Obama - the Centrist? (Part 1)

I caught a snippet of an Obama commercial late in the election cycle. He said something to the effect that his election would initiate “fundamental change” in America. I remember thinking that Obama had finally said something with which I agreed.

Since the election, I’ve been amazed at all the people who have suggested that Obama will not introduce fundamental change. Many have suggested that he will govern as a centrist and not as a leftist/liberal. I’m skeptical of this claim.

It seems very strange to claim that a man with Obama’s record will be a centrist. If Rush Limbaugh was elected president, would anyone be saying that he would govern as a centrist? Rush has a record and strong commitments to certain ideological principles and I believe the same is true of Obama.

Obama’s record is liberal. The National Journal, a non-partisan group, ranked Obama as the most liberal senator based on his votes on 99 key economic, social and foreign policy issues that came before the U. S. Senate in 2007. Obama was tied for 10th most liberal in the 2006 senate and the 16th most liberal in the 2005 senate. His past voting record is clearly on the left/liberal side of the political spectrum. (Check here if you want to know more about the methodology of this survey – the methodology has been attacked as partisan by some who do not like the results but if you read about the methodology, I think you’ll agree it is the detractors who are partisan).

Despite my skepticism, I have no choice but to wait and see what happens with Obama. As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words so let’s see how Obama actually governs. Here are some issues to watch that may give us an early indication of the direction of his administration.

Abortion
(Note: I’m going to talk about abortion as a political issue. As a Christian, I want to be careful to divorce the political issue from the personal issue. Any of us who have been personally involved in an abortion need spiritual rather than political guidance and I believe whole-heartedly that Jesus’ grace, mercy and forgiveness reaches out to those who have aborted babies. I’m not judging anyone’s past – my own list of moral shortcomings is rather long. At the moment, though, I want to look at this issue politically.)

In a July 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Obama said, “The first thing I will do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA]. That’s the first thing I’d do.”

I believe Obama will follow through on this commitment. In a world where some of his proposals may be hard to implement due to economic constraints, this is one area where he can reward loyal supporters without having to spend any money. And there is one thing that is very clear about FOCA – it is not a centrist position on abortion.

FOCA will invalidate every restriction on abortion before the stage of viability including those restrictions previously found consistent with Roe v. Wade by the United States Supreme Court. Such restrictions include parental notification laws, waiting periods, requirements for full disclosure of the physical and emotional risks inherent in abortion and restrictions on partial birth abortion. It will repeal the Hyde amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions. It might also force religiously based hospitals to perform abortions against their will.

That FOCA will wipe out every restriction on abortion is evident if you read the proposed legislation. It was introduced by Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in 2007. It is a short law with just three key provisions spelled out in only 154 words.

FOCA mandates that “A government may not … deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose … to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; …” It also says that a government may not “discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in [the Act] in the … provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”

A “government” is defined as any “branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official … of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.” In other words, it covers any federal, state or local government!

“Viability” is defined as the time when there is “reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman” as judged by the woman’s attending physician. Even babies at seven months gestation are unlikely to have sustained survival outside the womb without significant medical intervention. Thus, the proposed law’s definition of viability allows for very late term abortions.

The fact that FOCA is designed to erase every restriction on abortion can also be seen by the arguments made by its advocates. The proponents of FOCA argue that the law is necessary because of over 500 “restrictions” on abortion that have been passed by state and local jurisdictions. What else can they be referring to except things like parental notification, etc. as listed above?

Furthermore, the proponents claim that passage of FOCA has now become urgent due to the Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart in April 2007 where, according to NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the court upheld “the federal ban on abortion”. Abortion rights advocates consistently use this disingenuous language of a “federal abortion ban” to describe the Gonzales decision.

In reality, of course, Gonzales did not ban abortion. Gonzales was the case where the Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003. Only partial birth abortion is banned but the vague terminology of Planned Parenthood, et. al. appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead people. Those who read their literature would mistakenly believe that the federal government has somehow banned abortion when in fact it has only banned one particularly heinous version of it.

If FOCA is passed, it will be ironic on several fronts.

First of all, some Christians who have voted Republican in the past due the abortion issue indicated that they would no longer let this issue be a driving force in their voting decision. While acknowledging that they disagreed with Obama’s position on abortion, they noted that Republican presidents have promised to overturn Roe v. Wade and have failed to deliver on that promise. They have concluded that presidents cannot do much about the abortion issue. Besides, they argue, there are other “life issues” that need to be considered (I dealt with the “consistently pro-life” debate in a previous blog). Therefore, they claimed that Obama’s abortion position should not be a deal killer in voting for him.

Obama himself argued differently during the campaign. He said that Roe v. Wade would be overturned if he were not elected president. He pointed out that the next president might appoint as many as three Supreme Court justices and the fate of Roe would hinge on whether he or McCain was the one appointing those judges. Thus, some people may have been throwing in the towel on the abortion issue on the verge of success.

But let’s ignore Roe for the moment. The passage of FOCA would also be ironic because it would show that a presidential choice can make a big difference on the abortion issue. A largely Democrat house and senate is like to pass FOCA. If they do, I believe Obama will sign it. This would not happen if McCain was occupying the White House. He would veto the legislation and there would not be enough votes to override a veto.

Thus, Obama’s election may mean that 35 years of incremental progress against abortion will be wiped out in one stroke of the pen.

There are four other issues I’d like to consider more briefly that may give us an indication of Obama’s governing philosophy but this has already gotten way too long. So, I’ll try to include those items in a “Part 2” in the near future.