Obama: Best Thing To Come Along for the Pro-Life Cause in Years

The Gallup organization released poll data in the run up to Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame that for the first time in many years showed a majority of people in the US favoring a pro-life position over a pro-choice position. This as Obama was here in my home state of Indiana today, addressing the Catholic university Notre Dame in South Bend.

The airwaves and newscreens of America have been filled with sturm and drang over the extension of the invitation to speak and the conferring of an honoray degree on Obama, who supports abortion up to and including partial birth abortion. Pro-life groups and people have been all over the news expressing their anger and dismay that Obama would be invited to speak at a Catholic university, given that Catholic institutions are prohibited from giving a platform to abortion advocates.

I actually think that pro-life forces have Obama to thank for these latest Gallup results, in addition to some of their own work over the years. There's no question that the views of many who were softer in their opposition to the practice have sharpened their viewpoint as a result of Obama's election and his campaign promises to enact legislation that would expand access to abortion. Obama is having the same effect on many with regard to abortion as he has on the gun crowd who are rushing to buy guns for fear Obama would take them away.

Obama has caused the abortion debate to become sharper. This is actually quite positive, especially with a president who is a fairly ruthless and dispassionate political creature. I would actually argue that their is a good possibility to move Obama in a direction that would actually result in fewer unwanted pregnancies, as he claims he wants to do. Growing the number of people who subscribe to that prolife position is part of getting that done. Obama seems to be doing that quite nicely.

Plan B is the equivalent of an F - Failure

Crossposted from A Work In Progress - (Yes Villager, Alaine does post). As always, she takes mindshare.

Plan B?

The morning-after pill -- made by Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals -- is intended to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex. It works by stopping ovulation and decreasing the chances that a fertilized egg will attach to the uterus. When used within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can lower the risk of pregnancy by almost 90 percent, the maker says.

The casual nature surrounding the Plan B pill is extremely interesting to me. The pill will be available to "women age 17 and older" the FDA announced today. What child do you know classifies as a woman at age 17. I'm not even opening the conversation for true debate - I'm really just reflecting on what I know to be the case. Every memory of being 17 reminds me that 17 year olds are not women - they are children in more mature bodies. When I look around at the family members, church members, neighbors and friends who are 17, they too are not women. Young women in training maybe, but do we want Plan B to be part of their educational process?

For the most part, we're talking about young people who still rely on their parents for food, clothing and shelter. When, and if they work, they earn what my mother used to affectionately call "play money." Even when I worked as a young "woman" I wasn't responsible for my living expenses and upkeep, I was really just offsetting the tremendous expenses I was incurring. When I look at who I dated, the decisions I made and the person I thought I wanted to be - I realize that I have evolved into a much different person. Thank God. Instead of allowing young girls the time, space and ability to evolve into who they aspire to be, we have created a society that believes fast and easy is the answer for everything. And we're producing a generation of fast. and easy.

Planned Parenthood and every group that supports them may very well consider this a victory, which is a sad commentary on our evolution as a society and a community anyway. The real concern that I have, however, rests with the false premises associated with pseudo abortion as a family planning method. Since when does someone who doesn't qualify as an adult in any other context become woman enough to obtain medical treatment without parental consent? At 17 I had already graduated from high school, started college and moved into my "higher education experience". At that time I couldn't get an antibiotic without using the insurance card that was directly tied to the medical coverage my mother paid for. Allergy medicine required authorization. How in the world do we go from that to Plan B.

I surely wish we'd write more articles about Plan A. I imagine Plan B, Plan C and Plan D could have many alternatives other than the "Oops pill." Oops I shouldn't have had unprotected sex, so let me ingest an emergency (cough) contraception (cough) pill (cough), so that I don't have any of the consequences. If we continue to believe that the only damage done by poor judgment is physical, we are doing a disservice to the young ladies we are bringing up as the next generation. We have authored and labeled alternatives as if we are oblivious to the historical, cultural, societal, personal, emotional and financial implications of the choices being made. I know that someone will write, or think, its a woman's choice. I dare say, we aren't talking about women at all. This isn't a choice in my book - plan B offers more stunted growth in decision making. No wonder we can't problem solve or plan strategically, from an early age we're taught that there are no consequences to our choices.

We live in an oversexed society that trains young girls from birth that their value is tied to their sexuality and virtue, or lack thereof. When they are tweens we are preparing them for being teens. The new teen looks like the equivalent of your average 20 something - with less fashion taste, and even less sense. We try to make it better by saying that 17 year olds are women and spouting about their rights. With rights come responsibility, and I don't see very many children at age 17 being ready for all of those either. What can we expect of the women we are raising, when Plan B is covered in the media like something to celebrate as a culture. Plan A could be Abstinence. or Adoption. or Academics. or Athletics. or Aspirations. or the ability to actually grow up.

A better name for Plan B would be Plan F - we keep failing our girls.

Steele: The RNC's Inarticulate, Angry Black Man

I read Michael Steele's GQ interview finally. It pretty much left me with my jaw on the floor. I have a hard time believing that Steele will remain RNC chair after reading it and wondering very seriously if Steele should have this job at all. Right off the top, I was very disappointed with his tone :

I was kinda expecting hip-hop to be playing in here today. Aw, sh—. It’s on my, uh, computer there. I haven’t pulled it up yet, but I’ll get a little bit goin’ in a second or two.

Answering a question about other artists he liked to listen to: Love Dean Martin. He was one of these guys who just didn’t give an F.

How do you deal with the criticism?
I just pray on it.

You do?
Oh yeah. And I ask God, “Hey, let me show just a little bit of love, so I absolutely don’t go out and kick this person’s ass.”

First off, the slang references, the profanity and the really casual language were all turn offs. If I compare this performance along with his other media forays to prominent black republicans like Condi Rice or Colin Powell or J.C. Watts, this is below that standard. This is a guy who is supposed to be articulate and a communicator, but you would not know it from the quality of his conversation in this interview. I also thought he managed a series of silly questions ineffectively. If you’re trying to expand the tent, all of those questions need to be turned to getting the GOP view across to the people you want to entice in. I thought it was a very ineffective interview on that score. When the subject turned to abortion, it got worse.

The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice. You do? Yeah. Absolutely.
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

This answer was incoherent mush delivered on a garbage can lid. Not to mention the fact that at the time he was born, abortion was illegal, so his mother’s choice would have been an illegal procedure in the shadows, something he ought to have an awareness of before somebody hands it to him in a rhetorical knuckle sandwich. He sounded like he was dodging giving a straight answer and in the process gave what sounded like a dishonest answer. A pro life stance means you would make it illegal to have an abortion. It would no longer be a legal choice women are permitted to make. Don't try to BS that. It makes you sound sinister. Really poor articulation of the issues and as an aside, too much about his position, not enough about the GOP's position.

The other thing going on here that is really blowing my mind is the HUGE racial chip Steele has on his shoulder. He is ticked off about the way the GOP handles black voters as a constituency and his anger is patently apparent in his comments.

Well, would you have this job if you were white?
Would I have this job? Now, that’s the reverse of the question I typically get. I usually get, would I have this job if the president were white? And my answer to that is yes. But would I have this job if I were white? [long pause] The answer to that is I don’t know. I don’t know. That’s a very good question. And it says a lot about, I think, where the party is right now that I can’t answer it.

Whoa, Whoa, WHOA!!! Let me get this straight. In the first example, if the president were white, you would have been elected to this job on your merits. But if the question, asked in the reverse is did you get this job not because you were the best, but because you were black, your answer is I don't know?!! This response was horrible, just really poorly delivered by a guy who has the job of RNC chair. I am the first to argue that the GOP has a problem with blacks. Its a fundamental problem that goes right to the issue of what the identity of the GOP is going to be. Steele clearly believes that too, but as the chairman of the GOP, he ought to articulate the concern and issue much better than this. Because if you want to address that, you are going to have to raise the issue in a way that is accessible within the party and the way he did it was not, at all.

You mean your Starbucks hasn’t closed yet?
No, my Starbucks has not closed. And it better not! You cannot close a Starbucks in a black community. We’ll riot!

I found this comment about Starbucks in a black neighborhood to be tasteless and inappropriate to the moment and its one of a string of comments he’s made now where he routinely throws into the public's face the self evident fact that he’s black. It is so unnecessary. Obama spent a campaign trying desperately to run away from race and Steele goes out of his way to remind us he's black and for the life of me I cannot understand why the guy is doing that, which began with his Kool Mo Dee stylings upon election, continued with his if we rap it, they will come strategy and now this interview. Its beginning to feel like his way of shoving his blackness down the throat of the party. I’m not sure why he feels that it is necessary to do that. But he keeps doing it, and the reason seems clear. He is angry at the party on the subject of blacks.

Give Steele credit for not just dealing with this issue in a passive aggressive mode however. He unflinchingly and candidly excoriates the GOP’s dismal relationship management with blacks as a constituency.

You made the comment at the convention about the sea of white faces. And you got a little bit of heat for that.
I sure did. And I looked at the people who gave me the heat and said, “What’s your problem? You tell me I’m wrong. Look at the room. Thirty-six black folks in the room? What, are you kidding me? Out of 4,000 people? Come on!”

Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
’Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a damn about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care. What I’m trying to do now is to say we do give a damn.

His sentiments are probably shared by the majority of blacks and that includes black republicans. I completely agree with him here. Steele is speaking directly to the cognitive dissonance between the GOP's talk on race and the GOP's walk. The GOP is fundamentally disinterested in black voters as a constituency. That's not an accusation of racism. Its just the bald facts. The GOP does not believe that the black voter bloc is necessary or essential to their aspirations for governance. That is a sentiment held by both its leadership and by the rank and file.

While we're on the subject of cognitive dissonance, Steele has a bit of his own to grapple with as well. Talking to fellow blogger Sophia Nelson of Political Intersection in Essence magazine:

NELSON: What is your first priority with regard to changing the image of the RNC?

STEELE: Yes, we do have an image problem and the first thing I am going to do is take the GOP’s message to Black community. We are going to show up, spend time, and spend money. And most importantly, if we want our message to be heard, we have to talk to the Black media.

Its not an image problem that the GOP has with black voters. The GOP has made conscious decisions to use wedge tactics and divisive rhetoric that positions its base in opposition to blacks. Those decisions make it clear that the calculus of the GOP has been that they do not require the support of the black community to win governance. In an America of changing demographics, a political practice that seeks to overpower and ignore minority political constituencies is not a winning formula. The GOP will have to squarely confront the issues of concern to black voters in an effective way (Latinos as well) to harness their political power. Conservative ideology is more than equal to the task, but what passes for GOP/conservative political practice is not. The remedy for that is much more than a PR overhaul.

Steele's comments make me think one of two futures is possible. Future 1: Steele gets bounced from the chairman job, which I consider more likely if the fund raising numbers are not looking good. Future 2: Steele manages to stay on, but becomes marginalized and a token figure at the top of the party, and the real juice simply flows around him as the party avoids the funky atmospherics of dumping him. Because on the issue of race and the GOP’s relationship with blacks, Steele and the party's powerful right wing are worlds apart.

When Barack Obama gave the speech on race, did you agree with what he said?
I did. I mean, some of it. But my concern throughout this campaign was, people were treating him like he was going to be the Second Coming on the question of race. And because you have a black man as president doesn’t mean that tomorrow morning a black business is not gonna get redlined or a black family’s gonna be able to get their house. Those issues still exist. So the reality of it is, electing Barack does not necessarily change the underlying concerns and issues related to race. On one level it does, but I’m still a black man; when I walk in a room, you have attitudes about black folks. I can’t change that. And I’ve gotta deal with that reality regardless of my title. There are people in this country right now who would look at Barack Obama and still refer to him as “boy.” Period. That’s the reality of America [emphasis mine]. So my point is, just recognize that while the election is historic, while it is important, while it is transformative, it does not absolve us of having to deal day in and day out, in my life and your life, with the question of race.

Racism is the reality of America? He alludes to the idea that racism is institutionally embedded in our society. Agree or disagree, but I can hardly believe I'm listening to an RNC chairman. The consistent manner in which Steele reminds us of race both directly and with his cultural shorthand buzz words and slang, says to me that his party's stance relative to blacks really sticks in his craw and has done so for some time. Heck, look at his public statements about the issue of blacks and the GOP, its not like he is hiding it. The GOP remains in the grip of the sort of low brow conservatism represented by the Rush end of the spectrum and that sector of the party’s thinking on race and Steele’s views are like anti-matter to each other. Attorney General Holder caught flak for calling us a nation of cowards about race (from me included), but the GOP is looking cowardly right now, because everyone is savaging Steele for his abortion comments, but I have not seen anyone in the GOP say boo about his comments on race which are every bit as egregious. At Hot Air, look in the comments section on Steele related posts and you see repeated several times the idea that dumping the first black man to be RNC chair would make the GOP look bad.

He could finesse the issue by simply leaving it alone, but Steele is NOT doing that. He’s pushing it, but not in a smart way, and I’m not sure that will serve him well. He’s carrying his race on his shoulder and thats almost always not a good look.

Obama and Abortion

Obama is a liberal and a Christian. I'm a conservative and Christian and more specifically, a social conservative. He's a democrat and I'm a republican. But I supported his primary run and I intend to vote for him in November.

Nonetheless, I find myself at odds with Obama on social issues such as abortion, and I am troubled with my decision to support him given his position and voting record on the issue. LaShawn Barber jumped right on that particular sore spot today.

"Barack Hussein Obama is an “articulate” infanticide-supporting liberal who doesn’t like being called a liberal....Anyone who believes it’s OK for “doctors” to crush the heads of infants in the birth canal isn’t getting my vote. If you’re black and pro-life but feel “torn” between racial pride about his nomination and disgust for his pro-death stance, shame on you. Get your priorities straight"

She scored a direct hit on my misgivings about Obama and once again I'm wrestling full bore with the decision to support him in November. In the primary, it was one thing. In the general, its another. So I wanted to get some clarity about his stance. Abortion is a shameful and violent act against innocent children. Partial birth abortion is an extreme version of the abortion practice that even the pro-choice repudiate when they understand the procedure, especially variations such as dilation and evacuation.

Obama's website says he will make protecting women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president. On The Issues reports his background on the subject as follows (read from bottom of list, makes more sense):

• Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)
• We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)
• Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)
• Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)
• GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)
• Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
• Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
• Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
• Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
• Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
• Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
• Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
• Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
• Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
• Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
• Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
• Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
• Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
• Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

In commenting on LaShawn's post, I reconciled my decision to support Obama despite my vehement objection to his pro-abortion stance on the following grounds:

1. As President, Obama will have no unilateral power to impose his very liberal views. While SCOTUS selections will be in his domain, those selections must be approved by Congress and the people will have a say and I look to activism with Congress as the check and balance on the potential liberal excesses of an Obama administration.
2. John McCain for all that he is a conservative, is a republican tied to Bush and the republican party's approaches on the economy, on the war, and on expansion and entrenchment of executive power. I believe a departure from that direction is necessary. Obama will be more willingly accountable to the American people than our current President, and moreso than John McCain.
3. Obama is a Christian, can understand the Scriptural basis for opposition to abortion, is predisposed and sensitized to the issue and is therefore reachable and teachable on this subject. I believe it is possible to bring Obama closer to us on this issue, certainly moreso than it will be to steer republicans from the path they are taking the country in on the war, the economy and the scope of executive and corporate power.

Some of Obama's most recent statements on the issue of abortion lend some credence to #3:

Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception

We've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.

But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.

We're not going to completely resolve it. At some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.

Undecided on whether life begins at conception

Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?

A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.

We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life

Q: The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?

A: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

1. There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
2. People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.

Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008

I concluded that electing McCain will not secure a sufficient break with the direction the country is going in now. I would rather elect a reasonable and pragmatic Obama and manage his liberal politics, than elect McCain and ensure no significant change in the policies and practice of the presidency.

I drew some comfort from the fact that apparently LaShawn finds herself conflicted as well:

"I can’t not vote. So, on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, I will head to my polling place. What I’ll do after that, I do not know."

Can a pro-life position and a vote for Obama be reconciled? Am I wrong to believe that Obama's Christian understanding means his position can be moved in the direction of the pro-life camp? Is activism with Congress a reliable, adequate venue and mechanism to blunt an Obama administration's liberal tendencies on social issues?