Pro-abort bloggers Christina Page on the Huffington Post and Scott Swenson on RH Reality Check are attempting to spin Barack Obama as “centrist” on abortion, or even “pro-life.”
Beyond the fact that this is a wild lie, the question is why, according to them, would this be a good thing?…
If pro-aborts are so proud of abortion, why not sell their candidate just the way he is, so supportive of abortion he condones infanticide?
Did Page and Swenson mean to admit abortion support isn’t mainstream and fabulous?
The thrust of Page’s column:
Obama has a huge opportunity to win over an unlikely voting bloc: pro-life voters… The data show that the pro-choice approach is more effective at achieving what the American public views as “pro-life” goals i.e. reducing the number of abortions, preventing late term abortion, than the so-called “pro-life” approach.
According to Page, the “pro-choice approach” is pushing comprehensive sex ed and contraception.
First, the data certainly does not bear out Page’s contention. Comprehensive sex ed is taught in 75% of our schools according to Guttmacher, with the percentage much higher for at least 20 years.
In fact, comprehensive sex ed has been taught to American adolescents and teens for 40 years, and where is any proof it has been other than a dismal failure?
And contraception? It is now available to anyone anytime. NYC workers even hand out condoms at subway stations.
By Page’s own words, 89% of the female population uses contraception, accounting for half of all abortions:
Obama could remind the voter that only 11% of sexually active women don’t use contraception and from this 11% comes 50% of the nation’s abortions.
I don’t know if Page’s statistics were correct, but if she was trying to use them to make her case, she failed.
Further, why care about “reduc[ing] unintended pregnancy and abortion”? Page unwittingly plays into our hands. The obvious response is: What’s wrong with abortion that one would want to prevent it?
Swenson’s piece was more troublesome. Turns out Max Lucado, Franklin Graham and other conservative pastors attended Obama’s meeting for them the other day, although Graham did appear to distance himself afterward, arguing he hadn’t hugged Obama but merely shook his hand. (Sheesh.)
Swenson highjacked a section of Charisma magazine founder Steve Strang’s blog report of the meeting, particularly the “more centrist than expected” phrase so he had a good title for his column. But here are some of Strang’s additional thoughts Swenson unsurprisingly omitted:
Since I am opposed to the leftist political stands of the Democratic Party and of Obama specifically, I didn’t really want to attend….
I said, “Senator… I want to ask what your stand on abortion is and if you believe what I think you believe, how you justify that with your Christian faith and why you think we should vote for you.”…
[O]ther than his demeanor and obvious attempt to win over the Christian leaders in the room, he didn’t say anything new….
Whether Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton or any of the other Democrats had gotten the nomination, I believe the policies they espouse are dangerous….
Strang did have one ominous reflection:
I returned from the meeting very concerned. Here is a liberal – Obama – reaching out to the Christian community at a time the conservative – Sen. John McCain – seems to be distancing himself from the so-called “Christian Right.” I think McCain has a lot of work to do to get the support of the Christian community. Obama seemed to have the support of at least half of the 43 leaders who attended the Chicago meeting. And in my opinion, he “made points” with the rest….
[HT for Page column: Phil at RockForLife]