Sunday, February 6, 2011

The President on Prayer, Humility, and the Search for Wisdom

We see an aging parent wither under a long illness, or we lose a daughter or a husband in Afghanistan, we watch a gunman open fire in a supermarket -- and we remember how fleeting life can be. And we ask ourselves how have we treated others, whether we’ve told our family and friends how much we love them. And it’s in these moments, when we feel most intensely our mortality and our own flaws and the sins of the world, that we most desperately seek to touch the face of God. – President Barack Obama, February 3, 2011
In a time of political and social turmoil around the world and divisiveness at home, as the world watched street protests and the march for democracy in Egypt and Tunisia, and as the United States continued to recover from the tragic shooting in Tucson, the President took a moment this past week to speak from the heart. For the past sixty years, ever since Dwight Eisenhower occupied the White House, our presidents have attended the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. This year was no exception and it permitted an opportunity for President Obama to speak thoughtfully and passionately about his personal faith journey, his closeness to God, and his belief in the power of prayer to provide comfort and guidance. The speech, which was both humorous and moving, should finally put to rest any lingering questions regarding the authenticity or sincerity of the president’s faith, which goes far deeper than the majority of U.S. presidents over the past century.

Obama spoke publicly “as a fellow believer” and as one who entered public service through his work on behalf of churches. He acknowledged as a child that he was exposed to very little organized religion and that he “did not come from a particularly religious family.” His father, whom he had met only once his entire life, and then only for a month, was “a non-believer throughout his life.” The president’s mother, who wielded great influence on Obama as a child, and whose Midwestern values remain embedded in his soul, was the product of Baptist and Methodist parents. But she “grew up with a certain skepticism about organized religion” and, like many apathetic and agnostic Christians, took young Barack Obama to church, if at all, only on Easter and Christmas. Despite her skepticism, however, she also was a very spiritual person, “who was instinctively guided by the Golden Rule and who nagged me constantly about the homespun values of her Kansas upbringing, values like honesty and hard work and kindness and fair play.”

It was through his mother that Obama learned to value equality between men and women, the imperative of living an ethical life, and of acting on one’s beliefs. And “despite the absence of a formal religious upbringing,” he was inspired by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and the many prominent Christian leaders of the civil rights movement who sought to “transform a nation through the force of love.” He also was influenced by more ecumenical leaders, such as Father Theodore Hesburg and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, whose “call to fix what was broken in our world, a call rooted in faith,” led Obama to become a community organizer and to work on behalf of “a group of churches on the Southside of Chicago.” From this experience, “working with pastors and laypeople trying to heal the wounds of hurting neighborhoods," did Obama come "to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace Him as my lord and savior.”

Like many of us, Obama’s “faith journey has had its twists and turns.” Along the way, “[i]n the wake of failures and disappointments, I've questioned what God had in store for me and been reminded that God’s plans for us may not always match our own short-sighted desires.” As with President Lincoln, who knelt often in prayer when faced with the daily pressures of saving a nation at war with itself, Obama’s Christian faith “has been a sustaining force" during his time in office. In addition to prayer, he finds “consistent respite and fellowship” at the Chapel at Camp David and starts his mornings with “meditations from Scripture.”

At the prayer breakfast, the president subtly alluded to his critics; “when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time, we are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us but whether we're being true to our conscience and true to our God.” He emphasized, however, the uniting force of faith. He referred to Senator Tom Coburn, a conservative Republican who disagrees with Obama on most issues, as “not only a dear friend but also a brother in Christ. . . . Even though we are on opposite sides of a whole bunch of issues, part of what has bound us together is a shared faith, a recognition that we pray to and serve the same God.”

As Obama travels around the country, he is often asked what he prays for. While he resorts to prayer on a host of issues (one of which concerns the length of Malia’s dresses), a few “common themes” recur. One arises from “the urgency of the Old Testament prophets and the Gospel itself. I pray for my ability to help those who are struggling. Christian tradition teaches that . . . we're called to work on behalf of a God that chose justice and mercy and compassion to the most vulnerable.” He spoke of those who have lost their jobs and struggle to take care of their families; people in pain, who have suffered a loss of self-esteem, or worse, their homes and access to affordable health care. He knows that, as president, he cannot help everyone, and that fixing the economy and seeking peace takes time and patience. But as he moves forward, “it is my faith [and the] biblical injunction to serve the least of these, that keeps me going and that keeps me from being overwhelmed.”

The president talked proudly of the many churches, synagogues, and faith-based organizations that work every day to solve human problems, but noted that there are limits to what private charities can do. “Now, sometimes faith groups can do the work of caring for the least of these on their own; sometimes they need a partner, whether it’s in business or government.” As an example, he discussed the work of the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, an initiative started under President George W. Bush, and which under Obama is working to expand “the way faith groups can partner with our government. . . . helping them feed more kids who otherwise would go hungry. . . . helping fatherhood groups get dads the support they need to be there for their children. . . . [and] working with non-profits to improve the lives of people around the world.” And while such work must be “aligned with our constitutional principles,” it also should be rooted in “notions of partnership and justice and the imperatives to help the poor.”

The nature and scope of some problems necessarily require a more active public involvement, for “in a caring and . . . just society, government must have a role to play.”

[T]here are some needs that require more resources than faith groups have at their disposal. There’s only so much a church can do to help all the families in need -- all those who need help making a mortgage payment, or avoiding foreclosure, or making sure their child can go to college. There’s only so much that a nonprofit can do to help a community rebuild in the wake of disaster. There’s only so much the private sector will do to help folks who are desperately sick get the care that they need.

And that's why I continue to believe . . . that our values, our love and our charity must find expression not just in our families, not just in our places of work and our places of worship, but also in our government and in our politics.
This is, of course, an area that distinguishes philosophically the president and most Democrats from many Republicans, who place greater emphasis on acts of charity and resist the role of government as compassionate benefactor. It is a debate that goes to the heart of our democracy and the role of government. There is certainly room for principled disagreement. But there is no room to question the president’s faith, or patriotism, or love of country. Perhaps this is why the president also spoke of the importance and need for humility. For however polarized and divisive our politics may become, it is always “useful to go back to Scripture to remind ourselves that none of us has all the answers -- none of us, no matter what our political party or our station in life.”

“The full breadth of human knowledge is like a grain of sand in God’s hands. And there are some mysteries in this world we cannot fully comprehend.” It is this challenge, then, the need to balance uncertainty and humility and to be open to other points of view, with the need to fight for what is right and to remain committed to one’s deeply held convictions, which forms the core of our democracy and underlies the president’s need for prayer. Only by constant “reminders of our shared hopes and our shared dreams and our shared limitations as children of God” can Americans travel forward together.

At the conclusion of his speech, the president noted that, while he hopes his prayers will be answered, he knows “that the act of prayer itself is a source of strength. It’s a reminder that our time on Earth is not just about us; that when we open ourselves to the possibility that God might have a larger purpose for our lives, there’s a chance that somehow, in ways that we may never fully know, God will use us well.” Amen, Mr. President.

12 comments:

  1. Mark,

    “The speech. . . should finally put to rest any lingering questions regarding the authenticity or sincerity of the president’s faith, which goes far deeper than the majority of U.S. presidents over the past century.

    Not so fast, Sparky. As they say, words are cheap, and President Obama’s actions provide reason to cast doubt on his religious sincerity, chief among them his devout support for abortion at any stage of pregnancy and even after delivery (which some wide-eyed extremists might term infanticide). In light of this, it would be interesting to imagine the uncomfortableness the president might feel on the day he must justify himself to Christ, especially if the president’s Lord and Savior reminds him that before God formed the president in his mother’s womb, He knew Barack (Jeremiah 1:5). Imagine the president being asked to explain what he meant by, “Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term.” Now God is not a lawyer (although even He would probably admit to creating way too many of them) so it is doubtful He’d be very patient as the president explained that it is legally okey-dokey not to save the life of a “baby” that miraculously survived an abortion attempt, because, well, when the doctor was trying to terminate the “fetus” he was completely within the law to do so and just because the doc screwed up is no reason why the “fetus” should suddenly be treated like a real person because, after all, if that “fetus” is now a “baby” then we might find ourselves on a slippery slope in which we won’t, someday, be able to snuff out the life of a million babies/fetuses a year and. . .

    We’re all going to stand in judgment some day, and many of us will have to justify not doing enough to stop abortions. Hopefully, we’ll be behind those trying to explain why they actively aided and abetted the slaughter. It won’t make us less guilty, but maybe, if He grades on a curve, we’ll sneak by.

    And how, exactly, would you propose to measure and compare the depth of one man’s faith against the faith of 18 other men?

    Rich R.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rich,

    Your narrow-minded focus on abortion as a litmus test of one's faith says more about your view of the Constitution than it does about your faith. However, it says nothing about the sincerity of your's or the President's faith.

    What about the President's words was inauthentic? The speech I highlighted shows that this President is comfortable with the language of faith and with discussing the importance and meaning of faith to him personally, more so than many of our past presidents over the past 50-100 years. George W. Bush occasionally spoke of his personal faith beliefs (as did Carter and, to a lesser extent, Clinton) and, while I disagreed with Bush politically on many issues, and likely would not agree with many of his theological views, I have never questioned the sincerity of his beliefs or statements of faith. I do not recall the elder Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, or Kennedy ever speaking as openly and personally about their faith journeys as did Obama. That does not mean they were not also men of faith (and whether they were or not is not as important to me as my essay may imply).

    If eternal damnation awaits all who believe that the U.S. Constitution contains a right to privacy that encompasses such intimate decisions as whether or not to use birth control and whether or not to bear cildren, then I guess I am in trouble as well. Some of us can actually separate our legal and constitutional views from our personal theological beliefs. I may think that abortion in many instances is wrong or immoral, yet I am still willing to protect the legal right of a woman to choose for herself whether she should carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is a decision between the woman, her doctor, and God, not the government. Why is it that when it comes to helping poor children, or protecting the environment, conservatives want little or no government interference, but when it comes to an individual's right to make the most intimate decisions in life, all of sudden government power is paramount?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mark,

    The U.S. Constitution exists to protect the citizen’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property and happiness. The government should not, and does not, concern itself with the intimate decision of consenting men and women to engage in sex. But once that voluntary action results in a clearly foreseeable pregnancy in which a life is created, entirely distinct and separate from the parents, with its own unique DNA and – dare we admit it? – soul, then it is, in fact, one of the few enumerated responsibilities of the government to secure the blessing of liberty for that life.

    Now, how much thought did you put into that first sentence? Would you dismiss Simon Wiesenthal’s opinion of the Nazis because of his narrow-minded focus on the holocaust? Would you dismiss the Catholic Church, which would jettison all other issues if they interfered with their fight for the life of the unborn? The issue of abortion is not on the same level as tax rates or immigration or gay marriage. We can get those issues wrong and fix them later (like we’re doing now with ObamaCare). When life begins is a bit weightier in importance. And yes, I do question the faith of a man who can hear testimony of a child being born alive but left to die alone, with no efforts made to save that child, but is not called to action to do the obviously right thing. That is a man with a cold heart who listened for twenty years to a racist minister and then conveniently edited out that chapter in the retelling of his “personal faith journey.”

    President Obama spoke of working on behalf of a “God that chose justice and mercy and compassion to the most vulnerable” and serving “the least of these.” Please tell me who in society is more vulnerable?

    In the president’s mind, the government exists to pay mortgages, medical bills and to provide college educations, but not to preserve life. It is of no concern to him that the Constitution does not allow for the paying of mortgages, medical bills and college educations but does require the preservation of life.

    The president talked of returning to scripture but that is obviously selective, isn’t it? And on other occasions he has dismissed just such an idea (see our previous discussions).

    On the positive side, while you may describe pro-life people as narrow-minded, at least the president acknowledges that we must “fight for deeply held convictions,” and be “firm in our core principles.” Like the president, I pray that he does acquire the wisdom he seeks. That he understands that there is no life more “fleeting” than that of a child killed on its birthday, because its life was viewed as an inconvenience or a “punishment.” I pray that the president comes to know that he has already “touched the face of God” when he cradled his new born daughters in his arms.

    Mark, please articulate for me, a fellow Christian like you and the president, a plausible scenario in which God approves of abortion. What series of logical steps can you guide me through that acknowledge God, that acknowledge that we are “children of God,” and that allows us to destroy His creation without God being just a tad peeved at us for doing so?

    My mind is open: educate me.

    Rich R.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rich,

    I cannot argue with you over abortion as long as you continue to throw out facts and wild statements like Obama's "devout support for abortion at any stage of pregnancy and even after delivery..." Or that you question "the faith of a man who can hear testimony of a child being born alive but left to die alone, with no efforts made to save that child..." The only statement of Obama's you quote is a reference to "pre-viable" fetuses, which the Supreme Court has made clear is not subject to the full rights and privileges of the Constitution, and that legal rights of the fetus is outweighed by the rights of the adult woman who is carrying the fetus. We can reasonably disagree on the morality or even validity of this Constitutional view, but when you throw out statements like "Obama believes in killing babies even after they are born" (yes, that is what you said) you lose all credibility and reasonableness.

    Obama does not believe in infanticide -- that is murder, whether you are applying existing law, Roe- v. Wade, or any other measurement. When I speak of abortion, I am speaking of pre-viable fetuses, period. This is in part what I mean by your narrow-minded focus. I did not say that pro-lifers are narrow-minded, only that your single focus on abortion as the litmus test for the validity of one's faith is a narrow-minded focus.

    If, God forbid, your daughter were raped and became pregnant, are you really telling me that it would be an evil, sinful choice to abort the pregnancy? If the life and health of the mother is at stake, would it be wrong to abort the fetus? (this, by the way, is the scenario, and the only scenario, that applies to any support for the very rare late-term abortion, of which I am opposed unless, and only unless, serious life/health risks are posed for the woman. I acknowledge the procedure is very troubling, so you can avoid the graphics).

    All of your arguments apply equally to capital punishment. Explain to me how Christian principles of love, mercy, compassion and non-violence permits that? (Recall that an eye-for-an-eye is not a concept that Jesus embraced).

    None of us, of course, knows the ultimate answers here, only God does, but I am unconvinced that God would be more disappointed in a woman who chose to abort a fetus after being raped, than God's disappointment in a person who ignored the plight of the suffering poor throughout the world, or who advocated the killing of innocent civilians through an extensive bombing campaign simply because it was necessary to also kill the bad guys in a foreign country. Oh, wise one, please tell me what to think.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mark,

    Well, if you insist. . .

    You cannot argue with me if I continue to throw out . . . facts? As for the wild statements of "devout support for abortion at any stage of pregnancy and even after delivery..." and "Obama believes in killing babies even after they are born," I offer this (and can offer more but I’m working on my brevity): “On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only senator to speak in opposition to a bill that would have banned the practice of leaving premature abortion survivors to die. The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous. It applied only to premature babies, already born alive. It stated simply that under Illinois law, “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development” (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225291/life-obama/david-freddoso). Call me a raving fundamentalist, but I think President Obama’s actions supply all the “credibility and reasonableness” I need.

    As for “pre-viable fetuses,” are you suggesting that any fetus that can survive outside the womb should be protected from abortion? If so, we’re making great strides here and you're half way towards denouncing Roe v. Wade. Now if we can get President Obama to agree.

    When I speak of abortion, and when the president speaks of abortion, we are referring to the termination of life from conception to feet dangling outside the mother as far along as six months to the limits provided by Roe v. Wade, meaning none. Ironically, that puts neither of us on the slippery slope. You, however, are in trouble because medical science continues to push back the age a “fetus” is “viable.”

    And then you pull out the old chestnut: Rape! As natural a charge to the pro-abortion crowd as “Racist!” is to the Al Sharpton crowd. But you might recall I’ve already addressed that and you did not respond. Since pregnancy by rape is incredibly rare, I would “gladly make this deal with the devil: preserve the right to kill innocent babies resulting from rape or incest, while outlawing the killing of babies resulting from a series of decisions made voluntarily by a woman.” And once again I ask, “Want to shake on that?”

    And although I know answering specific questions is generally a one-way street in our relationship, I feel it is respectful to do so, and because, as a conservative, my beliefs are anchored by simple and unchanging principles, I find all questions easy to answer, so. . . If my daughter was raped (which means she failed to scoop out her attacker’s eyeballs like ice cream or pull off his penis like taffy or rupture his testicles like water balloons or shoot or stab him dead) how would I view abortion then? It would still be evil because the child is still innocent (or, as it was better put by Liam Neeson, “It’s not the child needs killing.”). Of course the bigger question is would I, under that circumstance, have the courage of my conviction? Let’s leave it that I pray to God I never need to find out. And in regards to the “life/health” (which includes "mental health") of the mother, that has always been an abused excuse used to justify ending pregnancies that are just not “convenient.” But if, in those rare cases, when it’s actually true that the pregnancy does threaten the mother, I would not fault a women for sacrificing the child, although I certainly would not want to be married to a woman of such character.

    (continued...)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Now the second oldest chestnut: capital punishment. Why pro-abortion advocates bring this up is bewildering. Even the Catholic Church, an opponent of capital punishment, views the two differently. Capital punishment is a just sentence for those who have forfeited their life through their own actions. What is incomprehensible is the liberal’s call for mercy against the guilty while advocating the death penalty for the innocent.

    You end this defense of President Obama’s deep Christian faith by posing an interesting thought: God might be less disappointed in a woman who chooses an abortion than someone who advocates the “killing of innocent civilians through an extensive bombing campaign simply because it was necessary to also kill the bad guys. . .” Now we know President Obama supports unlimited abortion (show me where he’s advocated for restriction before rolling your eyes) and we know that he has increased the role of predator drone strikes that kill children along with the bad guys (you have even cited that fact) so where, exactly, does your faith in his faith come from? Just his words? If words mean more than actions, I would suggest you prepare an apology for the charge you leveled against President Bush that he lied/mislead/implied us into an unjust war. After all, I presented his own words in rebuttal, but words at that time carried very little weight with you. But once again, maybe we’re making progress.

    Rich R.

    P.S. Shouldn’t “wise one” be capitalized?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rich,

    Your “factual” premise appears to be based on an editorial in The Washington Times (apparently reiterated by The National Review) which falsely claimed that Obama once "argu[ed] cold-bloodedly on the Illinois Senate floor that babies who survive botched late-term abortions should not be considered 'persons' because this would be tantamount to admitting 'that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term.' " In fact, Obama was not discussing "late-term abortions" in these remarks; as is clear from his March 30, 2001, remarks on the state Senate floor, he was asserting that the bill in question, which was not limited to late-term abortions, would in effect "essentially bar abortions."

    Specifically, Obama was asserting that the bill, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, was unconstitutional because it would "define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution" and therefore represent a de facto restriction on all abortions. Obama's actual statement on the Illinois Senate floor was as follows:

    “Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

    Additionally, Obama listed a "second reason" in his floor statement that the proposed law was "unconstitutional" -- it would "plac[e] a burden on the doctor" that would prevent many facilities from having the resources necessary to perform abortions:

    “The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even 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.

    Obama also said: "I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill."

    But, hey, don't let the facts interfere with the truth.

    (cont'd)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rich (cont'd):

    My support for a woman’s right to choose is consistent with Roe v. Wade, and pertains to pre-viable fetuses, unless the life of the mother (or serious health risks) are truly at stake. With respect to pre-viable fetuses, I do not believe the government in a free society can control a woman’s body or interfere with her most intimate decisions. This legal and constitutional position, however, does not mean that I approve of all abortions, or that I am morally in favor of abortions in most instances. But my moral and religious beliefs on this subject are separate from my legal and constitutional positions. The same is true of Obama and most of those terrible “liberals” you so often berate, many of whom are morally opposed to abortions and are working to substantially reduce their numbers (through effective sex education programs and access to birth control, things that actually work. Abstinence programs are fine, too, but not as a stand alone effort).

    The Catholic Church at least has my respect because they are consistent in their “pro-life” stance, opposing abortions and capital punishment. The Catholic Church also believes that it is society’s role (including the government's) to take care of and provide for the economic and social well being of children AFTER they are born, an area where conservatives fall dreadfully short.

    As for Obama and drone missiles, my position on this has been clearly stated multiple times on these pages – it is an area in which I disagree with U.S. policy and, yes, President Obama. Does it make me question his faith? No, it just makes me realize that, as President, Obama's faith takes a back seat to what he believes he has to do to protect the country's interests. It is just another example of how you and I differ. I can accept one's good intentions, and the sincerity of one's beliefs, even though I may disagree with, or even despise that person's political views and actions. You seem innately incapable of doing so. But maybe you will convince me otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mark

    What say we get the National Review, The Washington Times and Media Matters out of the middle of this and let your readers decide for themselves what temperature the president’s heart is by accurately and completely quoting then Senator Obama during the debate over Senate Bill 1093:

    SENATOR O’MALLEY:
    . . . Senate Bill 1093, as amended, provides that no abortion procedure which, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall assess the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill further provides that if there is a medical emergency, a physician inducing or performing an abortion which results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practical attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill additionally provides that a live child born as a result of an — of — of an abortion procedure shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. I’d be pleased to answer any questions there may be.

    SENATOR OBAMA:
    This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won’t belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was — is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?

    SENATOR O’MALLEY:
    Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the — the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a — a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.

    (continued..."

    ReplyDelete
  10. SENATOR OBAMA:
    Well, it turned out — that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your — you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even 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. Now, as I said before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I — I won’t, as I said, belabor the point. I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and — and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a — a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present.

    SENATOR O’MALLEY:
    Thank you, Madam President and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate. The one thing the previous speaker did say is that this is a passionate issue. And — however, I don’t think it’s challengeable on constitutional grounds in the manner that was described. This is essentially very simple. The Constitution does not say that a child born must be viable in order to live and be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be born. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. citizen, and we need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinois and, frankly, in the other forty-nine states and in the halls of Washington, D.C., to make sure that we secure and protect those rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, resecure and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in America, so be it, and it is constitutional. I would appreciate your support.

    (continued...)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Now just a few bullet points:

    • If Senator Obama had any qualms about abortion in any way, this would have been the time to state it, but he simply observes that there are some pro-abortion supporters who are “sympathetic” to the plight of babies who survive an abortion attempt.

    • Senator Obama clearly understands the issue at hand because he restates it, using such wonderfully Orwellian language as “. . . an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb,” and “. . . not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living.” In fact, Senator Obama may have been crystal clear in his understanding of the bill: “And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even 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.”

    • If Senator Obama believed that the bill was unconstitutional, why did he not have the courage to vote “nay” instead of “present”?

    • The wording in this bill could not have been clearer, nor could the logic be clearer: if a child is born alive then that child is, in fact, a child. To argue dispassionately against a law that requires medical attention be given to a child that was born alive, despite the best efforts of the doctor, makes me question not only the president’s faith but his humanity.

    • I can understand your pro-abortion stance and I can accept that you hold these beliefs sincerely and with good intentions (although I believe you are wrong like the people and Supreme Court of old that thought slavery was justified), but I pray you did not just read what I read and find yourself siding with Obama over O’Malley.

    Rich R.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rich,

    I agree with the proposition that any fetus born alive is a child entitled to the due process protections of the Constitution. I don't interpret anything that Obama said in his legal/constitutional discussion with O'Malley to suggest he disagrees with this basic proposition. Obama clearly is focused on the extent to which the bill in question prohibits abortions of pre-viable fetuses. It is that issue that he is addressing and, if true, would in fact suggest that the bill is unconstitutional. That Obama voted "present" indicates that, indeed, he has many qualms about the types of abortion procedures that O'Malley and others are concerned about, otherwise he would have voted "nay". His qualms clearly are about the constitutionality of the bill, as he was more than willing to address what proper medical procedures should be required within a constitutional framework.

    In any event, for you to suggest that Obama's intellectual critique of this very complex issue undermines the sincerity of his faith or humanity, is a poor reflection on you, not Obama. I understand your passion on the subject, but it is that passion which leads you to the false (and offensive) moral equivalency between those who support abortion rights (and the desire to prevent back-alley abortions) and those who supported slavery in the Confederate and treasonous South. It is why you seemingly cannot even acknowledge that maybe Obama is a Christian or a man of faith after all, and why you fail to address the many things on which I would hope you and Obama agree, as outlined in his speech on faith that I wrote about in my essay.

    ReplyDelete