Barack Obama and infanticide

Then-state Senator Barack Obama publicly argued in 2001 that babies at this age, even ones who have already been born, should not receive legal protection.

Barack Obama is so committed to unlimited abortion that he voted repeatedly to condone a form of infanticide. He is so committed to winning elections that he spent years misrepresenting those votes.

From 2001 to 2003, as an Illionois state senator, Obama was confronted with legislation called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). The bill simply defined "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development" to be an individual protected under the laws of the state. That's it. So legal protection applies to any baby who has been born ("the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother") and is alive -- even if that baby was born as a result of a failed abortion rather than natural labor. The only point of the legislation was that we shouldn't kill or abandon living, already-born human beings. They are persons who deserve to be treated as such. The bill had no affect on the legality or availability of abortion. A federal version of BAIPA passed Congress in 2002 without a single dissenting vote in either house; even NARAL chose not to oppose the bill.

What prompted BAIPA? Many babies have been born alive during labor-induction abortions and then set aside to die, sometimes without assessing whether they are capable of long-term survival (with the appropriate medical assistance) and without even providing basic comfort care (regardless of whether they have good prospects for survival). Former nurse Jill Stanek helped uncover this practice at a Chicago hospital. In testimony before an Illinois Senate committee, Stanek explained: "It is not uncommon for live aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies once lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift." One night Stanek found an aborted Down syndrome baby left to die, she explained to a Congressional committee. "I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old." BAIPA would ensure that newborn babies who are born alive prematurely because of abortion are treated with the same care and respect as babies at the same age who were not marked for abortion.

Then-state Senator Obama voted against BAIPA four different times. In 2001 he was the only state senator to speak out against the legislation. In 2003 he led the committee he chaired in killing the bill. BAIPA finally passed after Obama left for Washington.

Can pro-life voters reasonably support pro-choice candidates?

Not all voters who hold a pro-life position plan to vote for pro-life candidates for public office in the Nov. 6 election. As in 2008, some pro-life Catholic and evangelical protestant Christians are undecided or expect to vote for "pro-choice" (pro-legalized abortion) candidates in contests between pro-life and pro-choice options, such as in the presidential race between Mitt Romney, who supports protection for human beings in the womb, and Barack Obama, who supports unlimited abortion.

Some of these voters simply don't know (yet!) where the candidates stand. But some do know and plan to vote for pro-choice candidates anyway. Public examples include evangelical figures like Jim Wallis and David Gushee and Catholics like Doug Kmiec, Charles Reid and Stephen Schneck. Does this make sense? Here are a number of (often-overlapping) explanations, some of which I have heard from ordinary pro-lifers and some of which are offered by academics and commentators. I respond to each. I also respond to pro-lifers who plan to either sit out the election or vote for third-party candidates.

(1) Abortion isn't the only issue. There are many important issues, and I'm not a single-issue voter.

As Scott Klusendorf notes, abortion isn't the only issue today any more than slavery was the only issue in 1860. But if the pro-life position on the ethics of abortion is true—as those I am addressing here believe—then abortion is a uniquely important issue, as slavery was a uniquely important issue in 1860. First, abortion is a question of basic justice unlike any other issue or concern in American society today. In no other area is a class of innocent human beings placed outside the protection of the law and allowed to be killed for any or no reason. At stake is the principle of the equal fundamental dignity and right to life of every member of the human family, irrespective not only of race, gender, religion and social status, but also of age, size, ability, stage of development and condition of dependency. Human equality is on the ballot. Second, abortion is the leading cause of human death (at 1.2 million unborn children killed annually in the United States), and the candidates we elect will affect our laws and policies in ways that will influence the incidence of abortion. Lives really are on the line. Even if a pro-life voter agrees completely with a pro-choice candidate on every other issue, it is difficult (if not impossible) to see how voting for that candidate can be reasonable given the moral gravity and scale of what is at stake regarding abortion.

None of this is to deny that there are many important political issues. It is just to say that some issues are more important, and more foundational, than others.

Obama’s record: Expanding, subsidizing abortion on demand

"I'm not going to give any ground" on the issue of abortion, Barack Obama said earlier this year. And he hasn't.

Obama says abortion is a "fundamental constitutional right." He has never wavered or compromised in his commitment to the unfettered killing of unborn children for any reason at any stage of pregnancy. In many cases he wants such killing to be subsidized by taxpayers—as if abortion were a public good.

Below are some of the highlights (or, rather, lowlights) of his record since becoming president less than four years ago.

Abortion promotion overseas

On his third day in office, in January 2009, Obama issued an executive order to fund organizations that perform and promote abortion overseas. His Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, later told Congress that the administration would advocate "reproductive health" worldwide and that "reproductive health includes access to abortion." Obama also restored and increased U.S. funding to the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has aided the enforcement of China's one-child policy that has included barbaric campaigns of forced abortions and sterilizations.

In March 2009 Obama issued an executive order to provide federal funding for research that requires the killing of embryonic human beings (research that, unlike adult stem cell research, has yet to yield any therapeutic benefits). He also, inexplicably, reversed a prior (George W. Bush-issued) order that encouraged ethical and non-controversial forms of stem cell research.

Obamacare, taxpayer funding of abortion

In March 2010, after months of debate, Obama very narrowly won enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a far-reaching health care overhaul. "Obamacare," beginning in 2014, will provide federal subsidies for millions of health care plans that will pay for abortion on demand; it also includes a number of other mechanisms and funding pipelines that can be used to subsidize and expand access to abortion. Obama helped defeat an amendment that would have removed these abortion-expanding elements. Obamacare also contains provisions that will lead to government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care.

In 2011 the Obama administration issued formal veto threats against the Protect Life Act, a bill to repeal the abortion-expanding provisions of Obamacare, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, a bill to permanently stop any federal program from funding elective abortions. Obama also succeeded, for 16 months (2010-2011), in removing a ban on taxpayer-funded elective abortion in the District of Columbia.

In February 2011 the Obama administration rescinded a George W. Bush-issued regulation that protected health care providers from being penalized for refusing to participate in providing abortions.

Planned Parenthood, sex-selection abortion

During a 2011 budget showdown, Obama indicated he would veto the entire federal spending bill—forcing a government shutdown—rather than accept a provision cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation's leading performer and promoter of abortion. He preserved hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually for the abortion business. His administration has also blocked efforts by several states to deny government funds to Planned Parenthood.

In 2012 Obama came out against legislation in Congress to prohibit performing or coercing sex-selection abortions, in which abortion is chosen solely because the gender of the child (almost always female) is not desired. Obama is firmly committed, as a matter of "women's rights" and "privacy," to the legality of killing unborn girls simply because they are girls.

Court-imposed abortion on demand

In 2009 and 2010, Obama appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court two justices who (almost certainly) believe that Roe v. Wade and its mandate of nationwide abortion on demand should be preserved. In both cases an opportunity to install the decisive fifth vote to overturn Roe was lost—because Obama had been elected president. Obama fiercely believes that the Court should not allow the American people, through their elected representatives, to determine their own abortion policies. He has even argued that legal protection for newborn babies who survive abortion and bans on partial-birth abortion cannot be permitted under the Constitution. (These facts, though shocking, are a matter of public record.)

Barack Obama will not let us, the people, have a say on abortion, the premier injustice in American society today. But we will have a say on Nov. 6.

It's time to get taxpayers out of the abortion industry, Mr. President

Last night President Obama repeatedly criticized (five times!) Mitt Romney for wanting to deny federal funding to Planned Parenthood, a criticism Obama has made throughout the campaign (often inaccurately, claiming that Romney wants to "get rid" of Planned Parenthood itself rather than its government subsidies). The president's own record is clear. Obama indicated during the 2011 budget showdown that he was willing to force the federal government to shut down rather than cut any of the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that currently go to Planned Parenthood each year. And his administration has blocked the efforts of multiple states to de-fund the abortion provider, even threatening to withhold states' Medicaid money. Planned Parenthood, in turn, has spent millions trying to ensure Obama's reelection and defeat any candidate, like Romney, who dares challenge the organization's hefty take at the public trough.

Obama is very wrong on this issue. Planned Parenthood is the nation's leading practitioner and champion of the greatest injustice in American society today -- and its government funding is fungible and clearly works to support its abortion practice. Planned Parenthood performs hundreds of thousands of elective abortions every year while raking in hundreds of millions of government dollars. As funding has increased the abortion total has increased at a corresponding rate. American taxpayers should not be made a party to this. Obama absolutely, resolutely insists that they be. He has even decided to make this a primary talking point during his campaign. But that can only work if he obscures the facts.

Obama claimed last night that Planned Parenthood's ability to perform mammograms is at stake in this election. Planned Parenthood does not even offer mammograms. It can only refer women to other, better clinics that provide more in the way of actual health care for women in need. There is no "health care" justification for directing valuable funds to a controversial abortion business instead of the many non-abortion health care facilities. Those who oppose taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood don't oppose health care for low-income women, as Obama and his Hollywood supporters falsely claim. But they do think funds can be used more effectively for the genuine benefit of women. Obama is an ideologue who won't even consider such a thing -- because this debate isn't really about health care.

Planned Parenthood is an already-wealthy, hyper-political, scandal-plagued marketing machine that profits immensely from performing abortions on women and from soaking the American taxpayer with the help of political BFFs like Barack Obama. We, the American people, should get out of the abortion industry. The first step is on Nov. 6.

The moral confusion of Joe Biden

In yesterday's debate, Vice President Joe Biden said that, as a Catholic, he accepts the position of his church regarding the ethics of abortion, then added:

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and -- I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman [Paul Ryan].

I -- I do not believe that -- that we have a right to tell other people that women, they -- they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court -- I'm not going to interfere with that.

This is the cop-out of all cop-outs. If abortion is what Biden says he accepts it to be -- namely, the unjust killing of an innocent human being, as pro-lifers argue using the facts of embryology and sound moral reasoning, and as the Catholic Church unambiguously teaches -- then abortion is precisely the kind of act that only an anarchist would deny should be prohibited by law as a matter of basic justice. Because surely the proper role of government includes securing fundamental rights and protecting people from lethal violence. It is not difficult to connect the dots.

Biden would have no trouble "imposing" his view that suicide bombing is wrong, or that rape is wrong, or that child abuse is wrong. It would be understood as shocking moral confusion, or cowardice, or insanity for him to speak only of the imposition on the perpetrator in arguing that the act, though wrong, must be legal, ignoring completely the actual victim on whom brutal violence is truly "imposed." Yet that is what he does with the issue of abortion.

Biden once strongly opposed the use of taxpayer funds for abortion, and he voted to ban partial-birth abortion and for other modest pro-life legislation. Now he defends an administration that has encouraged the taxpayer funding of abortion at every turn -- here in America and around the world -- and accepts no limits whatsoever on the practice of abortion on demand, even opposing a bill this year to stop the killing of unborn baby girls simply because they are girls. Biden used to hold positions that Barack Obama (in his breathtaking abortion radicalism) considers not just wrong but unconstitutional (e.g., support for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act).

Paul Ryan served as a refreshing contrast. He said in the debate that he holds his pro-life position "not simply because of my Catholic faith" but also "because of reason and science." He continued:

You know, I think about 10 and a half years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born for our seven-week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. Our little baby was in the shape of a bean, and to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child, Liza, "Bean."

Now, I believe that life begins at conception. ... I understand this is a difficult issue. And I respect people who don't agree with me on this. But the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

What troubles me more is how this [Obama] administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they're doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic Charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. Our church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious liberties.

And with respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they want it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding, taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized or wouldn't second-guess their one-child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That, to me, is pretty extreme.

After a follow-up question, Biden argued:

The court -- the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That's how close Roe v. Wade is.

Just ask yourself: With Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for -- for Mr. Romney, who do you think he's likely to appoint? Do you think he's likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court, far right, that would outlaw Planned -- excuse me -- outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen.

Biden is correct that the fate of Roe v. Wade might be at stake in this election, and that the Obama administration will do everything it can to preserve that decision (it has already effectively saved Roe with its two Supreme Court appointments thus far). But he is wrong when he implies that overturning Roe would outlaw abortion. And Justice Antonin Scalia himself is clear that he doesn't think the Court has the constitutional authority to prohibit abortion. What overturning Roe would do -- and what Scalia would do, and what Mitt Romney and Ryan want to do -- is allow the people, through their elected representatives, to once again determine their own abortion policies. Obama and Biden are instead dedicated to ensuring that the Court, with no constitutional warrant, imposes a nationwide policy of abortion on demand whether the people like it or not.

As Ryan put it last night: "We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision; the people, through their elected representatives and reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process, should make this determination."

Joe Biden would rather impose unlimited abortion on the states. And impose abortion funding on pro-life taxpayers. And impose death on the most vulnerable members of the human family. For them -- those he says he acknowledges to be living human beings -- he will do nothing but sit back and help facilitate their destruction on a massive scale. And then he will boast about his moral superiority.

Obamacare, IPAB, and rationing

During the first presidential debate, Mitt Romney criticized Obamacare for creating an unelected Independent Payment Advisory Board that will effectively ration medical care. Barack Obama denied the rationing charge. Burke Balch of the Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics explains the facts of the matter:

"A rose by any other name," Shakespeare wrote, "would smell just as sweet." Unfortunately, the same is true when the fragrance is less pleasant.

When the role of Obamacare's Independent Payment Advisory Board in rationing life-saving medical treatments is alleged, the law's apologists indignantly point out that the law specifically precludes the board from "rationing." They seem convinced this demonstrates that the charges of "rationing" are unarguably false. But are they right?

Let's review the facts. The law directs the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to report proposals, every two years from 2015 on, "to slow the growth in national health expenditures" to significantly below the rate of medical inflation. (From 2019 on a different, but similarly constraining, target is required.)

To be clear, these recommendations are to apply to what you and I choose to spend on our health care – nongovernmental spending. They are to include recommendations that the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) "can implement administratively."

What are those "administrative" means that the federal bureaucrats at HHS can use to prevent us from keeping up with medical inflation in trying to protect our loved ones stricken by illness or injury? HHS is empowered to impose so-called "quality" standards on doctors, standards they must follow under pain of losing the ability to contract with the health insurance plans that the individual mandate will require Americans to have.

To prevent "too much" private money being spent on health care, those standards could establish just which diagnostic tests and medical treatments are permitted under what circumstances – and which are not. Thus, the government could prevent people from getting particular life-saving medical treatments – even when paid for entirely by their own money. (For details and documentation, go here.)

The Obamacare law doesn't define what it means by the "rationing" it says IPAB can't use. Its apologists will claim that the "quality" standards limiting treatment are simply "cost-effective" means of assuring patients get "appropriate" care. Consequently, the "rationing" prohibition will not be an enforceable restraint courts could use to protect Americans from denial of medical care. It's not so much a shield against treatment denial as it is a rhetorical sword to ward off the law's critics.

The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia describes rationing as "Government allocation of scarce resources and consumer goods, usually adopted during wars, famines, or other national emergencies." Health care does not need be "scarce" (see here). But, when government bureaucrats tell you what treatments, paid for with your own money, you can and can't have – that is certainly "government allocation" of health care.

The Obamacare law authorizes federal bureaucrats to impose limits on what life-saving medical treatments Americans are allowed to get. It may not call this "rationing." But that doesn't mean it won't be.

Go here for more about Obamacare and rationing.

'A politician who has never once lifted a hand to defend the most helpless and innocent'

Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan, speaking on Friday:

President Obama likes to say, "We're all in this together." ... -- it has a nice ring. For everyone who loves this country, it is not only true but obvious. Yet how hollow it sounds coming from a politician who has never once lifted a hand to defend the most helpless and innocent of all human beings, the child waiting to be born.

Giving up any further pretense of moderation on this issue, and in complete disregard of millions of pro-life Democrats, President Obama has chosen to pander to the most extreme elements of his party.

In the Clinton years, the stated goal was to make abortion "safe, legal and rare." But that was a different time, and a different president. Now, apparently, the Obama-Biden ticket stands for an absolute, unqualified right to abortion -- at any time, under any circumstances, and even at taxpayer expense.

When you get past all of the President's straw men, what we believe is plain to state: These vital questions should be decided, not by the caprice of unelected judges, but by the conscience of the people and their elected representatives. And in this good-hearted country, we believe in showing compassion for mother and child alike.

We don't write anyone off in America, especially those without a voice. Every child has a place and purpose in this world. Everyone counts, and in a just society the law should stand on the side of life.

We the People

Last night, President Barack Obama said:

We, the people, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only, what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense.

As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together ...

America, I never said this journey would be easy, and I won't promise that now. Yes, our path is harder, but it leads to a better place. Yes, our road is longer, but we travel it together.

We don't turn back. We leave no one behind. We pull each other up.

"We the people." "Bound together." "Leave no one behind." What the president did not mention is that there is a raging debate in our society today about the scope of "we," "us," "the people" -- about who counts as a member of our human (and, more particularly, American) community, bearing basic dignity and rights, and who or what instead may be discarded or used instrumentally for the benefit of those who do count. Obama once said that this foundational moral and political question is "above my pay grade." But the question of who is one of us and who may be killed by us is not above the pay grade of the president of the United States. A confident answer to that question is a prerequisite for the job, and our president flunked the test.

In fact, though, Obama has taken his stand, and done so with great zeal. He is committed to the proposition that unborn human beings -- members of our species at the earliest developmental stages -- merit no moral regard or legal protection and may be dismembered and killed for the convenience of the older, the stronger, the smarter, the independent. "We the people," for President Obama, does not include the unborn. Our "commitment to others" does not extend to the smallest and most vulnerable. And as we "leave no one behind," Obama is not counting the millions of young human beings for whom he wishes only death. He will not turn back.

"[W]e cannot go on forever feigning agnosticism about who is human," one of Obama's opponents, Paul Ryan, has written. "Now, after America has won the last century's hard-fought struggles against unequal human rights in the forms of totalitarianism abroad and segregation at home, I cannot believe any official or citizen can still defend the notion that an unborn human being has no rights that an older person is bound to respect."

But that is the Obama position. His is one of exclusion, discrimination, and the use of violence against the most innocent and defenseless in order to get what we want for ourselves. His opponents, Mitt Romney and Ryan, embrace a position of inclusion, equality, and respect and protection for every human being simply because they, like you and me, are human.

This utterly important question -- who are "We the People"? -- is a big part of what is at stake in the November election.

MCCL Federal PAC endorses Mitt Romney for U.S. President

The following news release was issued today, Sept. 5.

MINNEAPOLIS – With the goal of securing the protection of unborn children for decades to come, the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) Federal PAC today endorsed Mitt Romney for President of the United States. The MCCL Federal PAC is the state’s oldest and largest pro-life political action committee.

"On pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark contrast. As the country's most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda," said Scott Fischbach, MCCL Federal PAC. "It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled and the elderly, we must win."

Romney has taken a strong pro-life position and is committed to implementing policies to protect the unborn, the medically dependent and disabled, and the elderly. Romney opposes abortion and has called the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision "a big mistake." Romney has expressed his support of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion.

Romney has also stated he believes the Obama health care law should be repealed. The Obama health care law would open the door to federal subsidies for abortion coverage and rationing of lifesaving medical care. He has also stated that, if elected, he would reinstate the Mexico City Policy, which prevents federal dollars from going to organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas.

In contrast, since taking office in January 2009, President Obama has been an outspoken advocate for abortion and has worked unceasingly to expand funding of and access to abortion. He rescinded the Mexico City Policy, and threatened to veto the entire federal spending bill—forcing a government shutdown—rather than accept a provision cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. Obama also threatened to veto the Protect Life Act, which would repeal the abortion-expanding provisions of his health care law, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which would permanently prohibit any federal program from funding elective abortions. Earlier this year he even opposed a ban on sex-selection abortion, when abortion is chosen solely because the child's gender (almost always female) is not desired.

Additionally, Obama championed the so-called Affordable Care Act while opposing pro-life amendments in the Senate. As enacted, the law will result in federal funding of health plans that pay for elective abortion, and will lead to large-scale rationing of lifesaving medical treatments.

Romney also has been endorsed by the National Right to Life Political Action Committee. The MCCL Federal PAC urges all Minnesota citizens to vote for Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

"We are extremely gratified that Mitt Romney holds strong pro-life convictions and has not shied away from expressing them during the campaign," Fischbach added. "We look forward to Romney’s election as our next pro-life president on November 6."

Mitt Romney offers pro-life contrast to Obama

"In the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than
a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America."

A version of the following ran in the May/June issue of MCCL News.

Mitt Romney is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to challenge Democratic incumbent Barack Obama in the Nov. 6 election. The former Massachusetts governor and businessman takes a pro-life position that contrasts sharply with Obama's pro-abortion record.

Romney once did not favor laws against abortion (though he had repeatedly said that he personally opposed the practice), but he changed his position in 2004 when studying human embryology, stem cells and cloning as governor.

"The Roe v. Wade mentality has so cheapened the value of human life that rational people saw human life as mere research material to be used, then destroyed," he later said. "What some see as a mere clump of cells is actually a human life. Human life has identity. Human life has the capacity to love and be loved. Human life has a profound dignity, undiminished by age or infirmity."

Romney compiled a pro-life record during his tenure in office, vetoing a pro-cloning bill and a bill to redefine the beginning of life (as later than conception) and receiving an award for political leadership from Massachusetts Citizens for Life. "I publicly acknowledged my error, and joined with you to promote the sanctity of human life," he explained in a 2007 speech to the pro-life group.

Romney believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned and has promised, if he is elected president, to nominate judges who "adhere to the Constitution and the laws as they are written, not as they want them to be written." Romney says he will take pro-life executive actions, including restoring Ronald Reagan's Mexico City policy and denying funds to the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund.

He says he will support pro-life legislation, such as bans on federal funding of abortion and federal funding of Planned Parenthood. And he advocates the complete repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which (if not repealed) will lead to government-subsidized abortion coverage and the rationing of lifesaving health care.

In all of these areas, Obama has taken the opposite view—he has promoted abortion and undermined the dignity of unborn human life at every turn.

"Let me be clear: Mine will be a pro-life presidency," Romney pledged in a February speech. "I will reverse every single Obama regulation that attacks our religious liberty and threatens innocent life." The stakes in this contest are clear.

NRLC criticizes media coverage of abortion issue

The following statement was released yesterday by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

WASHINGTON -- "The mainstream news media is once again demonstrating its eagerness to use any excuse to portray a Republican presidential ticket as out of the mainstream on abortion, while ignoring the truly extreme positions taken by the pro-abortion candidate -- this year, President Obama," said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

The mainstream news media is again busy ginning up stories exploring the outer parameters of the abortion-related policy positions of pro-life Republican candidates, even where this involves remote, theoretical scenarios -- while demonstrating a near-total disinterest in putting the spotlight on the outer parameters of the "abortion rights" positions embraced by President Obama, even on matters under current legislative consideration.

The current media focus is on the position of the Romney-Ryan ticket on prohibiting abortion in cases of rape or incest. Governor Romney has been quite clear that he supports rape and incest exceptions to a law providing general protection for unborn children. ...

According to a 2005 study published by the Guttmacher Institute, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions," one percent of the women who were surveyed while seeking abortions reported having an abortion because they were victims of rape. Legislation to prohibit early abortion in cases of rape and incest is not under consideration in Congress. Indeed, since 1993, Congress provided federal funding for abortion in cases of rape and incest. ...

Despite the remoteness of these matters from any legislation currently under consideration in Congress or likely to be considered by the next Congress, the mainstream news media finds them worthy of sustained attention. Yet there is little interest by these journalists in performing a symmetrical exploration of the outer parameters of President Obama's policy positions on abortion -- even with respect to bills that are under active consideration in Congress.

For example, recently NRLC brought it to the attention of Congress that currently, in the District of Columbia -- a federal jurisdiction -- abortion is legal for any reason, until the moment of birth. (This is because the "District Council," utilizing delegated congressional authority, repealed the entire abortion law.) On July 31, 2012, by a solid majority of 66 votes (220-154), the U.S. House of Representatives voted for a bill (H.R. 3803) to overturn this policy, and replace it with a ban on abortion after 20 weeks fetal age (the beginning of the sixth month), except to save the life of the mother. At the same time, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) filed the same measure as an amendment to cybersecurity legislation (S. 3414) -- a White House priority -- that was pending in the Senate when the August recess began.

So, what is President Obama's position on the pending legislation that has already commanded a substantial majority in the U.S. House, and that is at least technically still pending in the U.S. Senate? Good question -- but the mainstream media has been almost entirely uninterested in asking it. At the July 31 White House press briefing, one desultory question was posed to Jay Carney about the bill, to which Carney responded that he had not spoken to the President about this particular bill (although it had 223 cosponsors, and was to be voted on later that day in the House). There was no follow up.

Another example: On May 31, 2012, the U.S. House took up the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541), a bill to prohibit the use of abortion for purposes of sex selection in the United States. Only one organ of the mainstream news media showed any interest in ascertaining what President Obama's position was on the bill: ABC News' Jake Tapper pressed for an answer, and obtained it the night before the House vote -- President Obama opposed the bill. His reason? "The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way." But aside from one-time, low-profile coverage on the ABC News blog, Obama's position on this legislation has gone virtually unmentioned in the news media -- although the bill commanded a substantial bipartisan majority (246-168) in the U.S. House on May 31. A recent poll found that 77 percent of the public (80 percent of women, 74 percent of men) favors banning the use of abortion for sex selection.

Thus, while consumers of the mainstream news media are likely to view and read countless stories that affirm that Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan have expressed opposition to abortion "even in cases of [fill in the blank]," they are likely to see far fewer reports that President Obama supports allowing legal abortion "even when used for sex selection," or exploring President Obama's position on whether abortion should be allowed "even up to the point of birth" in the nation's capital. For the mainstream news media, the "even in cases of ..." knife only cuts in one direction.

"For the most part, the mainstream news media prefer to characterize President Obama's position in terms of hazy generalizations, avoiding specifics such as his actions to allow unrestricted abortion for sex selection and late abortions," said NRLC President Carol Tobias.

Obamacare, abortion, and judicial activism

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare). The Court will likely issue its ruling in June.

The primary question under dispute is whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to compel every private citizen to purchase a particular commercial product (health insurance) -- an unprecedented move made by Pres. Barack Obama's health care law. Defenders of Obamacare claim that Congress does have this power, so the Court should not strike down the legislation as unconstitutional.

Yet many of these Obamacare defenders -- including Obama himself -- think the Court was right to strike down all of the democratically-decided state laws on abortion in Roe v. Wade and to reaffirm that position in subsequent rulings. They think that state legislatures do not have the power under the Constitution to prohibit or even significantly limit elective abortion.

Look at these two cases. To say that state abortion bans are constitutionally impermissible is absurd. There is simply no support for a right to abortion on demand in the text or history of the Constitution. Indeed, states were banning abortion at the same time (the latter half of the 19th century) they were approving the very constitutional provisions the Court later said precluded bans on abortion!

On the other hand, to say that Obamacare violates the Constitution seems quite plausible. The Constitution limits Congress (as opposed to state legislatures, which are afforded much greater freedom under the Tenth Amendment) to certain enumerated powers, which on the face of them do not include the power exerted under the Obama health care law. Obamacare is an unprecedented assertion of federal government control.

Speaking recently about the possibility of the Court striking down his signature accomplishment, Obama urged "judicial restraint" and said that the Court should not "[overturn] a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." (Obama later clarified that he does not deny the Court's power of judicial review.)

Now look at another case. In Gonzales v. Carhart the Court upheld (i.e., did not overturn) the democratically-decided federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion. Obama fiercely condemned the ruling (and he has called partial-birth abortion a "legitimate medical procedure"). Yet the partial-birth abortion ban passed with large bipartisan majorities and broad public support; Obamacare passed (contrary to the president's claim) by a tiny margin on a purely partisan vote against broad public opposition, leading to huge losses by the president's party in that fall's elections.

Obama claimed that overturning Obamacare would be "judicial activism," saying: "I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, here's a good example."

No, that's not what judicial activism is -- it is not the same as judicial review. Properly understood, judicial activism is the substitution of personal policy opinion for the Constitution. It is making law rather than faithfully interpreting and applying it. As the Wall Street Journal explains:

Judicial activism is not something that happens every time the Supreme Court overturns a statute. The Justices owe deference to Congress and the executive, but only to the extent that the political branches stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Improper activism is when the Court itself strays beyond the founding document to find new rights or enhance its own authority without proper constitutional grounding.

Judicial activism is the philosophy that seems to characterize the president's various judicial opinions. Obama wants the Court to strike down constitutional laws (e.g., any conceivable limits on abortion) and uphold unconstitutional ones (Obamacare). He favors partial-birth abortion, so he wants Court-mandated partial-birth abortion on demand. He favors unprecedented federal government control over health care, so he wants the Court to allow it.

In a 2001 interview, Obama advocated "break[ing] free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." Not via the American people deciding to amend the Constitution -- which is how our Republic's governing document may be legitimately changed -- but by a handful of unelected judges deciding to impose their own, more "enlightened" vision in place of the Constitution, without the consent of the governed.

That is the radical Obama approach. It's part of what is at stake in November.

NRLC: New Obama scam lays groundwork for future abortion mandate

Many people across the country — regardless of their religion or personal position on contraception — have condemned the Obama administration's recent decision to legally force Catholic employers to violate their consciences by paying for birth control practices to which they morally object. The administration's new "accommodation," announced today, does nothing to abate this government attack on religious liberty and the rights of conscience.

The accounting trick used in the revised birth control mandate actually lays a foundation for a future "abortion mandate," as the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) explains in a news release issued today.

In response to criticism of its recent regulation requiring coverage of FDA-approved birth control drugs and devices, the White House today announced a purported "compromise" under which insurance plans will be required to provide the coverage in all plans, without charging anything additional for it.

The administration's position is that insurers can be required to provide the coverage for "free" because birth control is less expensive than childbirth. ...

"President Obama today promulgated a scam that, if he is re-elected, will allow him to mandate that every health plan in America cover abortion on demand," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "The same twisted logic will be applied: By ordering health plans to cover elective abortion, health plans would save the much higher costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and care for the baby — and under the Obama scam, if a procedure saves money, then that means that you're not really paying for it when the government mandates it."

By this form of doublespeak, one could say that the federal Medicaid program was not really "funding abortion" when it paid for 300,000 abortions a year (prior to adoption of the Hyde Amendment in 1976), because after all, every abortion that the government paid for also saved the government money.

The Obama "you must pay, but nobody pays" scam might also be applied to other "cost-cutting" mandates. Perhaps every health plan will be mandated to cover physician-assisted suicide, in states in which assisted suicide is legal. After all, each suicide would result in a net savings to the plan, and under the Obama scam, that means it is really free and nobody really pays for it.

Some journalists have wrongly reported that the Obamacare law contains language prohibiting the federal government from mandating that health plans cover abortions. This is erroneous. The law prevents the Secretary of Health and Human Services from including abortion in a list of federally mandated "essential health benefits." But the birth control mandate is based on an entirely different provision of the law, which allows the Secretary to mandate that all health plans cover any service that the Secretary places on a list of "preventive" services. There is nothing in the law to prevent the Secretary from placing abortion, assisted suicide, or any other additional services on the preventive services list, nor does the Secretary require the agreement of any other authority in the government to do so — except, perhaps, the president. ...

NRLC supports enactment of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (S. 1467, H.R. 1179), which would allow health providers to decline to provide abortions or other specific medical services on the basis of religious belief or moral convictions.

Assessing Pres. Obama's statement on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade

President Barack Obama issued an official statement on the Jan. 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that (together with companion ruling Doe v. Bolton) struck down the democratically-decided abortion laws of every state and imposed on the entire nation a policy of legal abortion for virtually any reason throughout all of pregnancy. Applauding the decision, Obama emphasized his commitment to "a woman's right to choose" and said abortion is a "fundamental constitutional right."

Women at the 2012 MCCL March for Life,
disagreeing with Pres. Obama

It is revealing that Obama so staunchly supports Roe, a constitutionally indefensible ruling that even legal scholars who support legal abortion (including Obama friend, adviser and member of the administration Cass Sunstein) think was badly decided. As Timothy Carney notes in the Washington Examiner, Obama "either shows a strikingly poor understanding of constitutional law (especially for a Harvard Law grad), or he buys into the dishonesty that pervades the opinion and its defenses." Law professor and legal-abortion advocate Kermit Roosevelt put it well in a 2003 Washington Post column:

You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the [Roe] opinion itself rather than the result.

This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.

In any case, let's consider two claims Obama offers in his short Roe statement, both of which are typical of pro-choice rhetoric. The first is this:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman's health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

He uses three key phrases here: "women's health," "reproductive freedom," and "government should not intrude on private family matters." Let me briefly take them one at a time.

First, Roe wasn't about women's health -- it was about legalizing elective abortion. (Laws before Roe allowed abortion to save the life of the mother.) That is what Obama supports. That is the issue in dispute.

Second, "reproductive freedom" is a vague term, but in this case Obama means the freedom to have an abortion, which, as a plain factual matter, is the killing of a member of the species Homo sapiens at the fetal stage of development. Of course, Obama agrees that "freedom" doesn't justify legalizing acts that assault the dignity and rights of other persons, such as intentionally drowning one's toddler in the bath tub. (Obama also opposes "freedom" -- to at least some degree -- with regard to a wide range of issues, including economics, health care, gun ownership, and so on.) The issue, then, is obviously not freedom, but rather whether abortion is or is not the kind of act, like drowning a toddler, that should not be permitted. And this depends, in turn, on whether the being dismembered and killed by abortion counts as someone deserving of respect and protection, as human beings at later developmental stages do. On that matter -- that is, the matter of whether his position on abortion is correct or not -- Obama has exactly nothing to say.

Third, to say that "government should not intrude on private family matters" is likewise to beg the question as to whether elective abortion is really a "private family matter" or is instead a fundamental human rights violation, like when a man abuses his wife or strangles his child in the privacy of his own home, both practices that are wrong and should not be permitted.

So Obama has not offered any reason to think that abortion is morally permissible and ought to be legal (much less subsidized by taxpayers and exported to developing nations, as Obama advocates). To my knowledge he never has.

The second claim is this:

And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

The freedom to have an abortion, then, is necessary for women to have "the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities" as men. It is true that, as a fact of biology, only women can become pregnant, and so the "burden" of not killing human beings in utero falls disproportionately on them. It is also true that the burden of not killing five-year-old children falls disproportionately on parents who have five-year-old children, so we might say that such parents do not have the same freedoms and opportunities as non-parents. But we would not then legalize the killing of five-year-old children, whose own "rights, freedoms, and opportunities," indeed very lives, are at stake.

Everyone is equally morally prohibited from killing innocent persons. This prohibition is not gender-specific. The question at hand is whether it includes the killing of the unborn. Pro-life advocates point to the scientific facts of human embryology and fetal development, which show that the unborn is a living member of our species, a human being, and then argue that all human beings, irrespective not only of gender, race, class, religion and ethnicity, but also of age, size, ability, dependency and cognitive function, ought to be treated with basic moral respect and protected by law.

Some thoughtful pro-choice advocates have engaged and responded to that case, and/or have seriously argued for the moral permissibility and legality of abortion. Most pro-choice activists have not, relying instead on intellectually superficial rhetoric. Pres. Obama is firmly in the latter category.

Pres. Obama's dedication to abortion providers

Learn more here.

'Abortion is not chosen casually'

Pres. Obama reflects.

A pro-lifer confronted Barack Obama at a (probably 2004) campaign event, Obama recounts in his book The Audacity of Hope. He was asked how he could support the killing of innocent human beings by abortion.

"I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually," Obama writes; "that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision."

So, the rationale Obama offers for allowing abortion (in part) is that "few women [make] the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually" and that pregnant women "[feel] the full force of the moral issues involved."

This sort of appeal seems fairly common now. But I think it shows a fundamental confusion. The confusion is between our feeling of understanding for a woman who chooses abortion and our sense of whether she bears much (if any) culpability, on the one hand, and the question of whether abortion is in fact permissible or not, on the other.

Put differently, the confusion is between the motivations of an act and the act itself. The assumption Obama seems to be making is that only the motivations of an act are ethically relevant.

It's true that motivations are important. For example, we would think much worse of an amoral mother who abandons her baby in the dumpster because she is bored than we would of a teenage mother who abandons her baby out of desperation.

But there is much more to morality than motivations. We would not say that infanticide is justified because "few parents make the decision to kill an infant casually." Those who commit murder are often tormented by the decision, but obviously that fact doesn't justify it. Nor does the fact that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both slaveholders, agonized under "the full force of the moral issues involved" thereby mean that slavery should have been kept legal.

So it simply does not work to appeal merely to motivations. If abortion is the unjust killing of an innocent human being (like infanticide), then it should not be permitted, regardless of motivations. (Note that prohibiting abortion does not mean women who choose abortion should be punished; it is widely agreed that they should not be.)

President Obama on abortion: No argument, just rhetoric

President Barack Obama released the following statement on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion on demand nationwide:

Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women's health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

The president's talk about legal abortion protecting "women's health and reproductive freedom," ensuring privacy, etc., is plausible only given the assumption that abortion does not unjustly take the life of a valuable human being. But it is that assumption that he must defend if he wishes to give us any rationale whatsoever for his view. To my knowledge he has never given such a rationale, instead relying only on intellectually superficial, question-begging rhetoric that avoids the real issue.

Prof. Robert George responds:

It is hard to say what was worst about President Obama's statement on the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Was it his silence on the plight of the tiny victim whose limbs are torn off, or whose skin is burned off, or the base of whose skull is pierced and whose brain is suctioned out, with the precise objective of ending his or her life? Was it his reliance on tired (and increasingly futile) euphemisms such as "reproductive choice" to shuffle the victim out of view? Was it his glaring unwillingness even to say the word "abortion" — a word not mentioned at all in his encomium to the Supreme Court decision that manufactured a constitutional right to it? Or was it — taking these things all together — President Obama's betrayal of his own call, at Notre Dame, for "open hearts, open minds, and fair-minded words" in the debate about abortion?

Dr. Albert Mohler writes that Obama's statement is

remarkable, even for presidents who support legalized abortion. ...

There was not one expression of abortion as a national tragedy, even as a report recently indicated that almost 60 percent of all pregnancies among African American women in New York City end in abortion.

How can any President of the United States fail to address this unspeakable tragedy? There was no hope expressed that abortion would be rare, only the expression that he would remain "committed to protecting this constitutional right." ... [N]o goal of reducing abortion was stated or even obliquely suggested. No reference at all was made of the unborn child. There was no lament — not even a throwaway line that would cost him nothing in terms of his support from abortion rights forces.

These words were not imposed upon this President. This is his own personal statement. It is one of the most revealing — and tragic — statements made by any political figure in our times.

The case against killing human embryos

The Neuhaus Colloquium -- a group of scholars and intellectuals looking to carry on the legacy of the late Richard John Neuhaus -- has issued a lengthy statement on the ethical, political and scientific issues raised by President Obama's stem cell research policy. It is worth reading in its entirety. Below is the section dealing with the ethical issues, and offering an argument against the killing of human embryos for research.

Because of the failure of President Obama and his administration to do so thus far, we should consider carefully the ethical issues at stake in scientific experimentation that uses and destroys human embryos. That consideration can certainly begin from what the science tells us about the nature and biology of human embryos. And what it tells us turns out to be, in the president's own word, "inconvenient" for those who would treat human embryos as mere raw materials for research.

Following conception, from the single-cell stage of development onward, the human embryo is a discrete, living, self-directing, integrated, whole member of the human species who, if given the appropriate environment, will move along the seamless trajectory of biological development. From the beginning—and a fortiori at the blastocyst stage, when the embryo might be destroyed to derive embryonic stem cells—the embryo is a living, individuated organism. It is a whole and not a part.

Indeed, each embryo's constituent parts are integrated so as to advance the species-specific development of the whole being. Neither the facts of "twinning" (a rare process of regulation and restitution in which disaggregated blastomeres sometimes resolve themselves into a new organism) nor "natural embryo loss" (the seemingly high rate of embryonic deaths in utero before or shortly after implantation) calls into question the living embryo's status as an individuated whole member of the human species. Biologically, it is beyond dispute that he or she is a living organism from the very beginning—is, from the moment of conception, a human being.

These facts do not by themselves resolve the ethical question of the use of human embryos for research. We would not claim that science alone resolves moral questions. Rather, these facts inform our judgment of the moral standing of the embryo. They help us formulate the question that should guide public policy about the destruction of human embryos for research: Should human beings at the earliest stages of life be used as raw materials and have their lives ended for the sake of medical research, however promising that research might be?

This question could hardly be more important for a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. It gets to the heart of our commitment to the equal dignity of every human being. Biologically, the human embryo is as much a human being as any of us. But what does that fact mean, morally and practically? Is our equal humanity enough to merit some protection and regard—at least the minimal protection from being killed on purpose—or are we required to prove we have some other preferred set of capacities and abilities (which all humans possess to varying degrees in the course of their lives) to qualify for protection from harm? Do we refrain from mistreating fellow human beings because of what they can do, which excludes some, or because of who they are? Shall we treat the human embryo as less than human because that embryo would be more useful to us dead than alive? Or shall we treat our equal humanity as a vital brake on our ambitions, even when it comes at a price? Shall we limit our ambitions, even at a price to ourselves?

We believe these questions have a clear answer. Every human being deserves to be treated with the same basic level of concern and regard that we owe to all members of our species. At the very least, no innocent human being may be harmed intentionally to benefit others. To abandon this principle is to embrace an incoherent, indeed self-destroying, conception of equality. If equality means anything at all, it must mean that individuals deserve equal moral regard and legal protection in virtue of who they are, not because of their worth as judged (or assigned) by others according to their needs or wants.

The decision to treat some human beings as raw materials or instruments for the use of others—the fundamental decision embodied by the administration’s funding policy for embryonic stem-cell research—denies the equal dignity of every human being and insists that some deserve to be treated like human beings and others do not, for reasons that have to do not with the embryonic human beings involved but with the attitudes, desires, or needs of the rest of us. As a policy supporting such treatment with public dollars, moreover, it implicates us all.

The absurdity of Obama's view

"If a politician in the 19th century took a position on slavery analogous to that of Obama and Biden on abortion, his claim would go something like this: 'I do not endorse slavery. I wouldn't own slaves. I think people should be free not to own slaves, if they wish. But I am pro-choice. I have been a consistent champion of the right to own slaves for the last ten years. And I will make defense of that right a priority in my presidency. Of course, I hope fewer people will feel the need to resort to that choice, and so as president I will put into place economic policies that will reduce the need for slave labor in agriculture and in factories. But, to ensure that slavery remains an option for white men who should, after all, be free to decide how to manage their own affairs, I am in favor of providing subsidies for the purchase of slaves by whites whose farms and factories are at risk because of the high cost of wage labor.' "

-- Patrick Lee

Obama stem cell policy is bad ethics, bad science, bad politics, and bad law

A federal court decision last week put a stop (at least temporarily) to Pres. Obama's policy of using federal funds for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the policy violates the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which has been passed by Congress every year since 1996 (and ironically re-signed into law by Obama himself). Dickey-Wicker prohibits federal funding of "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

The Obama administration tries to get around this law by distinguishing between the act of destroying the embryo and the subsequent research using the derived stem cells. It argues that Dickey-Wicker only prohibits funding of the former.

But this is a tenuous argument, as Lamberth pointed out, because ESCR necessarily requires the killing of human embryos. By funding ESCR, the government is encouraging and incentivizing embryo destruction -- in effect saying, "If you kill embryos, we will give you taxpayer money for your research." Dickey-Wicker (i.e., federal law) was meant to do precisely the opposite.

Ryan Anderson writes that Obama's stem cell policy is "bad ethics, bad science [and] bad politics."

It's bad ethics because it promotes the killing of young human beings for their useful parts, and it forces taxpayers to be complicit. It's bad science because such research no longer has much scientific or therapeutic merit, given the tremendous successes with alternative (ethical) kinds of stem cell research. It's bad politics because (writes Anderson) "it needlessly perpetuates a stem cell war where an easy peace is available. ... [A]fter the 2007 breakthrough [of ethical induced pluripotent stem cells] only the staunchest of ideologues were clamoring for public funding of embryo destruction."

But (Anderson continues) Obama's policy is also bad law. It's an illegal waste of taxpayer dollars on unethical, unnecessary and obsolete research, and it should never go back into effect.