I’ve written rather incredulously about political bipartisanship in the past, but in the weeks shortly before and after the inauguration of Barack Obama, perhaps there was a bit of hope in all of us for not just bipartisanship, but postpartisanship, an era of completely bypassing needless bickering. However, the chances of Obama capturing his long-promised middle ground are becoming increasingly slim as a result of a few key issues.
Regarding abortion, Obama has repealed George W. Bush’s reinstatement of a policy restricting American funds for overseas abortions, a policy Bill Clinton repealed in the ’90s after Ronald Reagan created it in 1984, according to Time Magazine. Needless to say, it is one of the contentions between the two sides of Washington we could expect to be stirred up every time a new party enters the White House. It’s the usual, but it’s not something characteristic of the image of Obama we’ve been given for a year.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of his repeal of the policy, called the Mexico City Policy, is that he did it in relative secrecy in light of the media attention he created over the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. As Time Magazine explained in a Jan. 23 piece, Obama signed the executive order on a Friday, a day traditionally reserved to avoid attention, and without television cameras. He knows it’s controversial, and he should have welcomed robust debate and waited a while before signing the order. Instead, he puts forth a bipartisan image while pushing his own party’s agenda underneath the table on the most sensitive issue dividing conservatives and liberals.
I’m pretty sure the left wouldn’t have gotten very angry with Obama if he ignored the Mexico City Policy for another few months. The economy is enough for people to chew on right now, and if Obama had really wanted to do something, perhaps he could have signed an order on a partisan issue that doesn’t matter as much, like gay marriage.
But Obama has set himself up to fail miserably on attaining peace in America’s so-called “culture wars.” The last straw would surely be the signing of the Freedom of Choice Act if the act actually passes through Congress.
FOCA would lift all restrictions, including local laws and ordinances, on abortions performed before fetal viability, the ability of the fetus, that puny fleshling inside a woman, to survive outside the womb.
For pro-life supporters, like myself, the act would be a nightmare, and pro-life activists are already getting scared of potential implications in the bill, such as whether some Catholic or Baptist hospitals will be allowed to refuse abortions.
Also, an op-ed in the conservative Washington Times criticized FOCA for not defining fetal viability clearly. The bill perhaps gives too much latitude to the attending physician to decide if viability has been attained.
Despite the fact that some say FOCA’s passing is unlikely, Obama promised Planned Parenthood in 2007 he would sign it if it ever came to his desk. The worries I’ve mentioned that are already surfacing within pro-life circles are a testament to just how high the controversy would be if FOCA ever becomes a reality. Surely, Obama wouldn’t do something so ridiculous, not to mention grotesque, as legalizing abortion on such a large scale.
Another issue that could begin to undo Obama’s attempt to be bipartisan is his expected lift of restrictions on stem cell research, including research into embryonic stem cells. As Time reported Jan. 24, embryonic stem cells will be used experimentally on humans for the first time. That experiment uses stem cells from discarded embryos derived from in-vitro fertilization, the process by which a (sometimes anonymous) man masturbates to produce the sperm to be implanted in a retrieved female egg.
I’m sorry. I just have a few reservations about this process and even more reservations about the fact that the end product, a human embryo, is being experimented with like a material object in the case of stem cell research. Obama is the one who said it’s above his pay grade to determine when life begins. Why risk making this determination (and getting it wrong) by destroying embryos when there are other ways of going about stem cell research?
The pro-life/pro-choice issues aren’t something Obama should want to kill himself with at a time when he is trying to bring Republicans and Democrats together to pass a major stimulus package. I know he’s a Democrat, but the president is supposed to be more than a party member. Obama’s stance on abortion betrays nothing close to middle ground or compromise.
Matt Watson is the opinion editor of The Reflector. He can be contacted at [email protected].