I find it very difficult to believe that Barack Obama will or even could reduce the number of abortions in this country.  Call me cynical, but the contradictions in his campaign claims make me doubt that he really wants to reduce abortions.

Barack Obama has told Christian groups: "I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

But he says on his website: "I will continue to defend [the right to choose] by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."

So what is the Freedom of Choice Act?  Planned Parenthood says "FOCA will protect this right by prohibiting state and federal government entities from denying or interfering with a woman's right ... to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the ... health of the woman."  NOW says the FOCA would "Sweep Away Hundreds of Anti-Abortion Laws, Policies."

So... which is it?  Does Obama support restrictions on abortion, or not?  FOCA would sweep such restrictions away.  There's a contradiction here.  And, given that the Democratic party doesn't see the need for ANY restrictions on abortion, the wiser money would seem to be on FOCA, not Obama's promises to Christians.

Now, I can understand the appeal of the measures Obama has said he would put in place to help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.  When I read some of them, I thought, wow, that's kind of creative.  But the problem is, I haven't read anywhere that he's actually tried to make these into laws during his time as a lawmaker.  So, if he's never actually done anything to make such things happen in the past, what kind of assurance do we have that he would start now?

While researching for this post, I ran across Douglas Kmiec, who has put himself in the middle of this controversy.  I was struck by this claim: "Many pro-life advocacy efforts have focused on the legal status of abortion, rather than addressing prevention of unplanned pregnancy and the needs of pregnant women and families." 

I'm not sure what advocacy efforts he's talking about.  While the movement to try and address the problem of abortion in America has elements that are devoted to correcting the legal aspects of the situation, that's because they're lawyers.  That's where their gifts and training are, so that's how they help.  But none of those legal organizations (let alone the pro-life movement as a whole) would claim that changing laws is all that's needed right now.  Thousands of organizations across the country are doing absolutely amazing, largely unsung work reaching out to, and ministering to, women in very difficult situations.

In reviewing the whole list of what Kmiec's organization says Obama would do to reduce abortions, I note no mention of supporting the people who have already been doing what is arguably the most important work--those crisis pregnancy centers.  Instead, I see a long list of things the government would do.  And that contrast indicates to me that those who want to be pro-life and also support Obama believe that the government should be the ones doing the most to solve this problem.

To the extent that that is the case, that would partially explain how they smooth over the contradictions above.  In my read of the situation, the core problem is the culture.  The number of abortions will go down when women stop choosing them.  People make choices based on their beliefs about the situation at hand.  If those beliefs are flawed, then their decisions will likely be flawed as well.  As long as people believe that an unborn baby isn't really a baby, isn't really a person, they won't have a problem encouraging mothers to have abortions.  As long as they see abortion as just another form of birth control, they won't have any reason to stop.

So the real battle is happening in the "marketplace of ideas," a battle involving both rhetoric and substance, helping people understand the nature of reality by providing them with clear, solid arguments as well as other people who will support them as they embrace reality.

Someone might argue that Obama and his supporters might actually achieve their goal of passing FOCA and reducing the number of abortions by virtue of all those creative ideas he lists (if he actually gets Congress to pass them into law).  But that argument is weakened by the very nature of American society and its relationship to the law. 

It is widely accepted at a popular level that if there's no law against something, it's "okay."  Our morality now sees the law not as the outside boundary, the extreme line that is rarely approached, let alone crossed, but instead as the only boundary worth paying attention to.  At one point in time, religion supported the general culture in maintaining that morality was bounded by rules well within the bounds of law.  Something was considered wrong even if there wasn't a law against it, if generally accepted morality said it was wrong.  But today,  if there's no law against it, one would have a hard time making a public argument that a given action should be avoided by the general population.

My point in this context is this: unless you somehow magically enact a sea change in the way American culture sees the nature of law, the removal of all legal restrictions to abortion can only increase their number.  Legal restrictions are a fundamental element of any strategy to reduce abortions.

I occasionally feel drawn towards the idea that we should turn to the government to help solve major problems like poverty and abortion.  Getting such a ubiquitous and monollithic entity as the federal government to take up a cause I believe in sounds very appealing.  But my observations of human nature and the effectiveness of federal government programs tell me that we are unwise to lean our weight on the federal government for solutions to endemic, culturally rooted problems.

Instead, as a Christian, I am sorely disappointed in the Church, to the extent that it has accepted the idea that the government will solve problems for us.  While the government can limit certain kinds of behavior (as in the case of legal restrictions on abortion), it can not address, at a personal or spiritual level, the root causes of destructive behavior.  Only people, speaking the Truth in Love, spending time with people who are hurting and confused, building relationships with them, sacrificing their own time, energy, and money for those people, can make a real, lasting difference.