Down but Not Out

Opinion by Robin G. Jordan

The pro-life movement was dealt a serious blow in the November 4th elections. Barack Obama, an ultra-liberal candidate with a strong pro-abortion record and the endorsement of Planned Parenthood, was elected President of the United States. Obama did well with Catholic voters nation-wide. One fourth of the evangelicals who cast their votes in the presidential election voted for Obama. Obama received a wide majority of the popular vote and can lay claim to a popular mandate. The liberal pro-abortion Democratic Party gained additional seats in Congress where Democrats already enjoy majorities in both houses. Three pro-life state constitutional amendments went down to defeat—the first would have limited abortions, the second would have defined life as beginning at conception, and the third would have required notification of the parents before a teenager could receive an abortion. The Washington State assisted-suicide proposal was passed.

The pro-life movement needs to be assessing what happened, why and how it happened, and developing a new strategy. It needs to take a thorough look at Obama’s successful campaign and learn from its success. Obama took advantage of a backlash against President Bush. He ignored the conventional wisdom that young, poor, and minority voters cannot be counted upon to vote. For an explanation of why Obama succeeded, I recommend Margaret Talev’s article, "Obama saw an opportunity — and positioned himself to take it".

The pro-life movement also needs to identify what other factors contributed to Obama’s victory and how they can deal with these factors in future elections. They also need to identify their own mistakes and learn from them.

A number of the new Democrats elected to Congress rode in Obama’ coat tails. But what is particularly disturbing is that the Democratic Party adopted the strategy of putting forward Democratic candidates who claimed to be "pro-life" and to hold conservative social values. In this way the Democratic Party garnered the support of voters who might have otherwise voted for real pro-life candidates. However, it is difficulty to see how these new members of Congress will be able to resist pressure from the Democratic Party leadership in Congress to support the Democratic Party agenda. The Democratic Party leadership control committee and office assignments. They can withhold support from legislation initiated by these new members of Congress and in a number of other ways coerce them into towing the party line.

The support of Catholics and evangelicals for Obama, a strong pro-abortion candidate, is also a disturbing trend. While the official teachings of the Catholic Church are pro-life and a number of American Catholic bishops condemned Catholic politicians who are not pro-life and urged Catholics to vote for pro-life candidates, the pro-life stance of the Catholic Church appears to have influenced Catholic voters in this election less than it has in past elections.

There also is a tendency among some evangelicals to view abortion as a private matter between a woman and God. However, if we follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, we may as well do away with laws against murder, theft, rape, physical abuse of a child or spouse, sexual abuse or exploitation of a child, and the like since they are a private matter between the perpetrator and God. We have not right to proscribe, to prevent, or to punish these acts.

This trend points to a need to educate Catholics and evangelicals concerning the true nature of abortion.

Pre-occupation with the economy is likely to overshadow the pro-life cause in the next four years. Democrats played upon voters’ fears in the days leading up to the November 4th elections. They suggested that the United States is not just facing a recession but a full-blown depression. We should not be surprised if the Democratic Party uses the present state of the economy to justify passage of the Freedom of Choice Act. Raising another child in a time of economic uncertainty, they can be expected to argue, places a heavy financial burden upon a mother with a limited income and causes unnecessary hardship to both the mother and the children that she already has. Paying for an abortion for the mother is less expensive than providing the mother with assistance to help her raise the child. Such thinking is bound to lead to encouraging the handicapped, chronically and seriously ill and the elderly to view themselves as a burden upon society and to pressuring them into voluntarily ending their lives as a cost-saving measure, instead of providing them with needed medical care.

One way the pro-life movement might win greater public support in future elections is to take a more active role in the amelioration of the negative impact of the economic turndown upon the nation’s children and other high risk groups. Americans need to see that we care not just about the unborn but all children. We care about the handicapped, chronically and seriously ill and the elderly. All life is precious to us.

The pro-life movement needs to identify ways that it can increase its influence as the nation’s conscience, not only upon Christians, Catholic, evangelical, and mainline, but upon non-Christians. It needs to learn how it can motivate people to support the pro-life cause despite their financial worries. Most importantly, it needs not to lose heart even though it has suffered a setback. Whatever its opponents say, its cause is just and right. The Lord is on its side—on the side of life.

Due to President Obama’s positions on abortion, so-called "gay rights", and other issues in which Christians have a particular interest, I will be introducing a new feature on Anglicans Ablaze, which I am dubbing "Obama Watch". A number of conservative Christian leaders are anticipating a period of intensified persecution of Christians here in the United States during the next four years as conservative Christians clash with the Obama administration and the Democratic Party-controlled Congress over these issues.