Obama on abortion

By Jennifer J. Foster

Published: August 4, 2008

The following letter to the editor appeared in the Opelika-Auburn News a couple of weeks ago, and I thought it was worthy of some attention here:

I have been intrigued by Sen. Barack Obama’s pledge to dramatically change government policies and have everyone feel they can live with the changes. Since our Congress is roughly divided along party lines, any President needs the support of the other party to effect substantive legislative change. So, my question for Obama is this: What change do you think I, as a Republican, can live with?

Number one on my list, and the main reason I have difficulty considering any Democrat for office, is the wanton killing of the unborn through abortion. Now, I understand that to completely eradicate this sad policy would be unrealistic in America these days, so I offer some change I can live with. Let’s compromise and actually accomplish some needed change.

Let’s agree that once a fetus (human being) can be sustained outside the womb, abortion should be illegal. I’ll defer to medical professionals to tell me exactly when that is, but I suspect it is soon after the first trimester. I can live with exceptions to this policy for certain medical conditions of the mother, but a policy shift of this sort will greatly reduce our killing of the unborn.

Hopefully, Democrats and Republicans can finally seize some common ground and thereby work better with each other on other important issues.

The big question for Obama and Democrats: Can you live with this change?

Scott Smith
Auburn

This letter got me thinking about how many pro-life voters out there are like Mr. Smith. They would be interested in considering Obama as a candidate but are precluded from doing so because of his unwillingness to compromise on abortion.

Sure, Barack Obama has made some conciliatory statements on abortion (“There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down”), apparently in hopes of softening the perception of his position among pro-life voters. But the reality is that he’s the proud owner of a 100 percent voting record from NARAL—one of the top two pro-choice lobbying organizations in the country—over the three full years he’s served in the U.S. Senate.

For all his talk about “common ground,“ Obama gets an A+—a perfect score—from one of the country’s largest abortion advocacy groups.

That means that in all his votes in the Senate, Obama hasn’t ever broken with NARAL.

Not even once.

There are a lot of registered Republicans who remember the Republican promise of compassionate conservatism but know the record that’s resulted: Very little fiscal conservatism and even less compassion.

Many of these people are pro-life voters. They’d like to consider voting for a Democrat. But in national elections, they don’t have a choice.

Ironic, isn’t it? Pro-choice Democrats leave pro-life voters with no choice.

In local and state races and in scattered conservative congressional districts around the country, Democratic candidates have gotten the message. They run on pro-life platforms (like Bobby Bright in Alabama’s CD 2), or they don’t advertise their pro-choice ones (like Josh Segall in Alabama’s CD 3), or they ignore the issue altogether (Parker Griffith in Alabama’s CD 5). Not convinced? Check out the active and robust web site of Democrats for Life, an organization with a growing membership and candidates who are thriving in state legislatures around the country.

All this to say, this letter made me wonder how many more red states would become competitive—or competitive red states would turn blue—if Obama walked the walk of his change talk.