A Congressional aide told Dan Gilgoff that the White House is leaning towards supporting the Pregnant Women Support Act, which aims to reduce abortions by providing support to low-income pregnant women.

"I don't want to get in to reading the tea leaves on the White House's position or strategy for this issue, but I would call their interest in the Pregnant Women Support Act significant," the aide told him.

Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission endorsed the bill sponsored by Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) and Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA), which would, among other things:

* Establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support during and following their pregnancy;
* Fund collection of accurate data on abortion;
* Provide child care to low-income and student parents;
* Provide parenting education in maternity group homes;
* Make the Adoption Tax Credits permanent;

The White House has met with several groups in recent weeks to attempt to find "common ground" on abortion, emphasizing reducing "the need" for abortion.

Gilgoff asks a great question: "Why reduce the number of women seeking abortions if there's nothing wrong with the procedure?"

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at June 10, 2009 | Comments (5)

As activists and journalists try to make sense of George Tiller's murder, some are trying to link the pro-life movement with the killing while others are trying to separate the two.

"People have a right to disagree about abortion, but it's impossible to separate today's tragedy from the violent language that has been directed for years at doctors like George Tiller," a statement from People for the American Way states. "Those who have inflamed emotions and dehumanized their opponents around the issue of abortion should take pause before they continue such dangerous rhetoric."

The L.A. Times responds by saying that Tiller's killing should not be exploited for political gain.

"It's unfair to ask antiabortion activists to muffle their message because it might inspire an unbalanced individual to commit an atrocity," the editorial concludes.

Claremont McKenna College professor Jon Shields wrote a piece for Christianity Today's site on the relationship the pro-life movement with its radical fringe.

Both the radical and moderate wings of movements strangely drive one another in a cycle that is simultaneously vicious and virtuous. We can only hope that imprisoning Tiller's killer will put an end to abortion-related murders, and that Tiller's death will encourage the pro-life mainstream to redouble its commitment to civility and public reason once again.

On a slightly separate note, James Kirchick argues in The Wall Street Journal why the Religious Right can't be compared to Islamist extremists.

As for conservative Christians' contemporary political endeavors, lobbying to ban the teaching of evolution in schools or forbidding same-sex marriage simply does not threaten society in quite the same way as the genital mutilation of young girls or the bombing of the London transit system.
...the Christian right's responsible reaction to the death of George Tiller should put to rest the lie that Judeo-Christian extremists are anywhere near as numerous or dangerous as those of the Muslim variety.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at June 3, 2009 | Comments (39)

George Tiller, one of the few doctors to perform late-term abortions, was shot to death today in a church in Kansas.

Tiller, 67, was shot in the lobby of Reformation Lutheran Church, where he was a member. According to the Wichita Eagle, he was serving as an usher at the church and handing out bulletins to people going into the sanctuary minutes before being shot. A 51-year-old male suspect was arrested about three hours later.

The New York Times offers more background on Tiller.

Dr. Tiller, who had performed abortions since the 1970s, had long been a lightning rod for controversy over the issue of abortion, particularly in Kansas, where abortion opponents regularly protested outside his clinic and sometimes his home and church. In 1993, he was shot in both arms by an abortion opponent but recovered.

He had also been the subject of many efforts at prosecution, including a citizen-initiated grand jury investigation. In the latest such effort, in March, Dr. Tiller was acquitted of charges that he had performed late-term abortions that violated state law.

Several pro-life groups have issued statements condemning the killing.

Family Research Council

As Christians we pray and look toward the end of all violence and for the saving of souls, not the taking of human life. George Tiller was a man who we publicly sought to stop through legal and peaceful means. We strongly condemn the actions taken today by this vigilante killer and we pray for the Tiller family and for the nation that we might once again be a nation that values all human, both born and unborn.

Susan B. Anthony

The Susan B. Anthony List condemns this anti-life act in the strongest of terms. The heart of the pro-life movement is one founded in love. Without this driving powerful center no justice can possibly be achieved. Authentic progress in women’s rights has always encompassed the protection of human rights of every person across the board. The rights of one human being can never be honored by diminishing or ignoring the rights of another.

David Cry of the Associated Press writes that anti-abortion leaders fear backlash.

Many anti-abortion groups condemned the killing of Tiller, a prominent abortion provider who was shot dead at his church in Wichita, Kan. But they expressed concern that abortion-rights activists would use the occasion to brand the entire anti-abortion movement as extremist.

They also worried that there would now be an effort to stifle anti-abortion viewpoints during questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Her exact views on abortion aren't known, but conservatives fear she supports abortion rights.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at May 31, 2009 | Comments (56)

President Obama addressed abortion for the first time since his election during his speech to Notre Dame graduates today.

“So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term,” Obama said to applause.

“I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away,” Obama said. “No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.” He called for a respectful debate with “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words.”

Obama re-told his conversion story of how he worked as a community organizer with church members. "I found myself drawn – not just to work with the church, but to be in the church," he said. "It was through this service that I was brought to Christ." Obama also noted his African American race and the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

Here are some clips edited by the Associated Press:

Here's a video from Politico where a person in the audience starts to heckle Obama:

The full text of Obama's prepared remarks continue after the jump.

Thank you, Father Jenkins for that generous introduction. You are doing an outstanding job as president of this fine institution, and your continued and courageous commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.

Good afternoon Father Hesburgh, Notre Dame trustees, faculty, family, friends, and the class of 2009. I am honored to be here today, and grateful to all of you for allowing me to be part of your graduation.

I want to thank you for this honorary degree. I know it has not been without controversy. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I’m only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that’s better. Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers on how to boost my average.

I also want to congratulate the class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame, I mean both in the classroom and in the competitive arena. We all know about this university’s proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world – Bookstore Basketball.

Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year’s tournament, a team by the name of “Hallelujah Holla Back.” Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the “Barack O’Ballers” didn’t pull it out. Next year, if you need a 6’2” forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you are today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare – periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.

You, however, are not getting off that easy. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and the world – a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It is a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations – and a task that you are now called to fulfill.

This is the generation that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before this crisis hit – an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day’s work.

We must decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. We must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity – diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family.

It is this last challenge that I’d like to talk about today. For the major threats we face in the 21st century – whether it’s global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease – do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground – recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” – is not easy. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man – our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education you have received is that you have had time to consider these wrongs in the world, and grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, men and women of principle and purpose, can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website – an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”

Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that – when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do – that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Understand – I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. The lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where “…differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father Jenkins in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony.

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago – also with the help of the Catholic Church.

I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help – to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn – not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads – unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, “You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched minds and hearts.”

My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I’d like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

You are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You will be called upon to help restore a free market that is also fair to all who are willing to work; to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or someone who simply insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communications than have ever existed before. You will hear talking heads scream on cable, read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and watch politicians pretend to know what they’re talking about. Occasionally, you may also have the great fortune of seeing important issues debated by well-intentioned, brilliant minds. In fact, I suspect that many of you will be among those bright stars.

In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule – the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame – by the last count, upwards of 80% -- have lived this law of love through the service you’ve performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. That is incredibly impressive, and a powerful testament to this institution. Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn’t just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens – when people set aside their differences to work in common effort toward a common good; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another – all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African-American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. the Board of Education. Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the “separate but equal” doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God’s children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the twelve resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of the commission. It included five whites and one African-American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. They worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. Finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame’s retreat in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin, where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

Years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered that they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away. Life is not that simple. It never has been.

But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God’s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations on your graduation, may God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at May 17, 2009 | Comments (37)

A new Gallup poll suggests that for the first time in more than 10 years, more Americans are calling themselves pro-life than pro-choice when asked about abortion.

More Republicans increasingly calling themselves pro-life, a shift from 60 percent to 70 percent, while there was no significant change among Democrats. The poll conducted May 7-10 suggests that Catholics and Protestants are also becoming increasingly pro-life.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center also suggested that fewer Americans support legalized abortion, but the survey did not use language like "pro-choice" or "pro-life." In that survey, 46 percent of Americans supported legalized abortion while 44 percent said it should be illegal. Both surveys suggests a shift in abortion views, but it's unclear whether the words pro-life or pro-choice effected the Gallup poll outcome.

A separate poll conducted by CNN April 23-26 suggested that 49 percent of Americans consider themselves pro-choice while 45 percent of them consider themselves pro-life.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at May 15, 2009 | Comments (5)

CatholicVote.org, which received praise and panning for its "Imagine" video, has just put together a new offering as part of its "Life: Imagine the Potential" campaign. Organizer Brian Burch says the Fox network has agreed to air the ad during the finale of "American Idol." Like "Imagine," this one is well worth your 60-second investment.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at May 8, 2009 | Comments (12)

Citing the University of Notre Dame's decision to host President Obama at its May 17 commencement ceremony, former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican Mary Ann Glendon has declined to accept the school's prestigious Laetare Medal and to speak opposite Obama at commencement. In a letter sent this morning to Notre Dame president John Jenkins, Glendon, a pro-life Harvard Law School professor, writes:

"A commencement . . . is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision — in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops — to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice."

The "settled position" Glendon mentions is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' 2004 request that Catholic institutions “not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” Glendon also expresses concern that Notre Dame's decision could set off a "ripple effect" among U.S. Catholic universities.

President Jenkins released a brief response Monday: “We are, of course, disappointed that Professor Glendon has made this decision. It is our intention to award the Laetare Medal to another deserving recipient, and we will make that announcement as soon as possible.”

Glendon's entire letter is below. See Francis Beckwith's response to Notre Dame's decision here, and Richard Mouw's and David Dockery's responses here.

April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame

Dear Father Jenkins,

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,

Mary Ann Glendon

Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things, she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at April 27, 2009 | Comments (7)

The House Foreign Affairs Committee took a turn today when Reps. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about abortion.

Smith asked why she had recently praised Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, according to Emily Belz at World.

Smith: Sanger was an unapologetic eugenicist and racist who said “the most merciful thing a family does for one of its infant members is to kill it.” And said on another occasion, “eugenics is the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

Clinton didn’t respond to the Sanger quotes at first, but later in the hearing when questioned again on the matter, she said in all humans (she used Thomas Jefferson’s slave holding as an example) “there are things we admire and there are things we deplore.”

Smith asked whether the administration would be promoting abortion in places like Africa, under the umbrella of “reproductive health.”

Clinton: We happen to think family planning is an important part of women’s health - and that reproductive health includes access to abortion….We are now an administration that protects the rights of women including the rights to reproductive health care.

Inglis asked Clinton why she didn’t condemn forced abortions on her trip to China. “They heard me say it already,” she said, referring to a trip 14 years ago.

Inglis: Don’t we have to speak with moral authority when we engage countries like China?
Clinton: Yes, we certainly do. It is a broad engagement that we have with large and complex countries. There is always and must be a moral dimension to our foreign policy.
Inglis: When you’re in China next, I hope you’ll speak to these issues.

Farah Stockman at The Boston Globe reports that Clinton was also asked about torture.

Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, repeatedly asked Clinton whether the administration would declassify documents that former Vice President Dick Cheney has said paint the CIA interrogators in a more heroic light and show the important information produced from the interrogations.

Clinton said she had no knowledge of such documents. "It won't surprise you that I don't consider him a particularly reliable source," she said, to some laughter.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at April 22, 2009 | Comments (0)

Adding more fuel to the fire, President Obama's health secretary nominee Kathleen Sebelius received nearly three times as much money from an abortion doctor than she disclosed, according to the Associated Press.

Sebelius has already angered conservatives for her pro abortion stances. She told the Senate Finance Committee that she took money from from George Tiller, a late-term abortion provider, who was acquitted last month of charges that he performed 19 illegal late-term abortions in 2003.

She told the committee that she received $12,450 between 1994 and 2001 from Tiller. But Erica Werner at the AP reports that Tiller gave at least $23,000 more from 2000 to 2002 to a political action committee while Sebelius was state insurance commissioner so she could raise money for Democrats.

The Finance Committee was expected to vote this month on forwarding Sebelius' nomination to the full Senate. There was no immediate indication from committee Republicans that her omission on the Tiller contributions would upset that timing.

The anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, which is opposing Sebelius' nomination, circulated the campaign finance documents showing the discrepancy in what Sebelius told senators. The records were reviewed Monday by the AP and their accuracy was verified by the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission.

Senators raised the issue of abortion only in written questions submitted to Sebelius after her hearing. Last week, Sebelius told the Senate that she does not anticipate issuing new abortion regulations if she is approved.

“I am personally opposed to abortion, and my faith teaches me that all life is sacred,” she said. “I have tried to reduce unwanted pregnancies and thus curtail the need for abortion.”

(h/t Mark Hemingway)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at April 13, 2009 | Comments (1)

Leaders from several prominent conservative Christian groups met Tuesday with the head of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships to discuss ways to reduce abortions.

Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright sought the meeting with Joshua DuBois, executive director of the revamped White House office.

"It was cordial and there's an opportunity for future meetings," Wright said after the meeting, which lasted more than half an hour. "He did seem interested in the kinds of programs that are helping women and children."

Conservative Christian groups have criticized the Obama administration for early policy actions such as opening federal funding to embryonic stem cell research and international family planning groups, and moving to rescind conscience protections for health care workers.

Wright, who called the freedom of conscience "fundamental to the American way of life," said she brought up the conscience issue with DuBois and several White House staffers who attended the meeting. They also discussed programs that encourage men to be good fathers.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment. When the overhauled office was announced in February, the White House said its four target areas would be to poverty reduction, abortion reduction, responsible fatherhood and fostering interfaith dialogue with world leaders.

After DuBois agreed to the meeting in early March, Wright invited representatives of other conservative Christian groups to join her. A total of five people attended from Family Research Council, the Christian Medical Association and Care Net, a network of pregnancy centers that encourages women to continue their unexpected pregnancies.

Kristin Hansen, spokeswoman for Virginia-based Care Net, also said she hopes there will be additional meetings.

"We were grateful for the opportunity to sit down and dialogue," she said. "We are grateful that reducing abortion is a priority for this administration. ... It was a good atmosphere of listening on both sides and we hope to do it again."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at March 25, 2009 | Comments (3)

Even though her job description focuses on foreign affairs, Hillary Clinton will participate in a domestic political event to receive an award from Planned Parenthood Friday night.

"The 2009 Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Margaret Sanger Award, the organization’s highest honor, will be presented to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been a champion of women’s health and rights throughout her public service career," according to the release.

Politico's Ben Smith says it signals a "continuing the Obama administration's forceful, if understated alliance with abortion-rights groups."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at March 25, 2009 | Comments (1)

At First Things, Keith Pavlischek writes:

Jim Wallis has announced in a public interview:

Making abortion provisions part of healthcare reform will kill healthcare reform. . . There are a number of people who believe this is an issue of deep moral conviction and conscience and there are firewalls that if they are breached will really destroy common ground.

"You have to know a little bit about Wallis to understand why this might be important. This past weekend, the New York Times has reported that President Obama has carefully cultivated relationships with at least five influential ministers—all described as evangelical “centrists”—for private sessions of prayer and occasional political advice. One of these is Jim Wallis. As Joe Loconte says in his Weekly Standard article, “Obama’s Prayer Warriors”, the label “centrist” is not entirely accurate."

Posted by Stan Guthrie at March 19, 2009 | Comments (7)

President Obama wants to reduce the "need for abortion", but one of his cheerleaders David P. Gushee published a column with USA Today titled, "Mr. President, we need more than lip service":

"Mexico City, conscience clause, Sebelius, embryonic stem cells. In each case, I have been asked by friends at Democratic or progressive-leaning think tanks not just to refrain from opposing these moves, but instead to support them in the name of a broader understanding of what it means to be pro-life. I mainly refused."

David Gibson calls Gushee's column "buyer's remorse."

Christian conscience requires me to make this case even if it has no chance of prevailing in American society. And if we lose on abortion, as it appears we will lose for a long time to come, Christian conscience requires me to ask the government not to require citizens to pay for procuring services that violate their sacred beliefs.

... And if we lose there, then the entire relationship between religious faith and American society will move into a period of profound crisis.

President Obama, we need more than lip service on these crucial issues. Bring the transformational change your promises led us to hope for.

Gushee isn't the only one dealing with frustration. Frank Page, a member of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships' council, said he hasn't been pleased with some of Obama's policies.

"At this point I would have to say I have been very frustrated that what little protections there are for the unborn have been quickly and systematically removed," Page told the Baptist Press. "So that has very discouraging. I have been somewhat encouraged that he has promised that he would not force someone -- a health-care worker, for example -- to be involved in an abortion if he or she should object on a conscience basis. But other than that, there has been the removal of protections and policies that would have protected the unborn."

Joshua DuBois, director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, will meet with evangelical groups, including the Family Research Council and Concerned Women of America in an effort to find some common ground, Congressional Quarterly reports. Guessing from FRC and CWA priorities, the discussion will likely revolve around abortion.

Update: Eric Gorski has a helpful roundup on how Christians are optimistic but disappointed about Obama's recent moves.
Focus on the Family's CitizenLink writes that Samuel Rodriguez is also disappointed.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at March 18, 2009 | Comments (8)

RNC Chairman Michael Steele is creating a big fuss after his interview with GQ where he said women have the right to choose abortion.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

Politico's Ben Smith reports that Steele put out this statement:

I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.

I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my mother had a "choice" before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue.

But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law.

Charmaine Yoest, the president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action responded:

"I think it is very troubling for a public figure, of either party, particularly one who presents himself as pro-life, to describe the abortion issue as being a matter of 'individual choice,'" That is language straight out of Planned Parenthood's messaging playbook," Yoest said she hadn't heard from the RNC. "There are millions of pro-life Americans, Republican and Democrat, who are looking for leadership on the life issue and they will find Mr. Steele's comments disturbing and demoralizing."

Steele also called homosexuality and individual choice, but his comments on abortion are taking the most heat.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.
I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at March 12, 2009 | Comments (19)

In the fight over whether to confirm Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services, traditional pro-lifers will focus on Sebelius's views on late term abortion and other legal restrictions.

Interestingly, pro-life Democrats have continued with an argument they began raising during the campaign: that what matters is not whether one supports legal restrictions but whether one reduces the number of abortions. Catholics United, a liberal pro-life group has launched a pre-emptive strike praising her for cutting the abortion rate by 10%.

Pro-life progressives pushed this line during the campaign, earning both the mockery of traditional pro-lifers and, apparently, the votes of some pro-lifers (a surprising number of whom voted for Obama.)

Here's the rub: abortion rates seem to be most influenced by economic factors. Abortions go up during hard economic time. That means the number of abortions will likely go up under Obama. If Democrats set up abortion reduction as the standard, what will they say if the numbers go up under Obama?

UPDATE: Abortion seems to be shaping up as a big element in the Sebelius fight.

Operation Rescue here attacks her links to the "abortion cartel"

Faith in Public Life and other pro-life clergy praises her for reducing the number of abortions in Kansas

(Originally posted at Steve Waldman's blog at Beliefnet.)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at March 2, 2009 | Comments (2)

President Barack Obama has taken another step in advancing his pro-choice agenda. The Chicago Tribunereports that today, the new administration "will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health-care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs."

Last month, Obama overturned the Mexico City policy, which prevents taxpayer money from going to groups that provide abortions overseas. The conscience protection that Obama seeks to overturn has stood for more than 30 years.

Supporters say the change is necessary to protect women's health.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has reported cases such as that of a Virginia mother of two who became pregnant because she was denied emergency contraception. In Texas, the group said, a rape victim had her prescription for emergency contraception rejected by a pharmacist.

Supporters say the rule protects doctors who should not be forced to prescribe treatments such as birth control pills or the so-called morning-after pill.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at February 27, 2009 | Comments (8)

The North Dakota House approved a bill that would define a fertilized human egg as a person, and The Washington Times reports that a Senate vote could come as early as next week.

Valerie Richardson writes that last year, personhood ballot measures in Colorado and Montana were defeated, but five states — Alabama, Maryland, North Dakota, Montana and South Carolina — have introduced personhood legislation. The bill doesn't necessarily have full support from those you might expect, though.

Conspicuously absent from the debate was North Dakota Right to Life, which neither supported nor opposed the bill. The nation's largest and best-known pro-life group, Right to Life has disagreed in some instances with the personhood movement over tactics and strategy.

Paul Maloney, executive director of North Dakota Right to Life, said he worried that the bill's wording may not measure up to legal scrutiny and added that he was consulting with the organization's attorneys before taking a position.

The North Dakota bill states: "For purposes of interpretation of the constitution and laws of North Dakota, it is the intent of the legislative assembly that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a reference to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism with the genome of homo sapiens."

"It's always a good time to challenge Roe v. Wade. But you have to be intelligent about it," Mr. Maloney said. "The last thing you want to do is go with a poorly worded personhood bill, have it defeated and then destroy your chance of overturning Roe."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at February 25, 2009 | Comments (2)

Brian Burch of CatholicVote.com says CNN has rejected the group's "Imagine" ad for broadcast during the president's State of the Union address next Tuesday. Previously NBC rejected the video, which links the pro-choice Barack Obama with a strong pro-life message, for airing during the Super Bowl. Executives at both networks cited concerns with the content of the ad: NBC that it doesn't run issue ads during the Super Bowl, and CNN because the ad suggests that Obama is pro-life. In an e-mail today to supporters, Burch disputes CNN's conclusion:

This is absurd. Our ad does not suggest that Barack Obama is pro-life. Instead, our ad presents nothing but facts. President Obama, like every human being, began as an unborn child. Because he was born, he was able to become the President of the United States.

CNN and others simply don't like the obvious conclusion of our ad - there was no ‘choice' for abortion back in 1961. Thankfully, we had laws then safeguarding unborn children -- laws that protected the life of a future president who tragically is unwilling to fight for those same protections today.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at February 20, 2009 | Comments (13)

Pope Benedict XVI lectured House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the "dignity of human life" at a private meeting today, a decidedly less cordial reception than is frequently given many
U.S. leaders.

Pelosi, D-Calif., describes herself as an ardent Catholic but raised eyebrows last year by saying "doctors of the church" disagreed on when life begins and that abortion "continues to be an issue of controversy" in the Catholic Church.

The comments earned her a public scolding from a number of U.S. bishops, who said the church has believed abortion is wrong since the first century.

The wording of a Vatican statement suggests she received another reprimand from the pope over her support for abortion on Wednesday.

"His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law," the statement read, "and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Conservatives were already nervous that a papal photo-op would enable Pelosi, and other Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, to say that Catholics can reject church teaching on abortion and remain in good standing.

Instead, the Holy See used the encounter to make its disapproval clear, releasing an official statement on what was discussed – a relatively rare step, especially when the visitor is not a head of state.

Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, had earlier said the only photo she wanted to see was one of Pelosi "in the confessional line."

But after the pope's stern rebuke, Brown said she hopes U.S. bishops will be more willing to deny Communion to abortion-rights politicians like Pelosi. "We encourage our bishops and priests to emulate the same courage exhibited in Rome," she said.

In her own statement Wednesday, Pelosi made no mention of the papal lecture.

"It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with his Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI today," she said. "In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father's dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel."

The papal reception for Pelosi was notable for its contrasts with the warm welcomes given to former President George W. Bush, who shared the Vatican's "culture of life" ideology even as he rejected church overtures not to invade Iraq.

Yet it would have been hard for Benedict to snub Pelosi altogether without straining diplomatic relations with the United States, since her position puts her second in line to the presidency after Vice President Joe Biden, also a Catholic who supports abortion rights.

Pelosi, whose grandparents were Italian immigrants, is on a week-long tour of Italy with fellow lawmakers. Included in her delegation is Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who has led an effort among Catholic Democrats in the House to create room to disagree with the church on abortion.

DeLauro recently spearheaded a letter to the pope from nearly 50 House members, asking for "clarification" on why the pope lifted the excommunication on a schismatic bishop who not believe 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at February 18, 2009 | Comments (15)

I was recently telling a Democratic friend about Obama's abortion balancing act. One day he repeals the Mexico City "gag rule" delighting pro-choice activists. The next week he seems intent on making it up to pro-life voters, announcing that one priority of a new faith-based council will be reducing the need for abortion.

My friend interrupted and said, "why should we care about appeasing the pro-lifers? We won."

The first reason, I said, is because Obama promised.

But then I thought about the word "we." Obviously my friend was making a realpolitick assumption that his side, the Obama coalition, was almost entirely pro-choice. But is that really true?

No. Pro-lifers made up a meaningful percentage of Obama's winning coalition. Professor John Green of University of Akron, czar of all religion-and-politics polling, reports that based on not-yet-released survey conducted in December, about a quarter of Obama's vote came from pro-lifers, defined as people "wanting serious restrictions on abortion, but not necessarily a full ban on abortions." What's more, Green will report, about one third of young voters who went for Obama are pro-life.

These findings comport with Beliefnet's own less scientific user survey.

Now obviously, pro-choicers made up an even bigger portion of his coalition. But pro-lifers comprised a surprisingly big minority.

As a point of reference, this would mean that pro-lifers made up a bigger percentage of Obama's vote than....union members, white Catholics, Jews, gays, Latinos or 18-21 year olds.

As a good Democrat, you'd never think of being so cavalier with those groups, why would you blow off the pro-lifers?

The strong showing comes in part because Obama improved with Latinos, evangelicals, Catholics, and regular church-goers. Obama doesn't have to act on abortion right away -- most of Obama's religious voters care more about the economy than abortion -- but he also shouldn't think that he can abandon his abortion reduction promises without political consequences.

(Originally posted at Steve Waldman's blog at Beliefnet.)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at February 12, 2009 | Comments (22)

Lawmakers in 12 states are considering bills that would offer or require ultrasounds before a woman gets an abortion, the Associated Press reports.

The states include Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Americans United for Life has state-by-state analysis and recently ranked states based on abortion laws (informed consent, parental involvement, provider requirements), recognition of the unborn (fetal homicide, born alive infant protection), bioethics (cloning, stem cell research, in vitro fertilization), end of life (assisted suicide), right of conscience clauses (healthcare providers and insurers can opt out of abortion).

Best States
1. Pennsylvania
2. Louisiana
3. South Dakota
4. Oklahoma
5. Mississippi
6. Texas
7. North Dakota
8. Nebraska
9. Arkansas
10. Indiana

Worst States
50. California
49. Hawaii
48. Vermont
47. New Jersey
46. Connecticut
45. Nevada
44. Oregon
43. New York
42. Washington
41. Illinois

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at February 9, 2009 | Comments (2)

President Obama signed an executive order called the "Mexico City policy," which reverses a ban on funding international groups that provide abortions.

Ronald Reagan first implemented the policy that prohibited the U.S. from funding programs that offer abortion overseas. Bill Clinton reversed the policy in 1993 while George W. Bush restored it in 2001.

The Associated Press writes, "Obama signed it quietly, without coverage by the media, late on Friday afternoon, a contrast to the midday signings with fanfare of executive orders on other subjects earlier in the week."

Abortion opponents are sending their outraged press releases while progressives are essentially saying "at least he didn't do it yesterday."

Charmaine Yoest, President & CEO of AUL Action: "What a terrible way to begin a new administration: with an abortion business bailout that will exploit women in developing countries for political ends. We should not export the tragedy of abortion to other nations, and we certainly shouldn't do so via the hard-earned dollars of American taxpayers."

Jim Wallis of Sojourners: "I am encouraged that President Obama’s first action on abortion was to release a statement supporting a common ground approach to reducing abortion, even as he also reiterated his policy of supporting legal choice. Even more significant was his decision not to issue an executive order rescinding the 'Mexico City policy' on the day of the anniversary of the Roe decision and the annual March for Life."

Obama has spoken several times on the desire to reduce unintended pregnancy, but he reiterated his support for Roe v. Wade yesterday on the Supreme Court decision's anniversary.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at January 23, 2009 | Comments (24)

Washington -- Abortion opponents had the luxury of having a president on their side for eight years in a row. That changed two days ago.

President Obama was a major theme during today's March for Life, where tens of thousands of people gathered on the National Mall and made their way to the Supreme Court on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Several participants held signs with references to President Obama, like "The audacity of hope: overturn Roe." One sign called for the Catholic church to excommunicate pro-abortion candidates, and several of the signs advocated for people to fight the Freedom of Choice Act.

Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the new house Republican Conference Chairman, was one of the first speakers at the rally. The event is annual, but this year is different. Pence, an outspoken Christian, said that the challenge this year was to encourage abortion opponents who may be discouraged about recent elections. Here was more of our conversation today:

Does a new administration change the significance of the March for Life?
I think so, although as I said today, the abortion movement seems to be gathering strength in Washington D.C., life is winning in America. As I said from the podium every day, every hour, compassion is overcoming convenience, life is defeating despair and hope is defeating a lifetime of regret.

The march comes off of the inauguration. Does that make a difference?
I think it does. I’ve spoken at eight previous marches for life. This is my ninth, and in all of the previous eight, we’ve been celebrating pro-life victories in the ballot box, either for the presidency or for Congress. But in the recent years, now the challenge is to encourage people who may be discouraged by the outcome of recent congressional elections and the presidential election. What I sought to do from the podium is to assure people that the men and women who are gathered there and the pro-life minority in congress will continue to labor on behalf of the sanctity of life.

We will continue to fight to oppose any effort to use taxpayer dollars to promote abortion at home or abroad. I said we are going to defend Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy, and I introduced legislation that would deny federal funding to any Planned Parenthood of America. The largest abortion provider in America should not be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X.

The Mexico City Policy would be an executive order that would rescind in effect the prohibition of foreign aid going to organizations that promote or perform abortions. That would be profoundly disappointing to millions of American taxpayers, including many pro-choice Americans who still don’t think we should be using tax dollars to subsidize abortions.

Do you think Obama will push for The Freedom of Choice Act?
We think it’s a very real possibility. I take President Obama at his word and in the middle of his last campaign he said it was his desire to sign the Freedom of Choice act as one of his first official acts. So we’re prepared to take the battle to the American people.

Do you think Obama presidency could galvanize the pro-life movement or be more discouraging?

If anything, the fact that we’ve had a pro-life president the last eight years and for most of that time had pro-life majorities in Congress has probably bred a certain amount of complacency. But now, with expanded abortion rights majorities in Congress and the most pro-abortion president in America’s history in the White House, I believe it will galvanize millions of pro-life Americans to become politically active and turn the tide for life.

How does this march compare to previous marches that you spoke at?
The crowd was immense. The thing I’m most proud of is that Congressman Chris Smith told me moments ago there was the largest turnout of House Republicans in his memory. We had roughly 20 members of the House of Representatives there today. I expect he’s made about 36 of these marches in his life, so that was a great encouragement to me.

Obama has talked about reducing number of unintended pregnancies. Is that encouraging at all?
Well we heard the language of safe, legal, and rare during the 1990s from a president who rescinded the Mexico City policy and oversaw a pro-abortion administration. We’ll take a wait and see approach. We hope President Obama will pursue policy that will mitigate abortion, but we’ll remain determined that the only way forward is to elect a pro-life majority to the House and the Senate, elect a pro-life president and send Roe v. Wade to the ash-heap of history where it belongs.

Photo courtesy of Mike Pence's office.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at January 22, 2009 | Comments (4)

Oh my insensitivity:

This year, for the first time, Planned Parenthood of Indiana is offering holiday gift certificates for that certain someone in your life who may want a breast exam, a pap smear or perhaps not want another life in their life.

Calling them an “unusual yet practical gift this holiday season,“ the organization is selling gift certificates in $25 denominations, redeemable at any of the group’s 35 statewide locations for their services, including health screenings, birth control and abortion services.

A Planned Parenthood website page notes that a standard women’s health exam costs $58 while abortions in the first trimester can run from $350 to $900.

There’s even an online page to order the certificates if you know someone in Indiana who desires such services.

According to Ms. magazine, an official of the Hoosier Planned Parenthood group explained:

“People are making really tough decisions about putting gas in their car and food on their table, so we know that many women especially put healthcare at their bottom of their list to do.“

I’m speechless. Really. This is the most mindblowing marketing maneuver I have ever heard of.

Your comments are welcomed.

(Originally published at The God Blog.)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at December 3, 2008 | Comments (14)

California completes the trend nationwide: abortion ballot measures lose, marriage measures win.

Both were tight: with 92 percent of the ballots counted, California's parental notification measure failed by less than 500,000 votes (out of nearly 10 million).

Proposition 8, which revokes same-sex marriage, is even tighter, winning by 363,639 votes (a 3.6 point margin). This is going to be a huge story today, since it's the first time that a state has barred same-sex marriage after allowing it.

Not close at all was California's measure regulating livestock confinement, which passed by almost a 2-to-1 margin.

Posted by Ted Olsen at November 5, 2008 | Comments (10)

Voters in Colorado and South Dakota failed to pass two anti-abortion initiatives, MSNBC reports.

As CT previously reported, Colorado's amendment 48 would have amended the state constitution to define "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization."

South Dakota's initiated Measure 11 would have barred abortion, except if the mother's life is at risk, and in cases of rape or incest. A 2006 abortion ban also failed.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at November 4, 2008 | Comments (1)

Should he win, Obama will need to early on figure out how to get out of a political straight jacket of his own making: on abortion. His challenge will not be traversing the political parties but two Democratic constituencies who both worked hard for him and want very different things.

For the last few months, pro-life progressives have pushed hard the idea that Obama would help reduce the number of abortions through common ground efforts to help women avoid pregnancy or carry babies to term.

One group ran ads in battleground states explaining that Democrats could reduce abortion more than Republicans. Another argued against banning abortion as imprtactical and said abortions could be reduced if policies provided medical and financial care that would help women "choose life."

Pro-life progressives have publically assured voters that Obama would be committed to reducing the number of abortions.

On the other hand, Obama said early in the campaign that his first act as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, a fairly radical bill that would wipe out state abortion restrictions. Pro-choice groups have worked hard for Obama, too, and take that commitment seriously.

How will he bridge that gulf?

(Originally posted at Steve Waldman's blog at Beliefnet.)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at November 3, 2008 | Comments (9)

The New York Times published an article today that shows how President Bush's 61 court appointment have affected decisions that include abortion and the First Amendment.

Charlie Savage writes about how doctors in South Dakota challenged a law that required them to inform women that abortions “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being.”

In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit voted 7 to 4 to allow the statute to take effect, the majority arguing that it is objectively true that human life begins at conception, and that the state can force doctors to say so.

Savage also includes a case about how a city in Utah had placed a monument of the Ten Commandments in a public park, but rejected a request to place the “Seven Aphorisms of Summum” in the same park. Judge Michael W. McConnell argued that it should be fine for the city to accept only the monument whose message it favored.

According to the article, a Barack Obama victory could create a Democratic majority by 2013; If John McCain wins, Republicans could have majorities on all 13 circuits.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at October 29, 2008 | Comments (1)

John McCain and Barack Obama poked fun at themselves and each other at the Alfred E. Smith dinner, an annual charity event of the Catholic archdiocese of New York.

The speeches are really fun to watch as the candidates turned off their jabbing tones.

At one point, McCain said, “… maverick I can do, but messiah is above my pay grade.”

On a more serious note, McCain praised Smith for his pro-life stance. "Your comfort for the sick and needy, your belief in the dignity of life, especially your gallant defense of the rights of the unborn. I'm proud to count myself as your friend and ally.”

Obama followed McCain's messiah mention with, “Contrary to the rumors that you've heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jor-el to save the planet earth.”

Update: The Boston Globe's Michael Paulson notes that John Kerry was not invited to the same event in 2004 because he supports abortion rights.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at October 17, 2008 | Comments (10)

A few years ago it looked like opposition to gay marriage was going to equal or surpass abortion as the ultimate wedge issue - a device capable of defeating Democrats in all but the most-liberal districts.

And yet consider this:

-The topic didn't come up in Tuesday's debate
-There's not been a single McCain-Palin ad on gay marriage.
-John McCain did not mention it in his acceptance speech at the Republican convention.
-Sarah Palin did not mention it in her convention acceptance speech, either.
-Of the 57 speeches listed on McCain's Web site, I couldn't find a single mention of the gay marriage issue.

What happened?

For starters, the topic has less currency because there are fewer referendums on state ballots. While 11 states considered ballot initiatives in 2004, only three are this year. That means fewer campaign dollars and volunteer hours focused on the issue.

More important, public opinion has shifted. Social issues in general have become less important to voters as the economy has worsened. The new Twelve Tribes study by Beliefnet and the University of Akron, showed that percentage of people listing moral issues as most important is now half what it was in 2004.

But that's just part of the explanation. After all, abortion is getting significant attention. The Catholic bishops, for instance, have been far more vocal opposing abortion than gay marriage. It's not like social issues have completely disappeared.

Rather, while the public hasn't much changed its views on abortion, it has on gay rights. For instance, in 2004 48% of "Convertible Catholics" supported civil unions or gay marriage. In 2008, 61% do. Among Moderate Evangelicals, the percentage was 33% in 2004, 42% in 2008.

Just as important, young people have starkly different views on gay issues than their parents. Most surveys show this but it's particularly striking among evangelical Christians, who are just as anti-abortion as their parents but significantly more supportive of gay rights. The Barna Group asked "born again Christians" if they believed that "homosexual lifestyles" are a "major problem" The results show a stunning shift by age:

Age
18-41 -- 35%
42-60: -- 52%
61+: -- 71%

With support for gay marriage or civil unions rising, conservative politicians have to be careful where and how they push this issue.

Though McCain approved a Republican platform that called for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, he routinely contradicts that view by saying he wants it left up to the states. When McCain and Palin do discuss their opposition to gay marriage it's now usually accompanied by a statement of tolerance towards homosexuals.

Political strategists realize there are still large numbers of people who view gay marriage as a major threat. But now, candidates must appeal to them without alienating moderates or younger voters.

Since abortion seems to work just as well as ever among culturally conservative voters like moderate evangelicals, they figure: stick with that.

Adapted from Steven Waldman's "Political Perceptions" column at the Wall Street Journal Online.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at October 8, 2008 | Comments (11)

Remember back to the Republican primaries, when Mike Huckabee campaigned as a new kind of evangelical candidate, adding issues like the environment, education, and poverty to the hot-button agenda of God, guns, and gays?

That big-tent Huck seems to be in much shorter supply now. An email the Arkansas governor just sent out soliciting donations for his political action committee--whose beneficiaries include John McCain and Sarah Palin--asks fors $5 for each of these five red meat issues:

1. Protection of Human Life 2. Traditional Marriage 3. Tax policy that doesn't punish people for working, but rewards them 4. 2nd amendment rights 5. Supreme Court and Federal Court judge selection

Is this more evidence that the "new kind of evangelical voter" story has been overplayed? Or just that Huck is changing his tune a bit?

(Originally posted at Beliefnet's God-o-Meter)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at October 7, 2008 | Comments (7)

At the Saddleback Forum, Obama boasted, accurately, about how he'd stuck a sentence into the Democratic platform encouraging support for women who wanted to take a baby to term instead of having an abortion. Pro-life progressives hailed that sentence as a great victory and sign that he might be able to win over moderate evangelicals and Catholics with this new "third way" approach.

Then, the first abortion ads put out by the Obama campaign, didn't mention abortion reduction.

Last week, they put out a second abortion ad, this one trying to deal with the charge that Obama supports infanticide. They had two different (not mutually exclusive) ways they could have gone: Show themselves to be abortion moderates by emphasizing abortion reduction, or show McCain to be an anti-abortion extremist by emphasizing the Republican platform. The Obama campaign chose the second path. Again, no mention of abortion reduction.

Meanwhile, I picked up a copy of the Obama campaign's "Plan to Renew America's Promise." Though it mentions reducing unintended pregnancies, it dropped the sentence about helping women carry babies to term.

My uninformed theory on what's happened:there was always a tension for them between two goals: 1) appealing to pro-choice moderate women and 2) appealing to pro-life moderate evangelicals and Catholics. They've now concluded:

Winning moderate evangelicals is hopeless and, it turns out, centrist Catholics just dont care all that much abortion. Given that, it makes more political sense to reach out to those pro-choice women.

Of course this obviously leaves them open to charges that they didn't believe in abortion reduction all that much in the first place.

(Originally posted at Steve Waldman's blog at Beliefnet.)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at September 22, 2008 | Comments (15)

André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, is worried about Sarah and Trig Palin. Here's The Globe and Mail:

[Some Canadians] fear Ms. Palin's emergence as a parental role model sends a different message. As a vocal opponent of abortion, Ms. Palin's widely discussed decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same, according to André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.

Dr. Lalonde said that above all else, women must be free to choose, and that popular messages to the contrary could have detrimental effects on women and their families.

"The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada," he said.

In other words: If your unborn child is diagnosed with Down Syndrome, you should abort, lest another mother see evidence that the child is a blessing and be influenced to keep her own unborn Down Syndrome child.

Fortunately, Krista Flint, executive director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society, counters such nonsense: "We know overwhelmingly the message families get is 'Don't have this baby, it will ruin your life,' and I don't think people would look at Sarah Palin and see a ruined life. Regardless of politics, I think it's a good example."

Unfortunately, it's Lalonde rather than Flint who's more likely to be counseling women when they get back their prenatal screening for Down Syndrome.

Posted by Ted Olsen at September 11, 2008 | Comments (7)

No comments on abortion from Sarah Palin tonight (at least according to the prepared remarks; she's speaking now). But it sure came up a lot tonight from the podium.

"America's hope is in a seasoned, strong leader in this dangerous world ... a President who knows in the core of his soul that human life begins at conception," said Texas Railroad Commission Chairman Michael Williams.

Mike Huckabee had a similar comment: "It is not above John McCain's pay grade to grasp the simple fact that human life begins at conception, and he is committed to protecting it."

And GOP Chairman Michael Steele told the crowd, "John McCain knows we must empower working families and stand with them against the erosion of our constitutional rights, the corruption of our school systems, the weakening of our families and the taking of human life - born and unborn."

Posted by Ted Olsen at September 3, 2008 | Comments (12)

The choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has all sorts of interesting political implications, which are being diced and parsed as I write. But I’m more interested in the long-term cultural implications of the choice of Palin, whether the McCain–Palin ticket wins or loses in November, for one of the most vexing horizons of impossibility in our culture: the abortion rate among unborn babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome.

Upwards of 85 percent of parents who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome elect to terminate the pregnancy, according to several studies in the peer-reviewed journal Prenatal Diagnosis. A 1999 British study in that journal found the termination rate to be between 91 and 93 percent. When I was a teenager in the 1980s, I remember seeing many people my age and younger who had the distinctive facial and behavioral characteristics of Down children. These days I rarely see a Down Syndrome child at all.

What is peculiar about Down Syndrome as a reason for termination is that, plainly put, you rarely meet a Down Syndrome “sufferer” who is notably unhappy. The condition has a range of manifestations, some more disabling than others, but many, many persons with Down Syndrome thrive as children and adults, even if they may not have the same range of capabilities as you or I do.

The fact that this syndrome has become a reason for termination is evidence of the terrible power of culture. A culturally neutral artifact (prenatal diagnosis of congenital diseases) combined with a culturally tragic artifact (elective abortion) begins to make it plausible that parents should avoid the challenges and risks of a Down pregnancy by ending it. The decreasing number of children born with the condition begins to make it more difficult to imagine that “normal” families can absorb the stresses of raising such a child, and undermines public support for public programs that support families who have made that decision. Which, over time, makes carrying a Down Syndrome baby to term ever more inconceivable, leading to increased rates of termination, leading to decreasing plausibility . . . until one day the burden of bringing a Down Syndrome child into the world is seen as so grave that less than 10 percent of parents take the risk.

But Sarah and Todd Palin have done it. I cannot think of any other public figures in my adult life, at least of the prominence they are about to enjoy or endure, who have made this decision. They will cause many, many families to reconsider the horizons of the possible. Their public example could very well lead to a cultural sea change—a dramatic shift in the “horizons of the possible.” That phrase from my book is no metaphor. Those horizons are so real that, for a future generation of children and their parents, they are quite literally a matter of life and death. For this reason, which utterly transcends politics and this year’s election, the sudden prominence of the Palins is, in the deepest sense, an extraordinary act of public service.

(Cross-posted from Andy Crouch's Culture Making.)

Posted by Ted Olsen at August 30, 2008 | Comments (43)

I'm just watching on TV. Sarah Pulliam is actually at Invesco. But it sure seemed like the abortion line got a lot of applause.

Posted by Ted Olsen at August 28, 2008 | Comments (2)

Not a lot of God talk in Obama's speech tonight, but there will be talk about abortion, same-sex marriage, and traditional values (as well as a promise to "end our dependence on oil from the Middle East" in ten years). From the prepared remarks:

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past. For part of what has been lost these past eight years can’t just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose - our sense of higher purpose. And that’s what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America’s promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that’s to be expected. Because if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

Posted by Ted Olsen at August 28, 2008 | Comments (13)

Congressman Dan Lipinski of Illinois finds it very challenging to be a pro-life in a party that unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade. He is one of 17 Democrats given 100 percent pro-life rating by the National Right to Life Committee, and we spoke at a Democrats for Life reception earlier this evening.

What obstacles do you face as a pro-life Democrat?
It’s always a difficult issue for a pro-life Democrat, because the Democratic Party is not going to have a pro-life platform. It’s not going to happen. It’s very unfortunate, but I think it’s very important for the Democratic Party to have pro-life party. As some of my pro-life Democratic colleagues say, it’s no use preaching to the choir. You have to go out and evangelize. We just have to keep working on fellow Democrats. It’s a tough position to be in. I think the party from the top and leadership has been much more open to pro-life Democrats. Unfortunately, there are still some groups really trying to get rid of pro-life Democrats. I had a tough primary. I people come up to me and ask me, ‘what are you doing in the Democratic Party?’ The pro-choice groups gave funding to my opponent.

Why are you a Democrat?
I believe in so much of what the Democrats stand for, basically standing up for middle class families, for working people. I believe the government does have a role in some important areas of our society, helping to protect the environment, helping to protect workers, seniors. I think there are some places where they should be involved and I think it’s much better with the Democratic Party than with the Republican Party. But it’s not easy being a pro-life Democrat. So t’s not easy in the Democratic party. I have a lot of a pro-life constituents, too.

Why are you pro-life?
Because I believe life begins at conceptions. It comes from my faith as a Catholic. I don’t think it’s the only place that it comes from. Ever individual has to make a decision about when life began. Why draw a line somewhere else? We were all once an embryo. With the proper conditions, the natural conditions, I think an embryo becomes a child. That’s where we all started from, and that is where I think the line should be drawn. I think drawing lines in other places leaves room for where do we draw that line? I believe in the sanctity of life and it’s something I feel very strongly about.

I truly believe that the Democratic Party, especially now, has a better view of the future and where we should be going, but it’s not perfect. I’m willing to, when I think the Democratic Party is wrong, I’m willing to say it. I’m willing to speak up and willing vote for what I think is right.

What about Barack Obama?
I wish Barack Obama were pro-life. He’s not. I don’t have any expectation that in the future the Democrats are going to have a pro-life presidential candidate. Its disappointing to me, but I am a Democrat and will support the party.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 28, 2008 | Comments (21)

Reader Fred Tennedy writes:

"how can you not realize that the Democratic plank is more pro-abortion than it has been? Any "pro-lifers" who think they are getting even a crumb are truly deceived!"

I think that for pro-lifers the platform was one step forward, one step back. The step forward was language promoting policies that will help make it easier for women to carry a baby to term. The step back was the strengthened advocacy for Roe v. Wade and (arguably) the loss of the "safe, legal and rare" language.

But I will say this: I've never seen so many pro-life Democrats being given platforms to speak. The opening interfaith service featured a vivid declaration against abortion by the lead speaker, Bishop Blake. The official DNC Faith Caucus panel featured a strong speech from former Rep. Tim Roemer advocating a 95% reduction in abortion. Bob Casey, the son of the man who was blocked from the 1992 convention for his pro-life views, had a prime time speech last night (though not about abortion). There's a Democrats for Life event later today, and Catholics in Alliance just released an interesting study making the case for a Democratic-style abortion reduction agenda.

Now, none of this will mean much if Obama himself doesn't get fully behind this (especially given the controversy over the Born Alive bill). He made some positive comments about it at the Saddleback forum. The next test will be whether the campaign actually issues a plan for reducing abortions and whether he and Biden push the idea more persistently.

This article is cross-posted from Steve Waldman's blog at Beliefnet.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 28, 2008 | Comments (1)

A couple of the people involved with Democrats for Life went a couple of blocks over and cut potatoes at the Denver Rescue Mission for a dinner for the homeless.

Earlier this afternoon, the group met to talk about ways to preserve life from conception to natural death.

The Rocky Mountain News has an update on the state's plans for the homeless.

The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless ditched plans to hand out 500 movie tickets and to visit the Denver Zoo, museums, and other cultural centers.

"But the DNC plan caused a public flap, and a volunteer told the Rocky in July that it 'sounds like another way to get rid of them,'" Denise Malan writes.

Malan writes that the coalition is hosting a lunch and three events this week to register homeless people to vote and to raise awareness about homeless issues.

Photo of Kristen Day, President of Democrats for Life, by Sarah Pulliam for Christianity Today.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 27, 2008 | Comments (0)

Rep. Heath Shuler spoke with me about the Democratic platform on abortion for about 40 seconds after the Democrats for Life Forum.

Shuler is a pro-life Democrat and a new Congressman from North Carolina.

"Obviously reducing the number is very important. There are other issues that I have a lot of difficulty with.

But I think with the panel we have today, and what I feel the influence of the blue dog members – Lincoln Davis and Bob Casey – we can strengthen that.

My hope is to say that within the platform of the Democratic Party, there is diversity and that we do have people who are pro-life."

Photo by Sarah Pulliam for Christianity Today.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 27, 2008 | Comments (1)

The Democrats for the Life event turned into mostly a couple of speeches on taking care of pregnant women.

Sen. Bob Casey from Pennsylvania drew a crowd of media behind him, but his speech did not not really address abortion.

A few of Casey's remarks: "One area where I think we can bring both sides together, in my judgment, the only way we can bring sides together is to come together on a central priority ... and that priority is pregnant women. What our government and society should do is show solidarity with a woman who is facing a crisis pregnancy. If the law of the land is that a woman has a choice to make, that she has a constitutional right to have an abortion. We ought to also make sure that she has the choice to carry that child to term."

Rep. Heath Shuler, a Baptist from North Carolina said, "The Democrats have it right when it comes from birth to natural death. Whether or not women have access to health care, that’s pro-life. We have to make sure all children, unborn or throughout the entire life, that they can count on Congress on this issue."

Rep. Lincoln Davis, a Southern Baptist from Tennessee, spoke on the reduction of abortion.

“It is a blessing to know that at least for the first time our Democratic platform … has made abortion reduction as a major part of the platform,” Davis said. “We need to start giving assistance to those ladies … who see no hope other than abortion.”

Photo of Casey by Sarah Pulliam for Christianity Today.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 27, 2008 | Comments (8)

New research shows that women who live below the poverty level are more than four times likely to have an abortion than women above 300 percent of the poverty level.

The study was released by the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good today. Alexia Kelly, executive director for the organization, presented the results to about 50 people who showed up for the Democrats for Life event this afternoon.

Three-fours of the women cited having a job, child care, or education as a factor for having an abortion, Kelly said.

The study of the U.S. 50 states from 1982 to 2000 finds that benefits for pregnant women such as employment, economic assistance to low-income families, quality child care and removal of state caps on the number of children eligible for economic assistance in low-income families has reduced abortions. However, permitting Medicaid payments for abortions increased the abortion rate.

Joseph Wright, a political science professor at Penn State University, and Michael Bailey, a American government professor at Georgetown University conducted the study.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 27, 2008 | Comments (3)

I'm about to go into the Democrats for Life event where pro-choice Democrat Bob Tuke & pro-life Democrats Sen. Bob Casey and Rep. Lincoln Davis will speak.

I ran down to the convention center to look for examples for some of the abortion protesters I've seen holding megaphones and posters of bloody babies.

Instead, volunteers for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice were handing out stickers with the slogan "Pro-Faith, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice!"

I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but their event is almost at the exact same time as the Democrats for Life group.

Photo by Sarah Pulliam for Christianity Today.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 27, 2008 | Comments (3)

Shaun Casey, a professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary is coordinating evangelical outreach for Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign. As he walked to a meeting, we spoke about how the religious outreach at this convention is different from 2004.

"It’s completely different in the sense that there were only sort of side groups talking about religion, and here it is the party itself at the heart of what it’s doing. That’s a radical departure.

What did you think about the interfaith service?
You heard a variety of views, clearly no screening of the speakers. You heard a variety of positions taken and embraced. It showed the diversity of the Democratic Party and its openness to evangelicals, there were mainliners. It was an accurate reflection of the diversity of the party.

What do you think about the Democratic platform on abortion?
It’s something that evangelicals ought to take quite seriously that the Democratic Party has made a commitment to reducing the number of abortions without reverting to criminalization. Based on my conversations with evangelicals, I think that resonates, I think a lot of evangelicals find that attractive, they find that helpful and hopeful, and it’s a reflection of who Sen. Obama is.

Barack Obama’s sympathetic, he’s open to evangelical voices, he’s serious about global poverty, domestic poverty, global climate change. I think a lot of young evangelicals will find that very, very attractive."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 26, 2008 | Comments (13)

Sen. Bob Casey barely mentioned abortion during his speech tonight at on the floor of the Democratic National Convention.

In 1992, former Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey Sr. wanted to discuss his opposition to abortion but was denied a speaking slot. His son barely touched on the subject in his speech tonight.

"Traveling around Pennsylvania, and looking around this room, I have no doubt that is exactly what we're going to do. So now let us work together, with a leader who, as Lincoln said, appeals to the better angels of our nature. Barack Obama and I have an honest disagreement on the issue of abortion. But the fact that I'm speaking here tonight is testament to Barack's ability to show respect for the views of people who may disagree with him."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 26, 2008 | Comments (3)

Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr's landing a prime time speaking slot at the Democratic convention is another step in the party's campaign to burnish its image among pro-lifers. Casey's dad, then-Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, was famously denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic convention because of his pro-life views. Casey Jr. called God-o-Meter to talk about his role at the convention and to give a little preview of tonight's speech:

Many pro-life Democrats were pushing for the opportunity for you to speak at the convention because of what it would represent symbolically, since your father was famously denied a speaking role at the 1992 convention over his pro-life views. Were you pushing for a speaking slot for that same reason?

We were invited to speak by Senator Obama's campaign and were grateful for the opportunity. But when you're in your first 18 months in the Senate, you shouldn't expect it. So I didn't ask.

Did your father's experience color your own reaction to learning that you'd been accorded a speaking role during prime time?

Everybody remembers 1992, but I also have memories of the 1988 convention, when [my father] did speak about the economic struggles our state had. So I think about more than one convention. What happened in 1992 is something people are talking about, the subject of a lot of discussion, but it's important to look ahead and not just recollect about the past.

Does your inclusion on tonight's speakers' lineup send a message that the Democratic Party has changed on abortion?

The fact that I'm speaking is really a testament to Senator Obama's willingness to reach out to people who disagree with him even on important issues. It's emblematic of his ability to put coalitions together on an issue and to bring all sides together. He's not just talking about that, but acting.

Do you see signs that pro-life voters are getting that message?

It's hard to tell. A lot of what will come before voters between now and Election Day. Most of the hard work of a campaign like this and most of the weighing that voters do when they decide who to vote for will come after the convention. That's the real decision period and the time for the really hard work.

How did you decide what you're going to speak about in your limited time tonight?

I'm speaking with about ten other governors, about the economy and about what I know about Barack Obama personally and about his ideas and his personality. That'll really be the focus of almost every speech at the convention. And also trying to bring people together. If Democrats are going to make the case that they can bring the country together, it's important to bring our party together.

Will your speech address the life issue, which is what many in the party identify you with?

Yes, it will. But it's mostly a night and an opportunity when we've been invited to focus on the economy and frankly what a lot of folks are struggling with in Pennsylvania. But certainly not only that. There's been a lot of discussion about '92, but there is an obvious disagreement I have with Senator Obama and we want to make sure that people understand that difference of opinion.

One of the things that's missing in this important debate in American politics is candid and honest talk about disagreements and an honest effort to try to find common ground. It's much easier to say you don't agree with someone and to continue fighting and discontinue the dialogue. It's much harder but it's important to be honest and show respect for others that we disagree but to actually work to bring the sides together.

One way to do that, and neither party has done enough on this, is to be very supportive of pregnant women. And the Pregnant Women Support Act is the only vehicle and the best vehicle to do that. It's a challenge to the left and a challenge to the right and helps not only bring the sides together but provides affirmative options for women. When a woman becomes pregnant, for most women that's a time of happiness and joy and they look forward to bearing a child. But to some it's a crisis because they don't have the economic wherewithal and the support they need. And a lot of women feel all alone and we don't do enough to show solidarity with them. As Pope John Paul II said, we should show radically solidarity with the woman facing these challenges. This piece of legislation is the one vehicle in American government for bringing the sides together and for providing women with options.

But is Senator Obama supporting it?

He's spoken about it. I have gotten to know him on the campaign trail and he spoke about the concept when he was at Rick Warren's church. So I believe he will be supportive. We have not talked directly about the bill but it's something I will be discussing with people in both parties. It's going to take a lot of work.

Also check out God-o-Meter's interview with Senator Casey in the run-up to the Pennsylvania primaries in April.

This article is cross-posted from Beliefnet's God-o-Meter.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 26, 2008 | Comments (2)

Susan Thistlewaite, president of Chicago Theological Seminary, spoke at the first faith caucus and said, "I’ve been a pastor for 30 years, and I’m in favor of choice." One person shouted "Yeah!" and a few people clapped.

She then said she was in favor of a women being able to terminate a pregnancy if the other choice is not having health care or being able to provide adequate education.

A man stood up and yelled, "Are you saying it’s convenient to murder a child? Does that child have a choice?"

He was ushered out before she finished.
"I am proud of our Democratic platform because it is innovative on common ground," Thistlewaite said. "What kind of a choice can you make if you have no pre-natal care? Common ground for common good means you are not alone."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 26, 2008 | Comments (4)

All of the buzz today is on Hillary Clinton's big speech tonight (and, to a lesser extent, Bill Clinton's speech tomorrow night).

But this is also a fascinating night at the Democratic podium for a several other reasons. First, this is the night of Bob Casey Jr.'s address. It's an important symbolic moment because of the decision in 1992 to deny then-Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey Sr. a speaking spot at the convention. Casey had wanted to talk about his opposition to abortion. Some suggest that the invitation to Casey Jr. demonstrates a Democratic Party that's more open to prolifers. Others say he's not as prolife as his father was.

It's unclear whether Casey will talk about abortion, but a few hours before his speech you'll almost certainly hear the subject come up as Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards addresses the convention. A big difference: Casey is speaking in prime time. Richards is on around 4 p.m. (Casey also has a much better slot than Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, Casey's opponent in the tumultuous 2002 primary race for governor. Reckon that has more to do with Casey's strong support for Obama over Rendell's major backing of Clinton than it does with either's views on abortion.)

Another speech tonight that could be more conservative or more religious than usual: that of Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. The United Methodist minister did very well among evangelicals in 2006.

Mara Vanderslice and Eric Sapp won't be speaking tonight, but their presence will be felt. Their old organization, Common Good Strategies, is credited with helping Strickland, Casey, Kansas Gov.Kathleen Sebelius, and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm -- all of whom are speaking tonight -- win election in 2006 by emphasizing their religious backgrounds. All the podium is missing is Sen. Sherrod Brown (Oh.) and Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.), but if they did that they'd probably have to make one of those video tributes to Vanderslice. (Vanderslice is now with the Matthew 25 Network. Sapp is at the Eleison Group.)

Posted by Ted Olsen at August 26, 2008 | Comments (3)

Evangelicals like Jim Wallis and Joel Hunter quickly praised the new Democratic platform on abortion a month ago, but Archbishop of Denver Charles Chaput is not impressed. This is what he told me tonight at the vigil in front of Planned Parenthood.

“I think [the Democrats] committed themselves without any doubt to choice on the matter of abortion, and I don’t think that’s a start.

I think caring for women who want to have their children is essential. That’s a given. That isn’t a step in the right direction, that’s where we should all be standing from the beginning.

I stand with that with great enthusiasm, but it doesn’t distract me from the fact that platform still allows for abortion and the destruction of unborn human life.

“Bishop Charles Blake did a marvelous service for all of us, and especially to the Democratic Party. He reminded us in the midst in social justice, one of the most important social issues is the protection of human life.”

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 26, 2008 | Comments (13)

More than 2,000 people marched around a new Planned Parenthood Clinic in Denver tonight instead of following the Democratic National Convention.

Alveda King, a niece of the late Martin Luther King Jr., and Archbishop of Denver Charles Chaput spoke to the crowd before they lit candles and circled the gated clinic.

Alveda King’s mother conceived her daughter when she was a freshman in college. She had wanted to get an abortion, but Martin Luther King Sr. told her mother she could not abort her baby.

“This little baby human girl was allowed to live,” she said to the cheering crowd.

King later aborted two of her children.

“People say, ‘Aren’t you embarrassed and ashamed to stand up and say you had abortions?” King said. “I’d be more embarrassed if I didn’t tell you, because it is wrong, and without the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ, I would not have been forgiven. Jesus Christ said, ‘Go and sin no more.’”

She then praised Bishop Charles Blake’s pro-life message at the interfaith gathering yesterday.

“He delivered some very startling and surprising words. They expected the rhetoric that always proceeds. But he began to tell the audience, ‘I am a pro-life Democrat.’ We want to commend those men and women and say that life is a civil right, life is precious, and that it transcends politics.”

King wrote a guest column last week for the Denver Post, calling abortion an "industry of racism. She does not plan to vote for Sen. Barack Obama unless he changes his stance on abortion.

"People in every party should say, ‘We’re for life,’" she told Christianity Today. "They should not be held captive by politics in the battle and the struggle."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 26, 2008 | Comments (3)

The keynote for the interfaith gathering is a pro-life pastor who did not shy away from the abortion issue in his address. Maybe it was just me, but I felt the room tense up as soon as he called himself a pro-life Democrat.

Here are some of the remarks from Bishop Charles E. Blake, presiding prelate of the Church of God In Christ, Inc. and pastor of West Angeles Church of God In Christ.

"Surely we cannot be pleased with the routine administration of millions of surgically terminated pregnancies. Something in us must be calling for a better way. We know that our party will acknowledge the moral and spiritual pain because of this disregard for the unborn. Those of us who support the Democratic Party support it because the Democratic Party supports more of the positions that are relevant to the lives of our people, the people of America in general, and the people in the world. Others loudly proclaim their advocacy for the unborn, but they refuse to recognize their responsibility and the responsibility of our nation, to those who are born. (standing ovation) Senator Obama and all of us should follow up and elaborate on his stated intention to reduce the number of abortions (interrupted by clapping) … We should support him in this endeavor."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 24, 2008 | Comments (10)

The start of the DNC's interfaith gathering was less than peaceful.

One man stood up and said, "Obama supports the murder of children by abortion." He was quickly booed and ushered out.

After the choir sang, another man stood up after a choir song and said, "Abortion is murder."

Between songs, a third man said, “Obama is a baby killer.” The crowd began chanting "Obama. Obama. Obama."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 24, 2008 | Comments (8)

Below is a collection of the ratings of Joe Biden by various abortion-related groups.

Here's the bottom line: Biden is a pro-choice centrist on abortion. What does that mean? He votes consistently with the pro-choice forces on most matters, and is a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade -- but he departed from pro-choice orthodoxy on two of the biggest abortion issues:

--Unlike Obama, he opposes federal funding for abortion, arguing that has pro-choice views should not be imposed on others. "I still am opposed to public funding for abortion," he said on Meet the Press in 2007. "It goes to the question of whether or not you're going to impose a view to support something that is not a guaranteed right but an affirmative action to promote."

--Unlike Obama, he voted for the ban on late term abortions.

On most other issues - stem cell research, banning abortions on military bases, etc - Biden supported the pro-choice position.

Now for the ratings:

Biden got a 60% rating from the National Abortion Right Action League in 2007 and a 36 in 2003. (NARAL's ratings for Biden are very confusing. One part of the website lists him as having a 60% rating, another part says he has a 75% rating but was absent for five of the six votes. ) In 2006 he apparently got a 100% .

The National Right to Life Committee gives him a consistent zero.

Democrats for Life gives him a 33%

In earlier years, he got lower ratings from the pro-choice groups and higher ratings from the pro life groups, for instance , he got 34% in 1997 from NARAL and a 41% from the National Right to Life Committee.

This article is cross-posted from Steve Waldman's blog at Beliefnet.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 23, 2008 | Comments (3)

Best-selling author Donald Miller will give a benediction Monday night at the Democratic National Convention. He replaces Relevant Magazine founder and CEO Cameron Strang, who decided not to give the benediction at the Democratic National Convention as previously planned.

Christianity Today featured Miller on its cover in June 2007, and his spirituality book Blue Like Jazz has sold more than one million copies.

"Don is one of the top names among young evangelicals," said Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for the Barack Obama campaign. "We didn't think he would do it. We're just ecstatic. I love Blue Like Jazz myself. I think it sends a huge signal that someone who's is helping to lead off the conventions is an evangelical of his calibre."

I spoke to Miller this morning.

Why did you choose to accept the invitation?
Somebody calls you and asks you to pray, you do.

You get three minutes to pray? Have you thought about what you’re going to pray?
I’ve not written the prayer yet, but I really wanted to hone in on the theme of unity, even unity between Republicans and Democrats. In the convention, as we highlight our differences that we wouldn’t forget that we’re unified, we have more in common than we don’t. That’s the focus of the prayer.

Cameron Strang was in that slot before and said that people perceived the prayer as showing favoritism. Are you worried you’ll receive the same reactions?
I’m not. I’m a registered Democrat. While that’s perceived as black or white, or hostile toward the Republican Party, I grew up in the Republican Party. I even attended as a kid the Republican National Convention when it was in Houston when Bush Sr. was running against Clinton. I changed parties about five years ago. I really felt like the Republican Party was taking advantage of the evangelical community by throwing us abortion and gay marriage, really not giving the heart of Christ more thought. I felt like it was the party of the extremely wealthy and they needed this conservative base in order to get a majority and so they pandered to us.

(The rest of the Q & A is posted after the jump.)

I felt used by the Republican Party in that sense. I started looking at the Democratic Party and looking at social issues that are affecting the world, seeing the presidency and Congress from a global perspectives. Even though many Democrats don’t identify themselves as evangelicals, many of the precepts of the party, charitable foundation of the party did reflect what evangelicals are about, the sanctity of human life, the importance of really not leaving people behind. I don’t think either party is the answer to the world’s problems. I lean toward solutions the Democrats seem to favor.

Where do you stand on issues like abortion and gay marriage?
The issue of abortion is a very sensitive one and it’s an important issue. I look at from a perspective of, what’s the best that we can do. As we elect a Republican House and Senate, and as we elect Republican leadership in the executive branch, we see very little changes on that issue. We’re electing someone who agrees with us on abortion, being sort of a tragedy in our country, and yet can’t get anything done. It’s kind of like saying, I want a pilot on my plane who feels this way about abortion, but he can’t fly the plane. The executive branch doesn’t have that much power, it has some power, but it doesn’t have much power. You look at the reality of that and say, what can I do to defend the sanctity of all human life, including the living, and the marginalized and the oppressed and the poor? What can we do to better social conditions so that less women are put in situations where they feel like they need to have an abortion. What does looking at the issue holistically look like. I hope the Democrats will listen to those of us who lean toward pro-life and those changes can be made.

In terms of gay marriage, I see it as a constitutional issue. Until we become a theocracy, I think that judges should look at it from a constitutional issue. Whether I think homosexuality’s wrong, personally? America is not God’s country. It’s not considered a Christian nation anymore. You have to look at everybody, not just Christians and say, what are the rights of these people based on this constitution. That’s another difficult issue as well. I get a bit frustrated when the evangelical position is reduced to two issues. So many other issues are not a concern to us. What happened was, in my opinion, the Christian positions has been reduced in order to manipulate us. If we give them these two issues, we can do whatever we want.

I assume that means you support Barack Obama? What do you think he will do as president that would appeal to evangelicals?
This is one of the reasons I was attracted to obama and read his book and wanted to take him seriously as a candidate. If you look in the last eight years, we have lost our reputable standing among most nations. Certainly among many poor nations and Muslim nations, we’re not very respected. There’s a great deal of hostility against us. As we travel the world, America represents Christianity to the rest of the world. What we have is Christianity being represented by what is perceived as arrogance, bullying, an inability to negotiate peace, an inability to listen. People assume that Christianity is that way. You ask yourself, what sort of person might God rise up to heal the wounds that have been created by that kind of positioning in the world. You would think a very intelligent minority, who came not out of wealth, who’s not only power position in Washington, D.C., a man who’s more thoughtful in his answers and less bullyish, not as simple of a thinker, even as reality is not simple, a man who has spent part of his upbringing overseas and has connections with Kenya, that’s the guy. A name like Barack Obama, you just kind of go, that would be the guy that God would choose to heal some of the wounds that we’ve caused in the world. That’s what made me take him seriously. I read his book, listened to his speeches, asked myself some of those hard questions. When all the math was done, he edged out as a favorable as a favorable candidate for me.

Do you see yourself as a person who plans to be more involved in political activism?
I’m a writer. That’s my calling. I’m not a pastor. I’m a believer. I write about spirituality. I have political opinions that may not have more worth than anybody else. In this instance, when someone calls and asks you to come and pray, I say yes. I’m a supporter of this candidate, and I think that’s great. After I came out on a blog and expressed about the Bush administration, they invited me to the White House and had breakfast with the president’s assistant. I enjoyed that and enjoyed them as people. When someone asks you to come, you come, and you have a conversation. I don’t see this as an, “I’m against Republicans.” That’s not that kind of a move. This is about any believer who’s called and asked to come and pray. No matter you’re called to pray, you go.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 22, 2008 | Comments (18)

Sen. John McCain told the Weekly Standard last week that he would consider a pro-abortion candidate, but Fox News reports today that has ruled out former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge.

Republican National Committee officials told Fox today that McCain is no longer considering Ridge, who supports abortion rights. McCain has announced that he will announce his running mate Aug. 26, the day after the Democratic National Convention ends.

Fox reports that senior McCain advisers and aides have told RNC officials that McCain “got the message” last week that choosing a running mate who supports abortion rights would not be helpful.

The National Review reported yesterday that the McCain campaign had called state Republican officials around the country the last couple of days to weigh consequences of a pro-choice running mate.

The Associated Press reports that McCain's top contenders are said to include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential pick in 2000 who now is an independent.

Sen. Barack Obama may announce his running mate this Saturday. His short list includes Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 19, 2008 | Comments (3)

CBN's David Brody interviewed Sen. Barack Obama right after the Saddleback forum, and when he asked about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, Obama became pretty heated.

"They have not been telling the truth ... I have said repeatedly that I would be completely support of the federal bill, which is to say that you would provide assistance to any infant that was born. ... That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. It was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade."

Brody will post the full video later tonight.

This is cross-posted from CT's liveblog.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 16, 2008 | Comments (8)

Conservative evangelicals have raised John McCain's support of embryonic stem-cell research in opposition to his candidacy.

McCain addressed it briefly in his response to Rick Warren's "worldview questions." "For those of us in the pro-life community, this is a great struggle. … I’ve come down on the side of stem cell research, but I’m wildly optimistic that skin cell research … will make this debate an academic one."

Rick Warren: At what point is baby is entitled to human rights?
John McCain's answer: At the moment of conception. I have a 25 year pro-life record in congress, in the senate. This presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment to you.
Warren's answer: We won’t go longer on that one.

Warren: Define marriage.
McCain: A union between man and woman, between one man and one woman. The court overturned the definition of marriage. I believe they were wrong. I’m a federalist. I believe states should make that decision. That doesn’t mean that people can’t enter into legal agreements, that they don’t’ have the rights of all citizens.

When asked a question on evil, McCain said, "If I have to go to gates and hell and back, I will get Osama Bin Laden."

This is cross-posted from CT's liveblog.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 16, 2008 | Comments (1)

Pastor Rick Warren posed a question on abortion to Sen. Barack Obama.

Warren asks, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"

Here is some of Obama's answer:

"Whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.

"Let me speak more generally about the issue of abortion. One thing that I am absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. ... I am pro-choice...not because I'm pro-abortion. But ultimately I do not think women make these decisions causally.

"I am for limits on late-term abortion.

"If you believe that life begins at conceptions, and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that. That is a core issue of faith for you. What I can do is say are there ways to work together to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
As an example of that is, how do we provide the resources for women to keep a child? … Have we given them the options of adoption?"

This is cross-posted from CT's liveblog.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 16, 2008 | Comments (6)

Earlier today I listened in on a phone press conference with leading pro-life religious liberals called by Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners. (Click here to listen to the call.) They were praising the new draft Democratic Party abortion plank which advocates government policies to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. (Click here to read the new plank and the 2004 platform). Wallis called it a "real step forward," while Rev. Joel Hunter called it "a historic and courageous step."

What am I missing? It seems to me that, on balance, if you're pro-life this platform is about the same as the 2004 platform -- slightly better in some ways and, actually, slightly worse in other ways.

Where it's better: the draft platform endorses policies, such as better sex education and health care, that would "help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby reduce the need for abortions." And, religious progressives were particularly pleased that the platform stated: "The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child," as well as policies -- such as "caring adoption programs" -- that make such a choice practical.

Where it's worse: the platform actually drops the language from the 2004 platform that abortion "should be safe, legal, and rare." That breakthrough formulation, popularized by Bill Clinton, reiterated support for legal abortion but rhetorically endorsed the idea that society would be better off with fewer abortions. By contrast, the 2008 platform emphasizes the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies and the "need" for abortions. It's a subtle but important difference that preserves what pro-choice activists wanted: absolute neutrality on the question of whether society is better off with fewer abortions.

Some of the religious leaders are hoping that Obama personally will go farther than the platform did. "Key is what Obama says at Saddleback," says Rev. Tony Campolo, a leading religious progressive and a member of the Democratic Platform committee, referring to Obama's public interview with Rev. Rick Warren this weekend. "What we are waiting to hear is that he sees this as a moral issue." In other words, we're supposed to look at the draft platform plank as Act One of a two act play.

Indeed, I can envision a way in which the Democratic Party could make real headway with pro-life voters, despite Obama's very pro-choice voting record. At Saddleback, Obama could make a strong statement that he thinks there should be fewer abortions in America and - here's the new part - the Democratic Party will be better at reducing the number of abortions than Republicans.

This may sound far fetched but it might actually be true under certain conditions. The Republicans have focused on legal restrictions - but mostly what they propose is either substantively sweeping but unpopular, or popular but substantively marginal. They support a Constitutional amendment to ban all abortion, which certainly would reduce the number of abortions in theory, but hasn't come close to passage in decades. They support banning partial birth abortion which could be passed but affects less than 1% of abortions. And they have an ideological aversion to certain additional steps -- such as encouragin birth control and more government-financed health care for women -- that could help reduce the number of abortions.

Studies show that many women have abortions because of economic reasons so it's plausible that abortion frequency could be reduced through an agenda that focused on preventing unintended pregnancies (through family planning and birth control) , improving health care and wages for low income women, and encouraging adoption. Jim Wallis hailed the "Juno option": some teens who get pregnant should neither get an abortion nor get married but rather should carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption.

So Obama could address pro-life voters directly and say something like this:

The Republican party uses you every four years to get elected. But they don't deliver on their goal of substantially reducing the number of abortions. They prefer symbolism to results -- demonizing Democrats to saving babies. It's time for a new approach. This new approach will make it less likely women would get pregnant. For those who do get pregnant, it will make it easier for them to have the baby. And for those who can't or dont want to raise the child, it will make it easier for them to find adoptive parents.

Let me be clear. I'm not retreating one inch from my commitment to the legal right to choose. It is because abortion is such a profound moral dilemma that it must be made a woman in consultation with her clergy person, her doctor and, yes, hopefully the father of the child. It is her decision. What we can do as a society is to make sure the deck isn't so stacked against her that she feels pressured to have an abortions.

If we take this approach, I believe we can cut the number of abortions in America in half -- and I will commit to making this a major goal of my presidency. It's time to break out of the old approach on abortion that uses this as a political football. It's time to try a new way that protects a woman's right to choose -- but helps society dramatically reduce the number of abortion.

Obama has mostly adopted the value-neutral language of the pro-choice community. On a few occasions - mostly when addressing Christian audiences - he's changed his rhetoric, talking about abortion reduction as a goal unto itself. If he wants to win over moderate evangelicals he's going to need to enthusiastically embrace the abortion reduction language here on out. Politically, this means telling the pro-choice community: I'm with you on legal restrictions, but you need to accept that I'm going to campaign against abortion.

Would this approach actually win over all pro-life voters? No. Some will never vote for a pro-choice politician. And the Obama campaign has so far done a terrible job at responding to the single most important abortion charge against him, that he opposed the "born alive" legislation in Illinois that would have protected the lives of fetuses or babies that survived abortions.

But there are a large number of voters -- moderate evangelicals and centrist Catholic -- who support the Democratic Party position on almost every other issue. They are itching to vote based on Iraq, the economy and health care. Each time they sidle up to Obama they trip over the charge that he's a pro-choice radical. The Obama campaign has not come close to showing him to be anything other than that. It's not too late, but the platform plank was one opportunity squandered. The next big opportunity is his speech at Saddleback Church. If he doesn't significantly improve on the platform language and cast himself as a champion of an energetic, plausible, specific pro-choice abortion reduction agenda, he's not likely to do much better than John Kerry in winning evangelicals or Catholics.

This article is cross-posted from Steve Waldman's blog at Beliefnet.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 12, 2008 | Comments (8)

In their proposed new platform language, the Democrats toss a bone to the pro-life community by spelling out ways to make abortion rarer:

We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Brody, who's got the old and new text side by side, is somewhat impressed--but claims that the proof of the pudding will be whether the Democrats in general and candidate Obama in particular say they're prepared to sign on to concrete anti-abortion measures such as parental notification. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Douglas Kmiec, who as Obama's most prominent conservative Catholic supporter had a hand in the new language, contends that it represents a significant (if not, by his lights, sufficient) move. Naturally, his erstwhile friends on the right don't think so, and are contemptuous of him for making the case. They recognize that the language will enable Obama and party to make the case that they are not, as the pro-life community always puts it, "pro-abortion."

The abortion battle between Democrats and Republicans has always involved a complicated dance of absolutes and increments. The party platforms have historically been the place for the absolutes, with the Republicans declared in opposition to abortion under all circumstances and the Democrats in absolute support of a woman's right to choose. But the real abortion game has always been played in the middle--up to and including Roe v. Wade, which never guaranteed choice in any and all circumstances.

Partisans love the absolutes, but the public at large doesn't. Americans' predominant view is that abortion is a bad thing that under some circumstances is preferable to the alternative. In 1996, Ralph Reed (then executive director of the Christian Coalition) proposed helping Bob Dole's presidential candidacy by making the GOP's abortion plank less rigid via language acknowledging that the American public was not ready for an absolute abortion ban. And while the pro-life corps handed him his head for his pains, that's the position George W. Bush articulated in 2000 and never abandoned, his party platform notwithstanding. Moreover, the pro-life agenda became purely incrementalist--ranging from parental notification to banning the "partial-birth" abortion procedure.

What the Democrats are now signaling is that they are prepared to undertake policies that do more to reduce the number of abortions than the Republicans' incrementalist measures. For pro-lifers willing to sacrifice principle for results, it's a pretty good argument. Especially when they consider how little the Republican increments have achieved. This a.m. at 11, a conference call with the media will be held by the group of Catholics and evangelicals most supportive of the new language. Here they are:

• Rev. Tony Campolo, Eastern University, author of The Red Letter Christians, and member on the Democratic Platform Committee
• Rev. Joel Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland Church (Orlando, FL), author of A New Kind of Conservative and former President of the Christian Coalition
• Dr. Lisa Cahill, J. Donald Monan, S.J., Professor of Theology at Boston College
• Douglas Kmiec, Chair & Professor of Law at Pepperdine University, and the former Dean of the The Catholic University Law School
• Chris Korzen, Executive Director of Catholics United and author of A Nation For All
• Rev. Jim Wallis, Founder and CEO of Sojourners, the largest network of progressive Christians in the United States, and best-selling author of God’s Politics and The Great Awakening (HarperOne 2008)

Stay tuned.

This article is cross-posted from Spiritual Politics.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 12, 2008 | Comments (5)

Abortion has created a semantics battle for the Democrats' platform drafting committee as the writers try to perfect the language before the convention later this month.

Eric Zimmermann over at The New Republic writes that the party does not want to anger feminists, many of whom were upset at Hillary Clinton's defeat. But "... ongoing outreach efforts to religious voters and swelling ranks of pro-lifers in Congress mean that the abortion-reduction message will likely persist," he writes.

David Brody at CBN posted the new platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

This is compared to the Democrats' current platform on abortion:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Evangelicals Tony Campolo, Joel Hunter, and Jim Wallis will respond to the Democratic Party's platform on abortion tomorrow.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at August 11, 2008 | Comments (3)