Candidate Pete Buttigieg and Shades of Gray

When we hear a politician proclaim, “I was for the bill before I was against it,” do we conjure up the image of a forthright person who possesses a strong moral character? Of course not! We know instinctively we are not dealing with a trustworthy person. We also know we are dealing with an opportunist, concerned only about their own self-interest. Democratic Presidential Candidate, Pete Buttigieg, strikes me as this kind of politician. Candidate Buttigieg has repeatedly failed to clearly articulate his position on a myriad of issues and when questioned, makes vague generalizations in an attempt to straddle both sides of an issue. A clear example of this lack of clarity arises in regard to his recent statements on abortion.

To establish a baseline, we will begin with his campaign website. I was not able to find a clear stance on “abortion.” Instead of using the term “abortion”, Buttigieg euphemistically uses the phrases “reproductive rights” and “reproductive health care.” The position seems reasonable at first glance. After all, why would someone oppose a woman’s right to reproduce and her ability to receive proper health care when trying to reproduce? But what exactly is “comprehensive reproductive health care?” By using these terms, Buttigieg redirects away from the more precise and familiar term known as abortion. Most people know abortion is the purposeful termination of a woman’s pregnancy. In other words, if a woman is pregnant with a human child, is it okay to kill (terminate) the child so the woman is no longer pregnant? Most people really know the key issue is not access to health care, but whether “terminating a pregnancy” means killing of a baby and whether this can be considered moral or legal. Candidate Buttigieg begins by being less than forthright and employs some linguistic sleight of hand.

In early September, Buttigieg defended his support for abortion right up until the very moment of birth by claiming in an interview that:

“there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath. Even that is something that we can interpret differently. . .. No matter what you think about the cosmic question of how life begins, most Americans can get on board with the idea of, ‘I might draw the here. You might draw the line there.’ The most important thing is the person who should be drawing the line is the woman making the decision.”

In reading Buttigieg’s answer, one is left to wonder if he really believes babies are not babies until they draw their first breath upon exiting the womb. Buttigieg asserts there are “parts of the Bible” that talks like this, but avoids clearly stating what he believes and where he draws the line on when life begins. Buttigieg then allows for people to draw the line wherever they want. Is the most important thing regarding abortion really that a woman draws the line of when life begins? What if different women draw the line at different trimesters? Is this a workable and moral public policy position? Buttigieg uses this construct to “stand” with people on either side of the issue.

I think most reasonable readers would understand Candidate Buttigieg to be claiming he does believe life begins at first breath and that he believes the Bible supports his position. As a masterful parser of words, Candidate Buttigieg has shifted the burden of drawing a conclusion on his position to the reader/hearer since he avoids clearly stating his own position. Any conclusion drawn is subjective since Candidate Buttigieg has avoided stating his position!

Although seemingly benign, such lack of candor in a potential leader is extremely troubling. As real-life issues arise, real leaders have the opportunity to weigh in and influence things properly. Pretend leaders, avoid making the tough, potentially unpopular decisions. On September 14th, 2019, an abortion doctor named Ulirich “George” Klopfer passed away and investigators discovered “2,246 fetal remains” in his Illinois home. Dr. Klopfer is not some random abortion doctor. Dr. Klopfer was the owner and abortion provider at a clinic serving South Bend, Indiana, the town where Pete Buttigieg serves as mayor. While Buttigieg was mayor in 2015, Dr. Klopfer’s clinic had its license revoked by the state due to substandard care. Naturally, when this controversial doctor died, people sought comment from the 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate and mayor of South Bend, IN, where Dr. Klopfer operated his abortion clinic. Did Candidate Buttigieg seize the moment? No.

After a period of notable silence on the issue, Candidate Buttigieg finally emerged and commented. He stated that, “Like everyone, I find that news out of Illinois extremely disturbing, and I think it’s important that that be fully investigated.” He went on to say, “I also hope it doesn’t get caught up in politics at a time when women need access to health care. There’s no question that what happened is disturbing. It’s unacceptable. And it needs to be looked into fully.” Masterfully vague!

By recalling Buttigieg’s previous statement on abortion just prior to the gruesome discovery of 2,246 fetal remains in Dr. Klopfer’s home, we can rightfully ask why exactly is Candidate Buttigieg troubled like everyone else? Logically, if Buttigieg believes a baby is not actually a baby until they take their first breath, then what is the problem with “non-human” tissue found in a Doctor’s house? Why does Candidate Buttigieg find the discovery extremely disturbing? Why does Candidate Buttigieg declare the discovery “unacceptable” and call for a full investigation? I think he remains vague to stand with those who support abortion and if possible, to stand with those naturally horrified by abortion and by Dr Klopfer’s actions.

But Candidate Buttigieg didn’t stop there. He went on to assert he hopes “it doesn’t get caught up in politics” when so many women need to have access to health care. What does this have to do with the discovery of the remains in Ulrich Klopfer’s home? Recall his initial characterization of the abortion issue on his campaign website. Buttigieg is trying to redirect the discussion away from the question of abortion to the question of access to health care. He is switching sides to appeal to those who favor unfettered abortion on demand.

Instead of providing a clear statement to help people navigate the moral challenges presented by such a situation, Candidate Buttigieg straddles both sides of the issue. On one side, he leads people to believe he thinks abortion involves the killing of a human baby and calls it unacceptable and says he is greatly disturbed. But then Candidate Buttigieg switches his presumed position and says makes an appeal to make sure women have access to health care. Is lack of health care what makes this story disturbing and unacceptable? So where exactly does Candidate Buttigieg stand on this issue? Hard to say for sure unless you “read between the lines.”

A politician that fails to clearly articulate whether they believe abortion involves the killing of a child is one not worthy of being trusted with more complex issues facing our country. Finding baby parts and baby remains at an abortion doctor’s home does not indicate that potentially over 2,200 women failed to have access to health care. On the contrary, these women received the “health care” Candidate Buttigieg champions. Buttigieg avoids acknowledging that the baby is the true victim and the one who was denied “proper health care” and proper disposal of human remains. Even the liberal feminist and staunch abortion supporter Camille Paglia writing in Salon magazine claims: “We career women are arguing from expedience: it is personally and professionally inconvenient or onerous to bear an unwanted child. The pro-life movement, in contrast, is arguing that every conception is sacred and that society has a responsibility to protect the defenseless.”

Though I do not agree with Ms. Paglia on much, I have to acknowledge that she has taken a clear yet disturbing stand and not attempted to hide behind a mask. She goes on in the same article to clearly state the reality of abortion in her critique of a previous Democratic Presidential Candidate- Hillary Clinton:

“Liberals routinely delude themselves with shrill propaganda about the motivation of “anti-woman” pro-life supporters. Hillary deals in those smears as her stock in trade: for example, while campaigning last week, she said in the context of Trump’s comments on abortion, “Women’s health is under assault in America”—as if difficulty in obtaining an abortion is more of an assault than the grisly intervention required for surgical termination of a pregnancy. Who is the real victim here?” (emphasis is mine)

Candidate Buttigieg knows full well that investigators will not find a woman’s access to health care limited and blocked. He also knows investigators did not find “fetal remains” but rather they found human, baby remains. He knows that human babies were killed and human baby remains were desecrated. Candidate Buttigieg also knows this is why virtually everyone finds it is extremely disturbing and this is why he declares it is “unacceptable.” But for expediency and personal interest, Candidate Buttigieg obscures his position on this horrific event and tries to straddle both sides of the issue. Is Candidate Buttigieg someone you can trust to provide moral clarity and direction when presented with an issue of greater complexity? I think not. He is not a young and fresh politician, but rather cut from the same cloth of so many before him.

#democraticpresidentialcandidate #abortion #buttigieg #comprehensivewomensreproductivehealth #prolife