Obama: Friend or Foe of Faith?
I realize that many of my good friends, Roman Catholic, Anglican, evangelical, and others will not understand why I have chosen to try to find common ground with our President-Elect Barack Obama given his views on Roe v. Wade. Let me say very clearly that I disagree with Obama’s support of Roe v. Wade and his pro-choice position; however, I find disturbing the way in which Obama’s views on abortion have been misrepresented by well-meaning Christians. For example, the complexities of Obama’s reasoning for choosing to sign or not to sign Born Alive legislation have been flattened and presented in a way that paints his position in the worst possible light. If you examine Obama’s vote on this legislation, what you find is that the Illinois and Federal “Born Alive” legislation had different clauses added and that the two bills were not the same legislation, which is why e.g., NARAL did not oppose the federal legislation.
“Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.” [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]
NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal BAIPA Because of Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That’s Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, “We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There’s a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that’s born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them.” In a statement, NARAL said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year’s committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.” [CNN, 8/5/02; NARAL release, 6/13/01]
Chicago Daily Herald: Major Difference Between State And Federal BAIPA Was That “The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have Been Used To Challenge” Roe V. Wade. “Perhaps on no other issue is Keyes’ rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. Keyes repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring ‘infanticide’ because of Obama’s vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The failed measure would have required doctors to provide medical attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of abortion procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed through Congress. But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to hammer Obama with the “infanticide” charge virtually daily on the campaign trial. Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he’s “deeply offended” by Keyes’ assertion because he knows it’s false. Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on late-term abortions that Bush signed – but federal judges since have put on hold – and Keyes would have voted for it.” [Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04]”
Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother; the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]
Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should “Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “‘For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when ‘there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,’ an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes ‘it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’ And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique ‘most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus’ and perform the abortion in the presence of ‘a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.’” [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]
Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]” (http://polfeeds.com/item/Fact-Check-on-CNN-and-Bennet-s-Inaccurate-Claim-That-IL-Born-Alive-Legislation-Obama-Opposed-Was-the-Same-as-Federal-Legislation-He-Supported).
In his interview with Christianity Today, Obama said the following:
“Our goal should be to make abortion less common, that we should be discouraging unwanted pregnancies, that we should encourage adoption wherever possible. There is a range of ways that we can educate our young people about the sacredness of sex and we should not be promoting the sort of casual activities that end up resulting in so many unwanted pregnancies.
Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues. With significant constraints. For example, I think we can legitimately say – the state can legitimately say – that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health. Those provisions that I voted against typically didn’t have those exceptions, which raises profound questions where you might have a mother at great risk. Those are issues that I don’t think the government can unilaterally make a decision about. I think they need to be made in consultation with doctors, they have to be prayed upon, or people have to be consulting their conscience on it. I think we have to keep that decision-making with the person themselves” (italics added).
Again, let me state very clearly that I am not pro-choice and disagree with Obama’s emphasis on a woman’s decision in these matters; however, to call him a person who rejoices in killing babies and things of this sort is irresponsible and simply uncharitable. So many of the pro-life advocates who have been distributing mass emails, youtube videos etc. have failed to present Obama’s position in a fair light–they have often misconstrued the reasons why Obama voted for, against or present on various abortion legislation and failed to mention the ways in which he actively seeks to reduce abortions by improving prenatal, maternity and adoption resources and educating young people about the sanctity of sex. All the while these pro-life advocates close their eyes at the inconsistent pro-life position of McCain’s record. For example,
(1) “McCain chose not to vote on the Harkin Amendment to S. 1692 (1999), which intended to “To express the sense of Congress in support of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.” The amendment passed 51-47. Strangely enough, McCain did vote later that same day on other amendments to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000. Omitting to vote on particular amendments to this crucial piece of legislation certainly raises some questions as to the level of McCain’s commitment to voting pro-life.”
The National Right to Life Committee rates McCain as 75%, indicating that NRLC considers McCain’s record on abortion to “mixed” (i.e., they agree that his record is less than stellar on these issues).”
2) McCain stem cell research-McCain voted “yes”. (Vote number 2007-127 expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines on Apr 11, 2007 regarding bill S.5 & H.R.3 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, Results: Bill passed, 63-34).
On expanding embryotic stem cell research: McCain signed a letter from 58 Senators to the President urging him to “expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.” Source: Letter from 58 Senators to the President 04-SEN8 on Jun 4, 2004.”
(3) On repealing Roe v. Wade etc. see the the article, “McCain Softens Abortion Stance.” Here McCain states: “”I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary,” McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
Then as Media Matters reports, “McCain said in 1999 that he ‘would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade,’ but then issued a ‘clarification’ several days later, reportedly saying: ‘I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal.’ In 2005, he adopted yet another position, saying that he agreed ‘to some degree’ that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. In 2006, McCain also issued a statement indicating that if he were the governor of South Dakota, he ‘would have signed’ a controversial bill outlawing all abortions except when the life of the woman is threatened, but that he ‘would also take the appropriate steps under state law — in whatever state — to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included.’” As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted: ‘But that attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest.’”
From what I can discern (and there may be complexities that I am overlooking or am not aware of with regard to McCain’s reasons for voting on the above legislation), neither of the candidates exhibit a genuine and consistent pro-life position, so why choose to demonize one over the other? I respect those who voted for McCain, but I do not understand why fellow Christians believe it appropriate to call into question the sincerity of one’s faith for supporting Obama–especially when the person supporting Obama clearly states his/her disagreement with Obama on Roe v. Wade and his pro-choice stance and can give substantial reasons–reasons that include supporting Obama’s policies that do in fact promote a “culture of life” (his policies on healthcare, poverty, education, civil rights etc.)
In case anyone is interested in reading further on abortion and other related pro-life issues, I highly recommend Prof. Douglas Kmiec’s book, “Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama.” Prof. Kmiec is a Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University’s School of Law and has taught at The Catholic University of America and Notre Dame. Kmiec also served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. (For a taste Kmiec’s work, read, “A Catholic Brief for Obama“; however, the book presents his case in detail, bringing Obama’s polices into dialogue with JPII and BXVI writings on Catholic teachings on social justice). In his book, “Can a Catholic Support Him?,” Kmiec highlights an important distinction, based on a quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now BXVI), between formal participation in an intrinsic evil (e.g., voting for a candidate because they support abortion) and remote material particpation (e.g., voting for a candidate who does not share the voter’s view on Roe v. Wade, viz. that it should be reversed, and supporting that candidate for “proportionate reasons”–his/her other policies that do, e.g., promote a culture of life):
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, [and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion], if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons” (p. 30-31).
Other insightful, relevant and helpful (other-side-of-the-story) resources include:
1. Obama’s conversion story in his own words: “My Spiritual Journey” (Page six contains Obama’s “testimony”).
2. Obama on “The Office of Faith Based Initiatives.”
3. “Democrats Steps Toward Honoring Life in their Party Platform” D. Kmiec.
6. ***Obama “I am my brother’s keeper.”
7. A Pledge to pray for President-Elect Obama and hold him accountable for his promises.
Now that the election is over and the American people have spoken, can we Christians not work to find common ground with President-Elect Obama and support him in prayer–a prayer which includes not only a plea to change his heart regarding Roe v. Wade, but a plea to change our own hearts for being so consumed with ourselves and our own comfort that we, for all practical purposes, show little concern for the poor, those without healthcare, those born into abusive families, and those children who are re-abused as they pass from foster home to foster home?
*N.b. Again, I do not agree with Obama’s rationale regarding his decisions on the above legislation. I am merely attempting to more clearly articulate his position from his perspective on the issue. I also find a serious inconsistency with the idea that a physician’s moral commitment to provide full medical care for the unborn (what is referred to as “fetus” above) only applies once the baby manages to survive an attempted abortion