Obama's Abortion Talk On Shaky "Common Ground"

There is no 'common ground'

By: leethompson | Wed, 06/03/2009 - 07:56

Here's something to think about, excerpted from an article by Sunsara Taylor:

"...when Obama speaks of “common ground” on abortion, he is not standing on some neutral “middle ground”—he is accepting the terms of the anti-abortion movement and adapting aspects of a pro-choice position into that framework while gutting the heart of the abortion-rights position. In so doing, he is legitimizing and strengthening a viciously anti-woman program while both abandoning the much needed fight to expand access to abortion and birth control and giving up the moral and ideological basis on which the pro-choice position stands."

and "In many ways, the approach Obama has taken to abortion—and what he mapped out in his speech—could prove even more dangerous to women’s rights and women’s lives than the religious fascists who were gathered at the gate. This is because Obama is dragging along many women and men who ought to know better—who, if there were outright attacks on the legality of abortion very well might be up in arms, but who are being lullabied to sleep by Obama’s calm and reasonable tone as he barters away women’s fundamental rights."

Especially in the wake of the killing of Dr. George Tiller, I urge people to read the whole article, "The Deadly Illusion of 'Common Ground' on Abortion - Response to Obama’s speech at Notre Dame on common ground and abortion"

You can read it at http://revcom.us/a/166/ST_on_Obama-en.html

FOCA

By: lawyer-mom | Thu, 05/21/2009 - 23:00

President Obama is, of course the President of the entire country and must serve all Americans, not just those who supported him. However, the people who voted for him expect him to carry out their agenda first, and a woman's right to choose was part of his platform. If he goes back on is pro-choice stand, he will lose my vote. But if he remains true to it, then what will he lose? Rachel, you said previously that for you to vote for Obama, Palin would have to stumble through the alphabet. No matter what he does, therefore, you will not vote for Obama. Why should he carry out your agenda before mine?

The FOCA

By: Beet | Mon, 05/18/2009 - 23:34

is a red herring. Yes, it's true that Obama said he supported FOCA in 2007. He also claimed to oppose FISA, have a rapid withdrawal date of almost all troops from Iraq, oppose torture, close down Guantanamo, promised no more bailouts, renegotiate NAFTA, et cetera et cetera. The man is quickly being captured by Washington and losing touch with his liberal roots.

The only people who know what FOCA even is are activists, and it's not just that it's "not the highest legislative priority." Simply put, the chances of it being passed in lieu of Roe v Wade being overturned or being in mortal jeopardy are about nil. There are nowhere near the votes in the Senate to pass it, even though the Democrats currently have 59 seats. Since they're not likely to get much more than 60 seats in the near future, the conservative hand-wringing over FOCA says more about some of their own neuroses (and fundraising strategies) than anything else;

And really, Emily's emphasis on an essentially cosmetic action-- his "vocal" dropping of his support for FOCA-- over a substantive concession is a little baffling, considering the thrust of this article. Wouldn't his vocal dropping of support for something that has no chance of passage anyway be just another example of saying the right things but fudging on the substance? Or is it that words matter after all?

ABortion rights

By: sallyann | Mon, 05/18/2009 - 23:32

I personally believe that government has no business in making decisions about what people can or cannot do with their bodies (probably the only thing we still have ownership of). Government has no place in deciding who one can or cannot marry. These are all personal choices. Government has more important things to concern itself with like war, global warming, torture, war crimes, etc. If religions of all kinds would stay out of politics and allow people who are not of their faith make their own personal choices as they have done by belonging to a certain faith, I think we would all be better off. President Obama inherited a real mess from the past administration and the economy, restoring the constitution, choosing the rest of his cabinet and the previously mentioned agenda are way more important than a woman's right to decide whether or not she wants to give birth. We have a world full of unwanted and unloved childreen. Let us not bring more of them into a world where they too have no choice.

maybe moderate...

By: KJ Dell Antonia | Mon, 05/18/2009 - 21:04

Well, I don't actually know Ms. Larimore, so maybe it IS funny. But just reading her post, this does seem like a moderate, or at least pragmatic response...able to agree that President Obama said "all the right things" even though he did not declare his total opposition to abortion, open to hearing more. And I would love for all of us, on both sides, to somehow find common ground on this, or at least a way to reach some sort of status quo and choose judges and elected officials based on other criteria.

But I have to ask--for a pro-lifer, what common ground can there possibly be? It strikes me that, if you truly believe that abortion is murder, that's a moral absolute. (Not one I agree with, as it happens, but I can understand the position.) If life is formed the minute the egg and sperm tango, then what common ground can we possibly find? That's been one of the difficulties with this issue all along--the "pro-life" position is not one that lends itself to compromise. If you support the right to abortion, then placing some limits on it can seem reasonable. We limit many things. But if you don't--if you believe abortion is akin to homicide--then the slippery slope just gets downright weird, and even without agreeing, I can understand that.
So--sincere question. What common ground can we find? I guess there's room in the area of available contraception--more support on that from conservatives in general would be both fabulous and consistent. And more assistance to struggling mothers with the children they have. (All of which was covered in the earlier, provocatively titled piece on more abortions "not being a bad thing".) Those are good areas for movement towards a middle.

But on abortion itself--what would the middle ground look like? I'm not sure we'd know it if we saw it. If you can see it, I'd like to hear more.

'moderately'

By: Caerolle | Mon, 05/18/2009 - 15:42

omg, this is the funniest thing i have heard all day! *and that's saying something, have been playing hooky on Jezebel)