- The Washington Times - Saturday, January 31, 2009

It is dishonest to claim that Obama has broken campaign promises by restoring funding to family planning organizations that provide abortions (“Obama’s abortion war,” Editorial, Wednesday). Obama’s Web site clearly stated his pro-choice views, and your own editorials hammered him relentlessly on the point in the weeks leading up to the election. If 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama it wasn’t because they didn’t know he was pro-choice.

Pro life absolutists will never be pleased as long as abortion is legal. But providing better information and contraception can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, a goal most American’s share.



• • •

The Wednesday editorial “Obama’s abortion war” was right-on. The president’s repeal of the ban on U.S. funding for foreign family-planning aid groups that offer abortion makes the government complicit in the murder of unborn children. The president’s latest maneuver is also insane from a financial standpoint. It makes no sense to send money out of the country during our current economic situation. Why not use this money instead to support crisis-pregnancy centers and other pro-life organizations in the U.S. that help pregnant mothers choose life?

Did any of the people who voted for Mr. Obama or those who jammed the Mall to celebrate his inauguration give any thought to his position on abortion? Some may defend their vote by saying that ending the war in Iraq, as Mr. Obama pledged to do, is pro-life because our soldiers’ lives will be saved. Leaving aside the question of whether President Bush’s decision to topple Saddam Hussein was justified, I would point out that more than 40 million babies have been aborted since the Roe v. Wade decision. That’s more than the total of all deaths of U.S. soldiers in all our country’s wars combined. Respect for life should take precedence over all other issues. The economy, the environment, taxes, immigration, education and all other issues mean nothing to a dead baby.

Mr. Obama is willing to have even his own grandchild aborted. During the campaign, he stated that if one of his daughters made a mistake and became pregnant, he didn’t want her to be “punished” with a baby.

Wake up, America. You voted for abortion funding, and now you’ve got it. How will you vote four years from now?



• • •

President Obama’s repeal of the Mexico City Policy - a Reagan-era measure that “withheld funding to foreign aid organizations that perform abortions or refer women to abortion providers” (“Obama changes policy on abortion,” Politics, Jan. 24) - is diametrically opposite his boast that the revised Democratic Party platform will reduce the number of abortions. The clever ploy worked well in gaining Catholic and Christian votes, but the harsh reality voters soon will realize is that the president’s extreme pro-abortion position and destructive policies will, instead, subsidize and promote abortion as opposed to helping make it “safe and rare,” as promised.

As the Catholic bishops so aptly noted, the number of abortions is not reduced by promoting abortion. In sponsoring the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), Mr. Obama is, in fact, promoting abortion because its provisions not only would repeal all state and local restrictions on abortions but also would deprive the American people of the freedom to enact regulations restricting the abortion industry. Parental notification and informed-consent precautions would be outlawed, thus denying freedom of conscience to doctors, nurses and health care providers whose faith convictions prevent them from cooperating in the execution of a human being. Partial-birth abortion would be legal again, and abortion clinics would be deregulated, leaving them free to increase their killing at will.

In short, by abrogating the Hyde Amendment restricting federal funding of abortions, FOCA provisions would subsidize and promote abortion on demand.

Furthermore, the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars in contraception bailout money as part of the stimulus package not only is an outrage but also is further proof of Mr. Obama’s resolve to promote abortion, regardless of consequences.

It is quite clear that in Mr. Obama’s playbook, political expediency demands that the morbid abortion show must go on.



• • •

In response to “Catholics hit Obama on pro-choice agenda” (Nation, Thursday): The U.S. bishops´ campaign against the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that has not yet been introduced into the 111th Congress, is not based on fact or reality. Instead, it seeks to stir up fear among churchgoing Catholics about the intentions of the new Obama administration and thereby restore the bishops’ reputation after their advice was roundly rejected by Catholics in the last election.

The bishops may have good reason to resort to fear-mongering to garner support. After all, the majority of Catholics (54 percent) ignored the dictates of a conservative minority of bishops who falsely asserted that a vote for a pro-choice candidate would be anti-Catholic and cast their ballot for the pro-choice candidate in the presidential election.

Almost immediately afterward, the bishops’ position was further damaged by the results of a poll they themselves carried out. Released in the media dead zone of Dec. 30, it showed that 9 in 10 of the nation’s adults reject the bishops’ position on abortion. While many seek to impose conditions on access to abortion care - some reasonable, others not - barely a 10th of the population is opposed to all abortions. This figure is one of the lowest found in a large-scale poll in recent years. That must have led to some sobering conversations around the bishops’ dinner tables.



Catholics for Choice


Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide