In terms of actual abortion policy, the key phrase in Obama’s Notre Dame speech (full text here) was not inspiring or poetic. It was his specific call to “reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies.”
In the past, Obama has rhetorically sided with pro-choice activists in saying he wanted to reduce “the need” for abortion. Pro-lifers pushed to change the language so it called for a reduction in “the number.” Obama said point blank that he wants to reduce the number.
Why does this matter? A White House task force consisting of pro life and pro choice activists has begun meeting to hammer out a “common ground” proposal. In the past, pro-choicers have said that establishing abortion reduction as a goal stigmatized women, that government should be neutral on the question of whether abortion was bad or not. Saying you want to reduce the number means you think abortion is, from a society-wide perspective, undesirable. Obama’s statement gives some moral support to the pro-lifers in the room.
It also marks for Obama a return to his campaign formulations — began in the Democratic platform — that paired abortion reduction with efforts to make it easier for women who do want to carry babies to term. Until today, Obama’s rhetoric as President had tilted in the purist pro-choice direction, somewhat leaving his pro-life allies out on a limb. Today, he climbed out there on the limb with them.
It remains to be seen what this task force will actually produce but Obama appeared to lay out the contours of the deal he’d like to see:
“So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
Pro-choicers get: abortion remaining legal, stem cell research loosened up, efforts get focused on encouraging changed behavior rather than legal punishments
Pro-lifers get: abortion reduction as an explicit goal, conscience clause, and an acknowledgement in abortion policy that women who want to carry babies to term should be helped just as much as those who don’t want to.
Still, all we have is rhetoric, but we may have heard today the roadmap for how that will eventually get translated into a policy compromise.
UPDATE: On re-reading the language, at Tom’s suggestion, I think I may have over-stated the significance of the wording on numbers vs. need. Dan Gilgoff at US News had a better distinction:
Though the Obama White House has been publicly quiet in recent months about its previously stated commitment to reducing demand for abortion–some aides have encouraged the news media to describe the administration’s plan for “pregnancy prevention” rather than “abortion reduction”–Obama yesterday gave a full-throated reaffirmation of his intentions to that end.
Importantly, Obama mentioned two policy proposals around abortion–increasing availability of adoption and increasing assistance to pregnant women who carry their babies to term–that go way beyond pregnancy prevention. Though the White House has carefully avoided embracing any of the Democratic legislative vehicles for reducing demand for abortion, these two proposals are enshrined in the Pregnant Women Support Act, which was recently reintroduced by Democratic lawmakers in Congress and which has won robust support from the Roman Catholic Church.
posted May 17, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“all we have is rhetoric”
It will be difficult to fund any of the needed programs with all the debt caused by the greed on Wall Street. In addition, many in Congress will fight against health care reform that is needed to help reduce costs.
A Catholic commentator on CNN said today was the first time Obama had said “conscience clause.”
posted May 17, 2009 at 5:18 pm
I think you give him too much credit, at least as I interpret your article. It seems to suggest he is “softening” on his stance. However, I still remember seeing the video of him speaking before a Planned Parenthood group talking about a pregnancy as though it were the same as taking a wrong turn. He said that if one of his daughters became pregnant, he would not want her to have to live with that mistake. If he believed abortion was so serious, then he would realize she would have to live with that pregnancy anyway because of having an abortion. Also, he is completely for late-term abortions without limits or preconditions. Why doesn’t someone ask him about that heinous practice?
This is another example of Obama saying whatever he needs to say to his audience to curry favor. He is pathetic and probably the least spiritual president we have ever had.
posted May 17, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“Also, he is completely for late-term abortions without limits or preconditions.”
The above statement is not factual. The “Freedom of Choice Act” bill clearly prevents abortions after the viability stage except for the mother’s health. Obama has made similiar statements about late term abortions, which are a tiny fraction of the total abortions.
John McCain did not plan any actions to end abortion. He said it was a state issue.
Bush 2 campaigned on a change to the Constitution, but his Republican controlled Congress did nothing.
Where is the anger at Congress the writes the laws?
posted May 17, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Sigh.
For the first time in decades, a president is actually trying to do something to reduce abortions.
How do the conservative Christians react?
By defaming him.
There is no reasoning with you, it is pointless.
You have defined your love of God for so long as hatred towards homosexuals and emancipated women that of charity, there is none left in your hearts.
You really would prefer the status quo over reduced abortions, applauding unnecessary deaths merely because you can not bend the rest of us to your will.
Well, never mind. We are going to reduce abortion then without you.
posted May 17, 2009 at 7:27 pm
The ethical quandry is that we are being asked to be happy that under his administration only a few hundred thousand babies will be willfully murdered, which is so much better than the 900,000+ that were thrown into dumpsters last year. If Obama were Hitler, and he offered a compromise to kill only 400,000 Jews rather than one million a year in exchange for your support, would you agree to go along? Ethically, there is no difference. We encourage a reduction but cannot be satisfied as long as a single child is at risk.
One other point to you feminists. I know that this is a tough concept for you however no one is trying to tell you what to do with your body. We are telling you that you do not have the right to take the life of another human being, no more than you have the right to murder someone staying in your home that you invited but got tired of. In this case the child was invited into your home by you and if you no longer enjoy the company just wait nine months and it will be gone and become a blessing for some childless family.
Obama is big on responsibility so why does he not remind women that in the overwhelming number of cases the reason for the abortion is thier stupidity. It is about time for feminists to take responsibility for their actions. Wait a minute! Liberals, abortionists and Democrats don’t believe that anyone is responsible for their actions. Sorry I mis spoke!
posted May 17, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I’ve followed Obama’s campaign since way back and I’ve paid attention to his presidency. Obama has ALWAYS said (several times) he wants to reduce the number of abortions through a variety of means. That’s one of the things that made me support him.
No one wants abortion. The goal is zero but when you have one side that walks around with signs that have dead babies on them, that pushes against common ground because the other side doesn’t want the government legislating women’s bodies. I find it fascinating that Republicans want the government out of people’s lives, except for that instance.
The only common ground is reduction, to change society, to change people’s minds. Teens who are pregnant without financial means or family need to be supported. They need to be educated to prevent pregnancy. Plenty can be done in adoption awareness. Lots needs to be done.
Tactics like baby dolls covered in blood is not going to work. But the people who use those tactics have more going on. For them it’s not just about abortion or stem cells. It’s a visceral hatred of Obama. It’s still about Obama’s perceived otherness. As one protester put it today: when Obama talks about God I wonder which one he’s talking about. Why weren’t so many in an uproar during Bill Clinton’s reign?
There is a lot of foolishness and foolish people.
posted May 17, 2009 at 8:33 pm
jjb: “The ethical quandry is that we are being asked to be happy that under his administration only a few hundred thousand babies will be willfully murdered, which is so much better than the 900,000+ that were thrown into dumpsters last year. If Obama were Hitler, and he offered a compromise to kill only 400,000 Jews rather than one million a year in exchange for your support, would you agree to go along? Ethically, there is no difference. We encourage a reduction but cannot be satisfied as long as a single child is at risk.”
Yet you stand quietly and stare lovingly at a Republican administration that did bupkus to reduce the number of abortions in this nation. Then, when a Democrat comes forward, winning the White House with a promise to actually do something about reducing the number of abortions, suddenly a reduction is not sufficient for you. It’s all or nothing.
Had Bush come forth with this kind of policy, you and others in the GOP owned pro-life camp would have commissioned hymns in his honor. I recall the wondrous outpouring at the “partial birth abortion ban” that was signed into law, and how fantastic the pro-life community thought that it was.
Now, the proof will be in the pudding. Will the GOP work with Obama to reduce the number of abortions, or will they stonewall in hopes of having an issue come 2010 and 2012? We know that the GOP needs the abortion issue in order to win elections. Will they continue to insist that all 900,000 babies die this coming year just so they can get elected? Or will they value life above elections?
Obama put the ball in their court…in YOUR court, jjb. Hold the President accountable for his words and his promised actions…I’ll stand with you in that. But let’s also hold the GOP accountable as well. If they stonewall and insist that babies must die so they can get elected, will you continue to support them in that?
posted May 17, 2009 at 8:41 pm
“Obama is big on responsibility so why does he not remind women that in the overwhelming number of cases the reason for the abortion is thier stupidity. It is about time for feminists to take responsibility for their actions. Wait a minute! Liberals, abortionists and Democrats don’t believe that anyone is responsible for their actions. Sorry I mis spoke!”
And thus we have the true mentality of the radical, religious right showing. Who is at fault when a woman gets pregnant? The woman, of course. Apparently all of these abortions are being done by women who have spontaneously experienced asexual reproduction.
jjb, you have tipped your hand just a bit too much. Not surprising…the Christian church has long overlooked adultery when it came to men, but have no problem labelling women as “harlots”, “jezebels” or worse. (And don’t get me started about how many times I hear the phrase “bastard child” in conservative churches.)
jjb, I am willing to guess that you will do nothing to support Obama’s efforts, even if we see some success in the reducing the number of abortions in this nation. Why? Because it will advance the cause of the Democrats, and deep down you would rather see Democrats defeated than babies live.
posted May 18, 2009 at 1:47 am
In reading all of the posts thus far, I find the person I am most inclined to agree with is jjb. In rebuttal to RJohnson’s post:
And thus we have the true mentality of the radical, religious right showing. Who is at fault when a woman gets pregnant? The woman, of course. Apparently all of these abortions are being done by women who have spontaneously experienced asexual reproduction.
It is not “Radical” to expect a woman to not take the life of her own child. Perhaps the poor put upon woman that feels the need to have an abortion to take care of her little “problem” should have done more to prevent her condition. Let’s talk honestly, there would be absolutely no question of the morality of this issue were it illegal. Since it has become legalized, abortion rates have soared. These rates do not represent the few cases of pregnancy as the result of rape. This is wide spread murder of innocents. This is a basic question of what is right and what is wrong. There is no help for anyone that cannot see the difference.
posted May 18, 2009 at 3:50 am
The hatred towards women which burns bright in so many of these postings frightens me.
Back in 1972, I attended a conference on justice in America in NYC. One of the discussion points was whether the woman’s rights movement and the gay rights movement should work together or not.
An older woman whose name I no longer recall, but who had survived Nazi Germany and the concentration camps spoke to us. She said, the question was not one of either woman’s rights or gay rights (no, we didn’t have GLBT back then, it was all “homosexual rights”, I am parsing).
She told us that the oppression of any group must of necessity result in the oppression of all.
Smart woman. I never really understood what she meant until I encountered fundamentalist Christians.
Conservatives, please. Stop hating women. For that matter, please stop hating gays and transgendered.
You can not argue that you are pro-life and then turn around and attack women as you do here.
Men and women make decisions on this matter, but women get pregnant. I strongly suggest that we leave the matter up to the one person who has standing: The woman who is pregnant.
Please, this hatred is not Christian.
posted May 18, 2009 at 4:07 am
Your Name May 18, 2009 1:47 AM said, “Let’s talk honestly, there would be absolutely no question of the morality of this issue were it illegal. Since it has become legalized, abortion rates have soared.”
How does anyone know how many illegal abortions occurred before Roe v. Wade? In addition, abortion statistics are not reliable because for many years it was not mandatory to report the number of abortions.
Before Roe v. Wade, four states had passed laws for no restrictions on abortion: New York, Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington state. Roe v. Wade had tighter restrictions.
1967 Apr. 25: Colorado Gov. John A. Love signs the first “liberalized” abortion law in the United States, allowing abortion in cases of permanent mental or physical disability of either the child or mother or in cases of rape or incest. Similar laws were passed in California (Ronald Reagan signed), Oregon, and North Carolina.
1971 January 8: President Richard Nixon signed a congressional act repealing the District of Columbia’s anti-abortion law.
1972 January: Gallup polls showed that 57% favored leaving decisions about abortion to a woman and her doctor. 54% of Roman Catholics agreed with this position.
1972 August: Gallup polls revealed that 64% of the general public and 56% of Roman Catholics favored leaving the decision about an abortion to a woman and her doctor.
If a man creates a child he should provide financial assistance and be available to be a father to the child. Something that Obama has told African-American men on several occasions. He also stressed responsible behavior for the women.
June 15, 2008 Obama’s Father’s Day Remarks at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago.
“But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.
You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled – doubled – since we were children. We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.
…
But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child – it’s the courage to raise one.”
posted May 18, 2009 at 4:40 am
Those of us arguing for the right of a woman to have sovereignty over her own body should definitely take a look at the reactions over at crunchycon.
These are the people we need to counter.
Some time ago, Sigilaris posted a brilliant analysis of just why conservative Christians hate homosexuals. If I recall correctly – and I may not, I don’t have her text in front of me – she explained that the real problem they had was with the concept of one man permitting another man to enter his body. In so doing, he was placing himself on the same level as a woman.
And that, obviously, was to make himself inferior!
That’s the gist of it, brilliant.
To their minds, a David and Jonathon can not be making love until one exceeds. Never mind the text (who needs to read the Bible literally, anyway?) They can not be having sex, because they are so obviously equal. A man must have sex with an inferior life-form.
An excellent point and one which I tentatively embraced as “the” answer to a heretofore unanswerable question for me. The more of this hatred and debasing of women I read on these topics, the more I realize she hit the nail right on the head. To the fundamentalist Christians, women are nothing more than the brood chamber in which their creation grows.
My. What more is there to say than that?
Oh. My.
posted May 18, 2009 at 7:39 am
Mr.Waldman,
Thank you for pointing out Mr. Obama’s attitude concerning the undesirability of abortion.
I am pro-choice. I’ve raised money for NARAL and Planned Parenthood in a professional capacity. Before I had raised funds for pro-choice groups I’d always just felt that I was pro-choice. But that wasn’t good enough. I went to the library and researched fetal development.
I concluded, like my gut had felt prior, that a fetus is a life potential in the first trimester; not a person. Fetal stimulus and response study results do not match what I consider to be the endowment of a conscious will or personhood, even at it’s most rudimentary levels.
Now I know that’s probably not gonna sell any pro-lifer on my position. My point is that I’m pro-choice and I’ve searched my conscience and researched.
I do believe that abortion is undesirable for biological and psychological reasons. I also have known two women that had the abortion procedure:
One had an abusive boyfriend and lived out of a suitcase. She felt that she couldn’t carry the fetus to term because of financial circumstances and her living situation. She had dyslexia and chronically smoked pot, probably to deal with her horrible upbringing (her dad was an abusive alcoholic).
The other woman was the wife of a reverend at a church I attended. She had a partial birth abortion because her life was endangered and the chances of a successful birthing process were slim. She was devastated. She also had three other little ones that might be deprived of her.
I believe that undesirable circumstances lead to abortions and I’m willing to work and compromise with pro-lifers. I believe that pro-lifers can be well intentioned.
I admire the sanctity pro-lifers give to this part of the life process and support their right to voice their opinion. I just happen to disagree with how we qualify a person versus a human life potential in this part of the process.
Let’s learn from each other. We can learn from dialog. I would love to talk about fetal development and how it relates to Evolution with my creationist friends. A compromise would open doors on more than just abortion.
By the way, the LDS blogger on Beliefnet had a wonderful post on Obama’s Notre Dame speech.
posted May 18, 2009 at 8:43 am
I disagree that Obama shifted from his stance of reducing unintended pregnancies to one of abortion reduction. He did NOT call for reducing the number of abortions (abortion reduction), as you say. He called for — look at the language again — reducing the number of women who need abortions. There is a fine, but important difference there. Reducing the number of women in need is the same thing as reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. This goal puts the focus on family planning services, comprehensive sexuality education, and expanded adoption opportunities. Reducing the number of abortions, by contrast, opens the doors to restricting abortion services, thereby forcing some women into options they may not otherwise choose. This the President did NOT endorse.
posted May 18, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Valid point, Tim.
After several decades of this nasty little battle-front in the culture wars, it is clear that the fundamentalist Christians don’t care a bean about actually protecting young women – all they care about is forcing them into a position of absolute subservience.
Especially troubling are the ones like those charming folks commenting here who truly enjoy seeing a young woman endure the consequences of having sex. The fact that she may have been raped or suffered incest or didn’t have the resources to practice contraception is irrelevant. As long as she is punished, they are happy.
posted May 18, 2009 at 2:36 pm
To anonymous 2:
How can you hate so completely? Nothing is perfect. Everybody has an opinion! Noone has to agree with you! Grow-up! Get a life because now you are lost! And Jesus said ” the weeds will be burned.”
posted May 18, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“Especially troubling are the ones like those charming folks commenting here who truly enjoy seeing a young woman endure the consequences of having sex. The fact that she may have been raped or suffered incest or didn’t have the resources to practice contraception is irrelevant. As long as she is punished, they are happy.”
This view is the natural result of a literalist approach to Scripture. Eve is condemned to suffer childbirth for her role in the Fall.
Gen. 3:17 ” Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
Childbirth is punishment for the sin that led to the Fall, and anything that changes that interferes with God’s divine order, at least in the mind of a literalist reader of the Bible.
Thus you have folks who blame only the woman for obtaining an abortion, or believe it is the woman who is the sinner when it comes to unwed pregnancy.
And to think…they accused Obama of saying that pregnancy was a punishment.
posted May 18, 2009 at 11:54 pm
adding to all of this…..Obama is addressing to a diverse of people. He needs to make a solution that will satisfy all of the people of the US. As Your Name said “Everybody has an opinion!”
posted May 19, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Pro-choicers always throw out the “12 year old girl who was raped by her stepfather” argument for preserving abortion rights. You know, if only 12 year old incest victims were getting abortions, there wouldn’t be a problem. The number would be so small as to escape notice. It’s the majority– educated white women in their 20′s– who would be left out. How about this for a compromise– pro-lifers embrace abortion for rape and incest victims, and pro-choicers work to limit it to only those victims.
I personally oppose abortion from an anthropological, evoluntionary reasons. It’s not good for a population to kill off 1/4 of it’s future population. You never know what form evolution will take– our species needs all the genetic diversity we can get.