The Obamessiah's abortion record is becoming a hot topic again, and that is a big, big, BIG problem for him. I've mentioned it before (here and here, for example), but I wanted to add to that information because it's back on the front burner now.
Barack Obama is not just pro-choice, he is actively, radically pro-abortion. He supports taxpayer-funded abortion on demand for any reason. This is no accident, either - abortion is the one issue throughout this career in public service on which he has remained 100% consistent. He has always voted in favor of abortion in any form and any amount. He has never opposed it. In fact, he appears proud of his record:
As if this wasn't bad enough, we have the infanticide issue, on which Barack Obama is now (fortunately) being forced to defend himself. His voting record is clearly against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would have banned botched-abortion infanticide in American hospitals. Some background is needed, so here it is.
A common method of early-term abortion is to simply induce labor through chemical means. Jill Stanek, a former nurse in a Chicago hospital, had her eyes opened during the process several years ago:
Stanek held the baby for almost an hour until he suffocated from a lack of oxygen to his underdeveloped lungs. She asked the hospital administrators about the practice, and they collectively shrugged about it, saying it was legal. She then contacted the state's attorney general, who investigated and found that the hospital was right - no laws had been broken since Roe v. Wade dictated babies like that one were legally considered non-persons. She embarked on a tireless journey to get these babies who were born alive through botched abortions protected through the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). Her efforts hit a major roadblock in an Illinois state Senator named Barack Obama (the only person to speak against the bill), who made this statement:
The real danger in this statement is that he appears to be suggesting that the question of personhood is less important than the question of a 'right' to have an abortion. His philosophy on the subject became even more apparent as events played out.
At the same time that this was happening in Illinois, an almost identical bill passed the United States Congress with unanimous approval. Not a single Congressman or Senator -- including Sen. Barabara Boxer, a former abortion advocate herself with a 100% pro-choice record -- voted against it. Pro-choice groups like NARAL even supported the bill:
But Barack Obama killed the bill passing through the Illinois state Senate because it infringed on the 'right' to have an abortion. Apparently, he believes that once a baby was simply intended to be aborted, it ceases to have any rights or protections as a person, even if the baby is born alive.
In response, Stanek and other supporters revised the Illinois bill to include a clause that specifically prevented any infringement upon the Roe v. Wade decision, and, by extension, a woman's 'right' to get an abortion. The bill was now literally identical in scope and verbiage to the national bill that was passed unanimously and supported even by pro-abortion groups. Did Obama vote for it then?
No.
In light of his recent rise to prominence, some people recently started digging on this subject again. Obama continues to maintain that he opposed this bill in Illinois because it infringed upon the 'right' to an abortion, but we now have documented proof that that was not the case. Unfortunately, his friends in the MSM are not holding his feet to the fire and asking him for clarification on why he opposed the BAIPA even though it wouldn't have affected Roe v. Wade. In fact, unbelievably, his campaign is still maintaining the same old lie that has been disproven by recent revelations:
Yeah, that would be terrible, wouldn't it? Yuval Levin comments that if Obama wants to argue it's "a lie," he'll need to prove it. He hasn't done that yet.
The fact is that the documents do not lie, nor does the record, both of which show Obama's clear intentions and votes against a bill that would have made infanticide illegal. What more is there to say on the matter?
In fact, there is more. In recent years, a number of states have passed laws banning aspects of abortion or putting other slight restrictions on abortion (banning partial birth abortion, for example). Barack Obama recently made a campaign pledge to Planned Parenthood that the 'first thing' he would do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, which would essentially erase all state-level restrictions on abortion, in effect legalizing abortion -- on a federal level -- in all its forms (including partial birth abortion) for any reason at any time. Even worse, his proposals would require taxpayers to fund those abortions.
The Democrat party has enshrined this goal in their official party platform for the 2008 election:
While the Obamessiah campaign is now trying out the 'safe, legal, and rare' schtick that Clinton used, it is clear from his track record and actual policy proposals that he intends no such thing - he only wants it legal all the time, even in the case of his own grandchildren. Remember when he said this?
Stop and think about that for a moment. He wants his daughters to be able to abort his own grandchildren if they are conceived in an inconvenient way or time...!
How sick and twisted is this man, that he thinks that a baby is punishment, and that he would rather have his grandchild killed than 'punish' his daughter's mistake?
Rich Lowry commented on Obama's statement at the Saddleback event: "Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is 'above his pay grade.' Leave aside that presidents usually have an opinion about who deserves legal rights. If Obama is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he'd better possess an absolute certainty about the absolute moral nullity of the fetus." That's a good point.
Peter Kirsanow questions if Obama would permit the abandonment of any other class of babies born alive, e.g., those born with abnormalities. It's a legitimate question: precisely where does he draw the lines?
I've also wondered in the past what the difference is between aborting 'inconvenient' babies and killing other groups of 'inconvenient' people. Why not kill the elderly, or those who are terminally ill? How about those who lose limbs and can't work? Children with ADHD? These are absurb suggestions, of course, but tell me honestly what the difference is, if the inconvenience is the key decision-making factor? Do you see where this sick mentality can potentially bring us? Once you give up the moral evil inherent in killing an innocent life for the sake of inconvenience -- which is exactly what Obama is seeking -- you have thrown yourself down a very slippery slope, and you won't be coming back.
Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., put it most succinctly when she asked, "Who among us is so cold-blooded as to vote to deny health care to a baby born alive during a late-term abortion and allow that baby to die?"
Barack the Obamessiah, that's who. And now he's lying about it to cover up the facts.
There's my two cents.
Sources:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmUzZmY2ZGU0YzJiNjgxMmUwYjQ4YTI5MDZiOTQ3ZWU=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2NmMGNkMTdkZWJkZWRkMjRkNjY5NjllNzZlYjkyNmY=
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/barack_obama_abortion_extremis.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_christian_creds_vs_abor.html
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2NmMGNkMTdkZWJkZWRkMjRkNjY5NjllNzZlYjkyNmY=&w=MA==
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_abortion_challenge_1.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGIzMzA4ODViYTk4Yzc4MDgwMjRiMGRkOTY4M2JmY2I=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBkYTYzZDNjNDgyMWJmMzMxYzljYjYxNmEwMTdhYWE=
http://www.lifenews.com/state3448.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjczZWIxYzQyNzMwZDYxMWIxNzkzZjgwNTE2ODhlNmE=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTUyMGQ0YjdiMjJjZmM5M2MwMjAwOTAwMzc4MDcwOWM=
Barack Obama is not just pro-choice, he is actively, radically pro-abortion. He supports taxpayer-funded abortion on demand for any reason. This is no accident, either - abortion is the one issue throughout this career in public service on which he has remained 100% consistent. He has always voted in favor of abortion in any form and any amount. He has never opposed it. In fact, he appears proud of his record:
Let's look at partial birth abortion, which he favors. This is the process by which a full-term baby is partially delivered, the doctor kills the baby (usually by stabbing in the back of the neck and into the brain/brain stem), and then the rest of the baby's body is delivered. It is a vile, horrific practice that was recently banned in the United States. Obama voted against the ban. He justified his opposition by saying that it did not have an exception for the mother's health, but the exception he wanted was so broad that it would have made the bill meaningless."Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America."
- Barack Obama, Statement on 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision
As if this wasn't bad enough, we have the infanticide issue, on which Barack Obama is now (fortunately) being forced to defend himself. His voting record is clearly against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would have banned botched-abortion infanticide in American hospitals. Some background is needed, so here it is.
A common method of early-term abortion is to simply induce labor through chemical means. Jill Stanek, a former nurse in a Chicago hospital, had her eyes opened during the process several years ago:
In "induced labor" or "prostaglandin" abortion — a common procedure at the hospital — the doctor administers drugs that dilate the mother's cervix and induce contractions, forcing a small baby out of the mother's uterus. Most of the time, the baby dies in utero, killed by the force of the violent contractions. But it does not always work. Such abortions sometimes result in a premature baby being born alive. Sometimes the survivors live for just a few minutes, but sometimes for several hours. No one tried to save or treat them — it is hard to save someone you just mauled trying to kill. But something had to be done with them for the minutes and hours during which they struggled for air.
Stanek says her friend had been told to take [a baby boy born four months premature] and leave him in a soiled utility closet [to let him die with the other medical waste]. She offered to take him instead. "I couldn't let him die alone," she says.
Stanek says her friend had been told to take [a baby boy born four months premature] and leave him in a soiled utility closet [to let him die with the other medical waste]. She offered to take him instead. "I couldn't let him die alone," she says.
Stanek held the baby for almost an hour until he suffocated from a lack of oxygen to his underdeveloped lungs. She asked the hospital administrators about the practice, and they collectively shrugged about it, saying it was legal. She then contacted the state's attorney general, who investigated and found that the hospital was right - no laws had been broken since Roe v. Wade dictated babies like that one were legally considered non-persons. She embarked on a tireless journey to get these babies who were born alive through botched abortions protected through the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). Her efforts hit a major roadblock in an Illinois state Senator named Barack Obama (the only person to speak against the bill), who made this statement:
There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so … this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.
The real danger in this statement is that he appears to be suggesting that the question of personhood is less important than the question of a 'right' to have an abortion. His philosophy on the subject became even more apparent as events played out.
At the same time that this was happening in Illinois, an almost identical bill passed the United States Congress with unanimous approval. Not a single Congressman or Senator -- including Sen. Barabara Boxer, a former abortion advocate herself with a 100% pro-choice record -- voted against it. Pro-choice groups like NARAL even supported the bill:
We, in fact, did not oppose the bill. There is a clear legal difference between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that the country can provide them.
But Barack Obama killed the bill passing through the Illinois state Senate because it infringed on the 'right' to have an abortion. Apparently, he believes that once a baby was simply intended to be aborted, it ceases to have any rights or protections as a person, even if the baby is born alive.
In response, Stanek and other supporters revised the Illinois bill to include a clause that specifically prevented any infringement upon the Roe v. Wade decision, and, by extension, a woman's 'right' to get an abortion. The bill was now literally identical in scope and verbiage to the national bill that was passed unanimously and supported even by pro-abortion groups. Did Obama vote for it then?
No.
In light of his recent rise to prominence, some people recently started digging on this subject again. Obama continues to maintain that he opposed this bill in Illinois because it infringed upon the 'right' to an abortion, but we now have documented proof that that was not the case. Unfortunately, his friends in the MSM are not holding his feet to the fire and asking him for clarification on why he opposed the BAIPA even though it wouldn't have affected Roe v. Wade. In fact, unbelievably, his campaign is still maintaining the same old lie that has been disproven by recent revelations:
"The state and federal born alive infant protection acts did not include exactly the same language," Obama's camp claimed and it complained the Illinois bill said "a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Yeah, that would be terrible, wouldn't it? Yuval Levin comments that if Obama wants to argue it's "a lie," he'll need to prove it. He hasn't done that yet.
The fact is that the documents do not lie, nor does the record, both of which show Obama's clear intentions and votes against a bill that would have made infanticide illegal. What more is there to say on the matter?
In fact, there is more. In recent years, a number of states have passed laws banning aspects of abortion or putting other slight restrictions on abortion (banning partial birth abortion, for example). Barack Obama recently made a campaign pledge to Planned Parenthood that the 'first thing' he would do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, which would essentially erase all state-level restrictions on abortion, in effect legalizing abortion -- on a federal level -- in all its forms (including partial birth abortion) for any reason at any time. Even worse, his proposals would require taxpayers to fund those abortions.
The Democrat party has enshrined this goal in their official party platform for the 2008 election:
"The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support and caring adoption programs.''
While the Obamessiah campaign is now trying out the 'safe, legal, and rare' schtick that Clinton used, it is clear from his track record and actual policy proposals that he intends no such thing - he only wants it legal all the time, even in the case of his own grandchildren. Remember when he said this?
I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.
Stop and think about that for a moment. He wants his daughters to be able to abort his own grandchildren if they are conceived in an inconvenient way or time...!
How sick and twisted is this man, that he thinks that a baby is punishment, and that he would rather have his grandchild killed than 'punish' his daughter's mistake?
Rich Lowry commented on Obama's statement at the Saddleback event: "Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is 'above his pay grade.' Leave aside that presidents usually have an opinion about who deserves legal rights. If Obama is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he'd better possess an absolute certainty about the absolute moral nullity of the fetus." That's a good point.
Peter Kirsanow questions if Obama would permit the abandonment of any other class of babies born alive, e.g., those born with abnormalities. It's a legitimate question: precisely where does he draw the lines?
I've also wondered in the past what the difference is between aborting 'inconvenient' babies and killing other groups of 'inconvenient' people. Why not kill the elderly, or those who are terminally ill? How about those who lose limbs and can't work? Children with ADHD? These are absurb suggestions, of course, but tell me honestly what the difference is, if the inconvenience is the key decision-making factor? Do you see where this sick mentality can potentially bring us? Once you give up the moral evil inherent in killing an innocent life for the sake of inconvenience -- which is exactly what Obama is seeking -- you have thrown yourself down a very slippery slope, and you won't be coming back.
Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., put it most succinctly when she asked, "Who among us is so cold-blooded as to vote to deny health care to a baby born alive during a late-term abortion and allow that baby to die?"
Barack the Obamessiah, that's who. And now he's lying about it to cover up the facts.
There's my two cents.
Sources:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmUzZmY2ZGU0YzJiNjgxMmUwYjQ4YTI5MDZiOTQ3ZWU=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2NmMGNkMTdkZWJkZWRkMjRkNjY5NjllNzZlYjkyNmY=
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/barack_obama_abortion_extremis.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_christian_creds_vs_abor.html
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2NmMGNkMTdkZWJkZWRkMjRkNjY5NjllNzZlYjkyNmY=&w=MA==
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_abortion_challenge_1.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGIzMzA4ODViYTk4Yzc4MDgwMjRiMGRkOTY4M2JmY2I=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBkYTYzZDNjNDgyMWJmMzMxYzljYjYxNmEwMTdhYWE=
http://www.lifenews.com/state3448.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjczZWIxYzQyNzMwZDYxMWIxNzkzZjgwNTE2ODhlNmE=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTUyMGQ0YjdiMjJjZmM5M2MwMjAwOTAwMzc4MDcwOWM=
7 comments:
First, your Saddleback quote is out of context. Sure, he said the "pay grade" thing. But, he followed that up by saying, essentially, "let's work together to REDUCE ABORTIONS."
Second, this infanticide thing. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, is there any proof Obama is pro-infanticide. None. This bill that Jill Stanek references does look like he voted against it. BUT, there are a couple of caveats. The record of vote (that Stanek cites) is from a GOP summary of bill action. Obama sure seems adamant about his vote, so there could be something just mixed up. Maybe Obama is misremembering it. Maybe he's lying. But it seems weird that he would stick to a lie in the face of hard evidence. That seems to me to indicate that maybe he's not lying.
Regardless, Obama did not vote against the bill because he's pro-infanticide. He voted against it because he thought it would undercut all abortion. Maybe that was a stupid interpretation, but that's why he did it. Also, in other debates on that bill, he said that he understood the CURRENT Illinois law to already require a doctor to give any baby the medical care needed. So in essence, he thought (perhaps based on a misinterpretation) he would be voting for a bill that would 1) add no real new protection to babies, and 2) could serve to ban or undercut all abortions. Maybe not the smartest or best interpretation, but it's definitely a far cry from supporting killing the handicapped, etc.
Third, as mentioned before, the president has virtually NO real impact on the ACTUAL number of abortions. Again, abortions went UP while REAGAN was president, and DOWN while CLINTON was president. Obama said he supports CHOICE, but wants to REDUCE abortions.
I don't support choice, but I also want to reduce abortions.
Finally, this "Freedom of Choice Act" thing. The bill really just codifies the language of the Supreme Court decisions that already exist. It wouldn't be that big of a deal, on a practical level. More importantly, though, are two things: 1) the legislation would have to pass the congress, which is by no means guaranteed, and 2) the same justices intepreting the new law would include the 5 who just recently voted to uphold the partial-birth ban. That's called checks-and-balances.
As to any "symbolic" implications of an Obama presidency on abortion, I think it's useful to ask this question: You can only pick A or B (no arguing, just pick it). Which America would you rather have?
A. An America where abortion is totally, 100% banned, BUT 500,000 women get an abortion every year.
OR
B. An America where abortion is totally, 100% legal, BUT zero women get an abortion every year.
Again, no arguing, no theorizing about the reality of either situation, etc. Which would you pick? Surely B? Right?
Then shouldn't the goal be to reduce abortions? If so, and if that's Obama's stated goal, why is he so bad?
Powerful stuff. Your treatment was excellent. Do you have more info on Jill Stanek? Would love to get that into the public domain as much as possible.
Thanks. Keep up the good work.
Nall Gearheard
Thanks! I would assume that the best Jill Stanek resource would be Jill Stanek's blog, which can be found here:
http://www.jillstanek.com/
Michael - what Saddleback quote are you talking about? The one with the YouTube video I posted earlier? I will assume that, since I don't believe I've quoted anything from Saddleback on this particular post.
That being said, how can I possibly have taken it out of context when I included the entire video, which includes that context? I did address your suggestion that he wants to reduce abortions. First, he lied (or was mistaken about) the facts on the number of abortions during the current administration. Second, if he wanted to reduce abortions, wouldn't he have EVER voted to put some kind of restriction on abortion? That would make sense, wouldn't it? But he hasn't done that. That's the entire point of this post: Barack Obama has never voted to reduce, restrain, or limit abortion in any fashion. EVER. Show me one vote that he's made that has led to a reduction in abortion, and I will take this statement back. I would say that actions speak louder than words, so until he starts VOTING to reduce abortion, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ignore any WORDS he says about reducing abortion.
Infanticide. Read your statement again. You're saying that the fact that Obama is sticking to his story, which has been proven wrong through documentation, leads you to believe that he is telling the truth. Do you really want to stick with that as your argument for proving truth? A look at the evidence shows that he is lying. As I mentioned in my post, if he has legitimate evidence to counter that evidence, he should simply put it out there. Until he does that, what other conclusion are we supposed to come to?
Also, your entire argument of why he opposed the bill is undercut by the recent revelation of the documentation showing that the bill he killed was IDENTICAL to the federal one, which countered his specific concern that this bill would infringe upon Roe v. Wade. There was zero effect on abortion as an issue or 'right', but literally a life and death effect on infants born as the result of botched abortions. You cannot possibly expect that anyone but the most hardcore pro-abortionist would look at this choice and find that it was still a bill worth opposing.
We have discussed how much effect the President has on abortions in general, as well as in this particular election, so we don't need to get into it again. :)
If I had to pick one of your scenarios, I would clearly choose B. Obviously, the most important goal to keep in mind is life, not the law. That being said, I don't accept your premise. While you are correct that choice A would likely still have a few abortions performed each year, there is also absolutely no reason to think that we will ever realistically see choice B. The same logic applies to both situations - just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean that it will NEVER happen. However, we can plainly see and know that if something is illegal, it is obvious that it will happen far less than if that thing is legal.
Take burglary, for example. Of course everyone wants to reduce the number of burglaries. It's illegal, but some burglaries happen every year. Still, what do you think would happen if we were to make burglary legal? Would the number of burglaries committed each year go up, or down?
It works precisely the same way with murder, smoking, and yes, even abortions - making a thing illegal reduces their occurrence, though it is probable that that thing will still happen occasionally. That's real life. Of course we all want to reduce abortions. But, the actions taken to achieve that stated goal are very different, and will achieve very different levels of success (if we consider fewer abortions as a success). Just like with the burglary example, making abortion illegal would drastically reduce the number of abortions performed each year. Barack Obama's actions simply don't match up with his words on the subject. That is why he fails all reasonable evaluations regarding abortion...unless you consider taxpayer-funded abortion on demand your objective. In that case, he passes with flying colors.
Now, for the record, I agree with your stance from our last conversation about this - the question of abortion's legality should be left up to each individual state. It should not be made legal at a federal level, nor should it be made illegal at a federal level. It is not a federal issue, it is a state issue. I believe the Constitutionally correct course would be to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would throw abortion out of the federal level, thus leaving the question to all 50 states. From that point, I believe that it is up to the citizens of each state, through their votes, to decide whether they want abortion to be legal or not. I would hope and pray that citizens of all states would vote to make it illegal, but it should be up to the citizens of each state to decide. If people don't like what happens in their state enough, they can move. That's the ultimate check and balance that American citizens hold in our form of government. If such a law is made at a federal level, there is nowhere that a person can go to get away from it, and that's not how our government was designed.
Thanks for your comments!
Just to clarify a couple of points:
1. I am not saying that because there's evidence to show that he's lying that makes me think he's telling the truth. What I meant to convey was basically...it's weird that he would stick so strongly to his story in the face of this evidence. Obama's not dumb, so it wouldn't make sense for him to stick so strongly to a story he knows can be proven false. To me, it seems like he sincerely remembers it differently. Now, he may be incorrect in his memory, but it just seems weird that he would consistently lie in the face of incontrovertible (sp?) evidence. That just makes me think that maybe there's something we don't know.
2. I'll grant that Obama has voted to restrict abortion, but that's not necessarily the same thing as not reducing it. We've essentially had abortion-on-demand since Roe, and while the numbers are certainly higher post-Roe than pre-Roe, they have been on a downward trend for close to 20 years (through both D and R presidents). My guess is that's a result (at least partially) of many of the organizations that have sprung up to help women exercise the choice for adoption, provide resources, etc. Obama said he wants to find common ground and do things like that, so I think that could work.
The point of my hypothetical example was not to be realistic but to suggest the principle that maybe if we all spent all the money, energy, time, etc. we do fighting with other people on whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned, etc. and use that money to flat out reduce abortions (via adoption services, teen pregnancy counseling, reducing teen pregnancy, reducing unintended pregnancy, etc.) we would probably have better results and could really positively impact the lives of the women/girls who think they have to exercise their "choice" to have an abortion.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php
This is the fact sheet put out by the Obama campaign in response to all this, including the Jill Stanek stuff. I think it strengthens a couple of points:
1. That Obama sincerely thought there were differences between the Illinois bill and the federal bill. That indicates he wasn't lying about his votes...he sincerely thought, at the time, there were differences. Now, I will grant that those thoughts may have been based on an incorrect interpretation, but that's a far cry from evil-ly voting to support infanticide.
2. Obama sincerely thought that the medical care requirements were already the law in Illinois (and appears to have been correct). So, again, he wasn't thinking he was voting to actually make ANY difference to infants. Again, tends to show he didn't evil-ly vote to support infanticide.
People are free to argue about the interpretation of the bills, but I don't think people ought to try to paint Obama as an infanticidal maniac.
Michael - I'm going to respond to both of your comments in the same post.
Comment 1:
1. Yes, it is wierd that he would stick to his story after being proven wrong. But, again, if he had any concrete evidence or proof, why hasn't he shown it? Since he hasn't, the logical assumption is that he doesn't have any. Although I'm with you (not fully nderstanding why he's sticking to it), my first interpretation would be that he's counting on his friends in the MSM to hide the issue as much as possible, get it off the front burner, and delay these revelations from being spread too far until the election is over. After that, it won't matter. That's admittedly my own interpretation, but I believe it's reasonable, given what we've seen of him so far. I have another reason, too, but I'll get to it a little later.
2. I think we'll just have to disagree on the opinion that not voting to restrict abortion is the same as not reducing it. In my humble opinion, this is the difference between words and actions, and again, actions speak louder than words. Although he TALKS a good game, what has he DONE to reduce abortion? Anyone can say they want to reduce abortions, but he hasn't done much to back up that talk.
I see your point on your hypothetical example, now that you've explained it a bit more. I would agree - if people would focus more on the actual results than on the method, we'd probably get somewhere. But, at the same time, we can't get to the final destination without using SOME method of getting there. In this case, the method is apparently as different as night and day, so it's awfully tough to reconcile the two sides. One side or the other is going to have to step up and be more persuasive in order to have a whole lot of movement either way. And, if you really stop to think about it, why would anyone maintaining a pro-choice position say they want to reduce abortions? The logic just isn't there. That would be like saying I'm in favor of legalizing meth, but that I also hope that no one uses meth. It's nonsense, isn't it?
Comment 2:
Much of Obama's defense on his fact check website centers around how many other Illinois Senators agreed with him. That was never a statement I made - I was referring to the national bill in the U.S. Congress that was unanimous. I don't dispute the fact that a number of other Illinois Senators voted with him. That doesn't make it right.
I'm not going to go into a whole lot of detail about your other points here, since I've gathered enough information to do another full post on the topic. The short version is this: while Obama keeps saying that he thought there were differences between the final state bill and the federal bill, there clearly were not. And, there is also documented proof that this bill would not have infringed at all on the 'right' to get an abortion in Illinois. As you say, he could have simply been mistaken. But, whereas that might remove the 'infanticidal maniac' label, it would then replace it with 'lethally ignorant idiot'. I suppose that's a step up, but I'm not sure how much. This could be another reason why he is still maintaining his previous stance - to admit this sort of monumental blunder would be to illustrate just how incompetent he is, and that would kill his chances of being elected. He's already fighting the uphill battle on his inexperience, so he's saying that his judgment makes up for it. This admission would completely blow his own argument out of the water.
Even if this were the case, I cannot help but have a problem with this statement:
Obama voted against a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Further defines “born alive” to mean “the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”
I'm sorry, but reading that paragraph clearly describes a living baby, and the fact that Obama voted to refuse protections for that baby is absolutely inexcusable, especially when his reasoning is simply to protect the 'right' to have an abortion. How can anyone in good conscience refuse protections for a clearly living baby just to preserve the 'right' to have an abortion? As I've already argued, if there is any doubt on a question of life, why would anyone not err on the side of preserving life?
To me, the details of the particular events are very important, but even more important is the underlying philosophy that he has displayed, both on those past votes and with his overall track record. It is that philosophy that is now coming back to bite him as more and more people find out what he did.
I'll post more on this topic in the next few days.
Thanks for your comments!
Post a Comment