What I Missed
by Motte Brown on 03/17/2009 at 1:54 PM
Thomas' blog got me thinking about what I missed on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade while I was in Ethiopia.
I missed President Obama's January 22nd statement with meaningless language about reducing abortions. Meaningless because the next day he signed an executive order rescinding the Mexico City Policy barring tax-payer funds to international abortion providers ... followed by signing a spending bill that decreases federal money for abstinence programs and increases money to Planned Parenthood ... followed by his promise to reverse Bush's last minute conscience clause order ... followed by his HHS appointment of pro-late-term abortion Governor Kathleen Sebelius ... followed by reversal of Bush's policy prohibiting tax payer funded stem cell research.
I missed this article from National Review Online highlighting the political successes in State legislatures (parental notification, informed consent, and waiting periods) which have reduced the number of abortions. So much for Christians claiming that policy doesn't matter when it comes to protecting life.
I missed this interview with RusselI Moore who's not holding his breath for the hope that younger generations will rise up in opposition to abortion.
Trevin Wax: Statistics show that younger generations tend to be more pro-life than their parents. You have stated that this commitment to pro-life principles is more theoretical than realistic because abortion rights is now deeply embedded in our cultural ethos. Are you saying that younger generations are less committed to the pro-life cause than they think?
Russell Moore: I do not take great comfort in opinion polls stating that younger generations are more pro-life than their parents. I believe that this is largely because the abortion issue is off the table in many ways politically.
Few people realistically expect that abortion will be made illegal. So pronouncing one to be pro-life these days is more akin to a person speculating what side of the Spanish Civil War he would take rather than a person articulating a deeply-held view on a matter of current import.
Which is exactly why so many "pro-life" Evangelicals can vote for a pro-abortion presidential candidate. Apparently all you have to do is give lip service about "reducing abortions" to satisfy their "less committed" consciences.
I missed all that.
1. Holly said the following at 2:04 PM on Mar 17:
1
"Apparently all you have to do is give lip service about "reducing abortions" to satisfy their "less committed" consciences."
Apparently all a "pro-life" President has to do is NOTHING, even when evangelicals have turned out in numbers large enough to give his party both houses of Congress for six years, a majority of governorships, and kept "pro-life" Presidents in the White House long enough for seven of the nine Supreme Court justices to be appointed by them.
Lip service from a "pro-life" President = nothing.
Lip service from a pro-choice President who is willing to spend big bucks on social programs (when financial problems are cited over and over as the number one reason why abortions happen) = a possibility that abortions may be reduced.
A possibility for something beats a proven record of NOTHING.
2. Motte Brown said the following at 2:12 PM on Mar 17:
2
Holly:
President Obama is against all the measures State legislatures have put in place that have proven to reduce abortions. And he has promised to sign FOCA which will wipe all of them away with the stroke of a pen.
Also, there is absolutely no link between reducing the abortion rate and increased money to pro-abortion family planning clinics. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. Decreasing public funds to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood reduces the number of abortions.
I'm convinced that President Obama has no interest in reducing the number of abortions, only in saying he is to convince confessing Christians to follow his policies of death.
3. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:23 PM on Mar 17:
3
Thanks for pointing out that states with legislature that puts limitations on abortion actually see a decrease in abortion rates.
I had come across this previously, but had totally forgotten about it. I don't know why the information doesn't immediately come to mind when people criticize whether legislation can accomplish anything in this arena.
4. Holly said the following at 2:53 PM on Mar 17:
4
Motte,
When I refer to "social programs" for spending, I mean things like healthcare and food. Every woman I know who has had an abortion had one because she couldn't afford to take care of herself, much less a(nother) child. I wasn't talking about funds to family planning clinics.
I would be interested to read the studies that prove that State regulations reduce abortions. Do they examine the abortion rates in neighboring states? If they do not, they should.
I know that my state (I live within twenty minutes of the state line) started seeing a massive increase in abortion clinics getting cars with out-of-state license plates not long after that state passed a 48 waiting period law. I know this because I am tied in to the pro-life community in my area (free babysitters in their 30's who have been background checked and first-aid trained are in high demand among the women who elect not to abort.) Maybe they were all there to get family planning advice, but I tend to think they were there to get abortions.
I apologize for my tone; I'm just frustrated far beyond what I can typically stomach. The White House for eight years. Both houses of Congress for six. A majority of governorships. 7 of the 9 Supreme Court seats. As Dr. Dobson said, "The triple crown." And no real action was taken. The GOP plays Christians for fools. Santa Claus would be more likely to reduce abortions, based on the track record. Really.
5. Motte Brown said the following at 3:49 PM on Mar 17:
5
Holly:
According to the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, only 21% of women who've had an abortion gave the reason "can't afford a baby now." And the "can't afford" can be very subjective. So subjective that I don't believe more federally funded programs will help reduce abortions.
As for the "triple crown," it's simply not true that "no real action" was taken. Here is the list of pro-life accomplishments under Bush (taken from CNSNews.com):
2001 -- Bush prohibited the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos.
2001 -- Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy requiring all non-governmental organizations that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortions in other countries.
2002 -- Bush’s HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson implemented the “unborn child rule” which requires a federal program that gives funds to states to provide health insurance to families with children to define the term “child” to preborn babies.
2002 -- Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to infants who survive induced abortions by providing them with identical legal protections as babies who are born prematurely.
2003 -- President Bush signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which prohibits late-term abortions.
2004 -- Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which defines a child “in utero” at any stage of development as human, and accords the child the legal rights of the victim if subject to certain crimes that involve death or injury.
2005/2006 -- Bush appointed two pro-life justices, Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, respectively, to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both justices voted to uphold the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in 2007.
2007 -- Bush sent congressional Democratic leaders a letter threatening to veto any bill that weakened existing pro-life policy.
2008 -- HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt issued a regulation to protect the rights of federally funded health care providers to decline to participate in abortions.
These are real actions that have saved the lives of thousands of babies. And I don't believe President Obama would have supported any of them.
6. Bree said the following at 3:53 PM on Mar 17:
6
When it comes to reducing "unwanted" pregnancies, neither the government nor independent institutions want to get involved. However, lots of the money designatied to "abortion clinics" in other countries also fund programs that provide education and birth control methods. When the level of education and medical care rises, the number of people in or out of the country wanting abortions will decrease. Plain and simple. If we want to decrease abortions in Mexico City, Guatemala, or South Africa we need to get off our collective bum and volunteer or donate to organizations that provide loving education and medical relief to these people!
7. Katana Barnett said the following at 4:04 PM on Mar 17:
7
I think that abortions should be legal. While I agree that it is wrong to haphazardly kill babies, in some cases YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE.
I think it's a huge, tough decision for any mother-to-be, but I think we have to let them choose for themselves, and be ready to hold their hand and love them no matter what they choose.
Yes they will be babies, but they're future people not present people. We should put the present people's hearts and lives and safety first and blanket legislation does not do that.
Instead of making it us vs. them, can't we put more resources into helping, giving alternatives, and loving?
I don't believe in abortion, but I believe in the option.
8. Holly (the married, parental one) said the following at 4:23 PM on Mar 17:
8
Wow, Holly! I was just about to comment about all a candidate has to do to woo the "committed pro-lifers" is to give lip-service to outlawing abortion. And here your name is Holly and you already said it! Perhaps we're kindred spirits.
9. Anthony said the following at 4:53 PM on Mar 17:
9
Didn't "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days" teach us anything?
Holly is right. Without the social infrastructure in place, abortions will never be reduced and children given up for adoption will continue to face insurmountable obstacles.
10. Keith said the following at 5:31 PM on Mar 17:
10
The real question that all of us will face isn't what Barrack Obama or what George Bush have done to prevent abortion, but what have each one of us has done:
Have we opened our home to adopting unwanted children?
Have we counselled and supported a woman or a couple facing an unexpected pregnancy? Have we given financial, emotional, and practical support during such a stressful time?
Have we invested time into the young people of the community, installing in them a sense of purpose and direction that leads them to save sex for marriage?
Are our marriages a testimony to those around us that marriage and family is a blessing, rather than something to be avoided at all costs?
All of us we one day stand before God and give an account for what we did. God won't be interested in hearing about what Obama or Bush did or didn't do...He will want to know, what did YOU do???
11. Ana B said the following at 5:31 PM on Mar 17:
11
Katana Barnett:
If you are not a Christian, please ignore this entire comment. If you are a Christian, please continue reading.
"While I agree that it is wrong to haphazardly kill babies, in some cases YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE."
Can you read that again, please? Now can you imagine reading that sentence in a book documenting a society that encouraged the murder of innocents because "YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE?" Is there a difference between haphazardly killing babies and cautiously killing babies? Is one more right than the other? Is murdering someone that God dreamed about for all time and loved enough to create, and send His son to die for, acceptable in certain cases? Like, for instance, when "YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE?" What choice is it exactly that one might not have? Giving the baby up for adoption? Raising the baby with the help of one's parents?
"Yes they will be babies, but they're future people not present people. We should put the present people's hearts and lives and safety first and blanket legislation does not do that."
First of all, why are babies not "present people?" Is there a certain age when you become a "present person?" If so, what age is that and who determines it? Are toddlers "present people?" Are teenagers "present people?" A baby is present (if it was not, there would be nothing to murder) and it is a person, so it seems as if a baby in or outside of the womb is a "present person."
Secondly, if you are a Christian who believes that God means what He says, may I introduce you to Psalm 139:
Verse 13: For You formed my inward parts;You covered me in my mother’s womb.
God seems pretty serious about us even when we "present people" are in our mothers' womb...
Verses 15-16: My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me when as yet there were none of them.
I believe that means that just because we humans see a "little human," doesn't mean that's all that God sees. And what God sees is reality. God sees all of us-our soul, our future ("Your eyes saw my SUBSTANCE, being yet unformed"). Not only that, but He dreamed of our whole life-and they were written down in His book-before we even lived a day.
What will we say to Him when we see Him face to face?
12. Ana B said the following at 5:57 PM on Mar 17:
12
Bree:
"When the level of education and medical care rises, the number of people in or out of the country wanting abortions will decrease."
Having attended one of the wealthiest and most academically prestigious high schools in the nation (and having received a detailed, graphic sex education not promoting abstinence at all from that school), I can guarentee you that the sex-ed and medical care (many of the students in that school receive the best medical care in the known world because their parents are doctors or because their parents are friends with doctors or because their parents donate literally $20 million dollars to world-renown hospitals to provide for a new wing) does nothing to prevent sex or binge-drinking-induced-sex, nor does it cause people to want fewer abortions. All the (non pro-abstience) sex education and medical care does is provide more condoms for more people, which in turn, encourages them to have more (often casual/recreational) sex with more partners.
13. Trisha said the following at 5:59 PM on Mar 17:
13
Red Envelope Day March 31, 2009
For more information goto
www.redenvelopeproject.org
14. DannieA said the following at 8:13 PM on Mar 17:
14
well not that I watch the teen nighttime soaps all that often (you know 'one tree hill, gossip girl etc) but I did find it fascinating that although an engaged couple is living together in 'one tree hill' and she's pregnant, she found out she had a condition and was told to terminate the pregnancy or she may lose her life and her and her fiancee fought but she was no way in hell going to get an abortion because that's what it was and they decided that they would have the baby no matter what.
I've never seen that angle on tv in a tv drama...though it's nothin to have me watch those worthless shows anyways, I though it was something a little positive.
15. Nancy said the following at 7:21 AM on Mar 18:
15
Anthony (#9),
Infants placed for adoption in the U.S. definitely do NOT face insurmountable obstacles. Because of abortion, there is a huge shortage of babies available for adoption (compared with the 1960s and 1970s and earlier). Parents sometimes wait and agonize for years to adopt an infant in the U.S.
This fact is one reason so many people choose international adoption. (We're working on our second adoption from India right now.)
Perhaps you were referring to older children in foster care? They often do face a long wait for a permanent family, but often this is due to the court's desire to keep them available to be returned to their family of origin.
16. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:25 AM on Mar 18:
16
DannieA (#14),
I don't usually watch those shows either, but have been pleasantly surprised several times when I caught One Tree Hill on. Yeah, its got some issues with cohabitation and all that jazz (can be a bit crude, too), but a lot of its "umbrella" values have been shocking that they've been portrayed on tv like that.
I would definitely suggest NEVER stopping for even a second on Gossip Girl, though =p
Bree (#6),
I'd like to point to America, probably the most over-educated in sex education and birth control, and how much abortion has (not) declined here with "education".
I don't know a whole lot of people who have had abortions (they probably keep their mouths shut around me), but the two people I know had PLENTY of education and that didn't seem to stop them.
So really, that's a red-herring.
I've seen numbers between Gutmacher and pro-life groups, where the more "pro-life" the legislation is, the lower the abortion rate. The more "prevention" the state has, the higher the abortion rates. (Prevention being number of planned-parenthood clinics and sex ed).
17. DannieA said the following at 10:22 AM on Mar 18:
17
Christina (in green) #16,
LOL, yeah I wouldn't do gossip girl...maybe I just don't think high school was all that dramatic so I think shows like gossip girl and 90210 are highly overrated. Seriously? we had THAT much drama in highschool or even private school??? I guess I went to a boring one ;P
18. BDB said the following at 1:18 PM on Mar 18:
18
Today's Wall Street Journal has an interesting article that explores the cultural attitudes towards single motherhood as leading to fewer abortions.
I do, unfortunately, know families where the pregnant daughter of the church-going family was pressured to have an abortion to avoid disgrace. I know people who've had abortions because they believed so strongly that their parents would be terribly disappointed in them, so they panicked, even though when they were older they realized that their parents wouldn't have reacted that way at all.
I also know families that basically did was Sarah Palin did - helped their kid face the reality that they're going to need to grow up a lot faster than expected. I do think that part of reducing abortion is making sure kids know well in advance that they won't be thrown out in the street.
It's not unlike telling your kid that they should never drive home with a drunk driver - even if it's 3am, call me and I'll come pick you up. We might need to have a discussion the next morning, but I will always come pick you up.
19. Keith said the following at 1:54 PM on Mar 19:
19
It is absurd to suggest that individuals who voted for Obama are neccessarily "less committed." After 8 years of Bush, there was no real progress made. Some pro lifers saw potential in Obama, and chose him instead, and that actually shows strong commitment.
Those who voted once again for the GOP probably did so out of commitment to the GOP, rather than commitment to the pro life cause...
20. Motte Brown said the following at 2:34 PM on Mar 19:
20
Keith:
What's absurd is the thought that someone with Obama's voting record on abortion -- which has been 100% support for all pro-abortion measures and 100% against all pro-life measures -- would be serious about "reducing abortions."
And you probably missed comment 5 highlighting "real progress" that President Bush supported and that President Obama is on record against.
Take, for example, Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. You can think that saving the lives of babies born alive during botched abortions isn't "real progress." It's a free country. But if the Democrats and President Obama were in control, these babies (as well as thousands who die from Partial Birth Abortion) would still be unprotected from being thrown in the trash like this one from Tampa, Florida.
You may think it's absurd to suggest that voting for a president who wouldn't support a law protecting this baby and many others makes someone less committed. I think the opposite is true. It's absurd to think a president like this would really "reduce abortions."
21. Al said the following at 4:40 PM on Mar 19:
21
While it's likely that many evangelicals who vote for a pro-choice candidate might be "less committed" to their pro-life stance, I don't think it's that helpful to automatically assume this is the case and target their committment rather than question their rationale and potentionally misguided reasoning.
Someone who voted for Obama because they thought his positions were more compatible with social justice could also argue that they were "more committed" to "helping the least of these" than someone voting Republican simply because they have some misgivings about abortion and the pro-life position was a bullet point on the party-platform. For what it's worth, I would disagree with this line of argument as well.
It seems that evangelicals who voted for Obama hoped to counterintuitively get it all by voting for a candidate seemingly sympathetic to social justice issues and who vowed to "work" towards less abortions. I think it's a serious mistake on their part in siding with a candidate whose voting record blocks nearly every attempt at limiting abortion in any form and who as a charasmatic politician, is extremely skilled at double speak. I might also privately question the commitment of many of them to the pro-life position. However, as the article quoted illustrates, however flawed I find their reasoning and justification, many of these voters *are* genuinely concerned-- enough to publically air their misgivings and question Obama on his actions in the first few months of his term.
So I think it's more helpful to debate the merits of their justifications in hopes of persuading rather than do so in order to write them off as being less committed, because if we succeed in the latter, we may undermine the former-- our hopes of changing actual hearts and minds.
22. Christina (in green) said the following at 5:43 PM on Mar 19:
22
Keith, #19
You said this -
Some pro lifers saw potential in Obama, and chose him instead, and that actually shows strong commitment.
Those who voted once again for the GOP probably did so out of commitment to the GOP, rather than commitment to the pro life cause...
I don't vote Republican/Democrat. I vote for the candidate I trust more or dislike less. Unfortunately for the last 2 elections, the latter has been true - and GOP won out the first time, no one won the 2nd.
The first time I heard of Obama was in relation to his goal to "reduce abortions" through social programs. I was all for this! YES, lets give women a reason to see through it to the end! Lets give them support! I thought that meant providing more information on Adoption and less on Abortion; more information on Abstinence and its benefits and less on sexual freedom; more affordable prenatal care and less affordable abortion; more affordable and better advertised infant-care help/education.
That's what I heard from these evangelicals and to what Al said in #21, probably why they voted for Obama.
But then I heard about all his promises to Planned Parenthood, where women were gathered complaining about hindered rights to do what's "best" for their bodies (and why would they be complaining so vehemently if Bush hadn't made any "real progress" like so many of you claim?). And his promise to them? To make abortion more available to them.
Well. He's either going to do A or B. He can't do both. So which is it?
Voting records? For the most part, Obama abstained from a lot of controversial votes during his stay as Senator...probably because he planned to run for president and didn't want his records up for perusal like that.
However, every pro-life/anti-abortion measure that came up, he voted against.
That seemed like good enough evidence to me to think that he has a high chance of NOT reducing abortion.
If he really cared about his daughters and their health, he'd be opposed to making abortion so incredibly available, especially in getting rid of a lot of the limitations that were placed on abortion during the Bush Administration.
So here's one voter who put their vote where their mouth (and heart) is.
23. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 11:54 PM on Mar 19:
23
This article is superb: When Compromising Is not a Compromise by Gregory Koukl
First, he explains why pro-life is such an important "single issue" for voters: if you're deprived of life, no other government policy will help you. Then he explains why it's better to vote for a 70% pro-lifer who has a hope of winning, if the alternative is a 100% pro-abort. Better a second-class fireman than a first-class arsonist, as he says.
Of course, the second doesn't apply to Australia, with its superior preferential voting system; just to America's backward plurality system.