Obama's Law, Policy, and Theology of Abortion

At the recent Saddleback Civil Forum, the presidential candidates said a lot that is worthy of deeper analysis. I begin that process with a look at the implications of Senator Obama’s statement about Roe v. Wade. (And I’ll do it with one hand tied behind my back by not dwelling on the “above my pay grade” comment.)

First, as a reminder, Rick Warren’s direct question was “AT WHAT POINT
DOES A BABY GET HUMAN RIGHTS IN YOUR VIEW?” Senator Obama promptly dodged that question and went into his kinder and gentler talking points on abortion. Included in that deflective answer was the following statement:

I AM PRO-CHOICE. I BELIEVE IN ROE V. WADE AND COME TO THAT CONCLUSION NOT BECAUSE I'M PRO ABORTION, BUT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY I DON'T THINK WOMEN MAKE THESE
DECISIONS CASUALLY.

I find this statement objectionable primarily because it mixes a policy stance on abortion with a legal interpretation. What do I mean by this? Stated simply, whether one is “pro-choice” is a different question from whether one supports Roe. The first is a policy position, the latter a question of legal and legislative process. In short, it is not inconsistent to be both pro-choice and anti-Roe.

Winning the abortion debate through a Supreme Court decision is akin to winning the World Series with a foul ball that is mistakenly called a home run. Sadly, the state of sportsmanship and statesmanship is such that few “victors” will voluntarily relinquish their ill-gotten gains.

The absurdity of Obama’s statement is made evident by the inverse that follows from it: apparently he would favor the reversal of Roe if he thought “women make these decisions casually.” The question before the Court in Roe was whether Texas, a sovereign state with the general freedom to make laws on any topic unless specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, could restrict the practice of aborting unborn humans. A Justice Obama would apparently analyze this legal question not by asking “what provision of the Constitution might prevent this act of law making” but by querying “how do women generally approach the abortion decision?”

Justice Obama would deal with the question the same way Senator Obama would---by asking a policy based question (or, to use an over-used cliché, by "legislating from the bench"). This ignores what should be an obvious foundational tenet of our government: judges and legislators have different jobs.

On the policy side of the question, I note that Senator Obama (paraphrasing Jesus) elsewhere expresses admirable concern about how our nation treats “the least of these my brothers.” He calls this our greatest national moral failure, and I agree. While he rightly notes the application of this principle to poverty, apparently that biblical policy concern does not extend to our brothers in the womb.

Before quoting scripture again, I recommend Senator Obama read Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1, and Luke 1 along with Matthew 25. God does not ignore the unborn; he even communicates through them. While doubtful, we can and should pray that Senator Obama will eventually place the influence of Scripture above the influence of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, no matter what his pay grade in the future.