Senator Obama is going to move us past the impasse in our cultural war, something I think of as a cultural Vietnam. On the issue of abortion, he is the only candidate who has a plan to reduce the number of abortions. John McCain's only plan is the same old trick: say that you are pro life and offer no plan at all other than to criminalize abortion. I simply think that plan hasn't worked, and we have to face that fact and look for other ways to make progress.Robert George:
I realize this is controversial, that there are many who would rather vote for a pro-life candidate and keep the abortion rate the same, on principle. And like them I believe in the sanctity of life, I simply think we need to begin making progress, and Barack is offering progress. He is also standing up to his own party on the issue and moving the party forward to elevate the issue of the sanctity of life within the Democratic Party. I also see this as progress. I do wish we could end abortion completely, but the Republicans have not spelled out a realistic plan to do so, and until they do, I won't vote for a candidate who simply throws us a pro-life line and no plan. It seems insincere.
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.If you read the rest of George's piece, you'll read about the multiplicity of ways in the past Obama has actively supported unfettered abortion in America and that one could not therefore infer that Obama will work to reduce abortion in America. On the other hand, if you read Miller, he will try to persuade you that Obama's past positions and actions don't matter. What matters are the promises has has made. Does anyone else think that's insanely absurd? If you want to vote for Obama, fine, whatever. Just don't tell me that he's going to be a champion for babies.
More on Geroge later.
HT: JT
Posts
1 comments:
With respect to the records of both McCain and Obama, Donald Miller has made, and continues to make public statements, that are at odds with the facts -- and I mean facts that are pretty darn easy to check out.
For example, Mr. Miller wrote recently on his blog, "McCain's only stand on the[abortion] issue has been a recent switch to a prolife position." Yet 10 minutes research, consulting scorecards by pro-life groups or pro-abortion groups, or "neutral" sources, would demonstrate that McCain has consistently voted against abortion since the year he entered Congress, which was 1983.
McCain has voted against Roe v. Wade. He has voted against federal funding of abortion. He has voted to protect infants who are born alive during abortions. He opposes the “Freedom of Choice Act.” On all of these abortion policy issues, and others, McCain’s record is in stark contrast to that of Obama.
Mr. Miller writes that Obama "opposes late-term abortions." In fact, Obama has consistently opposed meaningful attempts to curb late abortions, both in Illinois and at the federal level. As an Illinois state senator, Obama led the opposition to proposed legislation to ban partial-birth abortions, and his campaign boasted about his leadership on this issue during his campaign against Hillary Cllinton. (See http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140004) Obama also advocates repeal of the congressional ban on partial-birth abortions, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2007 on a 5-4 vote, in a ruling that Obama harshly criticized.
Obama even led the opposition to a simple three-sentence bill to ensure that all babies who are born alive during abortions are given legal protection. On March 13, 2003, Obama personally killed the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in a committee he chaired. Although Obama misrepresented his actions on this issue for four years, the documentation is now readily available, at www.nrlc.org and elsewhere. Both FactCheck.org and Politifact.org have reviewed this matter and found that National Right to Life has been accurate in reporting Obama's 2003 actions and that Obama has misrepresented them.
Mr. Miller seems to think that Roe v. Wade is secure. But Obama himself has been arguing exactly the opposition. Obama argues that Roe is hanging by a thread, but that he -- Obama -- will save it, by appointing only jurists who share Obama's committment to unrestricted abortion. For example, in a speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund -- that's the political arm of the nation's largest abortion provider -- Obama said, "With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade and that's what is at stake in this election."
Here is the nub of the matter: The claim that Obama will pursue policies that will "reduce abortions" is a cynical post-nomination marketing strategy by the Obama campaign. But for success, it depends on Obama and his surrogates deflecting attention away from the fact that Barack Obama is firmly committed to an agenda of abortion-related policy changes that, if implemented, would greatly increase the numbers of abortions performed.
The pro-life movement has won enactment of literally hundreds of state laws related to abortion -- laws that save many lives, despite the severe limits imposed by the Supreme Court's pro-abortion rulings. Studies by both pro-life researchers and pro-abortion researchers agree about this effect, although of course the pro-abortion side uses different language to describe it. These laws include informed consent laws (some of which now require the woman seeking an abortion to be offered ultrasound images of the unborn child), waiting periods, and parental notification and consent laws. All of these laws, and any other law that would "interfere with" access to abortion, would be nullified by the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA, S. 1173), which is a proposed federal law that Obama has cosponsored. As the National Organization for Women put it, it would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."
On July 17, 2007, Obama stood in front of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and pledged, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
Obama also advocates repeal of the Hyde Amendment, the law that since 1976 has blocked almost all federal funding of abortion. In other words, he wants to repeal one of the most successful "abortion reduction" policies ever adopted. By even the most conservative estimate, there are more than one million Americans alive today because of the Hyde Amendment. Even the Alan Guttmacher Institute (linked to Planned Parenthood) and NARAL admit that the Hyde Amendment (and the similar policies adopted by many states) have resulted in many, many babies being born who otherwise would have been aborted -- indeed, the pro-abortion groups periodically put out papers complaining about this effect. According to a 2007 NARAL factsheet, "A study by The Guttmacher Institute shows that Medicaid-eligible women in states that exclude abortion coverage have abortion rates of about half of those women in statesthat fund abortion care with their own dollars. This suggests that the Hyde amendment forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." Because the Hyde Amendment must be renewed annually, it could quickly be endangered under a president determined to re-establish federal funding of abortion on demand.
Obama has also pledged to make abortion coverage part of his proposed national health insurance plan.
Let me close with just one more example that illustrates the phoniness of the Obama "abortion reduction" sales pitch. Across the nation, crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) provide all manner of assistance to women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies, and they save the lives of many children. A very modest amount of federal funding going to such centers in some states. Pro-life lawmakers have pushed legislation to greatly expand such funding, but it has been blocked by lawmakers allied with the abortion lobby. Late in 2007, RHrealitycheck.org, a prominent pro-abortion advocacy website (representing the side hostile to such funding), submitted in writing the following question to the Obama campaign: "Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?" The Obama campaign's written response was short, but it spoke volumes: "No."
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
Washington, D.C.
www-dot-nrlc-dot-org
legfederal--at--aol-dot-com
Post a Comment