Distorting both words and statistics to hide the facts

by Bill Beckman

Back on January 22, 2009 President Obama observed the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by stating, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose."  He added, "While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make," he said. "To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services."

If someone reduces the "need for abortion," would you expect to reduce the number of abortions?  Obama supporters who claim to be concerned about abortion certainly seem convinced that he will reduce the number of abortions. 

Some even claim that his programs will reduce abortions, while inaccurately suggesting that abortions increased under Bush.   These advocates seem to rely on fairy tales rather than facts to reach the conclusion that abortions increased while Bush was President.

So is there any unity possible under Obama on the goal of reducing abortions?   Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, recently attended a meeting at the White House for the purpose of finding "common ground" among people with differing views on abortion. 

Melody Barnes, Director of the Domestic Policy Council, led the meeting.   In response to input from Wendy Wright about a possible goal of reducing abortion, Barnes testily interrupted to correct her by stating, "It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions."

What then might it mean to "reduce the need for abortion"?   Is it possible it actually means more abortions by providing government funding of abortion so that more women who "need" abortions will be able to obtain them?  If so, then "reducing the need for abortions" means increasing the number of abortions.  Once these poor women get their government-funded abortion, the need for abortion will have been reduced!

Might it be that "common ground" is based on slick semantics that suggest reducing the number abortions to some, while actually meaning increased abortions to those who propose to seek this common ground?  If not, exactly what does "reduce the need for abortion" mean when Obama's top official in charge of finding "common ground" says, "It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions."?

While we are considering semantics, maybe this question needs to be asked at the next "common ground" meeting: Beyond affordable contraception, exactly what are "preventative services" referenced in Obama's January 22nd statement?   Is this a new term to describe abortion?