Will the Real Pro-life Party Please Stand Up?

Joel Hunter is a conservative, Republican megachurch pastor in Central Florida. He's giving the Democrats some free advice, if they care to hear it: Even if you stick with Roe V. Wade, you can show evangelicals that you are the pro-life party by showing us how you will actually reduce abortions--and how you will support "life" in other areas besides abortion. From Steve Waldman's Beliefnet column today:

Hunter makes a practical argument: providing women with economic help in carrying babies to term can actually reduce the number of abortions more, and more quickly, than focusing on overturning Roe v. Wade. "With eight years of Bush the abortion rates have not declined. Every indication is that with financial support and different forms of supporting pregnant mother and then some post birth help also we could come close to 50% reduction in abortions. That's huge. That's huge."

Continuing with the same culture war paradigm is therefore morally dubious. "If we insist on keeping this an ideological war we're literally not saving the babies we could save. The Democrats have a huge opportunity here to really steal the thunder from those who are seen as traditionally pro life."

Keep a look out for other Christian leaders popping up with the same message. What's causing this is the failure of the Republicans to significantly reduce abortions, even with 20 years of Republican presidency since the rise of the Christian right. Many Christians are finally getting fed up.

In my opinion, the Republican line on abortion--the singular focus on banning it--was just a cynical ploy. I know that many GOP leaders were sincere, but overall the strategy was simply to oppose abortion symbolically while doing nothing to reduce abortions in real life. Moreover, there is evidence from history and from around the world that banning abortion would not even reduce abortions (have we ever banned anything successfully?).

Pro-life Christians are finally getting this. If the Democrats take Joel Hunter's advice, and stand up as the real "pro-life party," they will not find formerly Republican Christians falling into lock step with them. Many of these Christians are so burned by their experience with the GOP that they will not join another party. However, in their pro-life calculations at the voting booth, many will choose the Democrat.

But how many? That depends on Obama, and if he will take Joel Hunter's advice. If Obama can boldly articulate a pro-life platform to reduce abortion, care for children and families, reduce arms and prevent war then he could bring about a seismic shift in electoral politics that makes the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon look like nothing.

For many pro-choice advocates, that will feel like a concession. But has the status quo stand off worked any better for them over the past few decades? Abortion is still legal, but access to safe abortions for women who choose them has all but disappeared for many working class and rural women--right alongside other medical and social services. For sure, embracing a politics of "life" is a risk for pro-choice advocates. But Christian leaders who reject the status quo are taken an arguably greater risk: with their own congregations, with their national reputations and with anti-abortion extremists.

Only one thing is certain: It's going to be fascinating to watch how change and risk will be embraced or rejected by various advocates on both sides of the debate through this election and an Obama presidency.

Comments

[reelcobra]

Obama has become a master at taking all sides of a position after getting past Hillary for the nomination.

The fact is that he can say anything and everything and his fans don't notice.

He's handsome like Edwards, and has the experience of, well, someone with one year in the Senate before running for office... but anyway

I say he should continue to pretend to be both pro-life and pro-choice and play out the clock until November.

[loria]

How has the fight led by those of you who are pro life resulted in fewer abortions? It hasn't. Because at the same time they want abstinence only education. They stick your head in the sand and pretend people aren't going to have sex. They freak out at the thought of education regarding birth control and STD education. They don't want condoms given to teenagers, and would prefer to have a creepy chastity ceremony with their daughters believing that a promise will insure that their daughters save themselves for marriage. It makes me wonder that with all they have invested in their daughters virginity, that they wouldn't be the first to encourage she abort an unwanted pregnancy.

Obama's position on abortion is much like most Dems. It is one that makes sense to me. Personally, I am pro life. I can't see a situation where I would have an abortion. However, politically I am pro choice. I would like to see the number of abortions drastically reduced, but it won't happen without education that recognize that people are going to have sex.

People who are pro choice aren't pro abortion. I just happen to believe it is a decision I can only make for myself. I don't want it turned back to the back alley abortions that happened before Roe v. Wade. I am sure that if Roe v. Wade were overturned those with the resources could still get abortions.

[mollysgran]

So, reelcobra, you prefer to be one of those who chooses to miss the whole point of this discussion.

Read my lips. "There is not that much difference between honest "Pro-Choice" and honest "Pro-Life" positions!"

[abeone]

And Senator McCain Cheated on his wfe, was involved with the Keating five debcle, and earned his experience for Commander in Chief by spending 5 years in a POW camp. By those credentals we should be running someone imprisoned at Guantonimo, I don't know that he has ever run a business but has lived his entire life on the public dole. He graduated 84th in a class of 89 from Annapolis where he got a scholarship because his dad and grand dad were 4 star admirals. So much like Bush who also gratuated from Yale where he surely got in throug his dad, a Yale graduate. I would rather have some brains in the White House for a change. Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard. He doesn't have a multi millionaire wife ( who he dumped his disabled first wife for )He has flip flopped on permanant tax breaks for the ultra rich.Voted against funds for Veterans and armour for the vehcles manufactured by a friend who recently gave a undraiser for him. Rich people don't have to worry about getting an abortion f they want one. Poor people whocan't afford an abortion OR any more children, can't. The hypocracy of these rich MEN passing laws to control womens lives ( as ALL religions have done throughout history..which is why I believe that men wrote the rules )I will never vote for an American Talibam

[mattheweste]

The only sexism I see in abortion discussions is the knee-jerk man-hating that so often comes from feminists.

Female politicians vote against abortion rights just as much as men. See here:
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22793

And of course it is men not women who have far fewer reproduction and family rights. I dare say you would be ones of those who likes this discrimination against men and would hate for men to attain legal equality with women on these issues. Am I right?

The whole feminist framing on abortion is 100% propaganda. Nobody tries to attack women's rights. There is no such thing as a right to do with your own body as you want in law - certainly not for mere men. Most people reject the feminist extremist framing by saying they are for abortion up to a reasonable time period but against it on demand and just before birth. That is: most people reject "my body, my choice" AND the "zygote is a human" dogma, but agree that people shouldn't be forced to become parents. And more women are pro-life than men --- so much for feminists endlessly calling it sexist to disagree with them on this issue.

The phrase "pro-choice" is a fraud since feminists reject any choice for men. Why should men be forced to become parents if women are not?

[deminmo]

A long time ago wasn't McCain a Democrat? At any
rate he was a vocal opponent of Bush at one time.
If 5 million designates a rich person, I guess McCain
might be pretty close. Got very tired of his stories Saturday.

[LeftRight]

No, we recognize that he, like us, is willing to look at an issue, see all the evidence, and then realize that there's a possibility that he's wrong. If he determines that he's been wrong, he will then change his opinion. Of course, you don't seem to know what an opinion is, or for that matter, a fact (since he had 3 years in the US Senate before he ran for president, not to mention 8 years in the IL Senate)

[ed3541]

Real Christians condemn killing of all life. Not just babies in America, but also children and adults in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why don't our Christian preachers and leaders codemn these killings? Answer: Because they're not really Christians. So that leaves only 2 options. They're false prophets or they're anti-Christ (or both).

[slaxx]

i think that the "real" christians view what we're doing over in the middle east as a holy war.

[sprite]

War is not holy. Real Christians follow the teachings of the man Jesus, who was totally enlightened. He did not live by the sword,

[mollysgran]

As a Pro-Choice Christian I have always "gotten it" that abortion should be that last option considered. Many of the (so called) Pro-Lifers have always seemed to label people with views similar to mine as "Pro-Abortion". Couldn't be further from the truth. That is a "buzz word" for the lunatic fringe to use in their war against personal choice. It conveys hate more than compassion.

It seems so logical for the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life people to be on the same page. I personally don't know anyone who is (yukky word) Pro-Abortion. I hope I never do.

Of course along with this must come birth control and plenty of good education - not the "just say no" junk.

[mjc]

Obama has already dismissed "mental distress", i.e., emotional and mental illness, as a reason for an abortion after the first trimester. So the pro-lifers are going to somewhat subdued about his views on abortion. Not including mental illness as a very valid reason for having an abortion is quite unbelieveable for any Democrat worth his salt. Women who drown their children, burn them, abandon them in garbage cans can be the result. Often such tragedy can be prevented if there is early intervention by doctors and counselors. But early intervention means that women can be able to see the physician early in the pregnancy, in the first month of pregnancy. That is what this nation is not prepared to do, just as with any health care need.

[sjk303]

Mr. Exley, the basic premise of argument seems to be flawed. You suggest that pro-life groups are primarily interested in reducing the number of abortions, while this may seem logical on its face it is, in fact, completely wrong. There is not a single major pro-life organization which supports comprehensive sex education or access to contraception, and, in fact, many pro-life organizations are working to eliminate these things. This alone illustrates the fact that the pro-life lobby views abortion not as a problem in and of itself, but as a symptom of a larger cultural issue. The real issue for these groups is the autonomy of women and social order. These groups envision an America with a specific order in which women -- and their sexual choices -- are subordinate to men. There can be no real compromise here, as pro-life and pro-choice groups have fundamentally different views of individual autonomy and the place of those individuals in our society.

[loria]

Excellent post.

[mattheweste]

Excellent apart from the ridiculous gender points.

Men have far fewer rights in reproduction than women do.

[hippynanainblingland]

Part One

mattheweste: Oh, dear, how to say this: until men can pop out babies right out of their bodies, their parental rights should remain subjugated to their female sex partner's. It will be she, after all, who will carry this fetus for nine months, and it will be she who will change diapers, provide food and shelter, etc.

It also stands to reason that if a woman who wants to keep a child doesn't want her male sex partner's influence in the child's life, she should also not expect financial support from him, nor cause the state to sue for this support, and conversely, a man who would rather a fetus (whose mother wants it,) were aborted, should not be forced to support this child, even partially...

But what if it is the man who wants the child, but not the woman? Well, maybe, just maybe, the man ought to be given the opportunity to prove his ability to parent (no rapist or family molester need apply, of course) before being alowed to have a legal say in whether the pregnancy goes forth to fruition or not, and if it is decided that he indeed can be a parent to this child, then he should be responsible, under contract, for the pregnant woman's well-being for the duration, and be responsible for all costs, as well. .. but only if the woman agrees.

[hippynanainblingland]

Part Two:

This service should NOT be taken for granted: a man wanting to become a parent, but not a spouse, should be able to contract with a woman for her "womb services," after proving himself capable...

... and to take this to its logical conclusion, women should also be expected to provide proof of ability to parent before being allowed to conceive, bear and keep a child...

And who is to do the approving? That remains to be decided, but my own idea for this would be the grandmothers in each line, if they themselves are of proven capability for making these kinds of decisions.

As things stand now, however, with women expected to be happily accepting of all pregnancies that happen to them, be they the result of choice, ignorance, incest or rape, and men allowed, nay, almost expected, to "score" as often as possible, regardless of the consequences for their female "partners in sin", it must, perforce, in the vast majority of cases, remain the province of women to decide whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term, and the men causing the pregnancy, whether or not with the woman's consent, must agree to partially support the resulting child, if its life is to be allowed, and/or provide funds for the abortion, if he is able to, and this is what the reluctant mother-to-be desires.

A pretty muddle we are presently in, brother, and one that begs clarification... may it happen soon.

[Inaru]

I read Exley's article again before responding to you, and perhaps you did not notice the Pastor quoted, Joel Hunter, is as far as this quote goes, anti-abortion, not pro- women's subjugation? Opposing sweeping judgments with our own sweeping judgments isn't terribly productive.Too many Pro-Lifers ignore the fact that already poor women have little or no access to affordable abortions, and I've personally seen the poor women and teens getting free-clinic abortions used as guinea pigs for new contraceptives - like the highly controversial Norplant. And honestly, I've seen very little activism among Pro-Choice activists to support women in poverty raising those kids they can't afford by themselves - except to tell poor women to stop getting pregnant! It's all just too twisted and ideological, and Obama's policies are based in fact and compassion.

If Pastor Joel Hunter would read BO's policies, he'd know it's already BO's policy to support all families, single-parent and with both parents, especially poor and low-middle income working families, from conception to retirement, with financial assistance, education and equal opportunity education and employment and housing laws, to become self-sufficient.

[AvgPseudoIntellectual]

I am a fervently pro-choice liberal Democrat, and I agree completely.

This would not be a flip-flop for Obama. In fact, I think it aligns very well with Obama's stated feelings about abortion. I understand the risks, but I also completely agree that both sides have been obsessively focused on ideology at the expense of being humane and supportive of women in crisis -- particularly low income women.

[tbbaxter]

"If Obama can boldly articulate a pro-life platform to reduce abortion, care for children and families, reduce arms and prevent war..."

Prevent war? Gee, Mr. Exley, maybe Mr. Obama could also find time to cure cancer and AIDS, prevent every natural disaster from occuring and keeping every single child on the plant from going to bed hungry. Sorry, Mr. Exley, only the REAL Messiah can do all that.

[justobserve]

Pro life or not, what about personal responsibility to start with?

[KyotoProto]

Exactly. The biggest threst to mankind is mankind itself. The planet is horribly overpopulating in case you haven't noticed. In areas where women control their reproductive rights populations have a tendency to stabilize. Unfortunately, stabilizing doesn't always mean lessening, and at the current level we cannot afford even the slightest increase. We need a global revolution in espousing and promoting birth control for everyone. We will breed ourselves into extinction if given the chance.

That's all fine and dandy if you believe in Armageddon. I prefer a non-extinctive answer. Pro-lifers are pro-armageddonists in their practices. I'd just as soon that they all went voluntarily to hell so that we might have a chance at surviving as a species into the 22th century.

[sdskelton03]

The world is not overpopulated.

The planets population would fit within the state of Texas at a population density less than that of Paris.

[sandyfeets]

I've never been able to understand why we keep buying into their slogans. They are not "Pro-Life". If you think they are, ask them about capital punishment. They are simply "Anti-Choice".

[Cyril]

Well, it's a small victory that we've been able to maintain calling our viewpoint "pro-choice" instead of allowing the media to brand us the ridiculous "pro-abortion".

[Cyril]

Sorry, Exley, you've lost me with this article. You're saying that Obama should flip-flop on the most crucial of issues just so that he could pander to conservatives? That's as far away from the sort of 1980s Reagan realignment as you could possibly get. And that's assuming that such a massive flip-flop would actually work. Conservatives and right-to-life advocates would be up in arms, accusing Obama of harbouring secret agendas and pretending to be pro-life just so he could get elected. He has a 100% rating from the leading pro-choice group NARAL and a 0% rating from pro-life NRLC. And don't get me started on liberals; if they heard so much as a whisper that Obama was switching to a pro-life position, they would instantly abandon him. I'm a staunch Obama supporter - primarily for foreign policy reasons, not for reasons relating to social policy - but even I'd be reconsidering my position if I saw him change on this.

And if you want to talk about replicating the Reagan Democrat phenomenon: wrong way round. In their 1980 realigment, Reagan managed to get conservative Democrats to switch to the Republicans. If Obama wants to get support from across party lines, he needs to aim for the moderate Republicans with more liberal stances on social issues, not the conservative pro-lifers.

[LorettaSingbiel]

you can show evangelicals that you are the pro-life party by showing us how you will actually reduce abortions--and how you will support "life" in other areas besides abortion.

The so-called "right-to-lifers" lost all credibility when they SANCTIMONIOUSLY "save" 400,000 frozen embryos for fertility clinic dumpsters...instead of federally-funded LIFESAVING embryonic stem cell research!

DEMOCRATS' definition of "Pro-Life"/"Right-To-Life": Spending TWO BILLION DOLLARS per DAY on Universal Healthcare, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, childcare & college costs.

REPUBLICANS' definition of "Pro-Life/"Right-To-Life": Spending TWO BILLION DOLLARS per DAY on BUSH'S "Global War On Terrorism" in IRAQ... and IRAN?... and RUSSIA?

No doubt about it ... Democrats ARE the "Right-To-Life"/"Pro-Life" Party!

[NewsNag]

Exley: You wrote the following totally ridiculous and slanderous straw-man statement: "For sure, embracing a politics of 'life' is a risk for pro-choice advocates."

What a crock! Pro-choice advocates have always been and still are ALL ABOUT LIFE. You should instead be hectoring the other actually intolerant side of the argument, which has focused exclusively on death to the exclusion of living, breathing women and their partners and families.

Yes, you would indeed throw pro-choice women and men and pro-choice policies under the bus in order to gain electoral advantage. Do you know how I know why? It's because you've already begun the process by slandering them with the pandering and shockingly ignorant and biased statement quoted above.

You have a basic misconception about what pro-choice means and for some pathetic reason have a sniveling need to gain the approval of people who truly hate women. You and Wallis and the other Democratic enablers of those who would effectively disallow a woman's civil and human rights should immediately and permanently withdraw your own camel noses from under the tent of freedom and stay out of that about which you know absolutely nothing.

To summarize, your above stated quote is offensive, divisive, and venal, and anything I have said or could say here would pale in comparison to your insult. Your lack of self-reflection is galling.

[SShaw490]

Congratulations. You just perfectly articulated the argument that the pro-choice lobby is a lunatic fringe, reactionary, idiotic group of people. In fact, you just perfectly aligned yourself with the equally lunatic fringe group on the other side that picket Planned Parenthood clinics with photographs of aborted fetuses. You're the exact same people with a 180 degree viewpoint.

Congratulations to both sides. By taking the extremist, emotional, all-or-nothing position every time, you have managed to alienate the great majority of Americans.

Both the pro-choice and the pro-life lobbies in America should be studied by political science students for the rest of history - as a perfect antithetical example of effective political action in a democracy.

I have a little bad news for both lunatic fringe groups: America hates both of you.

[Chbronze]

Amen

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

Pro-lifers want to strike down Roe v. Wade. There is no middle ground to be had with them.

[PigLipstick]

Sounds like environmentalist, "We are going to save you whether you like it or not !". The Pro Life movement and the Environmental movement have another thing in common, they continue to feed division and discontent in this country while providing a lucrative career and a free ride for a small group of con artists that are quite happy to sell their causes to various political interests for obstructionist purposes.

Meanwhile, well meaning Christians and various public interest citizens groups who support these causes are played for chumps. I hope Mr. Exley's assumptions that these groups have finally had an epiphany are correct !

[johnie2xs]

And now they are going after contraception as being abortion. What's next? Mandatory celibacy?

[DenverDoyle]

Yes, exactly. We liberals are often unsuccessful in challenging the ideas of the fundamentalist right because we assume reason and logic will carry some weight. The very choice of becoming a fundamentalist right-winger is that an authoritarian structure appeals enormously to them. They choose a religion in which the holy books are the infallible word and law of God, unquestionable. That's why only a ban will do, never a practical reduction in abortions. That's why abstinence is the only sex education to be taught. That's why Bush and Cheney have such enduring appeal: These are men who claim to be Christians (under what the Christian fundamentalists define to be the only true Christianity) and who are highly authoritarian. These people who love to wave flags and get misty-eyed singing patriotic songs would unhesitatingly burn the Constitution and raise to pawer a "Christian" dictator whose word would be considered the inspired word of God and therefore infallible and unquestionable.

[missmarple]

Besides Roe v Wade, Pro-Lifers want to see the overthrow of Griswold V Connecticut which gave married couples the right to use contraception. Pharmacists can use moral grounds right now to refuse a woman's prescription for Birth Control Pills. Hospitals can refuse the Morning After Pill to rape victims. We are hung up on Abortion, but the Far Right will only be happy when women's reproductive rights can be decided by them - which means none and why do we allow old white men to make the Laws concening our bodies?

[researcher]

reagan democratic phenomena?

nothing has hurt the middle class more than reagan economics

we have been living on borrowed money ever since

and then brag how great our economic system is

over 400 billion is paid each year in interest for those loans to keep capitalism afloat

wi

[misspris]

Why don't pro-life fanatics spend their time going into the projects or wherever needed to care for thousands of these little ones who are already here so their mom can work or start programs for the little ones who are already here and definitely in need of guidance or food or clothes for school or simply someone to give the mothers a break. In my opinion, men should not even have an opinion on this issue of abortion. The "Godly Righteous Christian" men and women should be helping to prevent young children from killing each other in the streets and living in squaller. Women should be the ones dealing with the abortion and birth control issues. Evidently, men don't seem to worry too much about prevention during to process of conception, now do they? I'm sick of holier than thou loudmouths grandstanding but not helping all the poor young ones who so much need your help here and now. Take your pro-life party and help all those lives you claim to have saved. A lot of these children don't feel "saved." They feel forgotten and so do the mothers. I do not believe "SEX" education should be taught in school but "health and well being" should. Getting the word "SEX" out of schools and out of their faces might help a little. Girls should be taught to respect themselves because boys won't. This has been going on through the ages.