Obama’s Move Away from the Abortion Left
NCinDC used under a Creative Commons license
Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times, my employer, reported last Thursday that President Obama now opposes repealing the Hyde Amendment, the 1977 law that prohibits Uncle Sam from paying for most types of abortions. Obama’s budget proposal would keep in place the existing restrictions on federal funding of the procedure, which in most cases means that if a woman receives Medicaid, her abortion will be paid only if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or threatens her life. His proposal is almost but not quite an affirmation of the status quo. While Obama gave the green light to the District of Columbia to pay for abortions, he gave the red light to federal agencies.
Whether Obama will stick to his guns is difficult to say. On the one hand, he will come under pressure to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which was his position during the campaign. Feminist organizations and the abortion lobby are howling already at his flip flop; by their lights, Obama’s proposal will harm poor women, who cannot afford to pay for abortions. Expect them to pressure Obama the rest of the year. When President Carter in July 1977 re-affirmed his opposition to public funding and later signed the Hyde Amendment into law, feminist and pro-choice groups accused him of “legislating his personal views” and not seeking the opinions of outside experts. (At the 1984 Democratic convention, these two groups passed a plank in support of using federal dollars to pay for abortions, a position which has been in the party platform ever since). On the other hand, Obama’s top goal at the moment is the economy, not cultural issues. Reversing his stance would create the perception, one that Nancy Pelosi faced earlier this year with contraception, that he is a spendthrift and cultural radical.
If Obama maintains his support for the status quo on the Hyde Amendment, he can no longer be accused unambiguously of being the most “pro-abortion” president ever, the standard charge of conservative pro-lifers. Bill Clinton arguably was a bigger supporter of abortion, as he repealed most of Hyde’s funding restrictions and vetoed a ban against partial-birth abortion; whether Obama is serious about reducing the number of abortions is unclear, though I am dubious about proposals that strike me as a vast subsidy to the abortion industry. What’s more, the Hyde Amendment arguably is the most important piece of anti-abortion federal legislation. More unborn babies (and mothers) are saved from federal funding restrictions than legal prohibitions on the practice.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume Obama does keep the Hyde Amendment in place. Obama’s position on abortion could be not characterized accurately as that of a moderate. He supports not only public funding of the procedure in D.C., but also gave money to organizations that perform abortions overseas. Both positions are deeply unpopular. But Obam’s position could be characterized as that of a pro-choicer. He opposes legal prohibitions and, in most cases at least, funding of the procedure.
We pro-lifers could not take much solace from this recognition; unborn boys and girls still enjoy almost no legal protections, and Obama is committed to keeping things that way. But we ought to stop calling Obama the most pro-abortion president ever.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] big banks, though I suspect that this proposal may be a bridge too far for conservative. Today, I argued that Obama’s budget proposal, in which he maintained the Hyde Amendment’s funding restrictions, represents [...]
“abortion industry”
There is no “abortion industry”. Just armies of committed people who are going to make sure that we don’t end up with the Christian version of sharia law in this country!
Ah, the Washington Times. How’s Reverend Moon doing? I keed, I keed!
But like Brian, I did balk at the “abortion industry” line – especially coming from someone’s who generally does a good job of staying away from the hyperventilating purple prose of the pro-life movement. It was the equivalent of having NO BLOOD FOR OIL in giant letters in an otherwise coherent anti-war op-ed.
So, let’s break down the so-called industry numbers:
1st trimester abortion average cost = $300
Late 2nd trimester (less than 1.4 percent of procedures) = $3,000
Vaginal Birth average cost = $7000
C-section = $12 to $16,000
Average adoption costs = $14,500 – $25,500
If abortion providers are in it for the money, they picked the wrong racket. And considering the cost of an abortion – adjust for inflation – is one of the few medical costs to have gone down over the years, they’re really, really doing an awful job of raking in that dough. Factor in the security costs and state restrictions on insurance coverage, abortion providers are some of the crappiest capitalists out there. Which makes sense, since they’re not an industry – they’re committed physicians doing a procedure they believe in under threat of death.
What I’m saying is, it’s a stupid, easily-disproved cliche line, and you’d be best served by not lazily throwing it in there next time you talk about abortion. It makes you sound like a mouth-breathing fanatic, and having regularly read your column – you’re not one of those.
Joseph,
Those figures sound convincing. But two questions surely needed to be answered first: How long does it take to do each procedure? and how many personnel are needed?
A first-trimester abortion takes, what, about 10 minutes and requires three staff members. By contrast, a c-section takes at least 45 minutes and requires six to eight staff members.
In response to another comment. See in context »And your point is?
In response to another comment. See in context »Let me echo the previous comments on the so-called “abortion industry.” No use dignifying the use of this term by discussing it any further.
But it’s astonishing to hear that anyone uses the term “the most pro-abortion president ever.” Huh? I attended a march on Washington, many moons ago, that supported women’s reproductive rights. I remember the first speaker said something to the effect of “No one here is *for* abortion. We are for a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body.” That’s a point worth remembering. The so-called “Abortion Left” would be more than happy to see young people given free access to birth control and sex education so they don’t have to choose. Obama has certainly taken steps in that direction. I’m curious, how do you feel about that?
Thankfully — someone willing to push their religious views down my throat, and willing to make up facts and figures to do it. So refreshing.
I didn’t see any figures.
In response to another comment. See in context »Which facts were made up?
In response to another comment. See in context »