Opinion Pieces Address Presidential Candidates' Responses To Abortion Rights Issues At Saddleback Forum

Main Category: Abortion
Article Date: 21 Aug 2008 - 9:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

Six opinion pieces recently addressed comments on abortion made by presidential candidates Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at a forum moderated by the evangelical minister Rick Warren at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., on Saturday. Summaries of the opinion pieces appear below.

~ E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: "The fact that the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency took place at all is a sign that both parties intend to fight for the votes of religious Christians," Post columnist Dionne writes in an opinion piece. Dionne notes that "little-noticed is language in this year's draft Democratic platform that 'strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child' by ensuring access to health care, income support and adoption programs. The platform also backs efforts to decrease the 'number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.'" Dionne questions whether the platform will make a difference among voters "for whom opposition to abortion trumps all other causes," considering that "McCain was crisp and relentlessly on-message" during the forum. However, Dionne writes that the variety of topics covered by Warren demonstrates that the "era of reducing Christianity to a narrow set of ideological commitments is over" (Dionne, Washington Post, 8/19).

~ Rich Lowry, New York Post: According to New York Post columnist Lowry, Obama's "problem" is "the unsustainable exertions necessary to attempt to square his reasonable-sounding rhetoric on abortion with the extremism of his record." Lowry writes that Obama's statement at the forum that there is a "moral and ethical element" to the issue of abortion does not explain why he has voted against bills that would restrict the procedure. If Obama "is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he'd better possess an absolute moral nullity of the fetus," Lowry writes (Lowry, New York Post, 8/19).

~ Leonard Pitts, Miami Herald: Syndicated columnist Pitts writes in a Herald opinion piece that McCain's answers were "crisp and concise" whereas Obama's were "long and thoughtful." Pitts cites Obama's answer to a question about "when a fetus gets human rights," which Obama answered by saying it is ''above my pay grade.'' Obama also indicated that he supports Roe v. Wade ''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." According to Pitts, Obama expressed his wish to reduce the number of abortions, while not restricting access to them. In contrast, McCain said that human rights are conferred "at the moment of conception.'' Pitts writes that Obama, like "legions of Democrats before him," was "unable to find a way of explaining nuanced positions in concise and compelling ways." He adds that although the "stark simplicity" of McCain's "clear and blunt" positions is "undeniably appealing," that "stark simplicity" should not be mistaken for "wisdom." Pitts concludes that the "simplest answer is not always the best" (Pitts, Miami Herald, 8/20).

~ Naomi Schaefer Riley, Wall Street Journal: Obama's responses at the forum, which were "supposed to appeal to independent-minded Catholics and evangelicals," did "not go over well with the evangelicals in the audience," Riley -- author of the book "God on the Quad: How Religious Colleges and the Missionary Generation Are Changing America" -- writes in a Journal opinion piece. Riley adds that the "patronizing argument" from some Democrats that "poverty and other factors beyond people's control" cause women to seek abortion "won't fly with evangelicals," who are "big believers in personal responsibility" (Riley, Wall Street Journal, 8/20).

~ Cal Thomas, Washington Times: McCain "had the most to gain" from his responses at the forum and "won the night among evangelical voters," syndicated columnist Thomas writes in a Times opinion piece. Thomas adds that Obama still "did himself some good among evangelicals" by affirming his Christian faith. However, Obama's "faith tells him nothing about human life," Thomas writes (Thomas, Washington Times, 8/20).

~ DeWayne Wickham, USA Today: Before the 2004 presidential election, Warren e-mailed several hundred thousand pastors "boldly hawking his conservative religious values as a litmus test for candidates," Wickham, a USA Today columnist, writes. According to Wickham, Warren at the time said the choice between Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and President Bush should be decided based on five "non-negotiable" issues, including opposition to abortion rights, human embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia. Although Warren on Saturday "sold himself ... as an honest broker," his "doublespeak cloaked an effort to get the candidates to take a stand on many of those non-negotiable issues, which he apparently still considers matters of religious faith -- and qualification for public office," Wickham writes. Warren's questions about the candidates' "world view" on issues such as abortion rights "reflected not so much a civil forum as a push for a theocratic presidency, one that would be deeply influenced by Warren's evangelism," Wickham writes, concluding, "What we need in the White House is a devout believer in this nation's democratic principles, not the vicar of Saddleback" (Wickham, USA Today, 8/19).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations