Obama’s Talk Doesn’t Match His Walk

Amy Welborn responding to Obama’s speech at Notre Dame doesn’t see a real opening here for true dialogue.  However, referring to the Catholic Church’s long  “and vibrant history of engagement with political philosophy from Augustine on,” Welborn strains to get beyond Obama’s words, catchphrases and code phrases for ambiguity (e.g.”sound science” = a dismissal of ethical considerations.) Discussion on a goal to decrease abortions, which Obama says he wants, without an openess to core Church teachings on life and recognition of the humanity of the unborn in little more than an expansion of birth control availability and continues to circumvent the moral dimension of abortion.

Here are some excerpts from her response:

Obama – and Jenkins – both emphasized dialogue. Obama said, “But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.”  I agree. And when those supporting Obama and Obama at Notre Dame stop referring to those standing in opposition as “GOP hacks,” “ultraconservative minority” and “Catholic Sharia” – and actually engaging the arguments instead – we know we’re getting somewhere.

The political realities are this, and have been forever: Self-described abortion “moderates” accuse pro-lifers of being “all or nothing” in their approach. The reality is that smaller measures to limit and regulate the abortion license are never proposed by abortion proponents, but by pro-lifers, and, further, are always opposed to the death by abortion-proponents. Have you ever heard of an parental notification law or laws requiring abortion facilities to be regulated at the same level as medical clinics being co-sponsored by a state branch of NARAL and the NRLC?

To put it bluntly – until we are ready to “dialogue” about the possibility that law might play a role in decreasing the number of abortions, as is the work that goes on in Crisis Pregnancy Centers and in front of abortion facilities on Saturday mornings, the dialogue is extremely limited. Until those who are actually working with the stated, explicit goal of discouraging women from having abortions are included in the dialogue, there is really no dialogue.

Meanwhile check out this ACLU blog to see just how ecstatic President Obama is making the ACLU. “It’s been a whirlwind, but rewarding, three months.”

“The first 100 days of the Obama administration have brought us more victories than we had in the eight years of the previous administration.”

“On his first Friday in office, President Obama rescinded the Global Gag Rule, restoring U.S. funding to international organizations that use their own, non-U.S. dollars to provide, refer for, and/or advocate for safe and legal abortion in their countries.”

Welborn writes:

And one more nod to reality – here’s a subject for dialogue based on as much evidence as we can muster, rather than platitudes: how is expanded funding for abortions both in the United States and overseas contributing to the cause of “reducing the number of abortions?” If we’re dialoguing, those are the questions that must be asked.

Hot Air adds:

The perfect ironic conclusion to yesterday’s paean to tolerance and dialogue at Notre Dame: The leader of a Catholic school sneering at student protesters for practicing freedom of speech in defense of Church teachings. Rarely have liberal Catholicism and campus Orwellianism meshed more beautifully.

Quoting Trinity President Patricia McGuire, AllahPundit reports:

McGuire continued, “The religious vigilantism apparent in the Notre Dame controversy arises from organizations that have no official standing with the church, but who are successful in gaining media coverage as if they were speaking for Catholicism. . . . They have established themselves as uber-guardians of a belief system we can hardly recognize. Theirs is a narrow faith devoted almost exclusively to one issue. They defend the rights of the unborn but have no charity toward the living. They mock social justice as a liberal mythology.”

Stacking the Council on Women and Girls

In March of 2009, President Obama created a White House Council on Women and Girls. With issues of life intrinsically bound to women and girls, the president’s choices are noteworthy, making “All the President’s Women” by Denise Bossert a must read:

“…the President has named women who are seasoned politicians to positions in his Administration. These women, almost without exception, have one thing in common. They are radically pro-abortion, with track records to prove it, and they typically achieved positions of political power through organizations like Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women (NOW) or the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (currently called NARAL Pro-Choice America). The women in this category have accepted the tenets of these pro-abortion organizations. They know that, to accept money from any pro-abortion Political Action Committee (PAC), they must respond by advancing the pro-abortion agenda.”