Obama: So Proud To Be So Pro-Choice
OttO on Aug 19 2008 at 7:51 am | Filed under: 2008 Shame On You Awards, Politics, Uncategorized
Thanks to Andrew for this Seed addressing Barack Obama's handling of an abortion question from Rick Warren at Saturday's televised forum shared with opponent John McCain:
Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”
Obama dodged a question? Say it isn't so! Decisions to triple the capital gains tax during an economic downturn and to invade Pakistan to get bin Laden demonstrate that economic and foreign policy issues are above your pay grade too, Senator. But that isn't stopping you from saying it.
This is a vital question to the abortion debate and one that helped push me more into a pro-life position. What did it for me is that everyone (except Obama) has a view on when abortions should and shouldn't be permitted and they all vary. Typically, the positions seem to depend on what stage of fetus the target is. But there is no substantive measurement to this. It's quite arbitrary and I've had scores of discussions with people where I've tried to get them to clarify why it's okay at 'x' weeks but not okay at 'y' weeks. In the end, the result is the same so does it really matter if it's nine days or nine months?
Pro-life arguments focus on the life at hand. Pro-choice arguments focus on the mother which makes their side of the debate on when a life is determined to have value rather interesting because it is possibly the rare exception to focusing on the mother. And it suggests why so little about that side of the abortion argument actually deals with the would-be aborted. It's a lose-lose argument for them anytime the issue of life or the value of life or the magic date when a baby is more of a baby than a fetus is part of the discussion.
It's rather pathetic that this wonderful politician isn't prepared to answer a key question about perhaps the most bitterly divisive issue this country deals with year in and year out. What - he was hoping that it just wouldn't come up? Or he just hasn't given it that much thought?
The next president will be appointing anywhere from two to four Supreme Court Justices. In that context, he will be setting up policy and interpretations directly impacting Americans for at least the next few generations. He had damn well better show that he has some insight on this issue.
John McCain didn't have a problem answering the question. That's what happens when one has beliefs, even if expressing those beliefs risks alienating potential voters. McCain could answer the question because his was one of only two answers that make sense: Rights for babies either begin when the baby exits the birth canal or - as McCain believes - at conception.
McCain solidified his pro-life background.
Obama might have tried defining some magic time for when a fetus is considered worthy for protection. And that would have been a lie. In fact, his actual response was a lie. He didn't answer the question because his answer is on the other side of the spectrum from McCains. Obama doesn't believe he is "above the pay grade" to profess a belief; Obama believes that Rights kick in when the cord is cut though he professed to support restrictions on late-term abortions. However…
Obama opposed the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart that upheld partial-birth abortion bans, a brutal, unnecessary act that happens to fall under the umbrella of late-term abortions. He opposed it on the grounds that it threatened the entire institution of abortion and Roe v. Wade. He believes that there are no Rights until that baby is born. He simply doesn't have the political courage to state it. He can't even weasel-word it to make it sound more appealing than it is.
Obama co-sponsered the FOCA bill which would virtually strip away all restrictions on abortion. He opposes parental notification laws; he supports taxpayer funded abortions; he opposes waiting periods; he opposes protections for babies born from failed abortion attempts; while he supports government funded health care he opposes government funded health care for unborn children.
That, according to Hillary Clinton, is when he had the courage to take positions. Early on in the primary battle, the Clinton campaign accused Obama of voting "present" on seven different pieces of anti-choice legislation during his time in the Illinois State Senate. That basically says, yeah - I'm here. I'm just not going to go on record on this one.
It should be no shocker that Obama has a 100% rating from NARAL and a 0% rating from NRL. So why the artful dodge? What's to hide? Doesn't it suggest that even he is aware of how troubling his own record and position on abortion is?
Way to stand up for women's rights! The movement deserves more of these kinds of acts of raw courage. l
