Obama: There Is A Tradition of No Public Funding of Abortions

Obama has finally weighed in on the abortion funding controversy in an interview with Katie Couric:

Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we’re still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I’m pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it’s appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station.

Winters on Gibbs

Michael Sean Winters on the recent statement made by Obama Administration spokeperson Robert Gibbs ”that decisions on specific benefits such as abortion coverage should be ‘left to medical experts in the field,’ referring to a proposed advisory board that would recommend minimum levels of coverage for private insurers”:

The White House should insist that health care reform not be used as a vehicle for the pro-life or for the pro-choice groups to advance their agendas. Health care reform should be abortion-neutral, neither making the procedure more available nor more difficult to procure. Beset by arguments about how to save costs, how to pay for the overhaul, and all the various other aspects of the complicated reform effort, the last thing those who favor reform need is a debate about abortion which brings such powerful passions into play.

There is an easy way to achieve this. Policies that are to receive federal subsidies can’t provide abortion services in their basic policies but the consumer who is selecting the policy and receiving the subsidy can, with his or her own money, get a “rider” to the policy that covers abortion. This way, no federal dollars will be used for procuring insurance that covers abortion services and no woman would be in a different situation from the situation she is in currently. The federal option, if it passes, could follow a similar path of using “out-of-pocket” riders for abortion coverage.

Those on Capitol Hill who think they can hoodwink us with a “board of medical experts” should understand that many of us Catholics who voted for Democratic congressional candidates and for Barack Obama did so because we believed the party as a whole was becoming more sensitive to our concern that, despite the clear wording of the text, Roe has created an “abortion-on-demand” legal regime in this country. We responded to candidate Obama’s call for a reduction in the abortion rate through non-coercive policies of support for women facing crisis pregnancies. We cheered, and some of us cried, when pro-life Sen. Bob Casey, unlike his father, was permitted to address the Democratic National Convention. All that good will goes out the window if the Congress and the White House try to skate around the Hyde Amendment. It would be a cruel irony if, having supported efforts to achieve universal health insurance together since the 1940s, the Democratic Party and the Catholic Church would be prevented from working together at this moment because pro-choice lobbyists want to use health care reform as a vehicle for expanding abortion.

Building a Culture of Life without Overturning Roe?

Evangelical Catholicism has a post asking the following question:

if our legal system, that is based on the common law model that relies heavily on precedence, has ratified the “right to privacy” as constitutional twice (Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey), then what are our realistic solutions to overturn abortion rights in this legal framework? In other words, if an abortion case were to be heard by the Supreme court and a majority were to ignore the preceding decisions on the matter and overturn Roe v. Wade, how can the majority of justices justify their decision? Or instead of overturning Roe v. Wade, how could they (given the preceding decisions) push the decision on state courts?

My first thought is that there is no possibility for creating a legal regime that protects fetal life unless Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are overturned.  The Supreme Court’s holdings in those cases effectively preclude legal restrictions on almost all abortions.  So, the prolife movement must necessarily be committed to overturning those decisions, either by constitutional amendment or by having the Supreme Court reverse itself in some future decision - the principle of stare decisis notwithstanding.  (There is nothing improper or even unusual about the Supreme Court reversing istelf and overturning its own prior decision).

But on further reflection, although I certainly think that the prolife movement should seek to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, there is a great deal more room to make progress even without constitutional change. 

The trick is to understand the goal of the prolife movement  to be broader than merely prohibiting abortion, but includes changing laws and institutions that discourage women from carrying unintended pregnancies to term.  Unlike prohibiting abortion, there aren’t any consitutional impediments these changes. 

It is clear, for example, that some women seek abortions because they fear that they will face discrimination from employers because of their pregnancy, and others because they fear that they will be unable to combine motherhood and career.  There are changes to existing legal doctrine, as well as proposed new laws, that address these concerns.  (See this pamphlet from Femminists for Life for more info).   

Some prolifers don’t like to talk about anything other than prohibiting abortion.  They have fallen victim to  a false dilemma:  either we work to prohibit abortion or we work to encourage women to chose not have abortions by changing laws and institutions to make carrying an unintended prgnancy to term less burdensome for women.  But, of course, there is no reason why we can’t do both. 

Another reason for the reluctance of many prolifers to expand the prolife agenda to include, for example, paid family leave is that doing so will put the prolife movement into conflict with the Republican party and the conservative movement.  The contingencies of partisan politics has caused the prolife movement to unduely narrow its agenda.

Update on Labor Law Reform

The NYT is reportingthat some Democratic Senators are working on a compromise version of labor law reform that would drop card check but inlcude other measures to make organizing fairer and less coercive.  The other measures include quick elections within 5 to 10 days of filing the petition; granting access to the employer’s property to nonemployee union organizers; and a ban on captive adudience meetings, where employers require employees to attend antiunion meetings.  There is some possibility that moderate Republicans may back a compromise version of labor law reform that does not include card check. 

Labor law is incredibly screwed up, so that there is lots of room for compromising on reform while still getting major improvements.  The specific changes discussed in the NYT article, for example, are all good ideas and would improve organizing significantly. 

Quick elections in particular is almost as good as card check.  Most employer antiunion campaigns do not really get off the ground until after the union files the petition and take some time before effectively eroding union support.  With only one or two weeks for employers to campaign against the union, unions’ win rates for elections will improve dramatically. 

Access to employer property and a ban on captive audience meetings will likewise improve unions’ win rates.  A major goal of employer antiunion campaigns is to delegitimizing the union, making it appear weak and ineffective.  Employers do this, in part, by banning the union from the property while permitting its own supervisors and outside union busters to campaign against the union on the property, and by forcing employees to attend antiunion meetings where they are forced to listen to antiunion propaganda and are prohibited from defending the union.  These reforms will make it easier for unions to survive antiunion campaigns.

The NYT article is not completely clear, but it looks like the other non-card check aspects of EFCA will also still be in the compromise version.  So, there will also be greater penalties for firing union supporters and arbitration of first contracts.

Health Care Reform and Abortion

Abortion has become an issue in the healthcare reform debate.  Prolife groups are understandably concerned that healthcare reform will mean changes to the status quo regarding abortion funding.  In particular, they are concerned that there will be changes to the longstanding public policies of (1) no public funding for abortions, and (2) no requirement that private insurers pay for abortions. 

Some Democrats and liberals seem to think that the healthcare reform effort has nothing to lose from this issue:  anyone that is conservative enough to be prolife won’t be supporting healthcare reform anyway.  This is a dangerous misconception.  Using healthcare reform to change the status quo regarding abortion funding is a clear case of ideological overreach.  Opposition to public funding of abortions is much, much greater than support for bans on performing abortions, and it includes many Democrats and groups who otherwise support healthcare reform.  For example, the US Bishops’ Conference strongly supports health care reform, provided it preserves the status quo regarding abortion funding.

Support for the status quo regarding abortion funding is also strong with Congressional Democrats.  A group of five House Democrats  recently sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi urging that healthcare reform legislation preserve the status quo on abortion funding.  As the Politico story notes, nineteen House Democrats signed an earlier letter to the same effect.  Thus, there are at least nineteen Democrats in the House prepared to vote against healthcrae reform legislation that threatens to change the status quo regarding abortion funding.  In the Senate, Sen. Max Baucus, a key player in the healthcare reform negotiations, has said that the Senate version would be “neutral – status quo” regarding abortion funding. 

Some Catholic Democrats and liberals believe that the Obama Administration knows that the abortion funding issue could threaten the ultimate passage of healthcare reform and will work behind the scenes to ensure that the final legislation preserves the status quo regarding abortion funding.  Let us hope so.  However, there is reason to be concerned, and Catholics should not rely entirely on the good sense so far demonstrated by the Obama Adminsration; rather, they should let the Obama Administation and the Democratic Congressional leadership know right now that failure to address this issue will cause the healthcare reform legislation to lose Catholic support and could result in its defeat.

Reno On Violence and Abortion

R.R. Reno over at First Things has a thoughtful post on the morality of violent resistance to abortion. One of the commentators referred everyone to the Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 2243:

Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

Eduardo Penalver on Abortion and Murder

Eduardo Penalver in a post at dotCommonweal uses the recent heinous killing of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller to argue that prolifers do not really believe that abortion is the unjustified killing of a human person.  The argument, and variations on it that have become more and more widespread amongst supporters of abortion rights, is not persuasive.  But before providing a critique of Penalver’s argument, let me first direct readers to this statement by Robert George which I fully endorse:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing.  The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands.  No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him.  We are a nation of laws.  Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence.  Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers.  “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.” For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished.  By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion.  Every human life is precious.  George Tiller’s life was precious.  We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life.  Let our “weapons” in the fight to defend the lives of abortion’s tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.  

Now back to Penalver.  Penalver thinks that prolifers are wrong to think that abortion is murder.  He supports this conclusion with an argument that can be recobnstructed as follows:

1. If abortion is murder, then killing someone who performs abortion is sometimes justified depending on the circumstamnces.
2. Abortion is murder.
3. Therefore, killing somone who performs abortions is sometimes justified depending on the circumstances.
4. Dr. Tiller is someone who performs abortions.
5. Therefore, killing Dr. Tiller could be justified depending on the circumstances.
6. Premise (5) above is inconsistent with statements by prolifers categorically denouncing the killing of Dr. Tiller.
7. Therefore, since premise (3) follows asa matter of logic from premises (1) and (2), and pemise (5) above follows as a matter of logic from premises (3) and (4) above, prolifers must reject at least one of premises (1), (2), or (4) above.
8. The only plausible prmise for prolifers to reject is premise (2).
9. Therefore, preise (2) is false.  Abortion is not murder. 

This argument fails because prolifers may reject premise (6).  There is no inconsistency between prolifers’ categorical denunciations of the killing of Dr. Tiller with the view that killing someone who performs abortion is sometimes justified depending on the circumstances.  The question turns on whether the circumtances surrounding the killing of Dr. Tiller really do justify killing him.  Prolifers can certainly argue that they do not. 

What are the circumstances which show that killing Dr. Tiller was not morally justified?  First, private citizens are not to take the law into their own hands.  Part of what it is to live under the authority of a government is that each of us gives up the right to exact private justice.  Private citizens must allow public authorities to apprehend and bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes. 

But what if the public authorities are incapable or unwilling to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes?  This happens all the time unfortunately.  Criminals, murderers, rapists, even child rapists sometimes go unprosecuted or are acquited of their heinous crimes on the basis of some legal technicality.  But even still, private citizens may not engage in vigilante justice. 

What if the public authorities are implicated in the injustice.  Does there come a point when private citizens have the right to overthrow that government and create a new one that will not be oppressive or to violently resist injustice?  Yes.  Setting out the precise contours of such a right are difficult.  But, uncontroversially, any such right of revolution or violent resistance  is limited to situations where the government has cut off all legal, democratic and peaceful means of reform.  No one can argue that the United States is an oppressive regime and that prolifers have been denied all legal, democratic and peaceful means of reform.  Moreover, any right of violent resistance to injustice must surely be limited to circumstances where there is some likelihood of success.  To wage war, even war against a clear injustice, uselessly to no effect is immoral.  This kind of ”prudential” consideration is part of moral judgement.  It is not that such action is morally justified but imprudent; rather, it is that such action is not morally justified.  Also, even a just war must be waged within certain moral limits.  A campaign of terror directed not at the oppressive regime but at terrorizing civilians is immoral.  The killing of Dr. Tiller was not legitimate violent resistance against injustice, it was an act of terrorism.  

The killing of Dr. Tiller was a heinous act of murder.  Not only was he killed.  He was murdered in his church in front of his wife.  His murder was premeditated, calculated, it was not an act of passion.  There is nothing incompatible with saying this and also saying that abortion is a grave injustice, an unjustified killing of a human person.  In a democratic society we do not resolve political disputes, even ones over a grave injustice like abortion, with violence and terror.

Discussion between Kmiec and George on Abortion and Obama

Douglas Kmiec and Robert George recently had a discussion at the Catholic University of America on:  “The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is there a common ground on life issues? What is the right response by ‘Pro-Life’ Citizens?”.  The discussion was moderated by Mary Ann Glendon.  The discussion was taped by C-Span.  You can watch the video of the discussion here.

White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Five members of the Obama dministration’s White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships have signed a letter urging the Obama Administration not to rescind regulations put in place near the end of the Bush Administration that expand conscience protections for health care providers.

The story is notable because the signatories have been roundly denounced by pro-lifers in the blogosphere and beyond for their support of Obama.  Whatever one thinks of their decision to support Obama (I also supported Obama), they clearly do not intend to let the access that their support has purchased go to waste. 

In addition to the letter regarding the concience protections, Jim Wallis has also spoken out on plans by some pro-abortion democrats to include abortion as part of health care reform. 

Moreover, the pro-lifers named to the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships have used their influence to convince Obama to support abortion reduction, and have even secure an expanded mandate for that Office that includes abortion reduction. See also here.

The pro-life movement is better off with representatives sitting at the table inside the current administration than it would be if the pro-abortionists hd a monopoly over the President’s ear.  The pro-life democrats in the Obama Administration won’t win all the battles, or even very many at all. But they will win a few, which is more than will be accomplished by simply denouncing Obama at every turn.  It is the nature of a two-party political system for the parties to rotate in and out of power.  For that reason, the pro-life movement is well advised to seek supporters within both political parties. 

Being a pro-life democrat is certainly a thankless calling.  Denounced as a sell out by the right, and attacked by the left as a faux Democrat, you must satisfy yourself with small victories.  But what else is there to do?  Its not like the only thing keeping abortion-on demand the law of the law is Jim Wallis and Doug Kmiec’s failure to vote Republican.

Obama to do Immigration Reform in 2009

The New York Times reports that Obama plans to do immigration reform this year.  If true, this is great news.  I had assumed that imigrtion reform (as well as labor law reform) were mere campaign promises and that Obama was unlikely to follow-up once in office. 

The first paragraph of the article reads:

While acknowledging that the recession makes the political battle more difficult, President Obama plans to begin addressing the country’s immigration system this year, including looking for a path for illegal immigrants to become legal, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.

Much of the article is taken up with worries by Democrats that in taking up immigration reform duringg the current economic crisis and in the same year as Congress wil be taking up health care reform Obama is biting off more than he can chew, and the hopes of Republicans that they can use this issue to claw back some of the public support that they lost in recent years.  An assumption underlying both the worries and the hopes is that voters will be less sympathetic to the plights of undocumented immigrants because of the economic crisis, especially the high unemployment rate.  Perhaps.  But the counter-argument is that the opponents of immigration reform are more marginalized in Washington DC than at any time recent meory because they hitched their cause to the Republican party.  Supporters of reform need to strike now before the political opening created by the collapse of the Republic party closes.