President-elect Obama has said he is worried that in the echo chamber of the presidency he'll only be hearing one set of opinions. One opinion I'll bet he isn't hearing right now is this: be very careful of re-energizing the culture wars by pandering to the extreme left of the pro-choice movement.
President-elect Obama has said that he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) shortly after assuming office. The act would strike down local and state laws related to limiting abortion, parental notification and such. This act might also be used to force doctors, nurses and other medical personal to either perform abortions and/or refer women to doctors that do. According to some reports, President-elect Obama may even sign FOCA as one of his first (and therefore most closely scrutinized) initiatives as president.
That would be a huge mistake.
Please note: I'm an Obama fan, a one-time lifelong Republican who voted for Mr. Obama and wrote extensively in support of him here, probably as many positive heartfelt words about and for Mr. Obama as any other blogger on this site.
But here's my question for the President-elect: Why start Round Two of the culture wars as one of your first acts as president?
And why do something that may also be used by pro-choice ideologues to try and force doctors and nurses to act against their conscience? Why reinvigorate the Religious Right -- a sop, perhaps, to your critics on the left who want you to be "more progressive"?
I am somewhat uniquely placed to foresee the ramifications of what you are said to be planning to do. I was a leader at the start of the anti-abortion movement. After the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, I collaborated with my father, evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer (now deceased), and Dr. C. Everett Koop (soon to be Ronald Reagan's surgeon general) on an anti-abortion film series, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? I directed the films. We went on the road with a nationwide seminar tour that, taken together with other writings of my father's and our meetings with Presidents Gerald R. Ford and Ronald Reagan, launched and then sustained the evangelical pro-life movement.
I've changed my mind.
I now believe abortion should remain legal. I think Roe was too sweeping but that it should nevertheless stand. I think abortion is a matter of the heart, not the law.
However, like many Americans -- including millions of hitherto staunch Republican evangelical young people who voted for Mr. Obama -- I also believe that we should do all we can to make abortion a last option. For the newly installed President to simply sweep away everything that is dearest to the anti-abortion folks (in terms of local ordinances etc. related to somewhat limiting abortions) with the stroke of a pen would be unfortunate. Abortion is legal and will stay that way without the next president doing anything other than closely scrutinizing his court appointments.
Make no mistake: there are plenty of people on both sides of this issue that don't fit the extreme stereotypes. Here is a letter from one such person that I received as an email today.
Dear Mr. Schaeffer, I listened with interest to last week's interview on NPRs Fresh Air program where Terri Gross interviewed you... I, like you, believe that people should have choice in the United States... I am a health care worker, and we have lost our right to conscientious objection in many areas of the US, and I see the risk of that expanding.....Pro-choice groups have done a wonderful job of vilifying health care workers who have conscientiously objected to participating in abortions and have passed laws in Illinois, Washington, Nevada, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey prohibiting pharmacists like me from objecting to filling [abortion-related] prescriptions. Physicians have been affected in other areas of the country too. This could expand nationwide if the Freedom of Choice Act is passed into law...
People rightly were outraged when The Bush administration broke article 5 of the UN universal Declaration of Human Rights (" No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."). But I hear very little outcry about the breaking of Article 18 - "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..."
I find many pro-life groups to be [wrong] as they are always pushing for complete eradication of Roe v. Wade - but I am trying to continue to raise my voice over the injustices being thrust on health care workers [who are ambivalent about abortion] - who are being denied their right to choice...Susan S.
Does President-elect Obama really want to disregard thoughtful people such as Susan who have real concerns on such a big moral question? I don't think so. She is pro-choice and yet wants her conscience respected.
Pushing abortion regulations and laws into a more permissive place beyond even Roe v. Wade -- which is already the most permissive abortion law in the world, in contrast to, for instance France, where abortion is strongly discouraged after 10 weeks -- is a mistake. It will only guarantee that this fight gets even more bitter.
During the campaign, Mr. Obama said:
"This is an issue that - look, it divides us. ... We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion."
Why not follow up that statement with early action? Why not first find a way to show Americans who are ambivalent about abortion that he is doing something to make abortions less frequent?
How Mr. Obama deals with abortion could be his "Nixon goes to China" moment. As a progressive Democrat, he is in a position to defuse the bitterest element of the culture wars and begin to heal our country in a way that no Republican president has been able (or willing) to do.
Since 1973 and Roe v. Wade, the Republicans have talked incessantly about being "against abortion" but have done little to help women to deal with unwanted pregnancies. Mr. Obama could do the opposite. Instead of signing the Freedom of Choice Act, why not surprise the pro-life movement by announcing a major effort to reduce abortions, drawing attention to programs ranging from improved adoption services to age-appropriate sex education? None of this would conflict with his core value of keeping abortion legal and defending Roe.
Mr. Obama will need every American to support the sacrifices he will soon be calling on all of us to make. Why should he start his term in office by shrugging off the good will of millions of Americans who disapprove passionately of abortion and yet, as of now, are favorably disposed toward him?
President-elect Obama, why make your opening move a revived culture war? Defusing, not inflaming, the anti-abortion community's anger is the best long-term defense of a woman's right to choose. It is also what is best for America.
President-elect Obama please give us a break from divisions and fulfill your promise to bring us together. Signing the Freedom of Choice Act would be a big step backward.
Frank Schaeffer is the author of Crazy For God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back (Now in Paperback).
Follow Frank Schaeffer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_schaeffer
America responded to the problem of teenage pregnancy and cross border illegal abortions by making abortion legal. Christianity responsed by becoming political, and the Republican party responded to the Christians by offering promises for votes. They succeeded in winning elections, and the result is war and torture and the rich getting richer at the expense of the rest of the population. Christianity is now at the center of so much global anger and deception, and their response is to close their eyes so they won't have to see what they have done. I think we made a mistake in making abortion legal, but Christianity has shown through their response that they are not following God, they are following themselves. They have become their own god, and any victory they might have in their culture war only brings us closer to disaster, and that might be their wish. I don't think we can talk to them, so we have to complain to the peacemakers. Sorry Frank, but that means you.
I worked as a counselor for the National Abortion Federation's national abortion hotline- The lengths that poor, rural women had to go to, in order to find doctors that performed abortions, were just tragic. We received threats every single day, but continued our work because we believed in what we were doing, and not one person was willing to give in to the t e r r ori sts.
Poor, disadvantaged women and frightened teenagers are the one's that suffer the most from repressive reproductive health policies that are mandated by religious zealots. You cannot reason with Pro-lifers and you cannot compromise with them. The only thing that will satisfy these people, if they can't completely outlaw abortion, is creating a 9-month waiting period. I am looking to President Obama to re-balance the scales.
stance of providing abortions or abortion related prescriptions or materials is this: What if the doctor/pharmacist at the time of procedure/sale is not anti-abortion? Who's opinion or religious view gets accepted? Is there a conflict if the pharmacy owner says no to choice related sales, but the clerk doesn't? How about the hospital administrator who's Catholic views prevent them from abortion services vs. the agnostic service provider? Who's opinion is more valuable? Is it merely a question of waiting for a shift change?
I also like the comment by Lilly-G about the explosion of new spending that would result from a non abortion country. In no way am I tying abortion decisions to finances, but to the right and the 'less government/less taxes' way of thinking, who is going to pay for the countless needs of the severely handicapped persons (to name one group of new populations) who would result from a moratorium on abortions?
Unlike you, I have fought the right-wing for years, so maybe I understand that they cannot be appeased or compromised out of their extreme women-hating positions because it empowers them among the ignorant folks who like simple and often inaccurate answers to complicated issues.
Obama won't cause a 'culture war'. The war is caused by the religious right, talk radio and the GOP against Democratic plans for science based policy that encourgages accurate sex education and access to birth control and abortion.
This country can make abortion rare if the right wing would get out of the way.
I have been working in this movement for my entire adult life as well. I am pro-choice, an activist for it. I agree with him. We are not talking about banning all abortion, or birth control, or sex education.
These wedge issues cause us to lose our majority in political seats again and again.
In "wars", both sides blame the other and see the "other" as at fault. Both sides feel self-righteous
and indignant. The "other" becomes a target for hate. The "other" has nothing good about it.
We are in that culture war.
I think we need to consider diplomacy.
You say, "We are not talking about banning all abortion, or birth control, or sex education", but THEY are. That's the point and their goal--EXACTLY.
The "other" side will not compromise in legislating religious beliefs. Here's why.
Think about it. All religious beliefs and customs are a specific way just because they are and followed without question. They have nothing to do with logic and picking positions in the middle satisfies nobody. Here's an example: I used to have a Jewish boyfriend. He couldn't understand why the Christmas tree couldn't go in the bedroom or not have lights or be really small, etc. The answer is that's just not how you do it. If I couldn't have a real Christmas tree, WITH lights, in the window, then I didn't want one at all. I told him that I'd put a dark shrub in the bedroom if HE would light the Menorrah every OTHER night, say his prayers in English, and eat ham at our party. It sounds ridiculous in this example, but I'm trying to make the point that religious compromise is impossible. That's why it needs to stay OUT of the public square and remain a personal choice.
There's also something a little bit condescending about the notion that surely Obama didn't really MEAN the things he said to get elected. Whatever happened to political capital? Nobody expected George Bush to drop his bullshit immediately after the election and placate us. He's never even thrown us a bone in 8 years!
The references in the above article to Obama's speeches about trying to work to limit the number of abortions is also interesting because I don't think that anything he does to that end will placate the religious right in the least. They don't CARE about limiting abortions and they care even less about unwanted children. If they want to limit abortions, why are they trying to outlaw birth control with endless ballot initiatives? Our infant mortality rate is appalling because of lack of access to health services and pre-natal care. The same people who worry so much about abortion vote AGAINST health care for children and do everything they can not to support "welfare mothers" with THEIR tax dollars.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d3c_1229133179
Look at this and think about who we want to please when signing laws.
Why stop there? Let's send all pro-lifers to special re-education camps. Of course, since there is something oh so evidently wrong with their thinking, so they cannot be alowed to vote, or to raise children (and thereby brainwash the next generation with their unacceptable thoughts).
The most dangerous thing about these "people" is that they cannot be easly distinguished from everyone else. They blend in with the crowd, and insidiously infect the body-politic. I say they should be forced to wear an identifying symbol of some sort, so that the rest of us can be forewarned as to who we are dealing with.
We have to stop these people... now.
The 1992 version of the FOCA included a provision which said that nothing in the Act would be construed to "prevent a State from protecting unwilling individuals from having to participate in the performance of abortions to which they are conscientiously opposed."
That provision and others, including provisions saying that nothing in the bill would be construed to prevent a State from refusing to pay for an abortion, or to set forth laws requiring notification or permmision of a parent. The current version of the FOCA does not include these provisions.
Here is the Senate version of the FOCA:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1173:
Here is the House version:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3719:
I think maybe you should read up on this subject before you attempt to correct someone about something you, evidently, don't know about.
warring. Wedge issues are used by politicians on both sides to divide us, and we play into it. I am not saying it is not an important issue, it is more than a "wedge " issue. What I am saying is that it is used as a wedge along with other issues to keep us focusing on these matters while major issues like our economic system fall into the background. I think the author is trying to perhaps say that if we are too liberal on every aspect of the debate, we will lose voters next election. The democrats cannot keep losing these elections--look at the last 28 years!--because of wedge issues. They are the reason we can't stay in power long enough to enact major changes, like socialized medicine and living wages and the green revolution. We play into the right's hand when we take the bait, they want to use the "extreme" stance on abortion against us to make people offended by us so they vote Repub. And they do, even though that party's stance is against everything that is in their best interest.