It’s YES to Obama’s “..let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions”.

But NO to the goal of reducing the number of abortions.

Confused? Aren’t they the same? No, those two goals drive very different sets of actions. The YES from the White House means that there will be no effort to change the minds of those who have chosen to seek an abortion. They will instead rely mainly on contraception, and some funding for pregnant women, to reduce the number of women who choose to seek an abortion. But once a woman has decided on abortion, nothing will be done to persuade them otherwise. The most obvious and direct method of reducing abortions — seeking out those who are, or who might, consider an abortion, and offering information and sources of concrete help — is ruled out.

But that difference is carefully hidden in the language. Change “abortion” to something else to see how it should sound: “Our goal is not to reduce the number of rapes, but to reduce the need for rape.” ugh.

Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.

What does it mean? Like many political speeches, it commits to as little specific detail as possible. First there’s a call for a “sensible” conscience clause. Sensible? Could mean anything. But rather than stopping at that point, the sentence carries right on, with a call for “sound science” (who could disagree?) and “clear ethics” (yes, again), and … “respect for the equality of women”. What is the intention behind that? It refers to the desire of some to have guaranteed access to particular medical procedures, such as abortion or birth control — i.e. exactly the procedures that a conscience clause would protect.

So, all in all, one side wants a conscience clause, and the other side wants access despite the conscience clause. Obama says that this will be resolved by a sensible conscience clause. It’s a rhetoric of fog. Inside that fog anything might be conjured up.

It is the grimmest of ironies that one of the most savage, barbaric acts of evil in history began in one of the most modernized societies of its time, where so many markers of human progress became tools of human depravity: science that can heal, used to kill; education that can enlighten, used to rationalize away basic moral impulses; the bureaucracy that sustains modern life, used as the machinery of mass death, a ruthless, chillingly efficient system where many were responsible for the killing, but few got actual blood on their hands.

That’s Obama, talking about … what? Follow the link over at the Black Cordelias to find out what.