Winter Break WK #1: “Obama’s abortion conundrum”
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Washington Times Editorial
More than 60 groups supporting more accessible and readily available abortions for women and girls signed onto the First-100-Days policy plan. They ask for $700 million for programs under Title X (family planning) of the U.S. Code that includes abortions. They also want to strike a rule change at Health and Human Services that went into effect Aug. 26. It prohibited states and other recipients of federal funds from penalizing heatlh-care workers who refuse to provide abortions because of religious or moral beliefs or risk losing federal funding. The rule change came after Catholic Charities’ hospitals in California were forced to provide abortions. Pro-choice groups cried foul when abortion was defined as a “form of contraception,” the same code language that state governments were using to force hospitals to provide them in the first place.
The groups also want Mr. Obama to do away with the “global gag rule” that prohibits foreign recipients of U.S. family planning aid from using their own funds to provide abortions or advocate for laws and policies supporting them. Perhaps the greatest overreach is that associated with the groups’ request that Mr. Obama eliminate “abstinence-only” education programs. Mr. Obama should take note here that such programs were authored and funded by his Democratic predecessor, President Clinton, and remember his own statement to Iowa voters: “I’m all for education for our young people, encouraging abstinence until marriage.”
While many Democrats and Republicans are removing abortion litmus tests for appointees and judges, the policy paper encourages Mr. Obama to only “nominate individuals who, in addition to meeting the requirements of honesty, integrity, character, temperament, and intellect, demonstrate a commitment to justice, civil rights, equal rights, individual liberties, and the fundamental constitutional right to privacy, including the right to have an abortion.”
Mr. Obama was largely hesitant to talk about abortion throughout the campaign. It seems he had good reason to be apprehensive. Pro-choice groups want to pull out all the stops, and their wish list has no bounds – the policy paper even calls for more funding for the U.N. Population Control program. We are always more interested in which populations they decide need controlling and why.
Mr. Obama may not have wanted to talk about abortion during the campaign. But the campaign is over. He must not bow to pressure and lift restrictions on abortion. Pro-life Americans voted for him too.
I don’t think Obama should lift the ban on penalizing doctors who don’t want to do abortions. However, beyond doctors and nurses, no one else should get to play the religion card and say it’s against their principles. The problem with letting some people not do abortions is that someday some healthcare provider will think that it doesn’t have to pay for abortions. The fine line there needs to be bold. Obama should do away with abstinence-only education. It is a waste of money. If parents want their children not to have sex before marriage, let parents do abstinence education. In the real world, children need to be taught the things that will keep them from getting STDs and getting pregnant, assuming that, at some point, they will be having sex out of wedlock (not that wedlock keeps people from getting STDs, which is why all kids, not just the ones without pro-abstinence parents, need to get sex education). Obama can do whatever he wants when he appoints judges. I hope that he appoints pro-choice judges, but Obama’s been elected and it’s out of our hands. The UN Population Control should get more funding. It is attempting to keep a ton of kids from being born into poverty, which is a completely vicious circle that is near impossible to escape from. I don’t think the person who wrote this editorial has in mind the good of very many people.
Connection: This “global gag rule” about foreign recipients of US family planning aid not being able to provide abortions or advocate policies with their own funds sounds like a violation of the first Amendment: “no law abridging the freedom of speech or the right of people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
This article seems a tad presumptuous, there are more ’shoulds’ regarding what the President-elect will do regarding abortion than I think are necessary. First off, from my own personal research, abstinence-only education doesn’t work. There has been study after study after study, and it is comprehensive sex education that stem the spread of sexual diseases, pregnancy, and even the percentages of teenagers having sex. It doesn’t matter what President authored the abstinence-only programs, what matters is that it is legislation that funds something ineffective. Who wouldn’t be complaining about a military spending bill that ending up manufacturing guns that misfired 50% of the time. Nobody would keep that bill around for long. Large portions of this article’s argument are highly opinionated (it is an opinion piece after all). Of course Obama shouldn’t simply cave to pro-choicers, he also shouldn’t cave to pro-lifers who don’t him listening to pro-choicers. Both groups are going to vie for their own selective interests, and it’s unlikely that either one will have the influence they want. Issues like abortion take a back seat to other topics, but Obama has stated an opinion on abortion already. He believes people have the right to them, but they should not be frequent. Whether we see change or not is based on one teams perception of the legislation. Here we see a touch of irony to this situation. Both groups, not just the pro-choicers, “want to pull out all the stops, and their wish list has no bounds.” They want to see their particular little utopia come into being, and it’s severely doubtful that their efforts will change anything. We’ll see though.
Connection: Single-issue groups- These are groups that are primarily concerned with a solitary policy issue. Both pro-choice and pro-life groups are centered around abortion as a policy issue.
I could go on and on about this subject but I won’t. (Why is won’t a contraction? What are the two words? Sorry, I just thought of that.) It would be ridiculous to force people to provide abortions. I personally want to go into pediatrics. I will NEVER provide abortions. Even if it became a law I would not perform abortions. I have a right to decide which operations I perform in my office and so do the thousands of doctors and hospitals who will not perform abortions. The law clearly says murder is wrong. So I would be following the older, more accepted, law and breaking the unconstitutional law. We are given many, many freedoms in America but murdering unborn children should not be one of them. As to the claims that abstinence only doesn’t work, it works for a certain group of people. Many Christians grow up in homes that teach abstinence only and these same homes have no problems with their children having children at young ages and before marriage. I was never involved in sex-ed, Dare, or Health and Fitness classes. I was taught and truly believe that my body is only for my husband. I will be at no risk to need an abortion because I have chosen to remain a virgin. I also don’t believe that anyone that have qualities of “honesty, integrity, character, temperament, and intellect” can also be pro-abortion.
Connection: The litmus test was mentioned in the article and also pertains to the changes happening in America. Abortion is a big issue and should remain one of the big items that is looked at when considering candidates. It is a matter of life and death : literally.
I have very mixed feelings about abortion. While I feel that it should be a woman’s right to choose what she wants to do with her body, I’m afraid that people are going to start using it as a form of birth control. There are some very legitimate reasons for having an abortion, but there are plenty of people out there that are going to abuse abortion, and think that they don’t have to make an attempt to be safe, because they can just go out and get an abortion. This country definitely needs to get rid of abstinence only sex-education. Kids need to learn all the facts so that they can be safe. If parents want to teach their kid to wait till they’re married, then they can do that. It is their right as the parents, but kids don’t always listen to their parents. And because of that, they need to know all the facts so that they can make informed decisions. Abortion should not be illegal though. If you say that it should be banned are you saying that a woman that gets raped, and unfortunately gets pregnant, has to have the baby? If you were in that situation, would you want a constant reminder of what happened to you? I cannot answer that for you, but I can answer it for myself, and I know that I would want to be able to have some sense of control over what I do with my body.
Connection: This article has a lot to do with interest groups. More specifically, single issue interest groups. There is no common ground on abortion, and the two different sides are probably never going to compromise on anything. There way is the only way that it can be, and they will never see eye to eye.
Obama should not lift the ban on penalizing doctors who don’t provide abortions because of their religious beliefs. I think the pro-choicers are being a bit hypocritical. They are clamoring about rights and about freedom of choice; however, if what they say is true, then it is the doctors’ right to say “no” because of their religious beliefs. No matter what the abortionists say or believe, they cannot be selective about it and have “expceptions” to their own rule.
I also don’t agree how the policy paper insists that Obama only nominates people who support abortions. I am not saying that he should solely nominate people who don’t support abortions either – if anything, he should nominate a group with mixed beliefs for the sole purpose of not alienating his constituents. While no one will be completely “pleased”, they can’t truly complain.
As for the “abstinence-only education”… Obama certainly is in a conundrum. He can’t feasibly support other options if he stated that he supports abstinence until marriage. People will remember what he said. They can use his own words against him. And early in his presidency, he can’t afford to be called a hypocrite.
Connection: Single-Issue Groups
The people who wrote the policy-paper are obviously part of a “single-issue group” because they are simply advocating one issue. They are not concerned with politics itself, but their main issue, abortion. In addition to this, they are characteristically unwilling to compromise, as they ask Obama to nominate only those who support their beliefs.
That is good that doctors and medical staff are not getting penalized for refusing to give abortions. Personally, I could never perform an abortion but if there are doctors willing to do it that’s their own thing I would not force my own beliefs onto someone that just is not right. I guess in the world of freedom of speech it has its good side and bad side. On the good side people can voice their opinion which could sway certain things that people disagree with across the board. On the bad side people can say whatever they want to even if they are forcing beliefs onto people. People should have a right to do as they please as long as it is legal. Even though education is a very strong influence it can’t always prevent people from making the wrong decision. I know abortion is a very sensitive topic to people and that’s understandable. An abortion is not comforting or pleasant but people have a right to speak freely. I think that there really should not be big restrictions either way so both sides of it can do what they want. And it isn’t like getting an abortion isn’t a choice you’re not forced one way or another and these arguments are ridiculous. Bottom line is people shouldn’t push their beliefs onto others but it sounds good but will never work.
Connection: The litmus test which basically determines who wins an election based on their stance on abortion and what they do depending on their Obama inbetween a rock and a hard place because he never really talked about it during the campaign.
In Response to Alena
Alena I completely agree with you. The ban should not be lifted, but the religion card should not be played besides with doctors and nurses. Ordinary people can make the decision to be for or against abortion and play the religion card, but if that gets into businesses it could be a mess. Just picture it…a woman is applying for life insurance and the insurance agency sees on her records that she has had an abortion and then they deny her. (Okay so that might be a little out there, but you see my point.)
Abstinence education does need to be done away with. I agree with Alena, it is a waste of money. If teenagers want to have sex, they will despite what an adult or video told them. The abstinence education needs to come from the home. It is the parents’ responsibility, not the governments.
Obama should be very careful when appointing judged. Alena this is the only area I kind of disagree with you about. While Obama can do what ever he wants and he could nominate all pro-choice judges, it wouldn’t be a very smart move for his political career. There needs to be a balance because Pro-Lifers help him get elected.
In response to Rachel Damiano (Sorry, Rachel, you and I will always be arguing I think):
I agree with you that no one should be forced to abortions by law. No one should be forced to do anything by law, unless such a person has committed a crime. Then law has a duty to punish them. Otherwise, I believe in freedom. However, if you go into pediatrics, it is highly unlikely you would be in a position to do an abortion, whether you would or no. Teenagers get 19 percent of abortions, but, as a pediatrician, the patients in your age range (typically people under the age of 15) would only account for 1.2 percent of abortions worldwide.
As for abstinence-only education, it’s not responsible to kids. Abstinence-only education might work for you, but a study was conducted that stated that half of kids who get abstinence-only education will have sex before they are 18. More than a third of them had more than one partner, and most of them, while knowing (regardless of their abstinence-only education) that a condom can keep them safe from pregnancy and STDs, did not use condoms. That’s not good enough for me. I think that society can do better, and, therefore, it is society’s duty to do better.
Some, despite their parents’ beliefs, will not believe that their “body is only for my husband.” Between 30 and 50 percent of men will have extramarital affairs in their lifetime. 20 to 40 percent of women will have extramarital affairs in their lifetime. Whether one is married or not, knowing how to protect one’s self from STDs is a worthwhile endeavor to undertake. It’s not about morality. It’s about reality.
In response to Jordan Yaeger: I kind of agree with you and I kind of don’t. I agree with you that people should have the freedom to choose to do abortions in their office or not. I do not advocate forcing people to do abortions or forcing them not to do them. Now, for all you people who just said, “Ha, Rachel just contradicted herself,” let me explain. It would be against the foundation of the United States to force people not to give abortions while abortion is legal. I think abortion should be illegal and then people would not be allowed to perform them because they would be against the law. As to pushing one’s beliefs on others; are not you forcing your beliefs on others when you say they should not force their beliefs on others? Repetitive, I know, but it is true. If I believe that someone should be able to “push” or explain their beliefs to others and someone tells me that that same person can’t push their beliefs on others, are they not forcing their belief of not forcing their beliefs on others on me? Let me explain further. A teacher tells a student, “You can’t force your beliefs on other classmates or me.” The student replies, “Isn’t that what you’re doing when you tell me I can’t do it?”