the abortion, the church and the election part 3
So far I've sketched a very brief biblical anti-abortion apologetic. The Bible values human life and offers rights and protections to the unborn that exceed the rights and privileges extended to adults. I also looked at some relevant statistics and offered some interpretive comments. I don't believe the current socio-economic systems can be blamed entirely for the horror of 48.5 million unborn children being killed since 1975. We should address the systems that keep the poor poor and make women feel like they cannot care for the children they carry in their wombs. However, approximately half of all women who have abortions are from families making more than $30,000 a year. While it may be economically inconvenient to have the children they choose to abort, it is not economically unfeesable. So we must address this evil with more than social and economic reform. We must legislate to protect the innocent lives.
Not much has been said about the issue during the campaign. I've waited and waited and it hasn't happened. One question in one debate. I actually appreciated a part of Barack Obama's answer to that question. He correctly stated, "...this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe versus Wade probably hangs in the balance."
I have talked to many people over the years who have suggested that the Presidents don't really have much impact on the abortion issue. It certainly seems like the Presidential candidates think they do, and I agree with them.
More than just who is appointed to the courts, Barack Obama has pledged to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act. In July of 2007 Senator Obama told Planned Parenthood that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” He reaffirmed his committment to sign this law on Jan 22nd of 2008 (the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade). What is this act? Honestly, I had to do a lot of reading the last few days on this. You can read it for yourself here as HR 1964 . Here is the most pertinent section, Section 4:
This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
What is at stake in this bill (also before the Senate, S 1173)? Let me mention a few things. First, the language of part (a) which seems to limit access to abortion for women late in pregnancy is very week. The phrase 'health of the woman' is vague in the extreme. What does that mean? Who decides? Actually, on the same day Roe v. Wade was handed down, another decision Doe v. Bolton was rendered and defines a woman's health to include "emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age." As Justin Taylor comments, "The effect is abortion on demand--abortion for any reason", and I would add, at any time - even beyond viability.
Secondly, this Act, section 6 makes this clear, would sweep away many anti-abortion laws currently on the books in many states. Here are some that would go:
All of this is disturbing, especially the removal of the 'conscience protection laws'. I'll just be honest here. I'm frustrating trying to track down exactly what that would mean, but I do know these 'protection of conscience' laws were put into place to protect religious doctors and institutions from being forced to offer services or perform procedures that violated their consciences. Many pro-lifers fear that if these protections go, a doctor who refused to perform an abortion, or a faith based hospital/clinic that didn't offer them, could be subject to civil suits.
Added to this is the fact that Obama supports tax dollars being used (Medicaid) for abortions. To be as accurate as I can be, he might not 'support it', but he voted against legislation, the Hyde amendment, that would keep tax dollars from being used for this purpose.
These two things, the Senators support of FOCA and support of tax dollars funding abortions, makes it hard for me to believe abortion rates would fall under Obama's presidency. Donald Miller, however, believes they will. I respect Miller (of all the emerging folk, I like him the best). You can read the interview here. I agree that we should support pregnant women and provide alternatives to abortion. Yes yes yes. That is Obama's plan to reduce abortions, but it's hard for me to see how this will reduce abortions when he's making them, by signing FOCA, more readily available and more affordable. I suggest you also read Randy Alcorn's response to his friend Donald Miller.
Based on all the evidence I see, it is proper to call Obama pro-abortion, despite his protestations to the contrary. Again, his willingness to sign FOCA and to use tax dollars is bad, but it gets worse. Obama was against the courts decision in Gonzales v. Carhart in which the court upheld the ban on partial birth abortions. He cited the fact that it didn't contain a 'women's health' exception clause. That clause, if it had been included, would have totally undermined the ban, for anything can fall under the category of women's health. He stated, "I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose".
Moreover, in the debate on Wednesday night, there was some conversation about whether Obama supported or didn't support offering care for infants who were born alive after a failed abortion. I won't rehearse it here, but I think he misrepresented himself on this. So do the people at the Witherspoon Institute. Check out this article, Obama and Infanticide, by Robert George and Yuvil Levin (check out their credentials at the end). See also Obama's Abortion Extremism by the same authors.
It's pushing 1am and I have worked at least five, if not six hours on this today (and I have to run a 5k tomorrow). Let me conclude by quoting from Uwe Siemon-Netto, a German Lutheran living in the US currently. I would encourage you to read the whole article called Remember Collective Shame. Here's a painful excerpt:
Not much has been said about the issue during the campaign. I've waited and waited and it hasn't happened. One question in one debate. I actually appreciated a part of Barack Obama's answer to that question. He correctly stated, "...this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe versus Wade probably hangs in the balance."
I have talked to many people over the years who have suggested that the Presidents don't really have much impact on the abortion issue. It certainly seems like the Presidential candidates think they do, and I agree with them.
More than just who is appointed to the courts, Barack Obama has pledged to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act. In July of 2007 Senator Obama told Planned Parenthood that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” He reaffirmed his committment to sign this law on Jan 22nd of 2008 (the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade). What is this act? Honestly, I had to do a lot of reading the last few days on this. You can read it for yourself here as HR 1964 . Here is the most pertinent section, Section 4:
- (a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--
- (1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--
- (A) to bear a child;
- (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
- (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
- (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
What is at stake in this bill (also before the Senate, S 1173)? Let me mention a few things. First, the language of part (a) which seems to limit access to abortion for women late in pregnancy is very week. The phrase 'health of the woman' is vague in the extreme. What does that mean? Who decides? Actually, on the same day Roe v. Wade was handed down, another decision Doe v. Bolton was rendered and defines a woman's health to include "emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age." As Justin Taylor comments, "The effect is abortion on demand--abortion for any reason", and I would add, at any time - even beyond viability.
Secondly, this Act, section 6 makes this clear, would sweep away many anti-abortion laws currently on the books in many states. Here are some that would go:
- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states
- Forty-four states’ laws concerning parental involvement
- Forty states’ laws on restricting later-term abortions
- Forty-six states’ conscience protection laws for individual health care providers
- Twenty-seven states’ conscience protection laws for institutions
- Thirty-eight states’ bans on partial-birth abortions
- Thirty-three states’ laws on requiring counseling before an abortion
- Sixteen states’ laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion (from Family Research Council, cited Catholic.org)
All of this is disturbing, especially the removal of the 'conscience protection laws'. I'll just be honest here. I'm frustrating trying to track down exactly what that would mean, but I do know these 'protection of conscience' laws were put into place to protect religious doctors and institutions from being forced to offer services or perform procedures that violated their consciences. Many pro-lifers fear that if these protections go, a doctor who refused to perform an abortion, or a faith based hospital/clinic that didn't offer them, could be subject to civil suits.
Added to this is the fact that Obama supports tax dollars being used (Medicaid) for abortions. To be as accurate as I can be, he might not 'support it', but he voted against legislation, the Hyde amendment, that would keep tax dollars from being used for this purpose.
These two things, the Senators support of FOCA and support of tax dollars funding abortions, makes it hard for me to believe abortion rates would fall under Obama's presidency. Donald Miller, however, believes they will. I respect Miller (of all the emerging folk, I like him the best). You can read the interview here. I agree that we should support pregnant women and provide alternatives to abortion. Yes yes yes. That is Obama's plan to reduce abortions, but it's hard for me to see how this will reduce abortions when he's making them, by signing FOCA, more readily available and more affordable. I suggest you also read Randy Alcorn's response to his friend Donald Miller.
Based on all the evidence I see, it is proper to call Obama pro-abortion, despite his protestations to the contrary. Again, his willingness to sign FOCA and to use tax dollars is bad, but it gets worse. Obama was against the courts decision in Gonzales v. Carhart in which the court upheld the ban on partial birth abortions. He cited the fact that it didn't contain a 'women's health' exception clause. That clause, if it had been included, would have totally undermined the ban, for anything can fall under the category of women's health. He stated, "I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose".
Moreover, in the debate on Wednesday night, there was some conversation about whether Obama supported or didn't support offering care for infants who were born alive after a failed abortion. I won't rehearse it here, but I think he misrepresented himself on this. So do the people at the Witherspoon Institute. Check out this article, Obama and Infanticide, by Robert George and Yuvil Levin (check out their credentials at the end). See also Obama's Abortion Extremism by the same authors.
It's pushing 1am and I have worked at least five, if not six hours on this today (and I have to run a 5k tomorrow). Let me conclude by quoting from Uwe Siemon-Netto, a German Lutheran living in the US currently. I would encourage you to read the whole article called Remember Collective Shame. Here's a painful excerpt:
What I am going to say next is going to make me many enemies, of this I am sure: Yes, there is a parallel between what has happened in Germany in 1933 and what is happening in America now. The legalized murder of 40 million fetuses since Roe v. Wade in 1973 will one day cause collective shame of huge proportions.
Comments