The President of Concerned Women for America is going public with details from a private White House meeting about abortion reduction.
Wendy Wright, along with other pro-life organizations are wary and skeptical of the Obama administration in this area. In the article, she writes that a top aide to President Obama said in that meeting that, "It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.” But there is more to the story which I'll explain in a moment. You can read the article by Wendy Wright here. A key excerpt is below:
Two days before President Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame, I was at the White House for one of the meetings that he spoke about.
About twenty of us with differing views on abortion were brought in to find “common ground.” But the most important point that came from the meeting was perhaps a slip from an Obama aide.
It revealed that what many people believe -- including high-profile pro-life leaders who support Obama -- is sorely wrong.
Ask nearly anyone, “What is Obama’s goal on abortion?” They’ll answer, “Reduce the number of abortions.” A Notre Dame professor and priest insisted this in a television debate after Obama’s speech. The Vatican newspaper reported it. Rush Limbaugh led a spirited debate on his radio program the next day based on this premise.
But that’s not what his top official in charge of finding “common ground” says.
Melody Barnes, the Director of Domestic Policy Council and a former board member of Emily’s List, led the meeting. As the dialogue wound down, she asked for my input.
I noted that there are three main ways the administration can reach its goals: by what it funds, its messages from the bully pulpit, and by what it restricts. It is universally agreed that the role of parents is crucial, so government should not deny parents the ability to be involved in vital decisions. The goals need to be clear; the amount of funding spent to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions is not a goal. The U.S. spends nearly $2 billion each year on contraception programs -- programs which began in the 1970s -- and they’ve clearly failed. We need to take an honest look at why they are not working.
Melody testily interrupted to state that she had to correct me. “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.”
The room was silent.
The goal, she insisted, is to “reduce the need for abortions.”
Well, this raises a lot of questions.
If you reduce the need, doesn’t it follow that the number would be reduced? How do you quantify if you’ve reduced the “need”? Does Obama want to reduce the “need” but not the number of abortions? In that case, is he okay with “unneeded” abortions?
When I contacted the administration, White House officials told The Brody File the following:
"The goals of this effort are clear. As discussed at this and other meetings, we’re working to address the issues at the root of a woman’s heart-wrenching decision to have an abortion. We intend to give women the tools they need to prevent an unintended pregnancy before it happens and to support women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term. Taken together, this could reduce the number of women seeking abortions. We’re pleased that many from across the ideological spectrum have joined us in this effort to improve the lives of women and their families."
I'd be curious about your comments. What do you think? It's hard to argue that the Obama administration is not making a good faith effort.They are giving Evangelicals a seat at the table. If this is not a good faith effort, then the answer will lie in the final product because the real question is what will the final abortion reduction initiative look like?
The effort on reducing abortions (or reducing the need for abortions) will end up being an across the board success if "both sides" (pro-life and pro-choice) feel like they are getting something substantial in the final product. The details of the programs and initiatives which might be funded (or not funded) will make all the difference in determining the eventual success of the initiative.
Politically, if Evangelicals feel like they are just "window dressing", then the backlash will be swift and ferocious. On the other hand, if the President gives in to some of the pro-life programs being pushed ( even if it cost him something with his pro-choice base) then there is tremendous political upside for this President. The fact finding has begun. Stay tuned.