Michael Stokes Paulsen, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Speaking at Notre Dame’s commencement, President Obama said that he wanted to embrace “common ground” on abortion. Most pro-lifers will greet that assertion with considerable skepticism. Measured by substantive positions, rather than graduation rhetoric, Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion president in our nation’s history: he supports partial-birth abortion; he opposes protecting the lives of children (accidentally) born alive during an abortion; he supports mandatory abortion funding with tax dollars; he supports the “Freedom of Choice Act” to entrench and even expand abortion rights (though he has recently that it’s not a “priority” for him right now); and he has, in the past, declared a pro-abortion litmus test for judicial appointments.

But what if we were to take the President seriously, in his stated desire to reduce abortion? How might the President demonstrate, in real, concrete ways, that his remarks should be taken seriously and not as false advertising?

I propose five questions for the President, as a test of his seriousness of purpose in seeking “common ground” on abortion.

1. Mr. President, we all agree that abortion is, at least, a tragic choice. Will you, Mr. President, publicly state that it is your wish that women not have abortions, whenever humanly possible? Will you state that you think that the “choice” you wish to preserve should be exercised in favor of preserving the developing life of the unborn child? Will you lead in this way? Will you urge, and support through policy, adoption instead of abortion? If you are serious in seeking common ground, surely this is ground we can all share.

2. Will you propose this specifically for the African-American community, in a special way? Will you commit to working to reduce the incidence of abortion among African- Americans? Here, your prestige and prominence can be especially influential. And there is a special problem here, approaching voluntary racial genocide. African-Americans are 13% of the population, but account for 39% of abortions. One of every four pregnancies in the black community ends in abortion. Think about that: the black population of America would be 25% larger, absent rampant abortion. Let’s stop killing so many black human fetuses; let’s stop killing the next generation of this part of the nation’s community. Mr. President, if you call on this to stop, it will change things. Are you serious about reducing black abortions?

3. Mr. President, you say that abortions are never undertaken lightly, and without acute anguish. I wish this were always true; and so do you, apparently. But some abortions – many, actually – are had for many reasons we would find common ground to condemn. Will you join me, and others, in supporting a ban on abortion had for reasons of sex-selection of a born child? Sadly, many seek abortion not because they do not want a child, but because they do not want a girl. This is horrible, would you not agree? Mr. President, if you are serious about seeking common ground, would you not agree that our nation should ban the abortion choice when used for such an awful, human-gender-based reason?

4. Abortion today remains a terribly divisive issue. Some are unreservedly pro-life. Some are vehemently pro-choice on abortion. Mr. President, if we cannot agree today (as you noted in your speech), can we agree that abortion is a tragedy to be avoided and that we should commit as a nation to eliminating it in the future? Mr. President, would you support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion as of the year 2050, and urge us to reach the point where, technologically and morally, it is possible to support “reproductive choice” without that meaning abortion of a living, breathing, growing human fetus? Mr. President, surely you would agree that our children should not abort their children – our grandchildren? Can we find common ground in committing to that goal?

5. Mr. President, my last test of seriousness is in many ways the hardest for you, politically, because it is so immediate. Justice David Souter has announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. Mr. President, it would go a long way to demonstrating your seriousness in seeking common ground if you would nominate for this seat someone who does not have a previously announced commitment to abortion rights and support for Roe v. Wade. David Souter famously had no previously stated views on this issue before being named to the Court. Mr. President, if you are serious in seeking common ground, will you commit to naming no one to the Supreme Court based on a pro-abortion or pro-Roe litmus test, or who has previously committed himself or herself to such a position?

These questions test whether President Obama means what he says or whether his words are merely words. Is the President serious about reducing abortion, working to support the choice of childbirth, and bridging between pro-life and pro-choice positions? If so, he can show us with real commitments, not empty rhetorical platitudes.

Michael Paulsen is Distinguished University Chair and Professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. Prior to coming to the University of St. Thomas School of Law, Paulsen served as the McKnight Presidential Professor of Law and Public Policy, Briggs and Morgan Professor of Law, and Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship at the University of Minnesota Law School. He received his B.A. degree with distinction from Northwestern University, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He received an M.A. degree in Religion from Yale Divinity School and a J.D. degree from Yale Law School, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal and a recipient of the Harlan Fiske Stone Prize for appellate advocacy.