A search of the Obama for President website discloses quite a few eclectic groups in support of the junior senator from Illinois. There are “Wiccans for Obama,” “Marxists/Communists/Socialists for Obama” and even “Abortion Providers for Obama.” None of these groupings confused me more, though, than the recent project of Matthew 25, a political-action committee of self described Christians who wish to see Barack Obama become the next President of the United States. Their newest endeavor is called “Pro-Life Obama,” an attempt to cover up the record of the most pro-abortion major presidential candidate this nation has ever seen.
This newest effort seeks to argue that Obama’s proposals of expanding government role in taking care of those not as well off, at the expense of individual responsibility, will help reduce the number of abortions. The offending site offers up “facts on preventing abortions” that relies on biased numbers from abortion provider Planned Parenthood’s research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, or Democratic political groups like Catholics for the Alliance of the Common Good, whose founder is currently a Democratic congressional candidate in the state of Virginia. The data on the site includes statements that “(w)omen below the federal poverty level have abortion rates almost four times those of higher-income women” and that “(t)he majority of women having abortions are in their 20s or younger.” But, the site fails to point out that one major reason for the high abortion rates among these demographics is that Planned Parenthood specifically targets poor minorities and the youth by placing abortion facilities in low income neighborhoods and by crafting “hip” borderline-pornographic websites for teens.
If these “pro-lifers” truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions they might want to take a look at the statistics compiled by Michael New, currently a Bradley fellow at Princeton University. Looking at data compiled by the government’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, New found that state level parental-involvement laws (requiring either the notification or consent of parents before their underage teenage daughter seeks an abortion) have a large impact on reducing abortion among young girls.
Instead of encouraging parental involvement, or any other incremental laws on the subject of abortion, Senator Barack Obama has championed legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which seeks to overturn all state laws that seek to actually reduce the number of abortions. FOCA would not only allow for unrestricted abortions in the United States; it would also require federal and state taxpayer subsidies for the killing of an unborn child.
Obama apologist Douglas Kmiec has said that pro-lifers need not fear FOCA or Obama’s support of the bill. However, Sen. Obama last year vowed to a gathered pro-abortion audience at a Planned Parenthood event that, “The first thing I will do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” Obama’s promise should raise concern regardless of one’s views on abortion. While the country is in the middle of a financial crisis and a war, his first act would be to make sure that unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion would become the law of the land?
At least seven states have FOCA-type legislation on the books. In each of those states, abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased. Maryland adopted a bill similar to Senator Obama’s in 1991. Since that time, abortion rates in the state have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent. This is all according to Planned Parenthood’s own figures. While it might be debatable what actions one can do to lower cases of abortion, allowing for unrestricted abortions only increases the likelihood of abortion and certainly does not make it rarer as defenders of Senator Obama say he hopes to do.
Taking into account Sen. Obama’s lifelong fealty to pro-abortion groups, his unwavering support for FOCA, his negative actions toward legislation that sought to protect children who survive abortions, his established record against parental involvement laws and his support for taxpayer funded abortions, the phrase “pro-life Obama” deserves to be retired to the oxymoronic dictionary right in between “jumbo shrimp” and “reality television.”
— Tom McClusky is the vice president of government affairs for FRCAction, the political-action arm of the Family Research Council.