Quick: Does President Obama support the Pregnant Women Support Act?

That Act, as you might know, is sponsored by Democrats for Life, and some (including America magazine) have mistakenly thought, for whatever reason, it has the support of the President. Not so, says Jack Smith of The Catholic Key, who has been doing yoeman's work on the issue:

It has become commonplace for the president's Catholic supporters to applaud his plan to "reduce abortions" (a phrase he doesn't use) often tying that to his supposed support of the Pregnant Women Support Act.

The myth of the president's support for PWSA is now commonplace in the media and even the generally meticulous John Allen at NCR misreported the president's support of the bill. Commenting on L'Osservatore Romano's "first 100 days" editorial, Allen wrote that the author

also argued that Obama's support for the "Pregnant Women Support Act" represents a "rebalancing" of his abortion policies "in support of maternity."

L'Osservatore did not say the president supported PWSA and I pointed that out to Allen. He went back to the Italian and confirmed I was correct. No correction was ever made to the article however. (I'm not including Allen among those lying for the president. He's simply an example of how widespread the myth has become.)

In a May 1st post, Smith pointed out that President Obama:

has not endorsed it in its current incarnation and neither did he support it as a Senator when it had been introduced in previous sessions. The L'Osservatore article also nowhere lauds the president for seeking to reduce abortions. Indeed, it would be wonderful if the president did endorse the Pregnant Women Support Act, as it would certainly bolster the bill's currently thin support.

For its own part, L'Osservatore demonstrates a certain ignorance of the American political scene when it falsely reports that the Act was "designed by the Democratic party." The act was in fact created by the Democrats for Life of America which no informed observer would confuse with the Democratic Party.

The act has been introduced in three congressional sessions by pro-life Democrat Lincoln Davis with Rep. Chris Smith as lead Republican co-sponsor. In each session it attracted a small group of co-sponsors from both parties. Regrettably, major support for the bill has not materialized from either party. There are currently 26 cosponsors in the House, while a similar sounding but altogether awful bill by extreme pro-abort Rep. Louise Slaughter has 137 co-sponsors in the House. This is why Cardinal Rigali sent a letter to members of Congress seeking additional co-sponsors for the Pregnant Women Support Act.

Smith later, in two posts, compared the Pregnant Women Support Act and the Prevention First Act. The latter's primary sponsor is Harry Reid (D-NV); it was co-sponsored by 34 senators, including then-Senator Obama. Smith reports that it is "supported by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Abortion Rights Action League." The Prevention First Act does not contain "a single word about economic assistance or support to women in crisis pregnancies."

Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia and Chairman of the USCCB's Committee for Pro-Life Activities wrote, in a May 15th letter (PDF format) to senators:

The Pregnant Women Support Act reaches out to women with a helping hand when they are most vulnerable, and most engaged in making a decision about life or death for their unborn children. It provides an authentic common ground, an approach that people can embrace regardless of their position on other issues. For example, it does not raise the entirely separate issue of seeking to reduce pregnancies through government promotion of contraceptives, which recently created so much controversy when it was inappropriately proposed for inclusion in an economic stimulus package. That issue raises serious questions regarding priorities in health care as well as the conscience rights of patients and health care providers, which demand a serious debate of their own. In any case, low-income women already have guaranteed coverage for family planning through Medicaid, with the Federal government assuring States that it will pay 90% of this coverage - yet it is precisely among these women that abortion rates are highest.

That authentic common ground is, as Robert George pointed out in his debate yesterday with Douglas Kmiec, quite different from the common ground espoused by President Obama:

Two days after the meeting, the President spoke at Notre Dame, and he chose his words carefully. In speaking of common ground, he did not propose that we reduce the number of abortions, but rather [and I quote] “the number of women seeking abortions.” Get it? The President and his administration will not join us on the common ground of discouraging women from having abortions or even in encouraging them to choose childbirth over abortion. The proposed common ground is the reduction of unwanted pregnancies—not discouraging those in “need” of abortion from having them. The idea that the interests of a child who might be vulnerable to the violence of abortion should be taken into account, even in discouraging women from resorting to abortion or encouraging alternatives to abortion, is simply off the table.

The President and the people he has placed in charge of this issue, such as Melody Barnes, have a deep ideological commitment to the idea that there is nothing actually wrong with abortion, because the child in the womb simply has no rights. This commitment explains the policy positions President Obama has consistently taken since he entered the Illinois legislature. It crucially shapes and profoundly limits what he and those associated with him regard as the “common ground” on which he is willing to work with pro-lifers. And it explains why he and they reject what we, as pro-lifers, propose as common ground.

Read George's entire statement.

Comments

[Dan Deeny]

I don't fully understand why Prof Kmiec wants to reduce abortions. Are abortion services more expensive than artificial contraception? He's on the same team as Mrs. Clinton, who described Margaret Sanger as one of her saints. In what sort of church would someone like Ms. Sanger be a saint? Prof. Kmiec, and now Prof. Diaz, are on the team that changed the Mexico City Policy. The new policy supports a reduction in the number of Asians, Latin Americans, and Africans.
Prof. Diaz is also on record as supporting Gov. Sebelius. We all know that one of Gov Sebelius' supporters is a doctor who cuts up or burns a child while still in the mother's womb.