Debate Reactions
If Barack Obama and pro-choicers all over the country have their way, abortion might lose its political charge and become "boring," writes William Saletan on Slate. In last night's presidential debate, Obama the "technician" approached abortion pragmatically, examining ways pro- and anti-choicers could work together on measures that reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy. "Obama has been talking about abortion this way all along, when the subject comes up. He doesn't like us-and-them language. He doesn't like fights. Even on this issue--one of the nastiest, angriest, most polarizing topics in modern politics--he looks for a course most of us can agree on," writes Saletan. "He tries to turn even moral issues into technical issues." The way McCain talks about abortion, on the other hand, is by moralizing, rather than offering common sense solutions, Saletan observes: "Bad. Terrible. Extreme. Clear-cut. Feelings. Mainstream America. This is the way McCain, Sarah Palin, and George W. Bush talk: There's honor and evil, good guys and bad guys. We fight for the good side. Our opponents don't. They're extreme."
Meanwhile, the LA Times fact-checked McCain's assertions about Obama's position on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. "Sen. Obama, as a member of the Illinois state Senate, voted in the judiciary committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion. He voted against that," McCain said. The LA Times reacts:
Obama said the bill would have undermined legal protections for abortion provided by Roe vs. Wade. He defended his vote by saying that "there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing life-saving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.
Factcheck.org supports Obama's assertion that there was already a law protecting such babies and has criticized an ad by an antiabortion group featuring a woman who says she was born in a failed abortion. The woman says she would not be alive "if Barack Obama had his way. Illinois law since 1975 requires that if a child is born alive during an abortion, the physician "shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Failure to do so is a felony in Illinois.
On the Huffington Post, Michele Swenson regretted Obama's lost opportunity to confront McCain on the Republican's opposition to contraception access. "Once again, the media and even Democratic candidate Barack Obama, have failed to follow-up on McCain's stated opposition to abortion by questioning his equal opposition to contraception - the primary means to reduce the rate of abortion," she writes. Given McCain's votes against low-income women's access to birth control, his opposition to comprehensive sexuality education, his support of the global gag rule, and his unwillingness to denounce sweeping provider-conscience laws, Swenson wonders whether McCain may indeed consider forms of contraception murder.
And Midwest Voices notices that even though both candidates claimed not to have litmus tests for the kind of judges they'd nominate to the Supreme Court, each man then outlined a set of "qualifications" that sound an awful lot like a litmus test:
John McCain and Barack Obama both say they don't like litmus tests.
Yet McCain essentially says someone who supports abortion would not be on his list of judges qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. In other words, that's a litmus test.
Obama says he supports abortion rights, and he would look for judges with a world view. It doesn't sound like a litmus test, but Obama doesn't answer the question directly.
So, yes, Obama seems to have a litmus test, too.
Voting Catholics
On US News and World Report, John Aloyssius Farrell tells Catholic voters that if they really want to decrease the abortion rate, they should vote pro-choice, the party that will take practical steps to make abortion "safe, legal and rare:"
And as a matter of practical politics, Catholic voters who vote Republican because they think the GOP is a strong foe of abortion have been sold a bill of goods.
In the 35 years since Roe v. Wade guaranteed a right of abortion for women, the Republicans, though dominating American politics, have consistently failed to take the tough political steps necessary to outlaw the practice.
Ultimately, the absolutist position taken by antiabortion forces has been counterproductive. By focusing so much on overturning Roe v. Wade and refusing to work with pro-choice politicians on pragmatic steps that would actually reduce the number of abortions, they've let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Truth be told, there is nothing that Democratic Party leaders would like more than to make abortion safe, legal, and rare.
If they really believe that abortion is an abominable sin, Catholic conservatives should seize the opportunity to work with pro-choice Democrats on the "rare" part of that equation and save tens of thousands of potential lives each year....If the Catholic clergy truly believes that abortion is so intrinsic an evil-a sin above sins-then it's time to blink at the lesser transgressions of birth control and sex education. Not just in America, but around the world.
You want to reduce the number of abortions? Distribute condoms and show teens how to use them.
California Newspapers Come Out Against Parental Notification
The Pasadena Star-News comes out against California's Proposition 4, mandate parental notification of teens seeking abortion. The Star-News notes that 79% of teens already notify their parents; the ones who don't are often in abusive homes where telling parents about an unintended pregnancy could jeopardize the safety of the teen. The supposed exception is Byzantine, and still unhelpful:
In order for a girl to be able to instead inform a "surrogate" parent - an aunt or other adult family member, say - she would have to somehow maneuver our courts system, arrange an appearance before a judge, request a formal petition and then sign legally binding paperwork that would go to Child Protective Services declaring that one or both parents are child abusers, opening parents up to investigation and prosecution.
A teen dealing with an unplanned pregnancy is the last person in the world likely to be able to jump through those hoops.
The paper notes the likely outcome of Prop 4: "The sad fact is that if this one were to pass, desperate Southern California teens unable to communicate with parents would likely seek abortions elsewhere - illegally, self-induced, south of the border, in other states. Quite clearly they would wait longer."
The Chico Enterprise-Record concurred; "Proposition 4 requires a waiting period and parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion. California voters rejected all but identical measures in 2005 and 2006, and should vote it down again in 2008. The proposal isn't about parental notification. It's about stopping abortion, and it won't do that. It'll just force teens underground. Vote no on Proposition 4."
