Strange Days

Here is President Obama on the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, which occurred yesterday:

As we mark the 39^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.  I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.  While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.  And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

Among the many interesting formulations voiced here is the idea that as President, Obama remains committed to protecting a "fundamental constitutional right"--e.i., the right to abortion.  But he states only a few sentences later that he wishes to "reduce the need for abortion."  Why should a sacred constitutional right be curtailed?  Why should we "reduce" the need for this constitutional right?  What if a federal law was passed by Congress that mandated that people could form mass political demonstrations only on Saturdays with the wish that these demonstrations be "safe, rare, and legal"?  What if the same was said of women in voting booths? 

This is the strange moral abyss in which we find ourselves.