Posted on Tue, Jan. 27, 2009

e-mail	print	RSS	reprint
AIM	Digg it	del.icio.us	Facebook

Stale debate about abortion gag order

Barack Obama's inaugural address was full of brief phrases with long-term implications, replacing his sometimes-soaring campaign rhetoric and political jousting with presidential declarations of intent.

As such, the speech is best judged not on its immediate impact but on what happens over time.

Things started happening immediately, including action on one of those short but pungent phrases: "the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply."

On Friday, announcing the easing of restrictions on the use of federal family planning money overseas, he reprised that inaugural phrase, saying, "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate" about whether the U.S. Agency for International Development funds promote or do not promote the spread of abortions.

He surely knows that the fundamental argument about abortion will not go away anytime soon, but that's not the argument he was talking about. The debate about the use of the funds is entirely different from the core one about abortion; it's a practical issue, not a moral or religious one.

The ban on money going to organizations that provide abortion services or information has been on and off for more than 25 years, starting with Ronald Reagan's initiation of it, which was reversed by Bill Clinton, restored by George W. Bush and now reversed once more by Obama.

That the debate over funding is indeed "stale and fruitless" was demonstrated immediately by the reaction of some abortion opponents. Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., declared in a press release that Obama "will be remembered forever... as the Abortion President." Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee thundered that the order reflected "Obama's sweeping abortion agenda."

Such overheated language is neither accurate nor helpful. Neither Obama nor anyone else wants more abortions; everyone on all sides of the issue would like to reduce the need for them. But trying to stamp out abortion by legal force or moral persuasion rather than through education is in fact fruitless.

As in the United States, abortion is legal in most of the developing world. Nongovernmental groups in those countries that provide advice or information regarding abortion, along with other family planning education, were denied U.S. funds. That was most of them, and the result was the loss of the opportunity to help women avoid future unintended pregnancies.

In the poor world, women's health clinics by necessity provide a range of education about such things as sexual and neonatal health, maternal nutrition, breast-feeding, contraception and AIDS prevention in addition to information about abortions. Some of the most effective education takes place postabortion at those clinics where abortions are available.

Denying operating funds to such clinics cannot stem the tide of abortions; in fact, the opposite is likely true: that unintended pregnancies -- and thus abortions -- are reduced by the education those clinics provide.

The ban also magnified the reputation of the U.S. government as hypocritical and bullying. Government incursion on free speech and doctor-patient relationships in this country would be contrary to U.S. law and opinion and would be unconstitutional. Yet Reagan and Bush imposed them by administrative fiat on the rest of the world. That's both wrong and ineffective.

Davis Merritt is a former editor of The Eagle. Reach him at dmerritt9@cox.net.

     Showing: Oldest first Newest first Most-recommended first Least-recommended first

@Nyx.AuthorDisplayName@ wrote on @Nyx.PostedAtTime@:

@Nyx.CommentBody@

@Nyx.Recommender@ @Nyx.AbuseReporter@