On November 7, 2008, I flew to DC for STAND’s National Student Conference, a meeting of grassroots anti-genocide activists from high schools and colleges around the country. Three days before prior to the conference, Senator Barack Obama had become President-elect Obama, and needless to say, optimism was running high. As a Senator, Obama had had a stellar record on Darfur and related issues: he had co-sponsored the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, co-sponsored a resolution calling for a no-fly zone over the region, and worked to include funding for African Union and United Nations peacekeeping forces in various appropriations bills. He had also addressed rallies, written articles, and generally been a reliable and passionate advocate for the cause to which the students at that weekend’s conference had devoted so much time and energy. We knew that as President, he would reverse the sad tradition of US indifference to acts of genocide and mass atrocities that had been demonstrated in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and now Darfur.
Of course, after the inauguration, reality became a bitter pill to swallow. Aside from a few cursory mentions of the issue in his speeches on foreign policy, and the appointment (after a very loud advocacy campaign by STAND and other organizations) of a new special envoy to Sudan, the President has demonstrated clearly that ending genocide in Darfur and preventing it from breaking out elsewhere is not high on his list of priorities. For anti-genocide activists, many of whom volunteered for Obama’s campaign, this reality was painful to accept not only on a policy level, but on a personal level as well. Nevertheless, we have all put aside these thoughts and begun to do what is necessary to hold President Obama’s feet to the fire, just as we did under President Bush.
To a large extent, the same needs to happen among those of us who call ourselves pro-life liberals. We must acknowledge that while there is much to be supported in the President’s policy agenda, and while his rhetoric on finding common ground around abortion reduction has been inspiring, we do have a duty to call evil by its name.
Now, “evil” is a strong word, and to avoid misunderstanding, let it be very clear that I do not claim that Barack Obama himself is evil, or that he is the modern-day equivalent of Hitler, Stalin, and Satan all rolled into one (as some of his more passionate detractors seem to think). I applaud his efforts to re-engage with the Arab world, to extend health care coverage to all Americans, to rebuild our economy around the alternative energy industry, etc. From what can be determined from his public persona, he seems to be a good man with a good heart and a large amount of respect for those with whom he disagrees. It is also important to remember he is a brother in Christ and for that reason alone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt from us when it comes to his intentions. However, none of this changes the objective fact that on the issue of abortion, President Obama at the end of the day supports a legal regime that is not only profoundly unjust, but indeed brutally inhumane—in a word, evil. His mentions of finding common ground to reduce the number of abortions—certainly a praiseworthy goal in principle—have been as frequent as his mentions of the need for action in Darfur, yet just as with Darfur, his rhetoric does not match the reality. Indeed, the only tangible actions that have been taken by his administration on this issue (reversing the Mexico City policy, funding embryonic stem cell research, de-funding crisis pregnancy centers) will lead to more, not fewer, unborn deaths.
Certainly, pro-lifers, particularly those of us who consider ourselves to be politically liberal, should remain eager to engage the President on worthwhile opportunities for common ground. The Pregnant Women Support Act, enthusiastically endorsed by Democrats for Life and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, remains one such opportunity, and more may be revealed whenever the White House working group on abortion reduction makes its recommendations. Nevertheless, to exaggerate the good and downplay the bad that Obama has done on this issue (i.e. claiming, as Doug Kmiec did, that Kathleen Sebelius is pro-life and that the new stem cell funding guidelines are ethically sensitive) serves only to destroy the credibility of those of us who attempt to add a progressive voice to the pro-life side of the debate. Worse yet, it is an assault on truth and a silent acquiescence to grave injustice, just as if I told my STAND chapters that there is nothing lacking in Obama’s response to genocide in Darfur. And such acquiescence is something in which no Christian (and no true liberal) should play a part.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In