A few minutes before President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame, the CNN anchor was intoning that he supports stem cell research and he supports abortion rights, and that he would not shrink from his positions on either. In fact, she said, he was going to use an email he had gotten on the subject of abortion as part of his remarks.
Good, I thought. It will be from the parent of the mentally retarded high school student who was gang raped, the doctor of an 11 year old incest victim, or possibly a woman with four kids already whose husband has just lost his job and medical benefits along with it.
Boy, was I wrong.
The letter Obama cited in great detail was from an anti-choice doctor who had taken him to task for a statement on his campaign website saying he would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The president was quick to point out that while he had not changed his fundamental position (though he declined to reiterate it), he had instructed his staff to alter the wording, presumably so that "ideologue" no longer appeared.
The rest of the speech, insofar as a woman's most fundamental right to control her own body was concerned, was a big fat silence. Leading off with "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions," the president detailed all the ways we can reduce abortions. He mentioned adoption, support for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, and crafting a "sensible conscience clause" (whatever that means) for health care providers as well as "health care policies grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
Coming from a pro-choice president who was elected by women - including a significant number of defectors from their rabidly anti-choice Republican party - it was faint support indeed. Instead of merely asking us to agree that abortion is a heart-wrenching decision (we all do anyway), why not ask us to agree on the fundamental moral agency of women? Why not ask us to agree that government should not interfere in a woman's most basic right to autonomy in controlling her life? If he wants to follow that with a statement about reducing the need for abortion, I'll be with him all the way.
But the president didn't do that. After brushing quickly by respect for the equality of women (and only in the health care context), he went on to extend an invitation to the anti-choice audience to engage in dialogue, where "differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." That all sounds great, but if the president buys the idea that those who would outlaw abortion and send women back to the back alleys are not ideologues, and that they want to co-exist in civil disagreement, he's naive at the very best. And he diminishes women in the bargain.
Make no mistake. I support President Obama. I think for the most part he's doing a great job. I know he's pro-choice. But I need to know he is not afraid to say unequivocally that he supports the fundamental rights of his daughters and my granddaughters as strongly as he supports so-called open dialogue and debate. He needs to say it out loud, with conviction and without apology.
If they hear that, the women of the world will stand and applaud much longer and much harder than any crowd at Notre Dame.
Obama needs to be clear that Roe is the law and it will not be overturned state by state, county by county, town by town. He needs to stand up for the doctors that risk their life to perform this procedure and not kiss the rear ends of the anti-abortion movement. ROE IS THE LAW>
I am an overeducated feminist Hispanic. I am also a survivor of incest and a victim (not my choice) of two illegal abortions in South Texas before Roe vs. Wade. The emotional cost of those 2 abortions followed me for over 40 years. I know you didn't want to hear about any survivors during Obama's address at Notre Dame... But survivors of rape, incest, sexual assault are a part of the American fabric. Survivors certainly have a viable opinion. As you know, sexual violence happens to apprx. 1 out of 3 women before the age of 35.
This is MY experiential opinion: Obama is NOT serving women well by not being full forthcoming in his address at Notre Dame. I agree with President Obama about almost every part of his agenda. Obama needs to be more informed about gender bias. Gender bias is a universal evil. From that gender bias, violence grows.
Gender bias transcends race and class.
I appreciate your comments. You have put into words my questioning of my unilateral support for Obama. (I was with him at the beginning of his grass roots quest for the Democratic nomination).
I have read some of the posts... young women; happy with their position in life, seem to feel threatened by the idea (fact) that women are not equal. They will unfortunately learn about gender bias during their own lifetimes. Please keep writing.
Obama didn't go to Notre Dame to make the pro-choice case in front of a pro-life crowd. And he didn't gloss over the irreconcilable differences between the two camps.
What he did, and what members of congress are now doing as well, is ask where can we find common ground to make the world a better place DESPITE our irreconcilable differences.
Surely we need more of THAT approach, not just in the pro-life vs pro-choice clash, but in the countless clashes that cause suffering and disconnect in the world every single day.
There is no common ground. Pro-choice forces believe that a woman has the right to control her own body, including (especially) her reproductive organs. Anti-choice forces do not believe that a woman has the right to control her own body, especially her reproductive organs.
Note that neither side questions a man's right to control of own body, including his reproductive organs.
I repeat -- there is no common ground.
I need to know that he will NOT go around saying "out loud, with conviction and without apology" whatever one side or the other in a controverial single issue wants him to say.
PS: Although I am adamantly pro-choice, I do not want the President to decide this issue for us: I want him to Preside over the debate. That is his job.
Obama demonstrates once again his pragmatic attitude to problems: he's not trying to convince the world of his truths, but rather convince people to think for themselves, and while they do that, solve the problems that arise from the divisions of belief and ideology to make the Union (as it is) as perfect as possible.
perhaps you could try excusing them for being excited and interested in pregnancy. Some people just love the whole thing, the pregnancy, other people being pregnant, newborns, babies etc. I hardly think people being interested turns the pregnant woman in any kind of property, public or private.
"Those who deny women the right to control what to do with their bodies" No one is talking about what you do with your body, but rather what you can or can't, should or shouldn't do with the body of the other human life that is inside your body.
Men's superior position in society? Well lets see, women's votes count the same. Women can hold any job and get paid the same for doing the same job. Women have held just about every high office in the country, save Pres/VP, and that's destined to change, heck it would've changed this year if Hilary beat Obama. Women are now half if not more of all students in college, and at my law school they were half of my graduating class. And women can decide to destroy a baby that is half the fathers, and the father is largely powerless to stop it.
So what part of society is sooooooo male dominated? Football teams perhaps?
If we took your position, instead, we would be telling rape victims that they had to carry the resulting pregnancy to term. Well - that's just wrong!
There are a myriad of difficult issues out there for him to have to deal with and he won't be "right" on all of them, nor should anyone expect that. He's a human being first and as such, mistakes are part of the deal, as are disagreements on issues.
He face them with grace and courage.
And yet, here you are WHINING with unrealistic and unfounded criticism on the man.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
You are, IMO, the one who needs to take a step back and reevaluate your hyper-critical...and unnecessary stand. It's coming across as a shrill screed!
Get off your high-horse, Martha.....he's FOR US!
So, don't work AGAINST him.