Lexington

Barack Obama's abortion drama

Religion is causing the president headaches

IT COULD all come down to abortion. Health-care reform hangs in the balance. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, is desperately trying to round up the last few votes. If the House passes a bill the Senate passed in December, it can then be tweaked through the “reconciliation” process and sent to President Barack Obama for signature. But every single House Republican is likely to vote no, so Ms Pelosi needs 216 Democratic votes (out of 253) for a majority. This is proving surprisingly hard. Among the holdouts are a dozen or so pro-life Democrats, several of them Midwestern Catholics, who object to the abortion provisions in the Senate bill.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, abortion has been legally protected since 1973 and neither Congress nor any state has the power to ban it. But a law called the Hyde amendment bars federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother. The question now is whether Obamacare will use taxpayers’ money to subsidise abortion more widely. Mr Obama insists that it will not. Under his plan, many individuals and small businesses will buy subsidised health insurance through state-sponsored exchanges. Under the Senate bill, they would only be able to obtain abortion coverage through these exchanges if they paid for it with a separate, unsubsidised, cheque. Thus, federal dollars would be kept out of abortion clinics, say the bill’s supporters. But many pro-lifers are not convinced. So the version of the health bill that was passed by the House would have required those who wanted abortion coverage to buy a completely separate insurance policy. The Democrat who wrote the House abortion provision, Bart Stupak, says he won’t back the Senate bill. Several other pro-life Democrats may also balk.

As a candidate, Barack Obama spoke of soothing the rage that abortion arouses. He promised to seek common ground between the two sides, for example by trying to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. But there is only so much common ground between those who think abortion is a fundamental right and those who deem it murder. And since Mr Obama came to power, attitudes have grown less permissive. While a plurality (47%) of Americans still believe that it should be legal in most cases, nearly as many (44%) believe that it should not. Such views are heavily influenced by religion: 71% of white evangelicals but only 25% of religiously unaffiliated Americans would ban it.

The debate about gay rights is less bitter. In recent years, 15 states plus the District of Columbia have recognised some form of gay marriage or civil union, and Mr Obama wants to allow gays to serve openly in the military. Plenty of conservatives oppose these changes, but they are losing the argument. It is hard to claim that gays are out to destroy the traditional family when they are trying to join it, or to condemn them for trying to serve their country. Gay rights fit comfortably into the American tradition of individual rights, in a way that abortion does not, since the rights of mother and fetus clash. This may be why gays are making rapid gains, while advocates of abortion rights are not.

More broadly, Mr Obama’s health-care travails are a reminder that the culture wars still rumble on. Religion may have receded as an electoral issue, largely because the economy is so wretched, but it could easily return. White evangelicals remain the most reliable Republican voting block, and their views affect the party’s platform. Only 23% of them accept that there is solid evidence of man-caused global warming, for example; about as many as believe in evolution. Democrats believe some odd things, too: a recent Pew poll found that they were roughly twice as likely as Republicans to believe in reincarnation, spiritual energy and astrology. But such beliefs have few political consequences. Democrats have not yet tried to spread the idea that voting Republican will ensure that you come back as a cockroach.

The power of prayer

Jobs may be more on voters’ minds than Jesus, but Mr Obama nonetheless does his best to keep religious voters sweet. He often refers to his Christian faith. He lets it be known that his point man on religious affairs, Joshua DuBois, sends him a devotional text each day. He urges fathers to take their responsibilities more seriously. Like George Bush, he subsidises religious charities to do good works. He has broken a campaign promise to bar such organisations from favouring their co-religionists when hiring staff.

But he still has trouble with religious voters. Only 35% of people who go to church more than once a week approve of the job he is doing. And even the religious left are grumbling. As a candidate, Mr Obama convinced the most idealistic Christian progressives that he was one of them. His speeches exuded charity, and he even named his religious political action committee after Matthew 25, a biblical chapter that enjoins the faithful to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick and take in strangers. Yet poverty has increased during Mr Obama’s presidency, health reform is teetering, a more welcoming immigration policy is nowhere to be seen and Mr Bush’s various wars are still being prosecuted with ruthless vigour.

On the religious right, meanwhile, a younger, less confrontational generation of leaders is emerging. James Dobson, the former head of Focus on the Family, a social conservative group, used to berate Mr Obama for his “fruitcake” ideas. Jim Daly, who took over from the 73-year-old Mr Dobson as the group’s public face last month, praises the president for his exemplary family life. Despite such civility, Mr Obama will never win many religiously conservative votes. But to regain the trust of the religious left, all he must do is succeed. Though it will take tact and sensitivity to persuade pro-life Democrats to back his health bill, pious progressives will praise him to the heavens if he manages it.