An Open Letter to President-Elect Obama About Abortion: From a Pro-Obama and Pro-Life Leader
Dear President-elect Obama: Congratulations on your stunning victory! I guarantee that I'm the only person who worked to get you elected who was also a founder of the evangelical wing of the original pro-life movement. When it comes to the "culture wars" spawned by divisions over abortion, I know what I'm talking about. Please hear me out.
Yes, it's all about the economy. But no one should kid themselves: the culture wars have the potential to sap the energy from your best initiatives. There is no point writing anyone off. You need all Americans supporting you if you are to bring real and lasting change.
Check out this week's New Yorker magazine and you'll find a long quote by me in an article about Senator McCain's loss. The quote is from one of the many pieces that I wrote supporting you. (This one was first published by the Baltimore Sun then picked up here on Huffington.) I demanded that Senator McCain tone down the smear and fear rhetoric of his campaign and I accused him of potentially stirring up violence. Like many pieces I've written supporting you the one castigating the McCain campaign went "viral" and was replicated thousands of times on thousands of blogs.
The reason I'm writing this open letter is because you are going to get only one bite at the apple when it comes to defusing the antagonism of the pro-life movement toward you. But it can be done! I want to help you and your advisors to get this right. And you'll need support from the progressive movement. That's why I'm putting this in the Huffington Post, not just to reach you, but to try to convince your bedrock progressive supporters so they'll back your actions and, more importantly, back the order of your priorities I'm suggesting here that they might otherwise object to.
If you get this right you are in a position to open the door to the beginning of the end of the culture wars. If you get this wrong, you will needlessly instigate another round of toxic division.
Full disclosure: shortly after the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling my late Evangelical leader father Francis Schaeffer, Dr. C. Everett Koop (soon to be Ronald Reagan's Surgeon General) and I collaborated on a pro-life film series with a companion book (Whatever Happened to the Human Race?) I wrote the screenplay for the series and directed the films. We went on the road with a nationwide seminar tour which, taken together with other writings of my father's, launched the Evangelical pro-life movement. We became regular visitors to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr., White House, and worked closely with the Republican leadership from Henry Hyde to Jack Kemp. In the mid-1980s I left the Evangelical fold, and have moved "left."
I'm still pro-life, but now believe that abortion should remain legal.
Along with many other pieces that I wrote for the Huffington Post and various newspapers supporting you during the primaries and the campaign was one article where I explained why I'm both pro-life and pro-Obama. I pointed out that you take abortion seriously as a moral issue and that the impact of the social programs for families, children, education and medical care that you are talking about will actually reduce the number of abortions.
Here is what you said about the same subject:
"I think that abortion is a very difficult issue, and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on ... . This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views. But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "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. I think it's always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances."
So here is my advice:
1) If in the early days of your presidency you waive a red flag in the face of the pro-life movement -- and I'm not talking about the fringe crazies, I'm talking about the decent humane thoughtful pro-life folks who would have voted Democratic were it not for this one issue -- you will confirm the worst paranoid fantasies of the people who have tried to use this issue to block out all other considerations. Perception is important. If you start with some sweeping gesture striking down local and state ordinances that ask for parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion, and make that one of the first expenditures of your political capital you will have initiated the next round of the culture war.
2) On the other hand if some of your early initiatives are boldly proclaimed as specifically aimed at reducing the number of abortions, for instance initiatives to help facilitate adoption, provide care for pregnant women and children, of a kind that will make it easier for women with troubled pregnancies to keep their children, introduce sex education curriculum that teaches responsibility and the sacredness of sex that you have talked about in your campaign... everything could change.
3) Start with bold programs to reduce the number of abortions, while keeping abortion legal, and while protecting Roe, and you'll be surprised at how many Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who would have voted for you except for this issue, will be won over. You will calm the waters and defuse the situation.
4) Put real substance into programs to reduce the number of abortions, and combine that with talking about the fact that this is a moral issue upon which reasonable and honorable people can disagree, and you will have taken a giant step towards bringing this country together.
If you follow my advice you will find that you have some new and unexpected allies rooting for you on the issues of the economy, service and sacrifice, for instance all those millions of Evangelical young people ready to follow your call. Some of them already voted for you in bigger numbers than for any Democratic candidate for the presidency post-Roe. They already believe in your vision of service, responsibility and compassion. Give them some hope that you have also heard their moral concern on the issue of life.
It's your "Nixon goes to China" moment. As a progressive Democrat you are in a position to defuse the situation and heal the culture wars in a way that no Republican president has been able to do. Surprise the pro-life movement with a sincere, sustained "bully pulpit" for life, and a substantive set of a programs to reduce abortions, while also defending Roe. You can do both!
None of this means that you, the Democratic Party or the progressives movement has to give up principles about reproductive rights. In fact, it means that those principles can better be defended in the long term because you will have claimed the moral high ground.
On January 21 the day after your inauguration there will be a huge demonstration against abortion. That would be a great time for you to announce several programs aimed specifically at giving pregnant women all the help they need if they choose to keep their babies. There are millions of Americans of goodwill (not to be confused with your most rabid opportunists on the right) who could be brought to your side. You'll never convince the cranks, but you can win a new army of good people ready to sacrifice for the massive changes you will need every American's good will to achieve.
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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Parental consent should not be a precondition of abortion. Not ever. If a minor seeking an abortion does not first turn to her parents for assistance and support, there may be a good reason for her to go it alone.
And what do you plan to do to help, Frank? What do you believe is your part?
"I'm not just asking you to believe in my ability to change Washington, D.C. I'm asking you to believe in yours."
How about informing the monster you helped create of the historically varying Catholic Church theology on abortion? How about informing pro-lifers of the science suggesting that fetuses are not sentient, that their reactions are reflexes, not evidence of "pain"? How about saving your counsel for those among your own flock who seek it? How about respecting Thomas Jefferson's ideal of "a wall of separation between Church and State," for Christ's sake?
i agree.
i am a catholic, a democrat, and worked very hard to get obama elected this year.
i admire him tremendously.
i will be asking him to work hard to reduce the number of abortions.
I agree. When I ran for U.S. Senate in the Democratic primary in Oregon - I tossed literature from both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life because neither represented me. I believe in Pro Responsibility regarding this sorrowful issue. Taking a stubborn stand and trying to ban abortion doesn't ban abortion - it just makes it illegal. If you really care about the issue, you work to minimize it with education, prevention, and decision.
The Gay Alliance needs to neutralize the religious opposition. They do not know how to do it.
First, they need to change the discussion from whether gays are good or evil but how does 93% of the people treat 7% (the gays) of the people.
Second, since the Fundamental Christians, Catholics and Mormons like to quote scripture, you need to turn it on them. Most of the violent themes come out of the Old Testament. Christ told his followers not to use the cursing Psalms and other passages such as that.
Third, you need to remind the listeners of the Sermon on the Mount and the Woman at the well.
Fourth, you need to find creditable spokespersons to deliver this message
Fifth, cool the demonstrations. You cannot convince the swing voters with nastiness.
See Michele Swenson's Profile
Unfortunately, in addition to the push to permit pharmacists' refusal to fill contraceptive prescriptions, the right-to-life movement is making a concerted effort to criminalize contraception by defining life as beginning at the moment the sperm and egg unite - medically, pregnancy is defined as beginning with implantation of the fertilized egg. Even then, not all fertilized eggs have even the potential to become human beings. Some become hydatiform moles or cancerous tumors.
One of the greatest conceits of the political right is the denial that pregnancy is an issue of life and health for women. As a nurse in the pre-Roe era, I worked with women who died of pregnancies that were contraindicated due to chronic conditions like heart disease or acute kidney disease.
The efforts to assign all the rights of personhood from the moment of fertilization, e.g., the so-called "Personhood Amendment" on the 2008 Colorado ballot (that failed 75-25%), exist side-by-side with right-wing efforts to deny women the same Fourteenth Amendment protections.
It may also be good to recall the words of science writer and editor Boyce Rensberger, author of "Life Itself," based on the study of cellular life: "There is no such thing as a 'moment of conception.' It isn't until two weeks after the sperm and egg unite that the first cell of a human is formed. Prior to that, the placenta and support systems are forming." (Jim Lehrer NewsHour, 4/25/97)
Mr. Schaeffer,
it is a joy to see a follower of Christ-- whether Catholic, Evangelic, or Orthodox-- embrace a full and consistent ethic of life. Over the course of this long election season I gave my support to Obama, only to be riddled with confusion as many well-intentioned evangelical and Catholic friends pointed to the abortion issue and said that I would be forgetting the needs of the unborn if I helped elect him. But in the eleventh hour, as I struggled to reconcile my support for Obama with my pro-life stance, and balked at the notion that perhaps my only option was McCain, I encountered the startling facts that abortion actually increased a great deal under Bush's "pro-life" regime. I was also struck by McCain's consistently anti-life policy in regards to the environment, war, international diplomacy, etc. Thank you for making it clear to Christians and religious folk of all stripes that there isn't just one choice, and that supporting life isn't just about abortion rights. A vote for republican candidate has done little to support pregnant women and the challenges they face as they deal with unplanned pregnancies.
Mr. Schaeffer,
Reproductive rights issues are complex, complicated and fraught with the enitre gamut of emotions for all. And, that is unfortunately where your your proposals will come acropper. Those on either side of fence who are willing to work toward a time when abortion is "safe, legal and rare" won't need much convincing of the the Obama administration's intent.
However, the "morally certain" aren't going to be happy when the programs to reduce the need for abortions while preserving it as an option are reinstituted.
That is the crux: a clash of belief. One group of people, the so-called "pro-lifers" believe they have access to the absolute truth and that they have the right and duty to force others to live by "pro-life" rules. The "pro-choice" group thinks people should be given information, education and tools in a timely manner so that individuals can make informed decisions on how to manage and conduct their own sex lives. If he goes as he's begun, Obama will get public support from any person, "pro-life" or "pro-choice," who respects the right of others to make their own decisions on these very personal matters. He will be opposed by those, like the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, who believe they have a pipeline to God and who oppose abortion.
You have a good heart; but there won't be "peace in our time" on reproductive rights.
If you truly believe that people on both sides of this issue ought to try to find common ground, please try to avoid using the silly term "pro-life". Pretty much everyone feels the same way about "life" as you do, including those of us who fully support Roe v. Wade and full abortion rights for women.
By suggesting that those on the other side of the argument are somehow "anti-life" is not only unsupportable, but shows a complete disinterest on your part in understanding the point of view of others.
People on both sides of this issue have allowed politicians to divide us on Roe v. Wade, while nothing is done to actually reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, or to make carrying to term a realistic option. I wish there were a term for those of us who are pro-life but believe that abortion must remain legal. It is not an oxymoron, and I believe the majority of Americans actually fall into this category: they believe abortion is wrong, and want to reduce the number of abortions - but recognize that making abortion illegal would create a different nightmare. Rich women would go overseas, poor women would get butchered, and middle class women would be caught in the middle. We cannot go back to that.
We have to talk about abortion - and not just with people who agree with us. We have to build consensus for sex education, widely available birth control - AND promotion of sexual responsibility and reverence for life. This is not a discrete issue - we need universal healthcare and a strong economy that provides living-wage jobs to provide a baseline of security for families facing unplanned pregnancies. I hope and trust that President Obama will be able to take us beyond the simple "baby-killer"/"keep-your-laws-off-my-body" dichotomy to actually addressing the social and moral issues that are at stake here, reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and providing real support for women who bring their children to term.
Frank, Thank you for this brilliant post.
I'm afraid the culture wars are already brewing, with abortion at its epicenter. Our politics have bred the (erroneous) popular understanding that, in order to be "Pro-Life", one must support the criminalization of abortion.
The trouble with this position is that it pits the interests of the fetus/baby against the mother's.
It is this type of position that makes for extremist politics, which the Right has cynically exploited for its election victories in past years.
A more productive position would be for all sides to acknowledge that our society needs to provide all kinds of supports - emotional, communal, spiritual and financial supports - for Moms (and Dads) who bring a baby into this world.
Most mothers choosing abortions do so for economic reasons. If we support women who live in poverty for not aborting their children, it stands to reason that there will be less abortions.
I hope that Pro-Lifers would acknowledge this.
We should not make a mother choose between a life of potentially greater poverty with another child she cannot afford.
I know people who volunteer at orphanages specializing in babies that might have been aborted. It is not immoral for them to believe that doing so will help lessen the number of abortions, even if they voted for Obama.
This is my first ever post on this site after reading it everyday throughout the campaign....Mr. Schaeffer I agree with everything that you wrote. I hope the President-Elect is paying close attention to your letter.
I live in West Virginia and during the campaigns, after church one Sunday I found a most offensive flier on my car (and the many other cars in the lot) after service. This is a large church that has 2 services each Sunday and one each Saturday and all are very well attended. Of course it is one that distorts the Senator's record by selectively highlighting portions of a vote...most of you know the story. At that time the polls in WV had started to narrow but after seeing that "innocent baby's face" on the front of a flier....I could have bet my bailout contributions that it moved the majority of these churchgoers.
I live in Florida and I agree with Mr. Schaeffer. I go to a conservative church, and most of the churches here are pro-Republican. We had voter guides from Christian Coalition of Florida; abortion and gay marriage are big issues here. My pastor has nothing good to say about the President-Elect; last Sunday's sermon was to make those bad sheep to feel guilty if they gave their votes to the Democratic Party. I know some of the people in my church could have voted for Mr. Obama but didn't, because of the abortion issue.
By the way, if I said in 1864 that while I would never own a slave, was personally opposed to it, thought people shouldn't morally do it, but felt I had no right to tell them what to do with their property because previous SC decision recognized the right to own slave, I wouldn't sound very moral. Abolishonists were also called cranks, terrorists, etc.back in their day. Today's pro-lide "crank" as you call it was yesterday's abolishonists and will hopefully prevail one day.
I think that most Americans do not consider a first-trimester fetus to be the moral equivalent of a sentient being. I also think that most Americans feel that a first-trimester fetus does have moral status as a potential sentient being.
Abortion is a tough issue and I think most Americans do not feel qualified to dictate to someone else how she should balance her interests with those of her fetus but do feel that it is a good thing to minimize the situations that lead a woman to want an abortion.
I am Catholic and Pro Life but I also do not want abortion criminalized. The idea that women and doctors might be thrust into the criminal justice system and face prison sentences for making this higly personal decision is absolutely unacceptable to me. I have not heard a clear repsonse to this by the Pro Life movement. However, please do not call people who feel strongly about abortion "cranks" This is an incredibly emotional issue for people who sincerely believe that life begins at conception. I also think the Democrats and Pres Elect must think seriously before trying to revive the Freedom of Choice Act. That will be the red flag that will set Catholics off since the proposed law would result in Catholic hospitals being forced to offer abortions. This is becoming a big issue in the Catholic community and I would like to hear the Obama transition team say something on this.
So how do pro-abortion people explain the fact that in many states, if a person injures a pregnant woman in a way that causes her to lose her "fetus", it's considered murder? The Lacy Peterson case is the prime example. If the fetus is not alive, how can you murder it?
Interesting question. English and American common law (based on the Old Testament) provided that the death of a fetus was not murder.
Some new statutes have been implemented changing that ancient law, as you have just noted.
For the same reason that if I intentionally break my TV, I don't go to jail... but if you come into my house and break it without my permission, you do.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
