Thursday, October 25, 2012

Is Obama More Pro-Life Than Romney?

Eric C. Miller, a lecturer in Communication Arts at Penn State, says yes to the question posed in the title of this post.

In fact, in his recent Religious Dispatches article, Miller calls Obama a "pro-life hero."  He cites a Washington University School of Medicine study that suggests that abortion rates will "decline significantly--perhaps up to 75 percent--when contraceptives are made available to women free of charge."  Here is Miller's conclusion:

Fierce resistance to abortion is a central plank in the social conservative platform, and has for decades served as one of the standards around which millions of activists and voters have rallied. That a path to the drastic decline in abortions that these individuals have so desperately sought has suddenly been provided them by a president they so openly despise is, at the very least, a political puzzle.

But by addressing the problem of unintended pregnancy—rather than the politically fraught problem of abortion—“Obamacare” addresses the issue at its root. Though abortion has served as the central locus of the “culture war” for nearly forty years, it has always been a secondary concern—a problematic solution to a deeper and less sensational problem. By insisting on mere illegality, pro-life forces have turned a blind eye to the troublesome side-effects of illegal abortion even as they dedicated themselves to a largely symbolic political victory. And since the political divisions accompanying the debate have become so intractable, hope for a deliberative resolution has long ceased to exist.

In the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, we have a previously unimaginable opportunity for satisfying compromise on abortion. In accordance with liberal demands, the procedure will remain safe and legal, and reproductive choices will be extended to those who have been unable to afford them in the past. In exchange, conservatives will see abortion rates plummet, achieving a result comparable to that of illegality but without the fierce controversy or government imposition in the lives of individuals.

4 comments:

Gabriel said...

In some ways, this article is just another example of how hard it is for a pro-choice thinker to understand a pro-life thinker. How does a committed pro-lifer say: "I'll be happy with 300,000 legal killings per year, as long as there aren't 700,000"? It just doesn't make sense. Of course fewer killings per year is better, but it is impossible to be okay with any, from the point of view that these are human lives we're talking about.

Gene Chase said...

Government can not assure that abortion is "safe" because it can only address immediate physical consequences, not the immediate and long-term emotional consequences.

John Fea said...

Gabriel: Agreed.

John Fea said...

Gene: Agreed