Wednesday, January 7, 2015

President Obama and the Unborn

President Barack Obama has never been silent regarding his views on abortion. In an article on Life News entitled “Obama Threatens to Veto Bill Banning Abortions After 20 Weeks”, the president and the White House issued a policy declaring its opposition to a bill that would prohibit abortion beyond 20 weeks in pregnancy. The policy states as follows: The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1797, which would unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose. Women should be able to make their own choices about their bodies and their health care, and Government should not inject itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor. Forty years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose. This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women’s health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients’ health care decisions, and the Constitution. The Administration is continuing its efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies, expand access to contraception, support maternal and child health, and minimize the need for abortion. At the same time, the Administration is committed to the protection of women’s health and reproductive freedom and to supporting women and families in the choices they make. If the President were presented with this legislation, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill. (Para. 3)

The White House administrative policy was reacting towards a bill that sought to base its merits on the fact that there is scientific evidence for fetal pain during the 20th week of pregnancy. If the fetus is capable of experiencing pain during this time, it would seem that becomes a morally relevant factor as to whether abortion is ethical or not. As a side note, I hold to the view that abortion is unethical throughout all points of pregnancy except perhaps in cases where the mother’s life is in jeopardy.

There are a few observations regarding this policy to take note of. First, it seems as though the administration cares little about the personhood question of the unborn or thinks it is irrelevant. After all, the administration would surely have had access to some of the academic findings concerning fetal development that these Congressmen had been using as a basis for their proposed bill. But the fact this policy seems to make no mention or reference to these considerations regarding fetal pain makes one wonder whether the President and his staff even care whether the unborn is a person. Second, the policy oddly enough gives the impression that women’s ‘health’ and reproductive rights are absolute rights that must never be tinkered with during the time of pregnancy. The policy claims that this bill would ‘unacceptably restrict women’s health and reproductive rights and is an assault on a woman’s right to choose’. Note that the policy did not say this would count as a heavy restriction but merely that any kind of restriction – which this bill certainly amounts to – is unacceptable. One has to wonder whether the Administration is committed to the view that women’s bodily rights know of no exceptions and always supersede any other supposed rights it’s willing to grant to the fetus.


So overall it seems to me that the Presidential Administration seems to be indifferent to the question of fetal personhood based on how it characterized whose rights are relevant and at stake during the course of pregnancy. And lastly, one could almost accuse the White House administration of not letting scientific data – which in this case clearly has some support for the claim that late term abortion is immoral – play any significant role in shaping public policy but resorting to ambiguous and colored concepts (such as women’s health) that have not been well defined or defended.