Why Pro-Life Obama Supporters Should Be Disappointed

Obama's pro-life supporters are claiming to be pleased that he at least waited a day before reportedly repealing the Mexico City "gag rule," which blocks federal money from going to overseas groups that offer information about abortion.

Jim Wallis, for instance, declared, "In breaking the symbolic cycle, President Obama showed respect for both sides in the historically polarized abortion debate, and called for both a new conversation and a new common ground."

If I were a pro-life Obama supporter, though, I'd be quite disappointed, not because of the Mexico City ruling (which was expected) but because of the combination of that and the language in Obama's statement yesterday on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

He did mention the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies. But keep in mind that pro-life Obama supporters believed that their big victory during the fights over the Democratic Party platform was not the language about reducing unintended pregnancies -- which had been there in previous platforms -- but rather the language about helping women carry babies to term, if that was their choice.

That thought was absent from yesterday's statement.

The key paragraph:

"While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services."

Compare that to the Democratic platform, which had the above sentiment but also this:

"The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs."

And here's his statement during the final Presidential debate, in which he again paired preventing unintended pregnancies with helping women who want to carry babies to term:

"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."

Or to his statement during the campaign to George Stephanopoulos:

"I think the better answer -- and this was reflected in the Democratic platform -- is to figure out, how do we make sure that young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child."

Joe Biden on Meet the Press went even further:

"What we're going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children."

By the way, at least one pro-Obama group is arguing that repealing the gag rule would actually reduce the number of abortions (a view the Right to Life folks dispute). More on that debate here.

Comments

[RadLeftVetPatriot]

All nine of them?

[jlm74]

I've read this twice and I am still wondering what the point of this article was. I teach writing and I have a master's degree, so I'm pretty sure I'm not too stupid to understand a basic news commentary. I'm just trying to figure out why the president's statement from yesterday is so incongruent with the other statements cited in this blog that it's worth making a fuss about.

[mrsfeild]

You read my mind, thank you. Whatever the point was he seemed to disprove it.

[merger]

You are so right. These are my sentiments exactly.

[Catothemuchyounger]

No one who is against abortion can justify voting for a Democrat for President, period. Wallis and the others are just kidding themselves. The Democrats are in the pocket of the pro-choice groups, just as the Republicans have been in the pockets of the pro-life forces. YOu cannot take seriously the anti abortion credentials of anyone who voted for Obama.

[SonofLiberty1]

Sounds like you are a Republican.

Rather I think it's time enough now to take THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OUT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!

[Catothemuchyounger]

No, I am a not a Republican. I am a conservative who lives in Connecticut. Our Republicans are too liberal to get elected as a Democrat in some states. And the Republicans in the Congress violated most of their professed principles in more ways than can be fit in a post here.

I don't consider myself as ever voting "for" Republicans. I vote against Democrats.

By the way, your Catholic Church comment makes little sense. The Catholic Church is not a Republican friendly organization. It is "conservative" in the old political sense: high Church, hierarchical, comfortable with monarchs, etc. It is not "conservative" in the American sense. American conservatism is "liberal" in that sense: it comes out of the Founding Fathers, who come out of Locke and the Enlightenment.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

That might be true if Obama was the president of reproductive rights. Since he's the president of the US - there's a lot more to th country than abortion. Not everyone is so narrow minded that they vote only on one issue.

On anoother note - if you claim to be pro-life, how could you have voted for McCain when he championed the illegal invasion of Iraq and the subsequent death of 100,000+ Iraqis and 4000+ Americans?

I guess being pro-life doesn't include Iraqi lives, huh?

[Catothemuchyounger]

I never said I was prolife. As a legal matter, I think Roe is pure garbage, and the matter is properly one left to the States. Many of them are very pro-choice. Some are very pro-life. Most would probably end up somewhere in the middle.

[billbb]

SO... Why does the number of abortions decrease during "pro abortion" Democratic administrations and increase during "anti" Republican ones? Suppression has never worked, abstinence-only has never worked; just ask Sarah Palin and her crowd of "Oops!" kids and grandkids.

Even religious people of good conscience have varied opinions on the subject. I am personally opposed, but my Orthodox Jewish neighbors are not. What gives us the right to force people to believe just as we do?

[MPeter]

Let them go to hello. Obama is okay with supporting women's reproductive rights. He should not be faulted for respecting women. Get on with it, or join Palin, I do not care. Obama is in the right place.

[eklawson]

So, Obama is generally known to support programs which provide support to mother's wishing to carry their children to term, but the pro-lifers should get all their panties in a bunch because his speech writer forgot to mention that part in his latest statement on the issue?

Because in America we have a population that is so feeble minded that they can't hold one thing in their heads from one day to the next? This is an article about nothing at all.

[drumz]

What is pro-life? It sounds religious so therefore means about the same as the tooth fairy.

[elsa12]

How does the term "pro-life" sound religious???
Ever hear of pro-life atheists?? Guess not.

[MomfromTexas]

Oh, good grief! Is everyone going to take every word he says and analyze it to death? This is what is published on the website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/statement-released-after-the-president-rescinds/

Sounds good to me!

[MomfromTexas]

He also has a whole page to devoted to women's issues. Maybe, you'll be satisfied that he covers EVERY issue there?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/women/

[avotredroite]

Those in the pro-life community should never have supported Obama in the first place. The fact that Obama voted against a bill that would have protected infants after surviving botched abortions speaks for itself. Now we have one of the most pro-abortion presidents in our history.

[FabulousAt52]

Most Pro-CHOICE president in our history. HOOOOORAAAY!!

Obama Rocks!

[shelsay]

"pro-abortion"?? is that like "pro-death penalty"? if he were "pro-abortion" having his own children confounds your argument. particularly since there is no evidence that he has ever had an abortion.

[zinderel]

You know, I keep hearing this "Obama wants to butcher babies who survive abortion" line a lot, but I'd like to know what this bill was, and what ELSE was on the bill that he voted against. Knowing washington, there was a good amount of pork added to the bill and perhaps THAT is what Obama voted against?

Just trying to think, y'know, rationally.

[Noniedee]

It was a bill in the Illinois State government, and he voted against it as a State Senator because it was a duplicate of a bill already on the law books in Illinois that protects a fetus that survives an abortion.

[sd4david]

Oh, please! How many INNOCENT people have died because of the "pro-life" President Bush? Same thing would have happened under a President McCain. And incompetent Sarah Palin, if she became President, would likely have started WWIII.

Every Democratic president/­presidenti­al candidate is THE MOST(pick one): Liberal member of congress, liberal presidential candidate, liberal president, strong pro-abrortion record, extreme voting record, etc.

In case you didn't notice, the country strongly favors "Liberal policies" when they are stated: minimum wage increases, pro-choice, pro-environment, equal pay, access to the courts for the common man, non-discrimination, etc.

When the same libel/slander is made constantly, it loses any semblance of credibility.

The MOST IMPORTANT thing to lower abortion rates is to have a strong economy. Women chose abortion (usually) for a few main reasons : already have children, and feel they financiall­y/emotiona­lly can't handle more, they are in a bad relationship but financially can't leave, they don't feel their child will have a good life withoutaccess to good schools, safe neighborhood, etc.

[SonofLiberty1]

Yes, Jimmy Carter, in one of his books, stated that 2/3 of all women who have abortions do so because they have no idea how they will take care of the child.

[LJT13]

I'd just like to issue a reminder that NO ONE is "pro-abort­ion." There is no such thing as "pro-abort­ion." It is fictional, and it is demeaning to everyone involved in this conversation (which, indeed, it should be a conversation) to introduce accusatory language with no factual foundation or productive value.

[WeWon]

Again, the United State Government should keep their laws off my body and out of my womb. End of story

[elsa12]

so, no national health care then....th­at would be a law afterall.

[LeftLeanWing]

It's National Health Care ACCESS....­.

It does not mandate that you do or do not go to the doctor....­. it just improves your likelihood of ACCESS to one when you WANT to or NEED to; without mortgaging your house or going bankrupt .. The same as abortion rights....­. you DON"T HAVE TO HAVE ONE !

[dbdzen]

We'll see. Obama will try reduce the number of abortions by other means. Abstinence only education is a myth that doesn't work as well as fully informed education. Where are the statistics for abortions in the last 2 Administrations?

[ObjectiveRealist]

go to google.com and type "site:.gov abortion"

[SeaBlood]

I was wondering what "BeliefNet" was. It was getting to me and causing a little bit of paranoia. Then I looked it up and learned that it was owned by "FoxEntertainment". Now I feel a little better. Don't you feel better too?

[ObjectiveRealist]

A little bit, but it begs the question, why doesn't Huffington Post put a "News Corp" filter on the site so that kind of trash could never be posted here?

[Agent420]

No.

[ObjectiveRealist]

quote:
If I were a pro-life Obama supporter, though, I'd be quite disappointed, not because of the Mexico City ruling (which was expected) but because of the combination of that and the language in Obama's statement yesterday on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
/quote

You aren't? Then that post was nothing but an exercise in poop stirring.

[David57]

Steven, your argument is without merit. I really don't understand why you took the time to write such a disingenuous piece. I'll go a step further, you Steven are "disappointed" because you can no longer control the medical information these women receive. Controlling much?

You damn well know that "offering information", and "support women and families in the choices they make" is language that covers bringing babies to term - if that's the choice individuals make.

Are you implying that the Obama administration is planning to encourage women to abort their babies?

YOU may be disappointed, but women will be enlightened and helped by the information they receive - to help them make THEIR own decisions, not YOURS.

I'm disappointed in you Steven - you are determined to distort reality to fit your views.

[lj9283]

In reading this article, I could only recall the Bill Clinton discussion of the definition of "is".

Pro-choice is inclusive of the "pro-life" choice.

Perhaps a more inclusive term by the "pro-life" supporters of Mr. Obama, and the author of this article would be "pro-term" (as in pro-full term pregnancy) which would not have the inflammatory overtones that the phrase "pro-life" suggests to those who believe in a woman's right to a full range of choices.

I do not see anything Mr. Obama's statement that excluded any point of view, or favored any point of view.

None of the statements provided in the article show an exclusive sentiment to either side of the argument, but are inclusive of both.

I can only view this as an inflammatory article, preaching an exclusive point of view.

[carolinecantoo]

I thought the same thing.

[SeaBlood]

I don't think there is a shortage of Mexican babies.