A Disappointing Response To the Open Letter
Well, I finally got a letter from the White House. It is clearly a form letter; it doesn’t address the issues brought up in the Open Letter to President Obama. Of course, I didn’t expect much response — yet (we need to do more, to be proactive, but this will require others encouraging action and not just rely upon one person to do so)– but I was hoping there would be some recognition that within our letter, we have made room for dialogue, the dialogue which the President has said he wanted, and therefore, encourage some ways to go about that dialogue. But there is nothing. I still think there is room for it.
But I also think President Obama needs to do more here; he just talks about it right now, saying he knows its it is heart-wrenching, and he is glad to hear from people to know their thoughts on it; but he needs to do more than listen, he needs to do something.
As a way to start, he could bring together a group of people, leaders from all sides on the abortion issue (and respected by the people they represent), so they could actually discuss and debate (in charity) the issue, and find out how they can do as the President has suggested: find ways to reduce abortion in our society in which all sides (or most sides) can agree. They should even make a proposal together and give it to the President. Until that happens, all we have is words– good words which can inspire people to act (not everything has to be done in and through the government), but words which have yet to be put into effect by the President himself. It’s one thing to acknowledge that abortion is a grave issue; it is another to ask why is it so grave, and that, I think, is the next thing which needs to be asked of the President. Once he figures that out, and has a response, maybe we will see what kind of dialogue he is open to having. But until then, those of us who are pro-life need to follow the humble, charitable example the Pope has given to us. We can be firm in our beliefs, without demonizing the opposition (for all that does is make them defensive and react against our desires).
The letter reads as follows:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for taking the time to share your views on abortion. This is a heart-wrenching issue, and I appreciate your input and thoughts.
I am committed to making my Administration the most open and transparent in history, and part of delievering on that promises is hearing from people like you. I take seriously your opinions and respect your point of view on the issue. Please know that your concerns will be on my mind in the days ahead.
Thank you again for writiing. I encourage you to visit Whitehouse.gov to learn more about my Administration or to contact me in the future.
Sincerely
Barack Obama
Comments are closed.
Another way to start would be to not make abortion free for every woman in America through healthcare, thereby massively increasing abortion far, far beyond the supposed “ways to reduce abortion” that keep being talked about.
Yes, they must have sent them all out at the same time. I received this exact same letter this week in response to my letters sent this spring.
As a way to start, he could bring together a group of people, leaders from all sides on the abortion issue (and respected by the people they represent), so they could actually discuss and debate (in charity) the issue, and find out how they can do as the President has suggested: find ways to reduce abortion in our society in which all sides (or most sides) can agree. They should even make a proposal together and give it to the President.
Done. Last February. I would suggest picking one of the following Council members and ask for a meeting with that person to express your ideas.
Is your next complaint is that the President should give a speech at at major Catholic unviersity and outline his views in more detail? :)
Judith N. Vredenburgh, President and Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America
Philadelphia, PA
Rabbi David N. Saperstein, Director & Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and noted church/state expert
Washington, DC
Dr. Frank S. Page, President emeritus, Southern Baptist Convention
Taylors, SC
Father Larry J. Snyder, President, Catholic Charities USA
Alexandria, VA
Rev. Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor emeritus, Olivet Institutional Baptist Church
Cleveland, OH
Eboo S. Patel, Founder & Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Corps
Chicago, IL
Fred Davie, President, Public / Private Ventures, a secular non-profit intermediary
New York, NY
Dr. William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA
Philadelphia, PA
Melissa Rogers, Director, Wake Forest School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs and expert on church/state issues
Winston-Salem, NC
Pastor Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, a Church Distributed
Lakeland, FL
Dr. Arturo Chavez, President & CEO, Mexican American Cultural Center
San Antonio, TX
Rev. Jim Wallis, President & Executive Director, Sojourners
Washington, DC
Bishop Vashti M. McKenzie, Presiding Bishop, 13th Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church
Knoxville, TN
Diane Baillargeon, President & CEO, Seedco, a secular national operating intermediary
New York, NY
Richard Stearns, President, World Vision
Bellevue, WA
Kurt, I did say, “and respected by the people they represent,” because I think there is the notion that the real leaders in the pro-life movement still have yet to get a real say; the people themselves should be the ones who pick the members, or suggest it, imo.
My understanding is that the real leaders of the pro-life movement gave the one finger salute to WH overtures as to their service on this Council. I appreciate the information that real pro-lifers don’t respect Fr. Snyder, Dr. Page, Rev. Hunter and Mr. Stearns.
For the record, here is what whitehouse.gov says about abortion:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/women/
Support Reproductive Choice
President Obama has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and believes in preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade. At the same time, he respects those who disagree with him. The President believes we must all come together to help reduce unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion.
Kurt which pro-life leader refused to participate in the discussion? Please name names to support your allegation.
Get me some names and a public committment to participate in the process as described (and a retraction of any previous public comments, if any, that they made in opposition of this initiative) and I will get them an invitation.
That’s very clever, but you made an assertion: “the real leaders of the pro-life movement gave the one finger salute to WH overtures as to their service on this Council”
You can either back it up or you can’t. Demanding that someone else prove the opposite means that you can’t. Unless you want to offer something other than your own rhetoric.
Henry:
At least you got a response. I’ve sent a few letters to my senators and to Obama, through snail mail and email, but haven’t gotten any response.
That said, the copy/paste of such a short and stock reply is very disappointing.
It’s unfortunately, but hardly surprising.
Given the ideological commitments of the administration on the topic of abortion, it’s pretty clear that only the pro-life equivalent of uncle toms need apply.
Disappointing, yet not unexpected. Father Z has the best insight on this issue: When and why did the abortion issue cease to be a “justice and peace” issue? Answer: when it became a women’s issue. Have you noticed that there’s something about opposition to abortion that gives the creeps to “progressive” Catholics?
When and why did the abortion issue cease to be a “justice and peace” issue?
When those who opposed most everything else the Church defines as a justice and peace issues won total control of the organized pro-life movement.
Accepting the above reality for the secular pro-life movement, I have long urged Catholic dioceses not to have separate ‘justice and peace’ and ‘pro-life’ offices, bureaus, or lay engagement initiatives. Guess where the resistance to my proposal has come from? (of course, I probably shot myself in the foot by suggesting that not only should the legislative efforts for pro-life and peace/justice issues be merged but the diocese’s ‘institutional interests’ lobbying — zoning and land use for church property, tax status issues, etc. be thrown in as well!)