to realize this...

And just because we are animals...doesn't mean we have to always reduce ourselves to being animals all the time.

[Schartizmo]

Maybe if the christians quit confusing morality and sexuality, the so-called christians wouldn't have gotten us into an unprovoked war, instead of worrying that contraception might result in a couple of frisky teenagers in "lying with each other."
which is the biggest moral priorlty: killing innocent people or sex between unmarried adults? I know this is a real doozy for you.

[Wolfdaughter]

SonofLiberty:

My problem with your post is this sentence: "And just because we are animals...doesn't mean that we have to always reduce ourselves to being animals all the time."

I read this as you saying that the sex act is inherently somehow dirty or beneath human beings, or something of the sort. I profoundly disagree. Sex is sex. It's a drive, like eating or breathing. In and of itself, it's neither good nor evil. It can be done to procreate (good if you have the wherewithal to raise the child, both financially and emotionally, bad if you're likely to abuse said child); good in the context of a loving relationship between consenting adults to help cement their pair bond, bad if rape, incest, or done to children or animals who cannot give informed consent; etc., etc.

A loving couple should be free to have sex as often as they like without having all acts potentially resulting in procreation. Therefore I support access to birth control for all adults who choose to avail themselves of it, and to teenagers who are going to have sex anyway, although I would prefer to talk them out of it if given the opportunity. If YOU do not wish to use birth control, and to control your rate of procreation by "pacing yourself" (and good luck with that!), then fine. But don't have the unutterable arrogance to try to impose your particular brand of narrow "morality" on others.

Obama 08

[bgregs]

And yet we don't live in a "christ centered" world. We especially don't live in a christ centered COUNTRY! Therefore to impose YOUR religious values on me is not only wrong, but UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

If YOU don't want to get an abortion (or allow one for your child) then that's your right, but to try to claim that it's morally wrong for ME to allow my own daughters to live their lives is NOT acceptable!

[colleen2]

"Maybe just maybe, pro life folks live in a different reality..not one that is "World Centered" but
Christ Centered."

Naw. If the horror that the 'pro-life' fundamentalist Christian Bush administration has inflicted on the country and the world is 'Christ centered' than decent people should not want any part of it.

[Quaoar]

Pro-Life folks can live life however they want to as long as they realize they have no right (god-given or otherwise) to control the lifestyles of everyone else. We live in a democracy, not a fascist theocratic dictatorship, although many pro-lifers seem to think otherwise.

[aluxeterna]

(Part II):

To me, the more reasonable voices in the abortion debate seem to sit somewhere on a spectrum between sympathy for the mother and sympathy for the baby, and they choose their "pro-choice" or "pro-life" titles accordingly. This way of looking at the debate allows me to find kindred spirits on both sides, but it also leaves me with few on either side who see me in the same light.

I appreciate Ms. Page's article. She has correctly identified why I will vote for Obama. Pragmatically, he is the choice that will directly result in fewer abortions. But this does not mean I buy into many of my fellow progressives' arguments that "you can't legislate morality" or that because I am male, I've no place to say anything at all. To me, all legislation is expression of moral will, and furthermore, if I have no right to speak out for the voiceless unborn, what gives me the right to speak out for the voiceless half million Iraqis who have been killed in a stupid goddamn war?

[obamagal]

Excellent. You have expressed my feelings on this matter exactly. I, too, am anti-war, anti-death penalty but pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Big difference.

[MourningDude]

Not every "unwanted pregnancy" is a tragedy.

There are many, many women and couples that did not plan to get pregnant, but choose to keep the baby and are later very grateful that they had the child.

I think the way the pro-choice movement has made the inherent value of life utterly insignificant harms both the unborn AND a whole lot of people that lost out on those unforseen blessings.

[CanadianAmerican]

And there are many, many more who keep the baby, then the father leaves, and does not support the child. The child grows up fatherless and impoverished. (Do you support universal child care?) Why don't you live and let live? If people want to have children, they will decide to do so at an appropriate time, such as when they're financially secure, in a loving and stable relationship, etc? Don't you think both parents and children would be happier with that? Until then, they should be using birth control and, if it fails, have abortions. When will you self-righteous American males catch up with the civilized world?

[bgregs]

You're right, not every unwanted is a tragedy, I'm one such. However, to make sure that EVERY pregnancy is carried to term, even when it WOULD be a tragedy is not acceptable!!!!

[caitmary]

I'm 8 months pregnant with an unplanned baby. My partner and I were using contraception and it failed. We discussed our options and decided not to terminate the pregnancy. Here's why:

We have loving, supporting families. We have decent jobs and can afford to support a child as well as ourselves. We conceived the child in *love,* albeit accidentally. Not everyone is as lucky as we are in regards to these privileges, and I don't blame a woman or couple one bit for not bringing a fetus to term that they feel they can't afford to feed, look after properly, or provide a decent life for once it becomes a child.

You and I both know that the "good deed" that mother or couple did by not aborting the fetus would quickly disappear once she gave birth, especially if she were to then become a dreaded "welfare mother." Instead of being viewed as a pious, righteous woman who took responsibility for her mistakes, she would be chastised as a whore and a drain on our economy. Her "precious" child would be left to rot in an underfunded public school where he'll be taught that he is worthless.He'll be raised in a bad neighborhood where his chances of being involved in violent crime triple because it was the only home she could afford. If he does end up in jail, your tax dollars will hold him there.

You're right, that sounds like a terrific solution.