RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

President Obama’s Call for Common Ground on Abortion Reduction

by Jim Wallis 01-23-2009

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. For the past two decades, this particular rule has become a back-and-forth of instituting and repealing as administrations have changed—almost as a partisan tit-for-tat.

In breaking the symbolic cycle, President Obama showed respect for both sides in the historically polarized abortion debate, and called for both a new conversation and a new common ground. I hope that this important gesture signals the beginning of a new approach and a new path toward finding some real solutions to decrease the number of abortions in this country and around the world.

In his statement, Obama acknowledged that “this is a sensitive and often divisive issue,” but went on to say “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.  To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.”

I support the president’s call for a new dialogue on the best ways to achieve abortion reduction while retaining his position on choice. And I hope the discussion can now move beyond the usual politics of abortion, changing the polarized debate, and building a new common ground movement to dramatically reduce abortion.  This is a goal to which we can all agree.

Categories: Abortion
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • pascalfan
    But it would appear he did sign an executive order rescinding the "Mexico City Policy."

    http://tinyurl.com/abdk2w
  • revnorman
    I voted for Obama after supporting Republicans for a long time. I guess I really believed the things he said at the Saddleback forum. I thought, "Well, working towards less abortions is something we should all be able to rally around." But, I’m feeling a bit let down by him today. I believed his overtures to reach out to the pro-life community and while, I did not expect he would work to make abortion illegal I did expect that he would keep his promise to make abortion rare. Repealing the ban on using US tax dollars to fund abortions in US and abroad is a major move in the wrong direction. This may not have happened on the exact anniversary of Roe v Wade, but it was one of his first actions in his presidency. It is hard for me to see any good spin on this as much as I would like there to be.
  • PASTOR JEFF
    If you're looking for good spin you may want to research and compare the abortion numbers while this policy is in place and when it is not. I think you will find fewer abortions under the Clinton admin, when there was funding, than under Bush/Reagan when funding was banned.
  • The abortion rate has gone down for each President since at least as far back as Reagan. It went down from Clinton to W, too, although not by as much. Given this fact, though, it harder to say that it was Clinton's policies that increased the drop, as much as I'd like to go there.
  • PASTOR JEFF
    Thanks, Mark. My attempt was to decouple federal funding and increased abortion rates. Your observation does this well.
  • pooch
    So why didn't President Obama explain that he was once again allowing government funding of abortion in order to make abortion more rare, as your logic suggests? Even if your point is "to decouple federal funding and increased abortion rates", which defies logic and reality, why, in the midst of severe economic and foreign policy turmoil, did President Obama make restoring government funding of abortion one of the first priorities of his new Administration?
  • PASTOR JEFF
    Do the statistics show there is no correlation between funding and abortions, or not? Again, facts("reality") can trump "logic".
    The President apparently believes that women are competent to decide this matter for themselves and doesn't feel the need to engage in explanations to intractable persons.
  • kevin47
    "Do the statistics show there is no correlation between funding and abortions, or not? Again, facts("reality") can trump "logic".
    "

    You went on and on about this distinction before, and Jesse provided you with information proving that the facts do follow logic... I'll repost his reply for everyone else's edification.

    Per Jesse,

    The study Sojo publicized earlier this year found that public funding was associated with increases. So did this peer-reviewed study (Sojo's was not), which found that greater access and public funding predicted higher abortion rates: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9089921

    As far as policies to reduce abortions are concerned, the evidence that social welfare policies will do so is mixed at best: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.p... . It also runs up against the fact that poor women are LESS likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy than middle and upper income women. See here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/380900... and go to Table 1 to see that poor women are less likely to abort an unintended pregnancy (42%) than those whose incomes are at 200% above the poverty line (54%).
  • PASTOR JEFF
    Thanks for the reference to the 12 year old article that studied 17 year old statistics about access to clinics. It said nothing about funding, although you may be able to infer that by extension (not unheard of in the pro-life community-it's the statistical equivalent to proof-texting). The specific point here is that the reported abortion rate is steadily declining regardless of the implementation of the restrictions in question.
    If we have 100,000 poor unintended pregnancies resulting in 42,000 abortions and 50,000 non-poor(?) unintended pregnancies resulting in 27,000 abortions it's not to say that those poor persons wouldn't decide otherwise if more support was available
    What is your position on abortion inducing birth control (Pill, IUD, Plan B) which will render most of this hue and cry mute?
    thanks for the edification
  • kevin47
    "What is your position on abortion inducing birth control (Pill, IUD, Plan B) which will render most of this hue and cry mute?"

    If they would render it mute, then there would be no need for the question.


     

    ________________________________
  • PASTOR JEFF
    Thanks for keeping abortion safe legal and rare.
  • jesse3
    Jeff,
    Several studies have shown a relationship between govt-funding of abortions and abortion rates, including the study Sojo touted prior to this past election. But by definition the Mexico City policy would only affect rates abroad, so what does it have to do with rates at home?
  • jesse3
    "It said nothing about funding, although you may be able to infer that by extension"
    --I guess you didn't read the abstract. It specifically mentions that public funding is directly tied to abortion rates.

    Is this really that controversial a point? Even NARAL and all the abortion rights groups argue that hundreds of thousands of abortions aren't had by poor women because of their cost.
  • PASTOR JEFF
    I read the abstract from the link you provided. Are my dates incorrect? Maybe you could cut and paste a quote with a more specific reference since I must have missed the point.
    The point in and of itself is not that important, except it shows that this argument is laced with misinformation and unquestioned conclusions backed up by sketchy and outdated "studies" on both sides.
  • jesse3
    I haven't seen a single study suggesting that free abortions don't lead to more abortions...which ones were you thinking of? What misinformation have you identified? What sketchy studies?
  • KidLit
    I, too, supported Obama after frustration with the Republican party, into which I was born. I eagerly embraced Jim Wallis and Sojourners and shared their message of social justice with all of my right-leaning friends and family (some even listened!) Now I am feeling let down not only with President Obama, but also with Sojourners. I believed theirs was a prophetic voice, holding all of our leaders accountable to Jesus's call to care for the least of these. An article praising President Obama on the very day that he does, indeed, rescind the "Mexico City policy"? I'm saddened. I'm saddened not only that taxpayer monies will support international abortion clinics, but I'm also saddened that the prophetic voice seems to have caved.
  • MattyK
    Your comments echo my thoughts nearly exactly. I'm disappointed in both Obama and Sojourners. A truly prophetic voice would challenge this notion of "choice" and stand up for all marginalized people.
  • kevin47
    It hasn't "caved", per se. Wallis has been pro-choice for as long as the Democratic party, though his rhetoric on the issue is maddeningly opaque. As for Obama, I'm not sure how you could be disappointed here. He has been forthrightly and emphatically pro-choice.

    I share your frustration. I am conservative politically, but got sick of folks like Falwell and Robertson (on the right), and Jackson and Bishop Spong (on the left) who confused their political ideology with scriptural doctrines.

    I was particularly peeved by James Dobson's ham-fisted foray into politics. By all accounts, Wallis seemed interested in approaching politics from a non-partisan perspective. A (politically moderate) friend of mind bought his book "God's Politics", and so I thought I'd do the same.

    We both came to the same conclusion. In addition to being repetitive and uninspired, the book simply invoked nominally spiritual rhetoric to defend the Democratic party platform. To say it is theologically light is an understatement.

    More disappointingly, the once-promising emergent church seems to have joined forces to help peddle the Dem platform. As thought Christianity needed another highly-partisan denomination.

    If you are interested in reading someone who has a genuinely new perspective on politics, I would commend you to Greg Boyd (starting with "Myth of a Christian Nation". He is a very intelligent guy, understands the word inside and out, and isn't as transparently partisan.

    As for your family, the best bet is simply to say they were wrong re: Wallis, but that you still firmly believe that justice requires more than voting Republican. I've had to do the same re: the emergent church and advocating for a different way of thinking about Jesus. I still think the church should rethink Jesus; I'm just discarding the emergent template for doing so.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    Excellent comments Kevin. I'm a bit less down on the emergents than you are, but I agree that they are politically naive and need to rethink this whole area before they are subsumed in the general religious auxiliary of the militant left.

    LV
  • Guest
    yes revnorman I know what you mean . Many of us are out here just hopoing for somethings to take place in this country in regards to some basic values and common sense applications without the ideological rhetoric and misgivings of the other side on these issues . Keep on praying for this man , I believe also he has a heart that is willing to be opened to God .
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008