Comment (12)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiReshaping the bioethical landscape
The election of a fervently pro-choice president could bulletproof abortion rights in the United States.
The electoral tidal wave
which swept Democrat Barack Obama into the White House and Democrat
majorities into the Senate and the House of Representatives could
reshape the bioethical landscape in the United States.
The most obvious issue is abortion. Mr Obama is a strong supporter of a woman’s right to abortion. The leading abortion action group, Planned Parenthood, gave him “100%” on its electoral scorecard. After reviewing Obama's legislative record, Professor Robert P. George, of Princeton University, wrote a scathing analysis of his views on pro-life issues. His conclusion: “Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.”
Under George W. Bush, a relatively pro-life president, abortion activists felt threatened. On his first day in office he had blocked federal aid to foreign groups that promoted abortion. He appointed two justices to the Supreme Court who apparently took a dim view of Roe v. Wade, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He signed a ban on partial-birth abortion. His appointees in the Federal bureaucracy tried to thwart sales of emergency contraception to minors and promoted abstinence-only sex education. In Planned Parenthood’s eyes, Bush had declared war on women.
Nor, before the election, was the situation in all of the 50 states altogether favourable for abortion supporters. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court effectively guaranteed abortion on demand. However, opponents have managed to restrict this in a number of small ways on a state-by-state basis – banning late-term abortions, requiring parental notification, mandatory counselling, restricting health insurance payouts and so on. These form a patchwork of regulation throughout the 50 states.
But with the election of Obama and a Congressional majority which is broadly favourable to abortion rights, all restrictions could vanish. In 2007, as both sides of the abortion divide remember well, Obama promised Planned Parenthood that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA). This act has been kicking around Congress since 2004, but Obama became a co-sponsor of the Senate version in 2007. The purpose of FOCA is to codify Roe v. Wade, invalidating every restriction on abortion at least up to the stage of viability.
The website of the new administration’s transition team does not mention FOCA. But it does reassure abortion activists that Obama “has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.” It also declares that he will support the Prevention First Act, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education and promote emergency contraception.
Obama still has not taken office, so many details remain to be worked out. Will hospitals which currently refuse to do abortions be threatened with loss of funding? Will health care workers effectively lose the right to conscientious objection in abortion and emergency contraception?
Stem cell research is another area which will be affected by the Democrats' victory. Obama supports “research of human embryonic stem cells derived from embryos donated (with consent) from in vitro fertilization clinics”. Restrictions on Federal funding for existing stem cell lines are likely to be lifted.
The result is unlikely to be a rapid proliferation of embryonic stem cell research. Few scientists are placing their hopes for cures in ESCs. First of all, after ten years, no one has yet derived a flourishing stem cell line from cloned human embryos. And second, reprogrammed cells, which are uncontroversial ethically, are currently the best hope for useful therapies. Federal funding in the Obama Administration is likely to be directed towards them.
But what will happen when Obama is asked to fund innovative fertility technologies – as he surely will be? The Parliament in the United Kingdom recently approved a thorough-going revision of its fertility act. Apart from authorising saviour siblings, making abortion easier, and doing away with the need for a father in IVF treatment, it also gave a green light to hybrid embryos and cloning embryos with tissue harvested without consent from incapacitated adults or children. The rapid advance of stem cell technologies guarantees that scientists will be creating new dilemmas for law-makers. Artificial sperm and eggs are on the horizon, for example. These would make it possible for gays to create their own children without resorting to donors. Genetic engineering could be used to manufacture children who are free of genetic diseases or who have high IQs. Given his permissive views on abortion, would Obama resist pressure to allow these techniques to proliferate?
Another important issue which may emerge while Obama occupies the White House is physician-assisted suicide. Voters in the state of Washington followed the lead of neighbouring Oregon on Tuesday and approved Initiative 1000, which allows doctors to prescribe legal drugs for terminally ill patients. The measure sailed through by a margin of 58% to 42%. This will embolden euthanasia activists in other states, especially California.
His attitudes on bioethical issues like these will show whether Obama is a vote-hungry pragmatist, a progressive ideologue, or basically a Christian social democrat. Any of these interpretations can be supported – although the last of these is increasingly unlikely. A few months ago, fundamentalist pastor Rick Warren organised a forum in which he tried to draw out both McCain and Obama on when life begins. McCain immediately blurted out, “At the moment of conception.”. Obama wriggled: “whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
Bush also faced the thorny bioethical issue of stem cell research early in his first term. To give him advice he created a President’s Council on Bioethics. This body was split down the middle on the issue between “progressives” and “conservatives”, but under the leadership of Dr Leon Kass it produced some of the most thoughtful, well-reasoned, and eloquent discussion papers ever to emerge from a government department. Since bioethical questions are above his pay grade, Obama will no doubt appoint his own panel of bioethics experts. Which advisors he chooses will provide the best clues about the future of bioethics in the United States -- and possibly the world.
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet. He also edits the bioethics newsletter BioEdge.
I would say a big thank you to Micheal Cook for this expose about the real Oboma that we all clamoured for from far away Nigeria.
I have not only learnt points for arguements on bioethics but have come to appreciate more on these life issues.
We can only pray that Oboma would not enact laws that would be anti life but promote life in its entirety.
Good article MercatoNet!
Johanne, why are diseases integral to personality? I don’t see why a disease is needed to make someone unique. It certainly separates someone from a crowd, but it’s a funny way to want to stand out. Why not let them be their own person in terms of personality, or attire, or hairstyle, or any number of other things? Why hold up genetic diseases as their defining feature?
Also, I think parents already treat their children as extensions of themselves, to varying degrees. They have since the dawn of recorded history, and probably long before. Christians aren’t above this, especially when it comes to passing on the faith of their fathers. I can’t imagine any devout Christians who would wish other than to have children just as devoutly Christian as they are.
I agree - since it is ‘above Obama’s pay grade’ to tackle these difficult but critical questions - he needs to enlist the help of nonpartisan ethicists…
The good news is Obama’s new Chief of staff- Rahm Emmanuel’s brother is a prominent NIH bioethicist… I can recommend another name for an advisory position - Jennifer Miller in New York - She is a physicist and bioethicist and the executive of Bioethics International. She is obviously pro science but has a good sense for ethical issues as well as an ability to reason through the pro-life / pro choice discussions people are passionately writing about below. I have heard her successfully speak in front of both sides/parties and build consensus among each… its a rarity.
food for thought - check out the resource http://www.bioethicsinternational.org
Obama is loved and lauded at home and also in many countries where traditional family values and structure are somewhat contrary to the liberal structures he recognises,encourages and supports.
When will they become aware of what he has instore for traditionalists in these matters? Where abortion is despised as a pagan evil practice how will they react when the full extent of his promise to steamroller its acceptance into everyday morality becomes ‘law’?
How long can a wolf get away with dressing as a sheep? Or will he surprise us all and demonstrate a spark of Christian morality, or at least ‘humanity’ when it comes to a thumbs up or down for millions of babies?
Obituary notice; The United States of America; born July 4th, 1776, voted out of existence November 4th, 2008, after a long battle with moral cancer. Requiem service January 20th, 2009.
In response to Leo Leitch, the reason that I use the terms “gay” and “pro-choice” is because they are the descriptions used by the people who describe themselves as such and it’s a matter of basic respect to refer to them as they choose to be referred to, unless doing so clearly, in itself, communicates a wrong statement, which I don’t believe these terms do as they are understood by the vast majority of people. I think most pro-life people who call themselves such, are offended by being called “anti-choice”, as happens in Canada. If we expect the courtesy of being called by the name of our choice, we should extend the same courtesy to others.But I’d emphasize that this goes beyond courtesy to a matter of respect.
Moreover, today, we need to search for what we can share with as many other people as possible in terms of values, before we move to where we strongly disagree. Having experiences of sharing some common values, although we profoundly disagree on other values, has never been more important, precisely because we no longer agree on some of our most important values. That means we need to start from mutual respect, which requires recognizing that even though we disagree, the vast majority of us are “trying to do the right thing”. Starting from mutual respect offers more chance that we might persuade each other, a possibility that should not frighten us.
I explain this approach in detail in my book “The Ethical Imagination”.
Just reading your sometimes good e-mail newsletter, I’ve noticed the reference to homosexuals as “gays”.
Do you not realise that this is a homosexual-friendly term used by only those supportive of homosexual activism ?
It’s not a descriptor that is acceptable in our household.
Your use of the term “pro-choice” to describe pro-abortionists is a rather anaemic submission to the pro-abortion camp.
When the anti-abortion movement struck upon the very appropriate term “pro-life” to describe themselves, the anti-life brigade, the pro-abortionists, cunningly countered that by calling themselves “pro-choice”. They didn’t explain that to mean choice between protection and murder. But we know that’s what it means.
So, why would you want to use that deceitful term to describe anti-life pro-abortionists ?
Each morning and evening I read my morning and evening prayer. The scripture readings for this time of the year focus on the national sins of Israel. It seems that, even in the sight of kingly reforms, the sins added up to more than God would tolerate.
Now: consider 40,000,000 abortions and counting.
Do you think we have gone over the brink?
The evidence points toward it.
The reason it would be a bad idea, Kaltrosomos, is that children would then or eventually, cease to be individuals in their own right, with their unique set of gifts and natural abilities, no matter how limited, and would then be extensions of their parents, akin to property. Parents would ascribe value to their offspring, as they do in China and India, preferring boys, or in some countries where children can be conceived for their life-saving properties, be it organs or whatever else science can think up, or in other countries where children are deliberately maimed so their begging is more effective.
In societies where christian values have woven their way into law and mores, the attitudes towards children have evolved and the value of children is based on them being made in the image of God, as are their parents.
And science wouldn’t want to destroy parents for their inadequacies now would it…
Michael Cook wrote:
“Genetic engineering could be used to manufacture children who are free of genetic diseases or who have high IQs. Given his permissive views on abortion, would Obama resist pressure to allow these techniques to proliferate?”
I’m puzzled. Why is it a bad thing to remove genetic diseases and increase intelligence?
Let’s pray that the Republicans can launch and sustain filibusters in the Senate.
Page 1 of 1 :