To Compromise or Patronize: The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Obama named Joshua DuBois to head the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which, among other responsibilities, will lead his efforts to depolarize the debate over abortion. Some point to Obama’s decision to subtly reverse a ban on using U.S. funds overseas for abortions and abortion counseling, rather than making a major statement with it on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The only reason I can see that this would lower the volume of the outcry is because fewer people who would be offended by it would know about it. If you’re going to stab someone, have the guts to do it from the front.

The argument that removing a proposal to expand Medicare to cover contraceptive services from a stimulus bill balances this out rings hollow. Sure, pro-lifers would generally support this, but how is the government spending more money on condoms going to stimulate the economy? Until someone explains this to me, I will only applaud Obama for removing a bum rider from the bill.

I am not cynical enough to claim Obama is intentionally belittling pro-lifers, but his suggested compromises seem aloof to the entire issue. Certainly pro-lifers want fewer abortions, but telling a staunch pro-life advocate to compromise by trying to lower the number abortions but not legally restricting the action is akin to wanting to take steps to reduce the number of murders but not making it against the law. Even Obama’s actions thus far are confusing given his goal of people on both sides of the issue coming together to “try to prevent unwanted pregnancies.” Thus far, Obama has suggested making contraception more readily available, helping pregnant women continue their education, and lowering barriers to adoption.

However, one issue that seems to be completely overlooked in the abortion discussion is why abortion is even an issue in many cases – sex outside of marriage. No, abstinence education will not magically drop the unwanted pregnancy rate to zero. No, it will not suddenly stop people from having sex outside of marriage. But its absence from Obama’s proposals in favor of more contraception is notable. As a culture, we continually try to define “freedom” as the absence of consequences whether it be not paying debts, not accepting the consequences of taking performance-enhancing drugs, or not reserving sex for the bonds of marriage.

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning…the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was…liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom,” said Aldous Huxley, atheist and author of Brave New World.

I am not contending that every pregnancy ended by an abortion is the result of a hedonistic orgy. However, the best estimate as what percentage of abortions are cases of rape or incest is about one percent. According to a Pew poll in 2003, only twenty-five percent of Americans support abortion in all circumstances. That number jumps to eighty-five percent when the woman’s life is endangered. The natural middle ground on abortion seems to be limiting the circumstances under which abortion is legal, not obliterating restrictions on abortion like abolishing state laws that offer protection to medical professionals who refuse to participate in abortions and parental notification laws by passing the Freedom of Choice Act.

David Freddoso, author of The Case Against Barack Obama, states that Obama has never voted for any restriction on abortion, ever. If Obama wants to truly compromise on the abortion debate, he will have to tone down his extreme views instead of attempted to bait-and-switch pro-life advocates with his promises to reduce the number of abortions without admitting there is anything wrong with the procedure itself.