SMITH: Obama signals anti-life administration

By Douglas G. Smith

Published January 27, 2009 at 12:01 a.m.

Text size

More Speakout

With the country focused on economic issues and the stock market falling more than 300 points upon his inauguration, what was planned as one of President Barack Obama’s first official actions? To repeal by executive order the prohibition on using scarce federal dollars to fund groups that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries, otherwise known as the Mexico City Policy.

That policy was implemented so that the United States would not be perceived around the world as actively promoting abortion as a means of family planning. The fact that President Obama thought that repeal of this policy was so critical that it warranted emergency action is in line with what is emerging as one of the most anti-life administrations this country has witnessed. Whatever one’s view concerning the appropriate regulation of domestic abortions, one must question whether providing taxpayer funding to subsidize or promote abortions in foreign countries should be one of the administration’s highest priorities during these strained economic times.

Moreover, the administration took this action over the objection of a bipartisan group of lawmakers who observed that the change in policy would be counterproductive and "insulting" to foreign governments to the extent the money was used to lobby for the repeal of laws in other countries regulating or prohibiting abortion.

Repeal of the Mexico City Policy is not the only emergency action that the Obama administration has suggested it will take along these lines. The administration has also indicated that it will open up federal funding for research involving the destruction of human embryos. After extensive public debate, the Bush administration had declined to expend federal funds on such research given that there were options that could be funded without the destruction of human life. The administration decided to forgo funding of human embryonic stem cell research in favor of stem cell research that did not involve the destruction of human embryos. Once again, however, the Obama administration has deemed it a priority to expend scarce government resources in this area.

These emergency measures are not the only areas in which the Obama administration promises a dramatic shift in policy. During the campaign, President Obama famously promised to pass within the first 100 days of his administration the Freedom of Choice Act, which many have criticized as leading to the elimination of all regulation of abortion at the state level and potentially requiring hospitals (including the many Catholic and other religiously-affiliated hospitals) to provide abortion services despite their strong moral objections, by invalidating state legislation that protects such acts of conscience.

There is no evidence that President Obama has backed away from this promise, which was one of the centerpieces of his domestic policy, and would mark a dramatic shift away from the status quo that has existed since Roe v. Wade, under which the states have remained free to regulate abortion, passing reasonable restrictions requiring parental consent before minors obtain abortions, providing for informed consent, maintaining physician licensing requirements, and regulating particular abortion procedures, such as late-term abortions.

Not only does the Obama administration promise to take several affirmative actions that will have an adverse impact on the value of human life, it also appears that it will fail to act in areas in which such values may be furthered. While President Obama enjoys strong Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, there is no indication that he intends to take any action to repeal or limit the death penalty for federal crimes.

In recent years, the national consensus has shifted with respect to the continued value of the death penalty. The public has increasingly come to question its utility in deterring crime as well as the fairness in its application, given a number of high-profile cases in which convictions have been overturned based on legal errors or new evidence. In this environment, President Obama would not have to expend much political capital in taking an action that should enjoy widespread support within the Democratic Congress.

However, it does not appear that this is a priority.

To the contrary, during the campaign President Obama spoke out in favor of the death penalty for certain crimes even though he did not believe that it was much of a deterrent.

Given these early actions, the public — and in particular the millions of voters with strong religious or moral convictions that human life in all its forms should be protected — should pause and consider exactly what they have wrought. It also may be time for a robust public discussion regarding the proper role of government in this area. With all of the other pressing matters facing the country and the new administration, let’s hope that these actions will not simply pass without any debate. They are fundamental questions that should be the subject of thoughtful public attention.

Douglas G. Smith is an attorney in Chicago, Illinois.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

January 27, 2009

6:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Liberalsrising writes:

This is an example of the right being "strong but wrong." Obama has made it clear he intends to be president of all the people, not just evangelicals or atheists. The right has politicized abortion. Obama is acting to undo that politicization.
January 27, 2009

6:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

Obama is playing to his constituents. He's looking to get reelected in 4 years. From the point of view of the conservatives this will get worse. He got elected; he gets to set the rules.
January 27, 2009

8:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

KelcyCo writes:

I have to wonder where Mr. Smith stands on the use of torture. I suspect that being the good little evangelical republican that he is that he supports the use of torture. I find the hypocrisy of writing article such as this but supporting the use torture to be beyond the pale.
January 27, 2009

8:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

The republican right simply wants more unwanted babies to grow up to go fight and die in wars, for embezzlement, profit and plunder.
January 27, 2009

8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

President Obama has obvious strong skills. And he may be able to turn our economy around.

But our bigger concern is his weakness regarding moral values. During his campaigns he acknowledged that he was pro-abortion and pro-homosexual.

These positions raise serious questions about all of his moral values.
January 27, 2009

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

save_liberty writes:

Boy, im glad Obama's focusing on business to get this Country back in line. A sense of calm just washed over me. A job well done.
January 27, 2009

9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

intothelens writes:

No, LetsThink, he said specifically, "Nobody's for abortion," when asked if he was pro-abortion during one of the debates. He is for freedom of choice. He has also stated he is in favor of freedom of choice when it comes to an individual's sexuality. That's much different than being "pro" anything. He is letting people choose for themselves, instead of letting government dictate their personal policy. And you are being misleading.
January 27, 2009

9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

robertzimmerman writes:

President Obama won the election. The majority of people agree with him. Get over it.
January 27, 2009

10:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

LetsThink,
ok morel orel. why is it YOUR morals are so correct? whats wrong with mine?
The Roman empire stood for 1000's of years until Christianity came along then it took only 400 for it to fail.
Before Christianity came along in Rome, homosexuality was accepted, as was abortion and prostitution.

tell me again why your morals are better again?
January 27, 2009

10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Education and contraception will make this a moot issue. Why don't the anti-abotionists support this solution? If you eliminate unwanted pregnancies then the only abortions will be the ones that are necessary for the woman's life. Isn't that what we would all like to see? Check out the countries with the lowest rates of abortion and you will see that they educate people and provide contraception.
January 27, 2009

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

Abortion is clearly morally wrong. It's regrettable that it happens. But sometimes in the real world it's necessary to achieve what we believe is a greater good. Some people believe it's worth it. Mostly not Christians.

Killing innocent people in war is clearly morally wrong. It is regrettable that it happens. But sometimes in the real world it's necessary to achieve what we believe is a greater good. Some people believe it's worth it. Mostly Christians.
January 27, 2009

11:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Seetheobvious writes:

LetsThink try thinking for a change. Pro-Choice is Pro-American because you are free to make the decisions that effect your life and how you define yourself, your body and your morals. Pro-Choice is NOT Pro-Abortion. I myself would advise against abortion but I vote pro-choice because how I define my life may not be how you want to define your life. I let you choose. See how that works? I personally do not want you defining my life, nor Mr. Smith as he thinks his personal views are so high and mighty that everyone should kowtow to his paradigm. More people - humans - have been killed in God's name then all the abortions. Take the plank out of your eye before removing the splinter from mine.
January 27, 2009

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

jbowen43 writes:

Effective birth control results in fewer abortions. Prosperity results in fewer abortions. If the right truly wants fewer abortions then they will support practical proven methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies and practical proven methods for eliminating poverty. If they won't do that then we know that their agenda is purely political.
January 27, 2009

noon

Suggest removal

PaleoConservative writes:

KelcyCo writes:

"I have to wonder where Mr. Smith stands on the use of torture. I suspect that being the good little evangelical republican that he is that he supports the use of torture. I find the hypocrisy of writing article such as this but supporting the use torture to be beyond the pale."

Ripping an innocent fetus apart with forceps is the moral equivalent of waterboarding, but not actually injuring the mastermind of 9/11? Really?
January 27, 2009

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

tjason11 writes:

Reagon was the one that came up with the ban, and every president since him, depeding on what party they belonged to has either repealed it (Democrats - Clinton did the same thing his first week in office) or enforced it (Republicans - Bush Jr. enforced it just like his father did). This has nothing to do with tax dollars or federal spending. Stop trying to make this very small thing a left wing or right wing issue.

BTW, did any of you know that in Italy, the home of the Vatican and core of the entire Catholic religion, is pro-abortion. It is NOT illegal there.
January 27, 2009

1 p.m.

Suggest removal

spelvin2002 writes:

Mr. Smith writes that "..., the millions of voters with strong religious or moral convictions that human life in all its forms should be protected — should pause and consider exactly what they have wrought."

We've been there and done that. Nearly everyone agrees that abortion is an abysmally poor method of birth control. The fundamentalists among us do indeed believe in, and in the past have attempted the legislate, the protection of human life "in all its forms" from birth backwards to the zygote, spermatozoon, ovum and the unconceived, but they show precious little consideration for human life after birth, except as cannon fodder.
January 27, 2009

1:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Romanesco writes:

Spencer writes: "Education and contraception will make this a moot issue. Why don't the anti-abortionists support this solution?"

Because a lot of the anti-abortionists are probably Catholics, who don't support contraception or sex education.
January 27, 2009

1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

tjason11 writes:

Let me ask anyone who would like to answer this. If someone you have never met and have no relationship what-so-ever with, has an abortion, how does it really affect you? If you belive in God, then it's your actions that are judged, so if you believe it's a sin then don't do it and you will have your afterlife. If you are a right-wing anti-abortion person you can't be for the death penalty and then against abortion. Killing is killing.
January 27, 2009

1:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

blacksho89 writes:

INC: The Roman Empire proper began with Julius Caesar in 49 B.C. . The fall could probably be dated at A.D. 402, when the imperial court was moved to Ravenna, but definitely by 476 when barbarian kings were wandering the streets of Ravenna. Hardly "1000s of years".

The rest of your arguments fail, as well.
January 27, 2009

2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Beergut writes:

Mr. Smith is the type of person that makes me afraid for the future of American. The Muslim world has to deal with jihadist, we have to deal with this type of scum. Your views are not the views of the country, either live with that or get the hell out.
January 27, 2009

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

AngelontheSidelines writes:

"The fact that President Obama thought that repeal of this policy was so critical that it warranted emergency action is in line with what is emerging as one of the most anti-life administrations this country has witnessed."

Now THAT'S rich, Obama follows the man who killed more death row prisoners than any POTUS. He even had the moral values to mock Karla Fay Tucker in falsetto "Please don't kill me".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Fa...

The Bush doctrine and his crusade to bring 'freedom' to Iraq killed and maimed over a million. Obama's rescinding of the Mexico City policy enables US tax money to help third world lives, rather than allow 'moral values' to handcuff real health aid.
January 27, 2009

3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

robertzimmerman writes:

President Obama won the election. The majority of people agree with him. Get over it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Really? Was this also your opinion when Bush was elected ... and re-elected? Or did you join in the chorus of (mostly deserved) criticism and catcalls?

Hypocrite.

Commentary - in support of and in opposition to - any administration's policies is part of the open discussion that should take place in the public forum. If you're too sensitive to take part in it, stay off the editorial pages.
January 27, 2009

3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

robertzimmerman writes:

"Really? Was this also your opinion when Bush was elected ... and re-elected?"

It was indeed, and I busted my a$$ and donated my $$$ to change it.

You can stuff it.
January 27, 2009

4 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Man, I guess I've been told off in no uncertain terms!

I'm convinced. I'll be an unquestioning Obama supporter from now on. I sure don't want to hurt the feelings of the un-silent majority.

You'll hear no criticism of the current administration from me, that's for sure! Everything they do will be absolutely perfect! Wait and see!
January 27, 2009

6:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

dudleysharp writes:

Death Penalty: Pro Life

The Death Penalty Provides More Protection for Innocents
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

Often, the death penalty dialogue gravitates to the subject of innocents at risk of execution. Seldom is a more common problem reviewed. That is, how innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

To state the blatantly clear, living murderers, in prison, after release or escape, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

Although an obvious truism, it is surprising how often folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration.

No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.

Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.

That is. logically, conclusive.

16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.

A surprise? No.

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.

Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don't. Studies which don't find for deterrence don't say no one is deterred, but that they couldn't measure those deterred.

What prospect of a negative outcome doesn't deter some? There isn't one.

In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.

There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?

Unlikely.
January 27, 2009

7:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

This is one very specific reason I vote Democratic. The gag rule resulted in closed health clinics, now they can reopen with the full range of womens health care issues covered , and the occasional abortion.
February 2, 2009

7:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

plzgetreal writes:

Just curious Mr. Smith, how many mixed race American born crack babies have you adopted?

Home › Opinion › Speakout

SMITH: Obama signals anti-life administration

By Douglas G. Smith

Published January 27, 2009 at 12:01 a.m.

More Speakout

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs