Denial, Despair, and Distortion: The Pro-Life Argument for Barack Obama

Apologists for Barack Obama’s abortion record have systematically engaged, however sincerely, in denial, despair, and distortion. They have obscured Obama’s record, given up on pro-life legal efforts, and distorted scientific data and moral reasoning. We invite these individuals to reconsider their judgments and support life in an ethic of honesty, hope and recognition of fact.

Denial:

“Senator Obama and his advisors have worked diligently to loosen the grip of the abortion lobby [on the Democratic Party]” -Doug Kmiec (“Can a Catholic Support Him?” p. 80).

Obama has filled his cabinet with many of the nation’s most prominent abortion advocates, including representatives of organizations such as NARAL, Emily’s List, and Planned Parenthood. He has put these appointees in charge of his Domestic Policy Council, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Communications Office. The only thing Obama has done to the abortion lobby is hire away its most committed leaders.

“The [Democratic] platform committee reached out to us deliberately. They were really seeking what evangelicals and Catholic leaders felt about this [abortion].” -Jim Wallis

“There was a sense that both the policy people with the Obama campaign and the platform committee draft people took seriously and responsibly what Catholics and evangelicals had to say. They listened. They took us seriously.” -Tony Campolo

The Democratic Party created what Christianity Today called “the most pro-abortion plank in the party’s history.” The party removed language calling for abortion to be safe, legal and rare and instead said that abortion was a “need”. The Democratic commitment to pro-lifers consists of listening to their opinion, and then promptly doing the opposite. Pro-life Democrats have closed their eyes to the pro-abortion turn taken by the Democratic Party.

“So what does the ‘Born Alive’ Act do? Largely, it redefines what it means to be ‘born alive.’ From the time of ancient common law, ‘born alive’ has meant live birth at or near the end of a full term pregnancy with a reasonable prospect of survival. If a woman sadly miscarries earlier and expels a nonviable, but temporarily alive, unborn child with a transient heartbeat, there isn’t a county recorder in the country who would record a live birth. The miscarriage is sad enough; we don’t worsen it with the grief of death before life has meaningfully taken hold. But that’s what the ‘Born Alive’ Act does. For the most part, it redefines live birth to include nonviable unborns who lack any meaningful chance of survival.” -Doug Kmiec (Can a Catholic Support Him? p. 65)

Kmiec, who has stated that he believes life begins at conception, is reduced to deciding which lives are “meaningful” and what lives are not in order to justify Barack Obama’s vote for policies that are tantamount to infanticide. While most people would consider the emergence of a living child from her mother’s womb to be a birth, Kmiec says that the mother ‘expels’ an ‘unborn’ child. The truth denied in this statement and in Obama’s vote is that every life is meaningful, no matter how brief.

Despair:

“I believe that we have lost the abortion battle-permanently.”  -Nicholas Cafardi

“Trying to change the law on this topic [abortion] is a bit of a fool’s game.” -Doug Kmiec

To say that the abortion battle is lost is to choose despair over hope. When William Wilberforce and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. fought the evils of slavery and racial discrimination, they faced what seemed to be insurmountable odds, but they had hope that truth would prevail in time. The pro-life cause has more than hope; it has won incremental but real victories. Through the passage of laws requiring parental notification, limiting partial-birth abortion, and protecting infants born alive, advocates of life have made real gains in reducing the number of abortions and building legal protections for life.

Distortion:

“Center for Disease Control statistics reveal that prosperity directly affects the abortion rate far more significantly than Republican rhetoric pledging to outlaw abortion.” – Nicholas Cafardi, Cathleen Kaveny and Doug Kmiec

While the professors provide no link to the study they cite, recent research supporting the unlikely idea that welfare reduces abortion more effectively than pro-life laws was shown to be flawed. Indeed, data taken from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute suggests that informed-consent laws and removing abortion subsidies has effectively reduced abortion and saved lives.

“Overturning Roe saves no lives in itself, but merely returns the issue to the states.” -Doug Kmiec (Can a Catholic Support Him? p. 80)

“Overturning Roe would not abolish abortion. It would just mean that abortion would be legal in some states and illegal in others. The number of abortions would remain unchanged as long as people could travel.” – Nicholas Cafardi

Beyond legal reform, there is much that can and should be done to reduce the incidence of abortion. Still, legal reform is critical to achieving the goal and is demanded as a matter of basic justice. Overturning Roe will rectify a profound constitutional abuse and pave the way to further reform through state and fededal legislation. Overturning Roe is critical to the project of saving lives and restoring our nation to its constitutional principles.