Beliefnet
Jesus Creed

ObamaGrav.jpgBarack Obama, as far as I’m concerned, is not off to a good start when it comes to “change” and ending the “politics as usual” he claimed in his campaign. First, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade he has announced what amounts a contradiction: reduce abortions by supporting and funding abortions. This makes no sense to me. What really makes it difficult morally is that such support is offered on the day he was also announcing — rightly — to close down GTMO and speak against the evils of torture. Abortion is also torture. Women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, but once there’s a pregnancy, that woman is now carrying someone else’s body — that body is no longer simply her own. Support of abortion and opposition to torture is a moral contradiction, and I call on the Obama Administration to re-think their position of their stance on abortion.

Second, our President has postponed announcing that he will support the Mexico City Policy decision. Reagan withdrew support for international clinics that supported abortion, Clinton reinstated support, G.W. Bush withdrew the support, and it appears Obama will reinstate support again. We expected to hear his reinstatement yesterday, but it didn’t happen. Everything I hear is that it will happen. This, my friends, is politics as usual. Here’s what change could mean: there are plenty of clinics to support that don’t do abortions; support those. To choose to reinstate support is to make a choice to support clinics that specifically provide abortions. There is here neither change nor is there a politics that is not usual.



Washington,
DC (LifeNews.com) —
President Barack Obama used the occasion
of the thirty-sixth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision to issue
a contradictory statement. The new president called for reducing abortions
but honored the radical decision that ushered in an era of 50 million
abortions and virtually no limits.

Obama
praised the Supreme Court for issuing what has been one of the most
condemned rulings in its history.

“[T]his
decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom,
but stands for a broader principle: That government should not intrude
on our most private family matters,” Obama said in a statement.

And
he reaffirmed his official position supporting abortion.

“I
remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose,”
he said.

The
president also issued a call for an expansion of access to birth control
and contraception, even though studies and actual abortion data have
shown they do nothing to reduce the numbers of abortions.

“While
this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views,
we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies,
reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the
choices they make,” he said. “To accomplish these goals,
we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable
contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.”


Washington,
DC (LifeNews.com) —
In a move to downplay his pro-abortion agenda,
President Barack Obama has decided to wait a little longer to reverse
a Bush policy preventing taxpayer funding of abortions overseas. The
Mexico City Policy prevents sending public funds to groups that perform
or promote abortions in other countries.

The
new president could either issue an order tomorrow or in the near
future to reverse the policy or allow Congress to do it.

Obama
was expected to overturn the pro-life policy on his first or second
full days in office and to possibly do so today, on the anniversary
of the Roe v. Wade decision.

However,
a CBN News report indicates Obama will not overturn the policy on
a day that pro-life advocates mourn the Supreme Court allowing virtually
unlimited abortions.

While
Obama is still expected to fund foreign abortions at some point, CBN
News indicates Obama is attempting to camouflage his pro-abortion
agenda by issuing a statement calling for efforts to reduce abortions.

“It
is unclear whether Obama intends to reverse the Mexico City Policy
at some point in the future but this reliable source tells me that
this move signals that Obama will stress the need for reducing abortions
in this country rather than focus on the divisive tit for tat policy
reversals of the past,” writes David Brody a senior correspondent
for the network.

The
move may infuriate pro-abortion groups, which campaigned relentlessly
for Obama and expected him to immediately reverse the policy upon
taking over the White House.

At
the same time, Obama could approach overturning the Mexico City Policy
in the same manner as
he is apparently approachin
g reversing Bush’s limits on funding
embryonic stem cell research.

Obama
appears to want Congress to do the heavy lifting to pass legislation
reversing the protections and he can both get credit for signing the
bill and deflect criticism by not becoming the sole decision-maker
changing the rules.

Such
a move would also make it much tougher for pro-life advocates to undo
the decision — and Obama could also rely on Congress to reverse the
Mexico City Policy.

In
September, 2007, Sen. Barbara Boxer introduced an amendment to a spending
bill that would have reversed the policy and the
Senate approved it
by a 53-41 percentage point margin.

The
move didn’t take effect only because President Bush threatened to
veto any spending bill that removed the Mexico City Policy — something
Obama would unlikely do.

Previous Posts
Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus