Obama and Abortion

Can someone who is pro-life vote for Obama?

Let's assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that abortion is the single most important issue facing our nation today. I personally disagree with that notion, but for some in the pro-life crowd, abortion is akin to genocide and mass-murder, and I can understand that being a "one issue" vote worth making.

Can you vote for someone who has, as I understand, the most liberal voting record on abortion in history? How do you get around that "one issue" when you're a one-issue voter?

Let's look at what voting for a pro-life candidate really means. There are really two paths toward furtherance of the pro-life cause: Supreme Court decisions, and actual federal legislation. For a President to influence Supreme Court decisions, there would first have to be openings. The general consensus is that there will probably be judges leaving the bench during this Presidential term. The President would then have to recommend for appointment only pro-life judges. There would then have to be an abortion case heard by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would have to make a majority decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

That overturning is, of course, only the first step. All that does is leave the law-making process to the states. Several states (seven, I believe) already have anti-abortion laws in place to go into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned. And several more will have no laws banning abortion.

The effect of the overturning will have one main consequence, I believe: people will have to travel further for safe abortions.

It is already known that outlawing abortion does not make it stop. Certainly, there were fewer abortions when it was illegal, but no one can know definitively how many abortions were done in back alley clinics, at home with coat hangers, or across the country's borders. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it seems there will be a few options for people:

(1) Carry and deliver the child.
(2) Travel to another state to obtain an abortion.
(3) Seek an illegal vendor in your own state.
(4) Perform your own abortion.

I would expect the next course of action for the pro-lifers would be to lobby for each individual state's banning of abortion. Let's suppose, for purpose of this argument, that they succeed (which will probably never happen), and all abortion becomes illegal in all states.

Or, alternatively, the federal government could draft and sign into law a bill outlawing abortion unilaterally in all states, perhaps allowing abortion in certain circumstances, perhaps not. If this happens, it seems there will be a few options for people:

(1) Carry and deliver the child.
(2) Travel to another country to obtain an abortion.
(3) Seek an illegal vendor in your own area.
(4) Perform your own abortion.

Abortions will not stop. They will become dangerous, they will become expensive, but they will not stop.

And we must ask, what will happen to the 1 million additional children who are likely to be born each year? Certainly they will not all be adopted. Can they be supported, both emotionally and financially? Can our society as a whole support such a large increase in population? Will child abuse rates increase? Will the number of families below the poverty level increase? Will that, in turn, increase the rates of crime? This is all speculative, of course, but I think it's an important consideration. If we are going to force a woman to carry and deliver a child she does not want, do we have a responsibility to that child after it is born? If so, what?

Are there ever situations in which an abortion is justified? What about instances in which a child would be born severely disabled or malformed into a life of only a few hours full of pain and suffering? Should that mother be able to choose to end her child's life before it begins? In instances where a mother's life is in danger, should she be required to put the life of the potential child above her own? When a woman is raped, should she be required to carry the child of her rapist, risking additional life-altering psychological damage?

If we are going to allow abortion under certain extreme circumstances, someone has to evaluate those circumstances. We would have to weigh, case-by-case, each woman's intentions and the potential damage to her physical and mental health. How many women would want to submit to that intense scrutiny?

There is also an argument among the pro-life movement that hormonal birth control acts as abortifacient. It is currently unknown in the scientific community whether this is true, but nevertheless, the US Dept. of Health and Human Services is taking action to define abortion to include hormonal birth control that may prevent fertilized eggs from implanting. How could a line be drawn between the expulsion of a fertilized egg - a life - through regular hormonal birth control, and abortion? If we decide that hormonal birth control is also abortion, it would also be illegal. Can the ramifications of ending access to hormonal birth control - the most commonly used form of birth control - even be quantified?

It certainly could be argued that those details are irrelevant and that the discomforts it may cause our society are no reason to continue the murder of millions of innocent human beings (if that's what you believe abortion to be). In fact, I've used that same exact argument against those who claim gay marriage would cause a legal nightmare, clogging the court system with tons of additional marriage license and divorce requests. But I think it is important, in this instance, to examine the results of the methodology used in reducing the number of abortions.

And, whether abortion is illegal or not, there will always be a group fighting for it to be otherwise. Unless we can find common ground and work together toward a common cause, this issue will continue to divide us.

Therefore, I ask: Is it possible to reduce the number of abortions to a number comparable to that which would be procured in the case of its illegality without rendering it illegal?

Doing so may have the same net effect on lives saved, but with the avoidance of all the potential issues raised above, without women feeling their rights have been violated, without causing dangerous, illegal abortions. Without continuing the same divisive arguments for and against abortion. Would that not be the ideal compromise between the two divergent viewpoints?

I believe this to be possible.

Abortions are caused most often by one thing: unwanted pregnancy. If we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, we can reduce the number of abortions AND the number of children subjected to abuse, forced to live in foster homes, or living in poverty. We can reduce the number of teenage parents. We can empower people to make positive decisions for themselves and their families before they get into the position of contemplating abortion.

That is Barack Obama's position: that the pro-life and pro-choice can work together to achieve the common goal of reducing unwanted pregnancy. That we can take this issue that has divided our country for years and turn it into something that unites us. A vote for Barack Obama is not a vote for "baby-killing" any more than a vote for John McCain is. They only have different methods for preventing abortion.