Barack Obama, Pro-Life President?

The more or less consensus position of the Democratic Party over the past decade and a half has been that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare“. IOW, the Democrats have consistently favored abortion reduction.
.
But Obama rolls out policies (even imaginary being-based ones) that are wholly consistent with that Democratic consensus position and ll of a sudden he is a “Pro-Life President”?

Wow. I don’t even know where to start with this post. But here’s one big clue that Democrats – not just Obama – want to reduce abortions: SCHIP. Yes, wider availability of health insurance makes parenting more affordable which – surprise! – reduces economic pressures on pregnant women.
.
This post illustrates the kind of unproductive politicization of the abortion issue that Obama is talking about. Of course Democrats want to reduce abortions! But reducing access to abortion isn’t the only way to be “pro-life.” (I’ll accept for the sake of argument that forcing women to procure illegal abortions is pro-life) Reducing the problems pregnant women and parents face is also pro-life. Let’s not forget that “safe, legal and rare” is a Democratic phrase.

Whats really funny is that this post was written by a person purporting to be a Democrat but she finds a Democrat wanting to reduce abortions some kind of a revelation. I won’t even get into how many times President Obama talked about reducing the numbers of abortions while he was compaigning. But the truth is for any honest broker its the social conservatives who rail against cocntraceptives who really don’t give a sh*t about women getting abortions in this country. But leave it to our resident lily white christocrat to instead make it looks as if this is some kind of news flash by Obama.
.
EPIC PHUCKING FAIL

This post has got me worried. What’s next? How far will BHO take this? Is he going to try to stop all baby killing? I’m very concerned for the Democratic Party.

Given the fact that Obama supports killing infants who have survived abortions and given the fact that while he was in the Illinois legislature Obama cast votes supporting the killing of infants who survived abortions, what is his preferred method of killing those infants? Decapitation or other forms of dismemberment? Firing squad? Lethal injection? Electrocution? Immolation? Blunt force trauma? Suffocation? Dehydration? Starvation? Or does he prefer that the abortionists stick a catheter into the skulls of those infants and kill those infants by sucking out the infants’ brains a la partial birth abortion?

The Democrats also support family planning clinics (“condom factories,” to the GOP). So my question is, why is the GOP pro-abortion?

and…abortion reduction.
Now that’s interesting.
.
Oh for hell’s sake. You’ve already posted about this like three times.
.
SPOILER ALERT:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Obama’s a Christian!

Amy Sullivan you haven’t offered one worthy post since you started, so I’m no longer holding out hope you’ll get any better. But gosh I kinda took it at a given that you wouldn’t get any worse.

Dee in Columbia MD Says:
” .. Amy Sullivan you haven’t offered one worthy post since you started.. “

Hey, buster, leave Amy alone!
[By the way, this contribution from you isn't anything to brag about, really!]

Reducing unwanted pregnancies (and hence reducing abortions) using all the tools of family planning is the pro-choice view, not the pro-life view.

I read Amy’s post and hoped you all would set her straight so I wouldn’t have to. Thank you all.
.
And, for textee. pointing and laughing ha ha ha ha ha.

This post illustrates the kind of unproductive politicization of the abortion issue that Obama is talking about.
_
uh, its not the media who is politicizing abortion here, its Obama. He’s the one calling a reproductive planning initiative “abortion reduction”. (and lets not call it “family planning”; we’re not talking about whether to take the kids to the beach or to Disneyworld for vacation, we’re talking about sex and reducing unintended pregancies.)
_
And there is a danger in this, because the focus of reproductive planning cannot and should not be abortion reduction; reducing the number of abortions is just one of the inevitable by-product of a successful reproductive planning initiative.
_
“abortion reduction” isn’t about healthy babies and prepared parents, “abortion reduction” is a phrase that comes right out of the “life begins at conception, and ends at birth” handbook. And whether we like it or not, abortion remains an important aspect of family planning — while we can reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancies with a reproductive planning initiative, we can’t eliminate the need for abortion services, or the need for reproductive planning services to include abortion as an option for women who do not feel ready to be bear children.

WTF?
.
Who is against abortion reduction? Oh, wait, I know, the people who preach abstinence only sex education.
.
Where do you get this stuff? When did ANYBODY ever advocate more abortions? Everybody in the pro-choice community would prefer to see NO unwanted pregnancies, and NO women be forced to abort a pregnancy for health reasons.
.
If the pro-life people really cared about reducing the rate of abortion, and not the state’s control of women’s reproductive choices, there’d be a condom in every bible, in every pew.

Right on, Jayackroyd.

Since Ms. Sullivan didn’t offer a post with actual substance, how about talking about this post from Chris Bowers at Open Left?
.
Last night, commenter NFR83 wrote:
.
I just got laid off at ABC
.
and my best friend works at CNBC.
.
They don’t want Democrats on air. We’ve been only booking Republicans because "everybody already knows where the Democrats stand"
.
After all, what are the Democrats going to do? complain? It’s the liberal media, right? I was in a meeting last week where our producer flat out said we needed to "bring Obama’s approval ratings down"
.
Everyone who got laid off this week was an Obama supporter.
.
Surprised?

No defense for this Sullivan. You know perfectly well, as sq1 said, that “safe, legal, and rare” has been the Democratic stance since 1992.
.
If you didn’t believe it when Obama pledged this during the campaign that’s your problem.
.
“Pro-life” is the self-name of those who oppose choice. I’ll let them name themselves that, of course, but you’ve no business imputing to Obama all that term implies.
.
Guess I’ll give myself a Lenten fast from your posts. I’ll reconsider after Easter.

wvng…
citing as a source an anonymous blog comment by someone with no record of commenting on that blog (he created his account on Feb 4) isn’t exactly credible.
_
I suspect that one reason we are seeing more Republicans is that the Democrats don’t have their act together — nobody wants to step on Obama’s toes, but nobody knows where Obama’s feet are. And given that the media (and the GOP) seem intent upon maximizing any differences between Obama and the Congressional leadership, going on TV do define and/or defend the “Democratic” position is a thankless, and near-impossible, job.
_
Add to that the evidence that Team Obama is hanging Pelosi out to dry (the reported encouragement of Blue Dogs who want a return to “regular order” was a particularly underhanded manoevre, considering the fact that Obama wants an “economic stimulus” package in weeks, and “regular order” means that bills take months to get moved to the floor) and its easy to see why booking prominent Democrats at this point would be difficult to begin with.
_

plukasiak
.
Maybe you hadn’t noticed and of course it doesn’t fit your narrative but Jim Cooper has already eaten those words about “quiet encouragement”. Its always funny how somebody who normally you would never see as credible (blue dog Jim Cooper) in a factually challenged publication (Politico, or Time for that matter) all of a sudden becomes the paragon of integrity when they say something that you want to hear or want to believe. Seek help.

sgwhite…
The fact that Cooper had to “walk back” his assertion doesn’t mean that he didn’t make that assertion; what it tells you is that Team Obama’s “quiet encouragement” was supposed to be quiet, and Cooper let the cat out of the bag.

I was going to point out how acting surprised that Democrats want to reduce the number of abortions is to not only embrace a Right Wing meme but a particularly nasty and yes, evil one at that. Does anyone honestly believe that there are people who actually like abortion? I see that a number of commenters hacve arleady noticed the problem.
.
Instead I’ll simply note that to turn a surprising repugnant post from Ms. Sullivan into an opportunity to blame Obama for co-opting his opponent’s language (in order to effectively diffuse it) requires what can only be described as a knee-jerk reflexive action!

As a lifelong Democrat, let me just say that I grow faint at the idea that Obama might not be tirelessly working to increase the number of abortions in this country. Also, I choose to interpret Obama’s decision as a signal that he doesn’t care about preventative health care or family planning or women.
-
Last time you wrote something like this, I pointed out that no Democrat anywhere in the history of planet Earth had ever said anything remotely like the straw men who live in your head. But hey, what’s the point. You’ve got a good little schtick going, and nothing as stupid as facts is going to change what you write. I’ll just give you this comment to justify your next column, or your entire career. You’re welcome!

oh, btw, Cooper’s “walk back” was a classic case of a non-denial denial.
_
His statement was “Cooper walked back his comments Wednesday, saying that “at no point did any member of President Obama’s staff encourage me to vote against the House economic recovery bill.”’
_
What Cooper is saying here is that no one said “vote against the bill”…rather, Team Obama expressed no objection to Cooper’s inquiries regarding his desire to vote against the bill, and did not encourage him to vote for the bill. That is the very definition of “quiet encouragement”.

It’s surprising … because he was really a lying baby killer?

“It is time we end the politicization of this issue. In the coming weeks, my Administration will initiative a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world.”
.
What this means is, long overdue, he is going to use the issues of sex education, family planning and access to health services to expose the hypocrisy of the “pro-life” movement. There is no common ground. They’re against programs that prevent unwanted pregnancy and access to services like prenatal care for poor women. The republicans demanded that money saving part of the stimulus package be removed. Now, of course, they’ll have to vote against in a separate bill–which they won’t be able to filibuster, if only because of Snowe and Collins.

It’s surprising … because he was really a lying baby killer?
_
no, its “surprising” because Obama is adopting right-wing framing on the question of reproductive planning, while also backing himself into a corner on the question of making abortion services available to women who need them.

pluk, Bowers also noted that “this isn’t definitive proof of anything, but it would explain why Republicans are dominating the airwaves these days.” And it at least partially served my purpose of trying to move this thread away from any further discussion of Ms. Sullivan’s remarkably dishonest, or utterly delusional post.

OK, I’m beginning to understand some of the resistance to Ms. Sullivan’s reporting. As other have noticed, Obama’s position is neither new nor surprising.

.
AS: Now that’s interesting.
.
Only if you have so completely bought into the right-wing framing of the abortion issue that you have blinded yourself to reality,
.
Pop quiz: When did the phrase “safe, legal, and rare” enter the public consciousness?
.
Answer: 1992, in a speech by Bill Clinton.
.
Amy, please stop pretending that you’ve discovered some new evidence of a shift in attitude about this issue. You sound ignorant.

pluk is right – Obama has to be careful about using Right-wing frames for this issue. The reality based community hears “abortion reduction” and they think it means he should support increased family services, better access to contraception, reality based sex education. Right wingers hear it and think it means he should support putting up legal barriers to women seeking abortions. When he doesn’t, there will be a backlash. So Obama needs to be careful and clear, otherwise people will start calling him “Pro Life” and linking him to all the right wing ideology that goes along with it in a sloppy, shorthand manner that obscures the facts.
.
Ooops. Amy, Amy, Amy. Obama has been pretty clear and careful, and you do him and your readers a disservice to suggest that this is “surprising” or a move toward the right’s preferred method of abortion reduction, a.k.a. “ban it!” I’ve objected to unfair attacks on you in the past, but this time, you’ve earned the brick bats.

billiecat
.
I don’t think you are right about that. Wingnuts have no interest in “abortion reduction”. For them its an all or nothing proposition. So if anything they will mostly see anything characterized as “abortion reduction” as just another ploy to get people to back abortion. Go find me a wingnut pro life website that has the words “abortion reduction” anywhere on it. Seriously I will check back all day.

Right wingers hear it and think it means he should support putting up legal barriers to women seeking abortions.
.
They may say that, but it’s a lie. The reason for adopting the “abortion reduction” frame is to expose the lie. I get pluk’s objection, but I think he’s wrong about this. I think this is a much better frame than the “right to do whatever one wants with one’s body” frame.

I think this is a much better frame than the “right to do whatever one wants with one’s body” frame.
_
Who is suggesting that frame? How about “The responsibility to not bring children into the world until you are willing and able to provide them with the necessary financial and emotional support”

That’s the NARAL frame that’s been dominant for some time, pluk.
.
Sure, pluk, but the response from them to that frame is to not have sex until you’re married, that it’s immoral to otherwise, and contraception encourages society destroying promiscuity.
.
the idea of adopting the “rare” (I’d add “early” if I were in charge, because that’s what people really believe, in very large numbers.) is to point out that the wingnuts are contradicting themselves in claiming abortion is murder, and also not doing everything possible to prevent it.
.
One example of the “my body, my rights” pov has been the tenacity in opposition to regulation of third trimester abortions,which is, of course, permitted by Roe and the instances people find ickiest. I’ve always thought that a proposal to regulate such abortions AND a large public health push on contraception and women’s health services would expose this hypocrisy.

Let’s take myself as an extreme case in point:
I think that increasing the human population in this world is evil. (Wait, wait — I didn’t say having children is evil — just that there is such a thing as too many people).
Therefore I believe that there are cases when having an abortion is morally superior to giving birth to a child.
OK, do I seem like a baby-killing extremist yet?
And yet–
I support the prevention of unwanted pregnancies (choose your favorite method — if abstinence works for you…), for reasons well-articulated by several people above.
Which results in “abortion reduction”.
So, Amy, you see that supporting “abortion reduction” is a perfectly consistent position even for a “pro-choice” (and “pro-Earth”, and “pro-humanity”) extremist.

I’m in favor of abortion reduction because its an economically inefficient means of preventing unwanted births. Contraception is (in general) safer and cheaper.
_
But one thing that bothers me is that the focus always seems to be on poor people. IMHO, while being able to “afford” a child is important, its less important than having time to spend with the child. If your idea of child rearing is hiring a nanny, you shouldn’t be having children.

pluk, the reason for the focus on the poor and young is that the middle class and up adults can (and mostly could, even pre Roe) get contraception or abortions without great difficulty. Also, unwanted children born to the young and the poor are very vulnerable to a poor childhood outcome. I really do think Stephen Levitt is right when he says (he gives good evidence, btw) that the decrease in crime in the US can be largely attributed to Roe.
.
That said I’ve long ago learned not to judge other people’s child rearing practices.
.

That said I’ve long ago learned not to judge other people’s child rearing practices.
_
well, I’m following JK’s lead (on educational reform) here — I don’t have kids, so I really don’t know what I’m talking about…but I’m expressing my opinion anyway!

LOL. No kids here either.

Amy Sullivan:
.
The “assertion in the form of a question” technique you’ve employed with your headline is one of the more irritating and uninformative aspects of the neo-tabloidism with which your colleagues’ “work” is rife.
.
Look, I can do it, too:
.
Amy Sullivan, Nazi sympathizer?
.
How very Fox News Channel of you, Amy Sullivan.

pluk – Point(s) taken, but I don’t really care how the wingnuts choose to interpret the framing. No matter how the issue is framed, the wingnuts will deliberately misconstrue it.
-
The reality-based community needs to move ahead and not worry so much about whether Ann Coulter or James Dobson will say something stupid. It’s like getting up every morning and wondering if there is still gravity.

[...] be one of the four priorities for the White Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, reports TIME.  On the priorities, TIME writes, "They will include focusing on global poverty (not [...]

[...] Amy Sullivan: “I’m told by a religious leader who will be part of the Council that the president [...]

[...] a comment » Amy Sullivan explaining why Obama is “pro-life”: We already know that Obama plans to officially announce Joshua [...]

[...] got $10 that says when this DOES happen, all the neocons and foaming-at-the-mouth Christianists who flamed my blog during the campaign will [...]

What he says and what he does are two different things. If “life” matters that much he should make abortion illegal, not just work to reduce the number of them. If an unborn child is not a “life” why would it matter enough to reduce the number of abortions. This is just rhetoric on his part. Wars are fought to improve the quality of life. Is it that much to ask to simply pass legislation to protect it?

Reducing abortion rates doesn’t automatically make him a ‘pro-life president’. Yes, he’s said that he is indeed pro-life, but that doesn’t mean that he’s trying to force the issue or make abortion illegal. Abortion isn’t a wonderful thing, nor is it a terrible thing, so reducing the rates could just mean providing better support for pregnant women, so they don’t feel the need to have an abortion.

[...] It would be funny if the subject matter wasn’t the destruction of unborn children in the womb. Time magazine’s Amy Sullivan asked in a Swampland blog post headline from February 4: "Barack Obama, Pro-Life President?" [...]

[...] It would be funny if the subject matter wasn’t the destruction of unborn children in the womb. Time magazine’s Amy Sullivan asked in a Swampland blog post headline from February 4: "Barack Obama, Pro-Life President?" [...]

It’s good that he claims to want to reduce the number of abortions, but so did the Clintons. And very little was done to stop abortions. I am very skeptical that Obama will really make that much of an effort.

And for the record, I’ve read comments from many Pro Choice people over the years who insist abortion is a good thing that should be encouraged. Not just supported but encouraged more often. So yes that position does exist, sadly.

Im thinking Amy is trying to tell us that there is a pony in this somewhere.

And she is the southern part of that northbound pony.

Obama, a pro life president? Makes one wonder is Ms. Sullivan is either entirely biased or entirely stupid. His reversal of the mexico city policy is going to increase, not decrease abortions. This is a guy who when given eye witness testimony in the Illinois senate that doctors while performing abortions had live births, allowed those kids to die. His response was to let the practice continue. He then preceded to lie about those votes during the campaign. A bill that was exactly the same as a bill voted in favor by some of the most left senators at the federal level, he voted against. Of course all Obama could do is what he does best, attack those bringing the facts while he himself lacks any facts to support his attacks.
If he wants some pro-life cred how about he goes after Planned Parenthood’s version of family planning, which is to plan how to avoid local laws about parental notification and statutory rape, and take them to task.

[...] It would be funny if the subject matter wasn’t the destruction of unborn children in the womb. Time magazine’s Amy Sullivan asked in a Swampland blog post headline from February 4: "Barack Obama, Pro-Life President?" [...]

As one before whom Barack Obama argued as state senator that abortion survivors should not be legally protected for fear of broaching on Roe v. Wade, I can’t begin to describe how infuriated I become by liberal spin on Obama’s radical abortion position such as Amy Sullivan’s.

But never mind that. The question is why does Obama want to reduce the number of abortions? Why does Sullivan think such a notion is to be praised? I’m unaware of any other great constitutional right we want less of.

If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, if it is a triumph to be celebrated, like women getting the right to vote and blacks getting to use the same bathrooms as whites, then why does Obama want less, not more?

[...] Barack Obama, Pro-Life President? We already know that Obama plans to officially announce Joshua DuBois’ appointment to be director of the White [...] [...]

“If there’s nothing wrong with abortion, if it is a triumph to be celebrated, like women getting the right to vote and blacks getting to use the same bathrooms as whites, then why does Obama want less, not more?”

Because even many pro choice people would acknowledge that abortion is a sad thing and should be avoided if it can be. Like with war, a person might hate it, but think it’s sometimes necessary.

[...] President clearly not Pro-Life, quite the opposite “Time Magazine’s Amy Sullivan has referred to (Barry Soetoro a/k/a) Barack Obama as a ‘Pro-Life President.’ [...]

Almost everyone here seems to share the same worldview. Many are using the title “wingnuts” to profile people with whom they disagree, and who are notable absent from this discussion; people who believe that all life is sacred. Yeah…that’s an extreme point of view. So are ideas like “one person, one vote” (how common has that been in the history of the world?), equality of humanity, and all the truths the founding fathers found “self-evident” (funny that our culture no longer even believes in the notion of “truth;” everything is relative, which makes the idea of a “self-evident” subcategory of truth meaningless). Being labeled as “extreme” is one of the worst insults we can give to an idea today; it implies all sorts of unpleasant things like…an obligation to take a stand in stark contradiction to peers and to the prevailing beliefs of those around you. Exactly what the civil rights marchers did in the South forty years ago…back when we still believed in “truth” and they had a moral imperative to do so. Being an “extreme” doesn’t make something inherently wrong. It just means it is at an end of a spectrum. And with so much self-congratulations being handed out for about being the enlightened ones in the debate, where does name-calling come in as a tool of such tolerant, enlightened people?