Much as some continue to delude themselves, there is no place at the Obama table for pro-lifers.
A policy report published last month on the Office of the President-Elect’s website puts a hole right through the fanciful notion, believed by some evangelicals, that Barack Obama will save a place at the table for pro-lifers.
Titled “Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration,” the report suggests a radical abortion agenda for the first 100 days of Obama’s term. The recommendations carry quite a price tag. In an era of ballooning national debt and unprecedented government expansion, the abortion industry (and it is an industry — Planned Parenthood made $115 million in profits for the 2006-2007 fiscal year) can look forward to hefty handouts next year, even if Obama enacts just half of the policies in the report.
Among other policy objectives, the report calls for increasing Title X Family Planning Funding by $400 million. Although the funds can’t be used for abortions, Title X grants go to controversial family planning entities that offer contraception services, including Planned Parenthood clinics.
The report also calls for at least $50 million in federal funding for contraception-based sex education programs in public schools, an amount that parodies current spending on abstinence-until-marriage instruction. The report recommends that Obama de-fund the abstinence programs in his proposed budget to Congress.
Most indicative of Obama’s radical cultural agenda would be lifting bans on taxpayer-financed abortions domestically and internationally, both of which the report calls for. In keeping with the international theme, the report also urges Obama to support backing the United Nations Population Fund and devoting $1 billion for international family planning programs.
OK, let’s lay aside the ethics of abortion and the family planning agenda for a moment. With our spendthrift Congress and president putting future generations more in the red each passing week, is now really the best time to jack up funding for domestic nonprofits that aren’t exactly hurting for cash? Moreover, should we be spreading more taxpayer dollars abroad when our own economy is hemorrhaging?
That’s the fiscal argument. The moral argument is that taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund a controversial and despicable practice like the taking of unborn human life. But that is part and parcel for Obama, and has been for years.
Maybe that’s why the policy report hit such an unpleasant chord with me. Remember the clamor among some religious-inclined voters before the election that Obama wouldn’t be that bad on abortion? Perhaps most bold were claims by the likes of Doug Kmiec, who argued that Obama would do a better job reducing abortions than McCain. It would have been a good joke were the topic not so serious.
Many of these same commentators argued that Obama was good on the environment, poverty, and helping the poor, so it was fine for Bible-believing Christians to vote for him. (Memo to my liberal comrades: show me where in the Bible Jesus puts the onus for charity or creation care on government and not individual believers. Thank you.)
Obama’s charismatic appeal and smokescreen on the issues worked. Part of that was thanks to McCain, who was hardly a champion of values close to the average Christian conservative’s heart. In any event, after-election results show that Obama made inroads among young evangelicals (32 percent went for him), and took 25 percent of white evangelical votes nationwide. If that seems small, consider that evangelical voters are typically some of the most conservative in the electorate.
That Obama would champion the policy goals outlined above should come as no surprise to any voter, let alone evangelicals. Yet I find that many of my conservative Christian friends don’t have a clue about his voting past or leftist positions. That’s troubling given the ample evidence available before the election of Obama’s radicalism. If the Obama media machine hoodwinked evangelicals, they have no one to blame but themselves.
For the other portion of evangelicals who voted for Obama based on his policies on poverty, the environment, or the economy, it’s worthwhile to see what the Bible actually says on these issues. Regardless, even if you think such endeavors are biblically sanctioned, putting them higher on the Christian value scale than unborn human life is a sin.
So, buckle up. As the size and scope of government continues to bloat under Obama, look for the size and scale of the abortion industry to follow suit. And evangelicals are partly to thank.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?