Obama makes abortion a campaign issue
Posted by BrianST. PAUL, Minn. - Barack Obama has launched a broadside against John McCain’s opposition to abortion rights and moved one of the most divisive issues in modern American politics to the airwaves on a large scale for the first time in this presidential campaign.
Obama’s new radio ad, airing widely in at least seven swing states, tells voters McCain “will make abortion illegal.” It’s airing as McCain courts female voters with the addition of the staunchly anti-abortion governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, to his ticket.
I’m a rather rare conservative in that abortion isn’t near the top of my political agenda. That isn’t to say I don’t have strong opinions on the topic, I just personally think there are more pressing issues. I’ve considered it more of a wedge issue that Republicans exploit to shore up religious voters.
It seems fairly bold for Obama to force this issue given that it has typically been Republicans leading the charge on it in campaigns with Democrats parrying. If I recall, polling has shown Americans to generally oppose abortion on demand, but oppose restricting all abortions (even in the case of rape). The ads appear to try to exploit the majority opinion that abortion should be available in at least some limited cases.
If Obama had a less radical record on abortion I think it might be a reasonable attempt to block any moderate, female Democrats from shifting to the McCain/Palin ticket. But Obama once supported the practice of killing children who survived an attempted abortion. That is so extreme that I had trouble believing that anyone - much less a candidate for president - would have supported such a practice when I first heard about it many months ago. I would have characterized killing a live born child as murder, plain and simple, regardless of the mother’s desire. Is this really the man that the Democrats want carrying the banner of abortion rights and thrusting the topic to the political front burner? The hard left will agree with him, but I don’t think most Americans will.
Related content:
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:06 am
Lest we forget, at the Saddleback forum (in regards to abortion)when asked about when life starts Obama said that question was above his pay grade. Fred Thompson reminded us of that in his speech at the GOP convention last night. By the way, Thompson’s entire speech is on video @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/26518074#26518074
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:06 am
No doubt there are Republicans who use the abortion issue to shore up religious voters, but I don’t think of it as a strictly religious issue. A person’s position on abortion can be informed by any number of things - science, logic, faith, etc.
I agree that there are other pressing political issues today, but my desire to see American lives protected from terrorism and my desire to see the lives of unborn (and born) babies spring from the same worldview. I want to vote for someone who holds to the truth that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
I didn’t support Huckabee in the primary, but I loved his comments on Rush Limbaugh’s Aug. 27, 2008 show: “For many of us this is not a peripheral political issue, this is an issue of principle upon which we think the country was founded, that all of us are created equal, that every life has worth and value and that once you decide that some lives aren’t worth as much as other lives, you make a sharp left turn toward a direction that this country can ill afford to go.”
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Before the Supreme Court overturned practically all prohibitions on abortion in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the issue of abortion had been a state issue. That’s the way it should be.
I hope that sometime soon, people on both sides of this debate will come to a consensus that it’s in everyone’s best interest to return this issue to the states.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Don, I think that comment is a little off base. He was saying that if you want him so say exactly when life begins that is above his pay grade, not brad positions on abortion.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Talmadge, call me crazy but I would guess that a rational person at any pay grade would agree that life AT LEAST begins once a living, breathing child exits the birth canal. Obama supported allowing doctors to kill those children who survived botched “late term” abortions. That position shows an utter indifference to when life begins. Defining the exact moment when life begins may well be “above his pay grade,” but since he is willing to allow children who have clearly surpassed the threshold of life beginning to be killed who cares what he does or does not think the exact timing is?
If it is at conception Obama still supports aborting the baby. If it is three months into the gestation period Obama still supports aborting the baby. If it is late into the term then Obama still supports aborting the baby. If the baby is newborn Obama still supports aborting the baby.
For Obama the central issue isn’t when life begins, but what the desire of the mother is. He is willing to terminate the life of a child simply because the mother wanted to. For him to even act as if he pontificates on the moment life begins is absurd because it wouldn’t matter to his ultimate position.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Lee,
If someone thinks that abortion in any form is murder because it is killing a human life, how can they be satisfied with the issue being decided by the states when some will allow it to continue? Would you be okay if some states decided it was okay for children to murder their parents without retribution? No!
Abortion should be abolished the same way that slavery was abolished in the Constitution via the amendment process. I agree with you in that the Supreme Court overstepped their bounds in overturning abortion restrictions, but returning the issue to the states is not enough. It will not end the genocide which has resulted in the death of almost 50 million babies in the United States since 1973. If one state will not perform the abortion, then the mother will go to the state that will. Nothing is ultimately changed in that scenario.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Talmadge East, what you said seems to me to be the same thing I said, so I don’t understand why you think what I said was off base.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Don, well he’s not a doctor, nor a scientist, so it IS above his pay grade to state that specifically.
Brian, it is my understanding that he never supported any such legislation. I think you will find it to be quite the contrary, but it is easier for far-right commentators to distort his opposition to a needless bill as “support.” In that context, maybe you have a point, but I don’t see it. If you can point me toward legislation he “supported” with regard to this I would be genuinely glad to read it, as I would find that very disturbing.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Sometimes issues are pretty simple. The issue facing Obama in the IL legislature was whether or not to ban the killing of live born infants (as it pertained to state law; the federal law was on the books). If you support the ban then that means you oppose the killing of live born infants. On the other hand, if you oppose such a ban (twice!) then how would you characterize it?
Read this (yes, I know they have a decided bias) for a description of how Obama acted in the IL legislature. Pay special attention to his own words and contrast that with his “above my pay grade” talk.
BTW, I believe The Messiah was referring to God with his “above my pay grade” comment. It was his way of tap dancing around an issue that is not in his favor.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Here is the bill:
SB1661 Engrossed LRB9215508WHcs
AN ACT in relation to civil liabilities.
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:
Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.
Section 5. Findings and intent. The General Assembly finds that all children who are born alive are entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of the circumstances surrounding the birth. Children who are born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion or any other abortion are in special need of protection due to the fact that the intent of their birth is to cause the death of the born child. Therefore, it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect a child who is born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion or any other abortion and to ensure that the child receives all medical care necessary to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child.
Section 10. Induced labor abortion; actions. If a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian of the county in which the child was born may maintain an action on the child’s behalf for damages, including all costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney’s fees, against any hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child’s birth. Any damages recovered shall be used to pay for the cost of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child. If the child does not survive, the balance remaining after the costs of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child are paid shall be deposited into the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund.
Section 15. Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund. The Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund is created as a special fund in the State treasury. Moneys deposited into the Fund shall, subject to appropriation, be used by the Department of Public Health to make grants for neonatal care or perinatal hospice.
Section 90. The State Finance Act is amended by adding Section 5.570 as follows:
(30 ILCS 105/5.570 new)
Sec. 5.570. The Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Talmadge East, Pastor Rick Warren wasn’t asking Obama for a professional opinion in which case Obama’s reply would have been acceptable. He was asking questions that would allow people to gauge what the candidates believed as individuals.
From the transcript of the forum which can be found @ http://rickwarrennews.com/transcript/
this is what Warren asked: “AT WHAT POINT DOES A BABY GET HUMAN RIGHTS IN YOUR VIEW?” This is what Obama said before launching into a spiel that didn’t answer the question: “WELL, I THINK THAT WHETHER YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OR A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WITH SPECIFICITY, YOU KNOW, IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE”.
He evaded giving a direct answer by just saying that he wasn’t professionally qualified to answer, when what Warren wanted, and asked for, was his personal opinion.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Obama was a “Constitutional Law Professor” - he should have been capable of answering a question about when human rights apply…
September 4th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I guess Harvard Law ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Son of Liberty,
I don’t think there’s any chance that a Human Life Amendment will pass anytime soon, so I think pro-lifers would better serve their cause if they’d focus their efforts elsewhere.
Let’s put first things first. Roe has to go.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Talmadge,
Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act. That doesn’t mean that he “supports” infanticide, only that - given the chance - he did nothing to prevent it.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Lee,
I disagree. It isn’t that he “did nothing” to prevent it (infanticide). The point is that he “did something” to avoid preventing it. He didn’t idly oppose the ban, he led the charge against it.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Obama saying that the answer was above his pay grade sounds consistent with someone who voted “Present” so many times. Obama is a political wuss, who just wants to give the people what they want. If that means flip-flopping when it’s convenient, then he’s not above doing that.