God's Politics, Part Two: The "A" Word

During an interview with Pastor Rick Warren on August 16, 2008, Senator Barack Obama was asked what he felt was America’s greatest moral failure. His response was,

“I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”

Obama went on to explain that by “least of these” he meant the poor, minorities, and women. However, the Senator conspicuously left out one important group- unborn children. If “least of these” does not include human life in its most fragile and vulnerable state, then the phrase is meaningless.

Much debate has taken place in the three decades since the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. Catholics and Evangelical Christians have sought to keep the issue at the forefront. In fact, abortion may be responsible for the very invention of the term, “single-issue voter.” Nevertheless, the fact remains that there have been over 48 million legal abortions in the United States since 1973. Every year, nearly a million more are added to the list and unless there are major changes to the court, it will continue.

The candidates have made their positions clear. Compare their responses to the question posed to each of them by Rick Warren at the August 16th Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency…

Warren: “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?”

Obama: “Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade…I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade. And I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors, or their spouses, or their doctors [and] their family members. And, so for me, the goal right now should be- and this is where I think we can find common ground…is: how do we reduce the number of abortions?”

McCain: “At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, [and] in the Senate. And as President of the United States, I will be a pro-life President, and this Presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment; that’s my commitment to you.”

The difference is startling. McCain believes that unborn children are human beings and Obama believes that saying so is “above his paygrade.” He goes on to say that we should seek to reduce the number of abortions. I wonder if he would have applied this same logic to the Fugitive Slave Law or the Dred Scott decision? Would he have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the grounds that it took "choice" out of the hands of the individual? I think not. To say that ending the life of an unborn child should be the decision of the mother is like saying the decision to own a slave should be left to the slaveowner.

A pro-Obama friend of mine recently said to me, “History has shown that neither a Republican nor Democratic president has solved it [abortion] yet so why should we base our vote on just one issue?” The reality is, Roe v. Wade DID solve the issue- in favor of abortion! If this ruling is ever going to be overturned, presidents must appoint pro-life judges. President Bush appointed two justices and experts are predicting that the next president will appoint two to three more. Read what the candidates said about judicial nominees…

Warren: “Which existing Supreme Court Justices would you not have nominated?”

Obama: I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he...I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker, at the time, for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.
I would not nominate Justice Scalia- although I don’t think there’s any doubt about his intellectual brilliance- because he and I just disagree…”

In other words, his objection to Scalia is not on grounds of qualification. It is strictly on the grounds that Scalia does not believe the constitution should be reinterpreted to suit our fancy. Incidentally, Scalia and Thomas are the two most pro-life justices on the court. Their “strict-constructionist” judicial philosophy finds no justification in the constitution for the Roe v. Wade decision. Which brings us to McCain’s response…

McCain: “With all due respect, [I would not have nominated] Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter, and Justice Stevens…This nomination [to the Supreme Court] should be based on the criteria of [a] proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America, and not legislating from the bench. Some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench.”

McCain is saying that he will appoint “strict-constructionist” judges who would make possible the reevaluation of Roe v. Wade. The pro-abortion lobby understands this very well. Their radio ad campaign made it very clear how “dangerous” they believe a President McCain would be to their ideals. As Christians, this is not an issue we can debate. The belief that life is precious and that its origin and termination must both be left in God's hands is foundational to our faith.

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

Psalm 139:13-16