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.
Rather I think it's time enough now to take THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OUT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
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.
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?
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.
Ever hear of pro-life atheists?? Guess not.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/statement-released-after-the-president-rescinds/
Sounds good to me!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/women/
Obama Rocks!
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 !
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.
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.
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.