On January 20, President Obama gave an eloquent and visionary inauguration speech. On January 23, he cut the legs out from under it. By rescinding the "Mexico City Policy," restoring federal funding to organizations that promote or perform abortions outside of the United States, the president has in effect undermined the vision he communicated for America.
Obama's executive order is not a surprise. Obama has been clear about his support for abortion rights. What does not appear to be clear to the president is how the grand vision he laid out for America will never come to fruition as long as he supports abortion.
In his speech, Obama called for America to carry forward "the God given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." But, for Obama, "all" is not all. All is only some. If all are equal, then clearly Obama believes some are more equal than others. The release of U.S. funds, which already indirectly subsidize the killing of millions of children the United States, to promote abortion abroad demonstrates that the unborn child does not qualify as equal, or as part of the all. Why she does not, Obama has never clearly explained. He grants that abortion is a moral issue, but that doesn't say much--we have always known that killing is a moral issue. Without presuming to know all that the president believes about God, if God is one who desires all to be equal, free, and happy, as Obama declared in his speech, then God cannot be pleased.
The president's position on abortion also undercuts important foreign policy objectives. About these he said little in his speech, but he did make it clear that
We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
These are strong words. They are also hard to take seriously. How much moral authority can one command when condemning the slaughtering of innocents in foreign lands but condoning the same in one's own? It may appear that something else is at stake. If human life is not valuable for its own sake, then it must be valuable for something else. Since that something else is never stated, one would be justified in wondering if it does not have something to do with our way of life for which Obama said we will not apologize. This is exactly what much of the world thinks. Unless a clear answer is given as to why the most vulnerable and voiceless may be subject to brutal violence, and others not, then condemning the killing of the innocent will be seen as hypocrisy, and will do nothing to stem "the far reaching network of violence" of which Obama speaks. If we insist on being pro-choice ourselves, why not grant the same privilege to others?
Mother Teresa taught us as much: "[If] we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? . . . Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of peace and love is abortion."
Finally, abortion undercuts the president's call to "a new era of responsibility," for abortion is the evasion of responsibility, whether by individuals, families, or nations. The founders of our nation were clear that freedom meant responsibility and sacrifice. Obama's words were equally clear. The president said that, alongside other acts of selflessness and sacrifice, it is "a parent's willingness to nurture a child that finally decides our fate." What fate, then, can we expect if we support the unwillingness to nurture children by allowing them to be killed? The president said he wants to leave our children's children, our future generations, a legacy of endurance and the gift of freedom. Will they be able to receive this legacy, when so many of their generation are no more?
Obama took his oath on the Bible of a president who refused to accept the idea that slaves were less than full persons, even though slavery was legal and affirmed by the Supreme Court. We remember President Lincoln for his role in bringing slavery to an end. Obama, as the first African-American president, stands for many as a symbol of hope that we can move past the kind of injustice that inevitably follows when one person or group decides that another is somehow inferior, or somehow less than human. Obama said "a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous." Surely he is right. And neither can a nation prosper long if denies prosperity to those who are most vulnerable, to those who have no voice.
The president has called us to a new era of responsibility. Many would welcome such a call. A call that recognizes that mothers never benefit at the expense of their children. A call to step up to support mothers (and fathers) who are expecting children while feeling unable to raise them. A call to the kind of sacrifice and selflessness that adopts babies, opens homes, provides care for children, pays for clothing and apartments, and all the myriad of other things required of a people who refuse to let mothers walk alone in difficulty, who willingly bear one another's burdens. And, as the president mentioned both the Scriptures and God's grace in his speech, a call not to forget the grace of God available for those who have been involved in abortion, for there are many who are hurting. If President Obama issues such a call, he will find resistance, but he will also find many who will follow. And he will have taken a major step toward realizing the kind of America he spoke of at his inauguration.
W. Ross Blackburn teaches at Appalachian State University.