Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


 ANALYSIS 
4

Obama Seeks Common Ground on Abortion

President focuses on reducing unwanted pregnancies

Share

(Newser) – President Obama is hoping a nuanced approach can soften the debate over one of the most contentious issues in America: abortion, writes Rob Stein in the Washington Post. Since taking office, Obama has lifted a Republican ban on funding international aid groups that provide abortion services, but also persuaded House Democrats to remove funding for contraceptives from the economic stimulus package.

While Obama has firmly declared his support for “a woman’s right to choose,” he’s urged both sides to examine the causes of unintended pregnancies. The strategy could lose him friends of both stripes, and many pro-lifers view it as nothing more than a Trojan horse. Still, the approach “could capture the imagination of the American people and do a lot to ease the culture wars,” suggests one professor.

Pro-choice activists, left, argue with pro-life activists on abortion issues in front of the US Supreme Court, Jan. 23, 2006 in Washington, DC.
Pro-choice activists, left, argue with pro-life activists on abortion issues in front of the US Supreme Court, Jan. 23, 2006 in Washington, DC.   (Getty Images)
President Barack Obama speaks at the Energy Department in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2009.
President Barack Obama speaks at the Energy Department in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2009.   (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
President Barack Obama listens as Energy Secretary Stephen Chu speaks today.
President Barack Obama listens as Energy Secretary Stephen Chu speaks today.   (AP Photo)
Pro-choice women protest President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts Jr., July 20, 2005, in New York.
Pro-choice women protest President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts Jr., July 20, 2005, in New York.   (Getty Images)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
4 comments
VIEWING:
 
infidel
Feb 5, 09 3:18 PM CST
This comment has been removed by Newser’s community. You must be logged in to view this comment. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Beer_King
Feb 5, 09 3:37 PM CST
Infidel I agree with your first point but your second point should be directed towards our liberal friends at the Washington Post. They won't be in business much longer anyway so I wouldn't worrry too much about the liberal bias over there. I think Newser just lifted it verbatim from them. However, how come they didn't lift it from the Washington Times instead? The article over at that fine example of good journalism might have been a bit more "nuanced". Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Forderon
Feb 5, 09 4:28 PM CST
Because the Post is way more respected, by Americans and the world in general, than the Times? Just because you agree with one over another doesn't mean it's better journalism. Look at the awards the Post has won...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_won_by_The_Washington_Post....what has the Times won?
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Doctor_Zaius
Feb 6, 09 9:42 PM CST
Pubes hate the post for taking down their Heeero Richard Nixon. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.