Counting the Cost of Electing a Pro-Abortion Candidate

Despite our acknowledgment that electing the first African-American president of the United States is a great victory for justice, love and human dignity, advocates of the Culture of Life have approached Barak Obama with trepidation. His voting record as a senator has been unrelentingly pro-abortion. His campaign promises to Planned Parenthood to pass FOCA and make “abortion rights” a primary issue of his presidency reinforced the perception that Obama would be the most pro-choice president yet elected to office.Even so, many Catholics voted for the Democrat candidate, claiming that their choice was more pro-life than a Republican vote (voting for a third party was rarely, if ever, mentioned as an option). Their claim was that Obama would stop the war and promote social changes that would make abortions less necessary. As I watched listened to the inauguration of our new president, observing the great celebration of “change” and “hope,” I couldn’t help but wonder. At what cost had my fellow Catholics caused our country to pay for this moment of euphoria?

The first installment of that payment has already come due. As fully expected of a Democrat president, Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy by executive order, despite his promise to govern from the center and to listen to opposing voices. This policy prohibited tax dollars from being used to fund abortions in other countries (especially to fund the United Nations Population Control Fund). Our tax money may now be used to kill unborn babies in the name of fighting poverty. This move is a strong statement that the way to fight poverty is to keep poor people from reproducing. It is also a sign that President Obama is going to be more of the same as far as Democrat government goes. President Obama claimed that rescinding the Mexico City Policy would “settle” a “divisive issue” and bring unity. What nonsense. All he has done is to tip the argument toward death and to enrage advocates of life.

In all fairness, we have to admit that most of the buzz about Obama advancing the Culture of Death has been based on what he might do in the future. Rescinding the Mexico City Policy is the only concrete action he has taken so far. However, this action seems to be an indication of things to come.

Also in fairness, we must admit that the news about President Obama is not all bad. He has made at least three decisions that I think show some wisdom. First, he has overturned President Bush’s order that prohibited the states from enacting stricter vehicle emission standards than the federal standards. This action by President Obama returns control of clean air standards to the states, showing perhaps an understanding of subsidiarity (though it could just be typical Democrat environmentalism). It will also force automobile manufacturers to make some necessary changes that market forces have been unable to bring about.

Secondly, President Obama called for the removal of the contraception funding that Nancy Pelosi added to the economic stimulus package. He did so in response to pressure form Republicans and form pro-life advocates, perhaps showing that he is willing to listen to opposing voices after all. There is hope here. However, I am suspicious that his decision was to fight this battle later. If I am right, we haven’t seen the end of the contraception funding issue. For now, though, we can count this decision in the president’s favor.

Thirdly, President Obama has built on President Bush’s idea of “Faith-based initiatives,” except that he has expanded it to include nonreligious social organizations. As long as he does not include faith-based groups, I fully support the change. Supporting community organizations is an effective way to care for people’s needs. Local organizations know the needs of their people better than the removed federal government. Once again it is a sign that President Obama understands the principle of subsidiarity.

Unfortunately, these good decisions pale in scope and weight compared to the funding of abortion abroad. Lives of innocent babies are not a cost I am willing to pay for two small good actions.

What about the lives saved by not electing the war-mongering Republicans? I argued during the presidential race that I did not think that any president could simply withdraw us from the war. So far, indications point to my judgment being correct. Obama made a largely symbolic gesture of closing the Guantanamo Bay prison (some would say more than symbolic, since those prisoners may now be brought to speedy trial and finally receive justice), but early indications are that the war is business as usual – as it almost has to be for the sake of strength in the war against terror and justice for the Iraqi people who would greatly suffer in a power vacuum.

My purpose in this analysis is not to promote a partisan criticism of President Obama. To narrowly focused conservatives, Obama can do no right. Just as President Bush could do no right to narrowly focused liberals (the claims that Bush ranks among the worst presidents in history are utterly ridiculous). I want to be sure to point out what our government does right as well as what it does wrong. However, where innocent human lives are concerned, it is important to keep careful watch. An otherwise good president who advocates the killing of innocent lives is not a good president.I have to wonder if pro-Obama Catholics are keeping track. In the end, what cost will they pay for their choice? Only time will tell.

[ad#seasonal]

Please Link to this article!

Does this blog post contribute to a discussion on your website? Help your readers find it more easily by linking to it on your web page or blog!

Like what you're reading? Share it with others on social bookmarking!

The Joy of the Truth