FISCHER: Obama’s abortion views need consistency

Dear Mr. President-elect Obama,

Although I must admit I did not vote for you, I'd like to congratulate you on your recent election and coming inauguration. As I'm sure you are aware, 2008 was a rough year for us conservatives, but hopefully in 2009 things will start looking up a little bit.

I am somewhat optimistic that you might be able to help make this happen. You talked a lot during your campaign about working together with liberals and conservatives to actually solve problems, so I'm really hoping that you will follow through.

However, like many conservatives, I doubt this ideology will extend to life issues. Your past record on these matters worries me, as do some of the things you have said about your plans regarding abortion and the Freedom of Choice Act, which would directly overturn the current federal ban on partial birth abortion, in addition to potentially nullifying many state-level restrictions on abortion such as parental-consent laws.

I am concerned that you might be just like any other politician, pushing your own agenda without considering opposing ideas. Hopefully you will prove my fears to be unfounded, but I have my doubts.

I believe it was about a year and a half ago you said that to ensure that abortion rights are protected on the federal level and to guarantee judicial support for abortion, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

Later, in an April 27, 2008, Fox News interview you said, "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother."

The current ban on partial-birth abortions has no such provision, so this statement seems to explain why you would support something like FOCA. However, you will have to forgive me, because this is still a little confusing for me.

I don't understand why you are so set on such a provision when recent medical evidence suggests that such a procedure is never necessary.

The 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which currently makes partial birth abortions illegal, actually addresses this very issue in a section that states, "The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically and, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman." It also notes partial-birth abortions are not well regulated, cause intense pain to the unborn child, and, in fact, pose significant health risks to the mother.

Additionally, many doctors have come out saying the same thing. For example, the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, which consists of more than 600 experts in obstetrics, gynecology and pediatrics, reported that "our research of the subject leads us to conclude that there are no obstetrical situations that would necessitate or even favor the partial-birth abortion procedure as the safest or most appropriate option. Indeed, we have concerns that this procedure may itself pose serious health risks for women."

This justification for the bill isn't adding up, and I am starting to question your motivations.

It seems that you simply are pushing the same old extremist abortion views you have held your entire political career. It looks like you are using this guise of "protecting the health of the mother" to justify something that has absolutely nothing to do with women's health and everything to do with increasing on-demand abortion that will result in the death of perfectly viable unborn human beings.

Mr. Obama, you've talked a lot about "change" in the past months, and if I may be so bold, I'd like to propose a change myself. I'd like to ask that you, as a major proponent of abortion, for once actually listen to the people arguing against this practice.

You see, for years, those who are anti-abortion have been accused of trying to deny the reproductive rights of women and trying to strip women of the oh-so-holy "right to privacy," but no one seems to want to listen when we talk about the rights of the unborn child and how that might play into their "right to privacy."

We can agree that all people are deserving of certain fundamental rights, but there seems to be a basic disagreement in this society about exactly what it means to be a human person.

Why not actually address this issue? Nobody seemed to want to talk about it when the decision was made in Roe v. Wade, and nobody has wanted to talk about it since. So what are you so afraid of?

Didn't you say yourself that you will "always be honest about the challenges we face. [That you] will listen, especially when we disagree"?

How about starting with the most divisive issue facing our country? How about addressing an issue that doesn't have to do with money or lobbyists, but that has to do with the foundations of this country and its Constitution?

Now that would be a change I could believe in.

Sincerely,

Luke Fischer

Luke Fischer is a junior secondary education major. Reach him at lukefischer@dailynebraskan.com