What Does the President of the United States Believe about Infants Born Alive after a Botched Abortion?

As momentum builds for ending the media’s refusal to cover the facts about the horrific Kermit Gosnell abortion-mill case, I think it’s worth remembering that President Obama dealt for several years with the question of whether or not infants should be protected when born alive after a failed abortion. Here is one quote:

[I]f we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as—as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.

—Senator Barack Obama, March 30, 2001, arguing against the the Born Alive Act before the Illinois General Assembly

Even though as a candidate for president Mr. Obama offered multiple explanations for his consistent votes against the Born Alive Act—explanations which don’t stand up to the historical reality—his record speaks for itself:

IL Senate 2001 (Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act)
•Senator Obama voted “no” in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 28, 2001)
•Senator Obama argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (March 30, 2001) (see pp. 84-90 of this PDF)
•Senator Obama voted “present” for the bill (March 30, 2001)

IL Senate 2002 (Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act)
•Senator Obama voted “no” vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 6, 2002)
•Senator Obama argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (April 4, 2002) (see pp. 28-35 of this PDF)
•Senator Obama voted “no” for the bill (April 4, 2002)

IL Senate 2003 (Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act)
•Senator Obama, who chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, held the bill from receiving a committee vote and stopped the senate’s sponsor from adding the federal act’s clarification paragraph, which made the bills absolutely identical.

Is The Pro-Life Cause Winning?

Russell D. Moore is Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he also serves as Professor of Christian Theology and Ethics.  He writes today about Time magazine's cover story on the pro-life movement.
This week’s TIME magazine cover story announces that, forty years after Roe, the pro-life side is winning the abortion debate. I say, “Not so fast.”

On the one hand, yes, as the article points out, there have been some real gains in protections for the unborn in some important arenas. And public polling data does demonstrate, rather consistently, that younger people are more willing to identify themselves as being “pro-life” than are their mothers’ generation. This is due partly to sonogram and other technologies that make it harder and harder to maintain that the “fetus” is a clump of impersonal tissue. Whenever evangelical Christians see polls like this, we tend to see some triumphalist rhetoric about how “we’re winning.”

I think it’s more complicated than that.

Keep Reading...

The Royal Fetus?

from Denny Burk:

As you have probably already heard, Kate Middleton is pregnant. Her offspring will be third in line for the British throne. The media have been abuzz with the news. In fact, I would say that they have been downright obsessive about it.

With all this coverage, I just have one question. Why is it that I have yet to hear or read anyone refer to her unborn child as the “royal fetus”? Oh, I’m sure someone has used the term “fetus,” but it seems to me that the preferred term is “royal baby” or “child,” even though the Duchess of Cambridge is in the very early stages of pregnancy (e.g., NY Times,Washington Post, ABC News, CNN).

Could it be that we reserve the terms “baby” and “child” for unborn babies that are wanted and prefer the term “fetus” for unborn babies that are not? This is not anunwanted pregnancy but a wanted pregnancy. And the feeling is shared not only by the royal parents but by almost every person in the English speaking world. Since this is to be a royal birth to one of the most glamorous couples on the planet, almost every person on said planet is in eager expectation of this baby.

What is the difference between this “royal baby” and the unborn child in the womb of a mother in the waiting room of an abortion clinic? There’s no intrinsic difference in terms of their humanity. The only difference is that one is wanted and the other is not. Thus, the one gets the status of “baby” and the other is euphemized as a fetus, blastocyst, or blob of cells.

Most people have not pondered the fact that their language about the unborn is shaped less by the personhood of the unborn than by whether or not the baby is wanted. Is there any other class of people whose personhood depends solely on whether or not they are wanted?

Our language often reveals fundamental truths about the way we view the world. In this case, the way we speak of the unborn reveals whether or not we view them as a part of the human community with an unalienable right to life. Obviously, the world has agreed to call Kate Middleton’s unborn child a “baby.” Why wouldn’t we do the same for every other unborn child? Could it be that such terminology would imply a moral monstrosity that we are unwilling to face?

What Todd Akin Should Have Said

Abortion is front-and-center in the presidential campaign due to a congressman’s flub on national TV.

In case you’ve missed the news, Todd Akin, a Republican congressman from Missouri running for the Senate, was asked about abortion in the case of rape. His response:

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare… If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Needless to say, such remarks proved offensive. Akin appeared to be making distinctions between violent rape and other forms (statutory perhaps?) as he sought to answer the question about abortion. Other Republicans are calling for him to pull out of the race while the Romney-Ryan campaign quickly tried to distance itself from the remarks.

Rape is a horrific crime with countless emotional and psychological repercussions. No one should ever speak of such an atrocity without having their heart gripped with sympathy for the victim. Any time we speak about such an unspeakable act of violation, we ought to consider the weight of our words.

Even so, as disturbing as Akin’s remarks are, I am concerned about the conflation of issues that suddenly appeared in the aftermath. Once the comment went viral, Republicans all over the country began distancing themselves from the remarks (rightly so) while also claiming to be pro-life except in the case of rape. (Romney is an example.)

The media circus moved quickly from discussion of Akin’s remarks to a wider discussion about the legitimacy of abortion in a tough case. And some “pro-life” politicians took the bait, not only condemning Akin’s unfortunate remarks but also declaring their support for abortion in this particular case.

Let me be clear: Allowing abortion in the case of rape is not the way to express sympathy toward a victim of this crime. Abortion only destroys the life of another victim.

That’s why I wish the conversation with Akin had gone more like this…

Host: So you also believe abortion ought to be outlawed in the case of rape?

Akin: Rape is a horrible crime, and a rapist ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I stand for human rights over against anyone who would violate the life of another – from the rapist to the abortionist.

Host: So you’d outlaw abortion in the case of rape?

Akin: Absolutely. As I said, I stand for human rights for all, including the unborn.

Host: But why should a woman who gets pregnant out of no fault of her own be forced to carry a pregnancy to term?

Akin: It is a tragic situation indeed. And my heart goes out to any woman in such circumstances. That’s why I could never recommend that she abort her child. Inflicting violence upon another innocent victim, in this case the baby, is not the way to move past the tragedy of her own innocence being taken.

Host: So you’d pass laws that would force her to carry on the pregnancy?

Akin: Like I said, I stand for the rights of all human beings. Even in a difficult situation like rape, the unborn child should have human rights. We must not let circumstances dictate to us when humans have rights. Otherwise, we could justify all sorts of atrocities in the name of “difficult circumstances.”

Host: But having a child as a result of rape would be a terrible reminder of the crime, wouldn’t it?

Akin: That’s possible. But let me ask you another question. If a woman chose to carry her child to term and then found that every time she looked at her infant she remembered the horror of the rape, would we allow her to smother the baby?

Host: Of course not!

Akin: You’re right. Because no matter how difficult her circumstances, we recognize the humanity of the infant. Unfortunately, many in our society refuse to recognize the humanity of the unborn.

Host: But your opinion on the humanity of the unborn shouldn’t be forced upon a woman who doesn’t hold that view.

Akin: Biology textbooks and scientists tell us the same thing we see when we look at a 4-D ultrasound: the fetus is human. Now, you can make the case that the unborn human should not have rights. And many do. That’s why unborn girls are aborted at a much higher rate than unborn boys, not only in places like China but in the United States as well. That’s why the number of children with Down Syndrome has plummeted. That’s why so many abortion clinics target inner-city areas with high minority populations. You see, once we begin to discriminate against some human beings, we are on the fast track to denying human rights for others.

Host: So you stand by your conviction that abortion should be outlawed even in the case of rape?

Akin: I believe that all innocent human life should be protected. So, yes. This difficult situation is about three people: the rapist, the mother, and the baby. Currently, there is no death penalty required for the rapist. I refuse to believe we ought to give an innocent victim a sentence more severe than the perpetrator of the crime.

Abortion

For the fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.

John Calvin
Commentary, Exodus 21:22.

"Abortion is as American as Apple Pie"

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States, with a 7-2 majority vote, deemed abortion a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Since that time, it is estimated that over 50 million children have been killed. The rhetoric for and against abortion has grown even more heated over time but a new attitude toward abortion is emerging.

Dr. Albert Mohler, from his blog, on abortion in America:

Abortion is now America’s most common surgical procedure performed on adults. As many as one out of three women will have at least one abortion. In some American neighborhoods, the number of abortions far exceeds the number of live births.

Most Americans will pay little attention to the 38th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to arrange the killing of the unborn life within her. Since that decision was handed down, more than 50 million babies have been aborted, at a rate of over 3,000 each day.

One of the most chilling aspects of all this is the sense of normalcy in American life. Abortion statistics pile up from year to year, and each report gets filed. Moral sentiment on the issue of abortion has shifted discernibly in recent years, as ultrasound images and other technologies deliver unquestionable proof that the unborn child is just that — a child. Nevertheless, the larger picture of abortion in America is basically unchanged.

Keep reading...

The Gospel in an Abortion Culture

Dr. Russell Moore, of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

“As the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision approaches, most Christians recognize, and rightly so, the loss of millions of unborn human lives. What we often forget is the second casualty of an abortion culture: the consciences of countless men and women.”

Keep reading...

"An Active and Dynamic Creature"

CNN recently had a post on its website called, “What babies learn before they’re born.” In it the author, Annie Murphy Paul, discusses how the ninth month pregnancy period is important for the future of the baby (or “fetus”) inside. She writes,

The fetus, we now know, is not an inert blob, but an active and dynamic creature, responding and adapting as it readies itself for life in the particular world it will soon enter. The pregnant woman is neither a passive incubator nor a source of always-imminent harm to her fetus, but a powerful and often positive influence on her child even before it’s born. And pregnancy is not a nine-month wait for the big event of birth, but a crucial period unto itself — "a staging period for well-being and disease in later life," as one scientist puts it.

This crucial period has become a promising new target for prevention, raising hopes of conquering public health scourges like obesity and heart disease by intervening before birth. By "teaching" fetuses the appropriate lessons while they’re still in utero, we could potentially end vicious cycles of poverty, infirmity and illness and initiate virtuous cycles of health, strength and stability.

I’m in (partial) agreement. And one of the most important things we can teach babies in the womb is how valuable their life truly is. The more we extinguish life before birth the more we teach children how truly invaluable we feel life is. If we can get rid of them so easily, and without gasping, then how can they believe us when we say we love them and want good things for them?

Life is sacred. God is the author of life and we should be careful with his creations – especially the unborn.

An Unwed Teen with an Unplanned Pregnancy

There is a murderous logic to those who advocate aborting children with disabilities. It goes something like this:
• People with disabilities suffer in this world. Abortion is a kindness that prevents such suffering.
• The caregivers (primarily parents) of children with disabilities also suffer. Abortion is a kindness that prevents their suffering, too.
• Society suffers. Financially and administratively, the burden on society is significant. Abortion is a kindness to the rest of society to prevent such a burden from existing.

The argument has become more sophisticated over time, but the main point is this idea of preventing hardship. Everybody just wants to be comfortable. We like things easy, and cheap — the American and British eugenics movement in the early 1900s had no trouble focusing on the monetary costs to society as sufficient reason to limit the births of undesirable children.

Now, why such a depressing thought in the Christmas season? Because Mary, the mother of Jesus, shows us a different way to think about hardship.

Her circumstances weren't great. She was an unwed teenager with an unplanned pregnancy. Her betrothed was seeking to divorce her. And more than that, her son was the "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." She was told that a "sword will pierce through your own soul also" (Luke 2:35).

How did she respond? She trusted in the Lord. She knew she was his servant and she could depend upon his word. She rejoiced in God, her Savior (Luke 1:38, 46–47).

To embrace the sovereignty of God over all things means that we can also embrace his sovereignty over every kind of hardship in our own lives. God gives meaning to all suffering, and only he knows the future. The fact that we can’t understand or see what's ahead can be difficult, but God knows and we can trust him.

May we rest in God like Mary did. For she magnified the Lord,

He has shown strength with his arm;

he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;

he has brought down the mighty from their thrones

and exalted those of humble estate;

he has filled the hungry with good things,

and the rich he has sent away empty 

(Luke 1:51–53).