Monday, December 1, 2008

Obama-Nation = Abortion-Nation?!?

Did you know that President-Elect Barack Obama is the "most radical pro-abortion presidential candidate ever"? Don't believe me? Just Google search that term, and your resulting hits will reveal the dregs of the American Right Wing universe, the members of which spent the better part of this past summer and fall braying about how Barack Obama is not just pro-choice on the question of abortion, he is actually pro-abortion. This is probably news to anyone who was paying attention to any of Mr. Obama's comments on the issue of abortion during the very long presidential campaign.

Regardless of these facts, they haven't stopped various extremists from making the claim. Mr. Obama's candidacy, and now his impending presidency, have worked many people in the pro-life community into a lather. Within this community, the Catholic Church regards itself as First among equals, and continues to lead the charge in tagging anyone who is pro-choice as being pro-abortion. In a rehash of the 2004 presidential campaign, when certain American bishops refused to serve Holy Communion to pro-choice Democratic nominee John Kerry (D-MA), additional Catholic leaders have issued stern warnings to parishioners not to support Obama on the sole basis of his pro-choice stance, and to either skip communion or go to confession if any of them actually voted for him.

I continue to find it saddening, as well as more than a little insulting, to be categorized as pro-abortion by virtue of the fact that I am pro-choice. As I've written before, I don't know anybody who is pro-choice who actively and enthusiastically promotes abortions no matter the circumstances. For the majority of pro-choice citizens, the circumstances matter big time. Even those who are ardently pro-choice can find their level of support for this right challenged in the face of how different individuals choose to have an abortion, as this recent Washington Post Magazine article illustrates.

You know, opponents of the landmark Civil Rights Act were led by Senator Barry Goldwater, who argued that "you can't legislate morality." Yet these same right-wing types who opposed legislating civil rights-based morality are more than happy to support legislation that enforces their own moral code, namely the outlawing of any and all forms of abortion, no matter the circumstances. This is the very position taken by the Catholic Church, a position that has led more than one member of the U.S. Catholic priesthood to come out with outrageous edicts such as the prohibition against serving communion to Obama supporters, or demanding that parishioners who did vote for Mr. Obama go to confession in order to be absolved of this supposed sin. But honestly, would a vote for the supposedly pro-life ticket of McCain/Palin have been a vote for a reduction in the number of abortions, if not the outright elimination of this practice. I truly don't think so. In fact, since the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, the greatest drop in the annual number of abortions performed in the United States occurred during the administration of one William Jefferson Clinton, a pro-choice Democrat whose stated position on abortion is that it should be "safe, legal and rare." It seems that abortion is most likely to be safe, legal and rare in a country that provides for shared prosperity and a robust social safety net, progressive sex education, makes contraception and other family planning services available to all people regardless of means, and concedes that legal abortion is a medical procedure that is in fact sometimes necessary for health issues relating to the fetus, the mother, or both. The current pro-life strategy that is championed by the Catholic Church does not allow for any such circumstantial consideration. It is an approach to a highly complex social issue that is wholly lacking in nuance, and one that some Catholic leaders are finally suggesting needs to be replaced by a strategy designed to effectively address the reality of this issue as it is, not as how the Church wishes that it would be.

Where is the Gospel message of Jesus Christ in the Church's singular fixation on abortion? Does the Church really intend to mortgage the richness of its vast body of social and ethical teaching for the sake of pursuing this one particular end? It is not a reasonable, and therefore not a tenable, position for the Church to be taking. As then-candidate Obama remarked in response to a debate question on abortion,
"But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, '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.' Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation."

My final question: Does the Church intend to be counted among the reasonable participants in that search for common ground?

- Doug L.

PS- I usually try and limit the number of reference links to ten. However, because of the gravity of this particular issue, my thinking is that the more information that is available, the better. Please avail yourself of the resources I've assembled below. Shalom.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (UPDATED, December 7, 2008):

Nursing Grudges, by Dahlia Lithwick (Slate.com, December 6, 2008)

Barack Obama on Abortion (On The Issues.org)

A Hard Choice: Online Discussion with Lesley Wojcik and Patricia Meisol (WashingtonPost.com, November 24, 2008)

Maria Shriver: Pro-Choice, not pro-abortion (WashingtonPost.com, OnFaith, November 2008)

Will the Pope and Obama Clash Over Abortion? (Time.com, November 18, 2008)

Pope Says Catholics in Politics Must Follow Faith (Christianpost.com, November 16, 2008)

Obama's Promise to Pro-Lifers, by E.J. Dionne Jr. (The Washington Post, November 15, 2008)

Catholics for Obama.org

A Catholic Shift to Obama?, by E.J. Dionne Jr. (The Washington Post, October 21, 2008)

Can Democrats Reduce Abortions More Than Republicans??, by Steven Waldman (BeliefNet Blog, October 7, 2008)

Born Alive Baloney, by Jess Henig (Newsweek.com, September 24, 2008)

Obama and Infanticide (FactCheck.org, August 25, 2008)

Obama Statement on the 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision (BarackObama.com, January 22, 2008)

Freedom of Choice Act would Guarantee Roe Protections in U.S. Statutes (National Organization for Women, April 30, 2007)

Why do women seek abortions? (ReligiousTolerance.org, April 27, 2007)

Freedom of Choice Act (U.S. Senate Version, S. 2020)

Freedom of Choice Act (U.S. House Version, H.R. 1964)

Fetal Viability, by Franklin Foer (Slate.com, May 25, 1997)

2 comments:

EnnisP said...

Relevant topic and well made points. Unfortunately, the religious mentality does not allow for discussion on any issue outside the accepted boundaries. Their arguments are accusations, emotionally conveyed, not points to be considered intelligent. I say that as one who has a long history in religion and once "personified" the mindset perfectly.

That is sad because a great deal of life actually occurs outside the religious ideal.

The Candy Man said...

Does the Church really intend to mortgage the richness of its vast body of social and ethical teaching for the sake of pursuing this one particular end?

Well said!

I think Ennis' point about emotion is valid and important. I personally believe there is both an intellectual and an emotional side to religious faith. There is work to be done on both fronts.

I read your comment on my recent post on Jesus, it's so nice to have the Unkosher Jesus weigh in on the Historical Jesus. Of course you are welcome to link to me in your future post and I'm totally up for an interblog dialogue.