WhatFinger


Obama promised more attention to the care and support of those who chose to carry unintended pregnancy to term but will deed follow word.

Is Obama Compromise an Empty Promise?



President Obama at the Notre Dame commencement and erstwhile has said that a compromise goal of pro-choice and pro-life groups could be the reduction of the total number of abortions. He conceded that abortion is a tough spiritual and health decision which weighs heavily on the woman affected. The absence of adequate adoption services and lack of societal support of a woman who decides to carry an unintended pregnancy to term were factors that need to be addressed if the number of abortions is to be reduced was remarked upon, as well as a need for expanded availability of reproductive education and contraceptive services.

Support Canada Free Press


His oration then and heretofore has recognized that there is a tenable question of the morality of abortion that must be respected although he opined that personally for him there was not. This raises the question of how sincere was the President in saying he wants to compromise on prevention or was he just cleverly concealing that all he was talking about was contraceptive services and nothing more. Let’s examine the stated goals and beliefs of the most powerful and visible pro-choice group associated with the Democratic party. In every legislative year since 1989 the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) has been sponsored by the liberal leadership of the Democratic party. The goal of legislation according to the The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) is that FOCA will secure the right to choose by establishing a federal law that will guarantee reproductive freedom for future generations of American women. This guarantee will protect women’s rights even if Roe v. Wade is reversed. The wording of FOCA is summed up in the “statement of policy” which reads “ It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman” The law calls for the funding of measures to prevent unintended pregnancy but is silent on funding for unintended pregnancy carried to term. The term “viability” is loosely and vaguely defined as a judgment of the attending physician as to whether there is a reasonable chance for for sustained survival outside the womb. By inference the measure has no name for the unborn but just refers to the condition of pregnancy but uses the word “child” when discussing birth. The NARAL heavily supported Barack Obama for President with millions of dollars in campaign contributions and grass roots organizing. He is prominently featured on their website as a “Pro-choice” President who has promised to support FOCA. The NARAL website points to legislation specifically supported by their members which include increased funding for contraception, abortion, sexual education, and payment of contraceptive and abortion services for women. There is no mention of support of any prenatal care or adoption funding increases. So at least by association the only issue that has been addressed by Obama’s main supporting group is contraception and abortion. The truth is that they have often been obstructive to measures out of a paranoia that they were a covert and subversive attack on the right to abortion. Recently two moderate Democrats introduced legislation which has previous failed due to the negative lobbying of pro-choice groups. On May 13th, Democratic Senators Robert Casey (PA) and Ben Nelson (NE) introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act (PWSA) (S.1032) and Rep. Lincoln Davis as HR 2035 in the House. The goal of the bill is “to reduce abortions, help women bear healthy children, and support new parents”. The proposed legislation would make private insurance cover pregnancy and offer more services to pregnant women under Medicaid including treatment of illnesses of the unborn fetus. More funding will be given to pre-natal care and “Life Support Centers” would be created. The bill contains no language or measure to limit abortion in any way. A Republican bill, Post-Abortion Depression Research and Care Act of 2009 (PADRCA)(HR 1350), with 26 sponsors in the House of Representatives wants to provide for the study and treatment of mental illness occurring following abortion. The need for the study is based upon sound scientific evidence including a major study done in New Zealand that showed among teenage girls the incidence of major depression, anxiety, and thoughts of suicide doubled for those that underwent an abortion. Neither of these bills cuts back or inhibits the funding of abortion. The PWSA would seem to exactly parallel the speech made by President Obama in fulfilling the need to create more support to help those women who decide a pregnancy to term. The Catholic Church whom Obama praised as moral leaders through Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, chair of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has endorsed this legislation. However, as yet no mainstream liberal Democrat or member of the administration including the President or the New Secretary of Health and Human Services has yet to speak in support of the measure. Abortion like any other medical procedure has risks and side effects. This must be studied and identified so that treatment strategies can be developed to treat these complications. In fact, one of the major tenets of the pro-choice movement has been that abortions done legally in a proper medical setting will have better outcomes. The President has said that we must get back to being objective about science. He has said that he believes in “scientific query” and is “suspicious of government imposing its beliefs” on others when it interferes with science. If the Democrats block PADRCA they will be blocking scientific inquiry which could reveal that abortion might have significant side effects. This would make them exactly guilty of the very act they were so keen to accuse the Bush administration. While some religious leaders thought Obama was promising to reduce abortion through indirect means of fighting proverty and improving the human condition for the poor as driven by his own spiritual drive others on the left saw his speech quite differently. Liberals like Ed Kilgore writing in the Huffington Post felt that Obama was declaring a very different truth then acceptance of the totality of God’s truth but instead that we live in a world with no moral absolutes that apply to any particular condition so that compromise should always be expected from the “religious fundamentalists”. He felt confident Obama affirmed that abortion is about reproductive rights of women and any other discussion was “phony”. The oration given by Obama was very eloquent but I have to agree with Raymond Arroyo, commentator for the Catholic Eternal Word Network, that it is not the words that count but the actions. If President Obama truly meant what he said then he should immediately himself support these two measures and vigorously encourage his fellow Democrats to follow. If on the other hand, he takes no action, then his actions will have demonstrated more clearly his feelings than his eloquent but empty speech. Ironically, Obama mentioned that doubt plays a role in decision making and the past history of his actions and those of his party cast great doubt on his sincerity.


View Comments

Dr. Tony Magana -- Bio and Archives

Dr. Tony Magana was raised in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M;University, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. He has served in the United States Army Reserve. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.


Sponsored