The Notre Dame Commencement

The President’s recent speech and accompanying honorary degree at Notre Dame was controversial and highly publicized. As always, the president conducted himself well and read his speech very smoothly with a comfortable and relaxed demeanor. He is after all, a very talented orator. As with all of the president’s speeches, if you enjoy the moment and ignore the words you miss a lot of what was said, both good and bad. So here is a break down.

First the controversy.

The fact that the president was speaking at the commencement was not controversial; he is after all, the president. The controversy revolved around the honorary degree that the university was giving him and a particular edict issued from the Catholic church relating to political figures who support abortion. Catholic institutions are strongly discouraged from giving awards or honors to politicians who hold a ‘pro-choice’ viewpoint. This would apply particularly to President Obama, who holds a more ‘pro-abortion’ viewpoint than any of his predecessors. Many students, staff, clergy, and other invited guests protested and even boycotted the graduation to voice their disapproval.

In the midst of this controversy, the president did quite well. Of course, he didn’t do what I would have thought was the best thing, but what he did, he did well. He acknowledged and addressed the issue in his speech. The speech itself was an encouragement to engage on difficult issues and try and find common ground. A very admirable approach to any ‘gray’ issue.

Unfortunately abortion is not one of those issues. There is nothing ‘gray’ about abortion. There is no common ground to be found on murder.

And the President acknowledged that too, I was surprised to find. He said, “… the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

Fair enough.

He went on to discuss a variety of issues including giving a powerful example of how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually created. It is an example that you don’t normally hear from the Democrats. Not to say they don’t talk about the Civil Rights Act, but they rarely give credit where credit is due. The President quite admirably gave kudos to President Eisenhower, who did more to advance the Civil Rights movement and dialogue than his Democratic successors, especially President Johnson, who merely signed the measures that President Eisenhower spent years assembling.

These were definitely the highlights of the speech, but closer inspection on some of the finer points does show some interesting bits.

A common theme throughout the speech is a sense of ‘fairness’, not so much from a perspective that you would expect at a commencement. Instead it carried the constant drumbeat of a latent hostility against success; an encouragement for service given by the students and a rebuke of the affluence that many of them are aspiring to, an affluence that the President himself has attained.

In the middle of the encouragement to deny yourself, the President, who had just assailed selfishness, pride, and ego, holds himself up as an example and repeats the story of what led him to become a community organizer working to lift up South Side neighborhoods. All while making no mention of the millions of dollars of success that the President has enjoyed after writing two best selling books. He goes on and on about the people that he has learned selflessness from and speaks of the wonders of non-profit ventures and being generous towards others, all while his wallet and his checkbook are telling a remarkably different story.

An odd commencement speech indeed.

I applaud the President for addressing the very issue that brought such controversy to the occasion, though it seems it would have been less self serving and more understanding if he had graciously asked not to receive the honorary degree in order to honor the Catholic heritage of those present.

I fully acknowledge that personal sacrifice, charity, and generosity are great and wonderful things that should be practiced by everyone, including the President, Vice President, and every member of his administration.

I would also encourage everyone to realize that class warfare, rather than helping the whole, actually hurts the whole. If we’ve learned anything from history it is that when you try and ‘level the playing field’ (i.e. promote a socialist doctrine) all you succeed in doing is dragging all but the elite in government DOWN to a common lower standard. When you practice liberty and encourage people to dream and succeed, then give them the freedom to do just that, then everyone is elevated by the success. Yes, naturally a few will rise above the others, but the level of the whole is higher. Our country was not established on equality of results, but rather freedom of opportunity.

When we celebrate the greatness, talent, ambition, creativity, and intelligence of the individual, we inspire the call to greatness within us all. We should not strive to covet the things that our neighbor has, but rather to develop the talents and abilities that God has given each one of us.

A glimpse of what is to come?

Reports are coming out that President Obama plans to repeal policies put in place by the Bush administration which helped safeguard and protect doctors whose personal ethics prohibited them from performing abortions. The purpose of the policy was to ensure that doctors and on a larger scale hospitals, would not be coerced of forced into performing or providing abortions.

Religious based medical institutions in particular are concerned with President Obama's campaign promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would mandate that they provide abortions or shut their doors. Several of the bishops who oversee Catholic Healthcare have already said that they will shut their doors before they would allow abortions to be performed. However, the official position of the board is that they will neither provide abortions or shut their doors but would act in "civil disobedience".

So what happens if the administration is able to push forward with Universal Health Care?

In a single payer system, much like Canada and the UK, the government is the only entity permitted to provide medical services. Would we see CH closing their doors?

As you hear more about universal health care, keep that in mind. It would seem however, that along with the budgeting that has already taken place and the vast expansion of current government medical coverage, this fight could come very quickly. The spin will look something like this current statement from the administration:

"This policy of potentially allowing providers to refuse to provide contraception or family planning runs counter to the [Obama] administration's goal of reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies," the official said. "It also could lead into other areas of medical care."

The question that I've asked before, and ask again, if you pay for abortions, remove all restrictions to abortions, and now even force objecting doctors to provide abortions, how can you honestly say that you are trying to reduce the number of abortions?

A Pro-life Message for a Pro-abortion President

Mexico City Policy

It appears that Obama is getting ready to discreetly rescind the Mexico City Policy. After it wasn't included in the executive orders from yesterday, I was hopeful that he would not do what he said he would do during the campaign. Both Pres. Clinton and Pres. Bush had taken advantage of the Roe v. Wade anniversary to change course on the international funding of groups that provide or educate about abortion.

Now it appears that Pres. Obama will begin using our tax dollars to fund abortions in other countries. The Hyde Amendment prevents tax dollars going to abortions in the US. Of course, candidate Obama pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would dissolve the Hyde Amendment, the partial birth abortion ban, and virtually every other restriction on abortion in the US.

Let's hope that neither of these actually happens. You cannot decrease the number of abortions by making them easier to get and funding them with taxpayer dollars.

****UPDATE: Even as I was writing this, Pres. Obama signed the order rescinding the Mexico City Policy. YOUR tax dollars will now fund abortions around the world. Does this strike a cord with evangelicals that voted for Obama? Just curious...

Obama the first Pro-Abortion President

Please read this article. Written by a professor at Princeton who is a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics. It’s a crushing blow to pro-lifers who have tried to justify a vote for Obama. I have listened to well intentioned and intelligent people try to argue in their own minds that the next president will have NO effect on abortion, but they couldn't be more wrong.

Here are some things that Obama has vowed to do to support and truly INCREASE abortion:

- Repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which according to NARAL has cut the number of abortions that ‘should’ have occurred in half because it cuts public funding for abortions where the mother’s life is not in danger and that don’t involve rape or incest. This one change alone could mean tens if not hundreds of thousands of additional abortions every year, funded with YOUR tax dollars.

- FOCA : Freedom Of Choice Act. Sounds good doesn’t it. Obama has pledged that he would sign FOCA, which would repeal all limitations on abortions through the entire 9 months of pregnancy.

In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal
limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for
minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience
protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care
industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of
abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for
Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of
anti-abortion laws [and] policies."

- Repealing the Mexico City Policy which will send tax payer dollars to other countries to fund abortions.

- Appoint pro-abortionist judges who will uphold these policies and undo the small amount of progress that we have made under W. Possibly pushing abortion forward for decades to come.

You simply cannot say that the next president will not impact abortion. In reality the next president could very well change the entire debate on abortion. Which way the debate goes may decide on your vote. This isn't a scare tactic. It's reality.