PDA

View Full Version : Elections "If my daughter makes a mistake, she shouldn't be punished"


***SPRAYER
09-01-2008, 09:22 AM
Remember when B.O. said that. What a tool!

ROFL

Denver, Aug 29, 2008 / 05:02 am (CNA).- Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, Jr., a pro-life Democrat, spoke to a town hall meeting sponsored by Democrats for Life in Denver on Wednesday. Praising Sen. Barack Obama for reaching out to those in disagreement with aspects of the Democratic Party platform, Casey outlined his own plan to support pregnant women “in crisis,” a plan he believes would reduce the number of abortions.

In his short Tuesday speech on the floor of the Democratic National Convention (DNC), a speech much anticipated by pro-life Democrats, Casey dedicated two sentences to abortion.

“Barack Obama and I have an honest disagreement on the issue of abortion,” he said. “But the fact that I’m speaking here tonight is testament to Barack’s ability to show respect for the views of people who may disagree with him.”

On Wednesday at the Hotel Monaco in Denver, Casey described his speech as “a demonstration of what Sen. Obama is trying to do in his campaign: to reach out to people who might disagree on one issue, or on more than one issue.”

Arguing that Obama had shown “leadership,” he claimed the Obama-Biden ticket would “try to bring people together even on the difficult issue of abortion” and work toward common ground.

Casey said all legislators could come together on a central priority which is “very hard for both the left and the right to just push aside and say ‘You know what, I’m not really interested.’”

That priority, he said, is pregnant women.

Many pregnant women who face pregnancy, regardless of income and circumstances, for whatever reason are “in crisis,” Casey said. He argued that government and society should show solidarity with such women through government assistance.

“We’re not doing that now,” he said. “In my judgment, neither party is doing enough on this issue.”

Mentioning the Pregnant Women Support Act, of which he is a sponsor, Casey said bills that support pregnant women must be written to appeal to the left, the right, and the center of the political spectrum.

“We have to do everything we can, as a society and as a government, to reach out and help pregnant women,” he thought every side could agree.

Since current law grants the right of women to have abortions, Casey argued, “We ought to make sure that she also has the option to carry that child to term.”

“We’ve got to help her, okay? This isn’t her problem, it’s our problem.”

Listing policies aimed to reduce abortion, Casey proposed more assistance for college women who become pregnant; counseling for parents facing an unborn child’s diagnosis of Down’s syndrome; and increasing money for both childcare and women and children’s nutrition programs.

He also advocated providing more support for pregnant women who are victims of abuse.

“Sometimes they are victims of abuse because they are pregnant,” he emphasized. “We’ve got to help that woman who is the subject of abuse.”

“If you’re not helping her, if you’re not trying to help her, you’re not pro-life,” Casey charged.

He further endorsed nurse home visitation programs to help new parents address their “uncertainty” surrounding the basics of being a parent.

Pregnant women, he explained, should have the option “to have a nurse or healthcare practitioner of some level of expertise assigned to her, someone to give her health care advice, someone who can counsel her, someone who can visit her at home for as long as is possible.”

Governmental programs should be provided to pregnant women so that “if they choose to bear that child, they’re going to get all the help they need. All the help they need.”

Fiscal concerns were surmountable obstacles, Casey asserted.

“If we believe what we say, we can come up with the money.”

If the Bush administration can secure money for a $51 billion tax cut, he argued, “more than enough money” can be found to “help pregnant women face a crisis.”

During a brief question and answer period, CNA asked Casey and other Democrat legislators at the town hall about Senator Obama’s support for the Freedom of Choice Act, which would remove almost all restrictions on abortion. Carney asked whether the speakers had talked to Obama about the bill and whether they personally supported it.

“No, I haven’t spoken with him about it,” Casey answered, “but I don’t agree with it. I don’t support it.”

“But I think that there are ways, even when we disagree on that particular legislation as it pertains to abortion, that we can still come together,” he continued.

E.J. Dionne, a columnist for the Washington Post, asked whether the mood at the 2008 DNC was different from past years.

“I do think the mood is different,” Casey responded.

Concerning the party platform, he said platforms are an “interesting process” but noted “I don’t spend a lot of time, when we’re out there campaigning, saying ‘Well, I say this, it doesn’t agree with the platform.’”

“I would say that the abortion part of the platform wasn’t good enough for me,” he continued. He claimed there was language in the platform which was similar to the goals of the Pregnant Women Support Act, calling the platform language “tremendous progress, and a very good thing to have in there, and a very positive sign.”

However, he said he was hoping “there would be some reference to differences of opinion,” which he said was found in an earlier version.

One questioner brought up Sen. Obama’s pro-abortion remark about not wanting his daughters “punished with a baby,” asking the town hall speakers to comment.

Senator Casey answered that he was present when the remark was made, and said when Obama made his comments “I knew that response would be pulled out and seen over and over.”

“I think it was poorly articulated, I think it didn’t reflect what he was trying to convey,” he stated.

Casey said he thought Obama was trying to say that “sometimes pregnancy is a crisis. And for some women it is a crisis. For some it’s not, but for some women it is a crisis. That’s a real challenge in their life.”

He said it was “unfortunate” the statement was being depicted as a reflection of Obama’s policy or belief, but “that’s what politics is all about.”

“I don’t think it reflects what he thinks about children or what he thinks about the birth of a child,” Casey explained.

“I can say that because I know him. I know this guy pretty well.”



http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13664

chiefforlife
09-01-2008, 09:28 AM
So.....whats your point? That people dont agree on the abortion issue?

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 09:30 AM
In his world abortions should be like oil changes

chiefforlife
09-01-2008, 09:33 AM
In his world abortions should be like oil changes

Yes, thats clearly what he said.:rolleyes:

***SPRAYER
09-01-2008, 09:35 AM
So.....whats your point? That people dont agree on the abortion issue?


If it's all about a "choice", hey, here's a novel idea---

Choose to leave your pants on instead of taking them off.

BigChiefFan
09-01-2008, 09:37 AM
Here's a choice, don't have an abortion if you don't believe in them-problem solved.

irishjayhawk
09-01-2008, 09:43 AM
Here's a choice, don't have an abortion if you don't believe in them-problem solved.

QFT

chiefforlife
09-01-2008, 09:45 AM
If it's all about a "choice", hey, here's a novel idea---

Choose to leave your pants on instead of taking them off.

How about choosing to mind your own business. As previously stated, if you dont believe in abortion, dont have one.
I dont see Barack calling you a tool for having a different view.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 09:46 AM
Infanticide is difficult to defend.

BigChiefFan
09-01-2008, 09:48 AM
Infanticide is difficult to defend.

Infantcide?? That's laughable. So an egg and sperm is an infant now, huh? You can pull your head out of your ass now.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 09:50 AM
It was his vote in Illinois...its not something new, perhaps you should look into the record.

BigChiefFan
09-01-2008, 09:52 AM
It was his vote in Illinois...its not something new, perhaps you should look into the record.Yea, Obama wants to kill all babies, right? What a dipshit of a reach.

Mr. Laz
09-01-2008, 09:52 AM
In his world abortions should be like oil changes
sincerely ..... you are like a festering boil on the ass of life.



the entire world would be better off with a good lancing

StcChief
09-01-2008, 09:52 AM
too bad Obama wasn't aborted

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 09:55 AM
Yea, Obama wants to kill all babies, right? What a dipshit of a reach.


http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm


Read the facts before you show your ignorance further

BigChiefFan
09-01-2008, 09:56 AM
too bad Obama wasn't abortedThen maybe your candidate would become president, too bad for you.

BigChiefFan
09-01-2008, 09:56 AM
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm


Read the facts before you show your ignorance further

I'll read them just like you do.

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 10:03 AM
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm


Read the facts before you show your ignorance further

um speaking of ignorance you need to read your article

How does a law that makes hospitals care for aborted babies that survived an abortion equate to all babies

kinda hoping we couldn't read?

Plus I know nothing about the wording of the bill or even what it said. All I know is some author, who offered no proof, said he blocked the wording to make it so it wouldn't read like the Fed version.

Adept Havelock
09-01-2008, 10:04 AM
Infanticide is difficult to defend.

Fortunately, a zygote or blastocyst ≠ an infant. No more than a newly fertilized hens egg = a chicken.

Right, you probably buy into the superstitious nonsense there is something particularly "sacred" about human life. LMAO

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 10:05 AM
I didnt figure you would understand the issue or the scope of the issue. But I am impressed you read some of it even if you didnt understand it.

Adept Havelock
09-01-2008, 10:07 AM
I didnt figure you would understand the issue or the scope of the issue. But I am impressed you read some of it even if you didnt understand it.

I understand the issue. You think two cells = a human being. That's the essence of your position. LMAO

Lemme guess...jeebus told you so? Or maybe it was Beezus, Ramona's older sister. :shrug:

Beezus loves the little children....ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD!!! (She's a busy, busy, girl.)

BigChiefFan
09-01-2008, 10:08 AM
They should start issuing Social Security numbers to cells-they are human afterall.

Adept Havelock
09-01-2008, 10:09 AM
They should start issuing Social Security numbers to cells-they are human afterall.

THE MARK OF THE BEAST!!!! :cuss:

chiefforlife
09-01-2008, 10:10 AM
I didnt figure you would understand the issue or the scope of the issue. But I am impressed you read some of it even if you didnt understand it.

If the scope of the issue, as you understand it, is that Obama believes abortions are like oil changes? Then perhaps it is you that needs to read it again.

Messier
09-01-2008, 10:10 AM
I understand the issue. You think two cells = a human being. That's the essence of your position. LMAO

Lemme guess...jeebus told you so? Or maybe it was Beezus, Ramona's older sister. :shrug:

Nice Ramona reference.

StcChief
09-01-2008, 10:16 AM
Then maybe your candidate would become president, too bad for you.
it has nothing to do with my candidate.

well if you believe in abortion.... that's yours and Nobama's choice.

The tide has been turning for awhile since Roe v.Wade....

BigChiefFan
09-01-2008, 10:20 AM
it has nothing to do with my candidate.

well if you believe in abortion.... that's yours and Nobama's choice.

The tide has been turning for awhile since Roe v.Wade....Obviously you believe in abortion, since you said Obama should have been aborted, right? Hypocrite deluxe.

BigOlChiefsfan
09-01-2008, 10:30 AM
Verily! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8cNtH1mULo&feature=related)

banyon
09-01-2008, 10:45 AM
It was his vote in Illinois...its not something new, perhaps you should look into the record.

(unproven)

Programmer
09-01-2008, 10:47 AM
Infantcide?? That's laughable. So an egg and sperm is an infant now, huh? You can pull your head out of your ass now.

How many times has anyone been charged with a double murder when they killed the pregnant lady and the baby also died?

Double standard?

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 10:49 AM
(unproven)


http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm

banyon
09-01-2008, 10:52 AM
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm

That doesn't prove at all what you were claiming.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 10:53 AM
It doesn't? Did he vote? Is that on the record?

banyon
09-01-2008, 10:55 AM
It doesn't? Did he vote? Is that on the record?

Yes he voted against a bill that had no exceptions for the health of the mother and that was the reason for the vote. Pretending it's because he hates babies and wants to kill them is just more unfounded horses****.

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 10:58 AM
Yes he voted against a bill that had no exceptions for the health of the mother and that was the reason for the vote. Pretending it's because he hates babies and wants to kill them is just more unfounded horses****.

I'm wondering why even post that article? At least slap an unproven tag on it and let everyone duke it out over the allegations.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 11:00 AM
Yes he voted against a bill that had no exceptions for the health of the mother and that was the reason for the vote. Pretending it's because he hates babies and wants to kill them is just more unfounded horses****.

That he opposes the provision to supply care to the surviving aborted baby is not horseshit. You are in denial.

banyon
09-01-2008, 11:05 AM
That he opposes the provision to supply care to the surviving aborted baby is not horseshit. You are in denial.

It is absolutely horseshit.

If I propose a bill to you saying that child molesters should be required to register, but include a provision in the bill saying that all Republicans must wear a scarlet "R" on their chests and you vote against it, do I get to say that you are against punishing child molesters? :shake:

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 11:09 AM
Facts do confuse you Banyon, Im more and more convinced you would deny that the sun rises in the morning if you wanted to argue the point.

banyon
09-01-2008, 11:12 AM
Facts do confuse you Banyon, Im more and more convinced you would deny that the sun rises in the morning if you wanted to argue the point.

I guess this is what you say when you can't respond directly to the argument.

Despite the fact that you'd desperately like voting against a bill that had unacceptable provisions to mean that you were opposed to everything in that bill, it still doesn't and your attempt to paint it that way is transparently fraudulent.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 11:12 AM
Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern


By Jill Stanek
2008




I was intimately involved in the five-year process to pass the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, testifying before committees twice that then-state Sen. Barack Obama sat on.
Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA.

10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:

I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the 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 – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

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 anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers.

(Column continues below)



Before voting "no" for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:

What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that.
8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative.

An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against BAIPA because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."

7. Anyway, doctors don't do that.

Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions."

6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof.

Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee," according to the Illinois Leader.

5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.

During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, Alan Keyes famously said:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. ... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.
Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' condemnation as a blanket statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.

Nevertheless, induced labor abortion, the procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive, must be included as one Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes as he recounted in a July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:

... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and … I can't impose my religious views on another.
4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.

In that USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it:

But my opponent's accusations nagged at me. ... If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.

During the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, "The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons," according to the Illinois Leader.

2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver.

Obama has this quote on his website:

Pam Sutherland … of … Illinois Planned Parenthood … told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."
And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.

During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.
This was a lie on two points.

First, there was no such amendment.

Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.

The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama's contention:

Illinois' paragraph (c): 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.
Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.

At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically "encroach on Roe v. Wade"?

Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 11:16 AM
That he opposes the provision to supply care to the surviving aborted baby is not horseshit. You are in denial.

please show me the bill that was voted on I would like to read it? After that I would like proof that he blocked the changing of the wording. Until you provide those tidbits of info. everything you have is unsubstantiated drivel

1. The only thing that it proves is that Obama had said he would have voted for it had it been worded like the federal bill

2. You said he wanted to kill all babies, I'm sure aborted babies who survive are not all babies.

you should probably quit now

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 11:18 AM
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&LegID=3910&SpecSess=&Session=

KILLER_CLOWN
09-01-2008, 11:20 AM
All who are FOR murdering babies should just quit now, how do you justify murder? Something like "it is my child and i'll destroy it if i deem necessary!" You peeps just need JESUS!

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 11:20 AM
http://race42008.com/2008/02/21/baipa/

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 11:21 AM
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&LegID=3910&SpecSess=&Session=

and this little gem was missing which is why he didn't vote for it

(from the federal bill)



(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ''born alive'' as defined in this section.

banyon
09-01-2008, 11:22 AM
The Problem With Stanek’s Entire Argument
August 20, 2008 By: ArchPundit Category: Fundie Fun, Obama, Presidential Race

Stanek’s claim is that Obama was stopping a bill to outlaw infanticide and that such a law was required in Illinois because of what she claims occurred at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn. However, the response from the Illinois Attorney General to the claims points out that if such events occurred, those events would already be illegal.

Media Matters makes the point:

The July 2000 letter was a response from Ryan’s office to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. In a letter on Ryan’s letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote in part:

On December 6, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH’s internal review did not indicate [emphasis added] a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act.

No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.

[...]

While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.

From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that “[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois.” But the state’s conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims — IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law. (The word “indicate” is in italics above because in his quotation of the letter, Freddoso substitutes the word “include” for the word “indicate.”)

In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: “[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. … We took (the allegations) very seriously.” Zorn wrote further: “Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, ‘The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.’ “

From Zorn’s 2004 blog post:

As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General’s office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker.

Why?

“Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law,” IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. “We took (the allegations) very seriously.”

Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, “The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.”

Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views — simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.

In other words, contrary to Freddoso’s claim, the IDPH’s reported position supported Obama’s explanation: Current law already “mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies.” Freddoso writes of Obama’s assertion: “This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan” [emphasis in original].But the letter does not, as Freddoso claims, assert that “[s]uch measures were not already the law in Illinois.” Nor does the IDPH; indeed, Zorn quoted the IDPH spokesman saying that the actions alleged by Stanek would have violated the law at the time.

The entire argument is bogus. Infants were protected in Illinois prior to 1999 and after 1999. No law had to be passed–it was a rather obvious effort to overturn Roe v. Wade.

And people who worked for Jim Ryan should know that.

HonestChieffan
09-01-2008, 11:24 AM
Your arguement holds no water. The facts are there, the testimony on record...but its an Obama thing....i understand your inability to be objective.

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 11:25 AM
All who are FOR murdering babies should just quit now, how do you justify murder? Something like "it is my child and i'll destroy it if i deem necessary!" You peeps just need JESUS!


I've got Jesus thank you. You feel the same about the death penalty?

beer bacon
09-01-2008, 11:26 AM
Your arguement holds no water. The facts are there, the testimony on record...but its an Obama thing....i understand your inability to be objective.

Your argument is without merit HonestChieffan. God does not love you.

banyon
09-01-2008, 11:27 AM
Your arguement holds no water. The facts are there, the testimony on record...but its an Obama thing....i understand your inability to be objective.

Where is that Ultra Peanut frog thing when you need it?

banyon
09-01-2008, 11:30 AM
Barack Obama, baby killer?
Obama's votes on abortion legislation as an Illinois state senator are being twisted into the right's latest smear.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/08/uselections2008.barackobama

Dan Kennedy guardian.co.uk, Friday August 08 2008 16:48 BST Article historyBuckle your seatbelt. Make sure your nausea bag is at the ready. Because the slimiest accusation yet aimed at Barack Obama is on the verge of having its moment in the mainstream media.

Within certain fringe elements of the anti-abortion right, it's been an article of faith for some time that Obama's support of abortion rights is so extreme that it encompasses infanticide. As in the deliberate murder of babies after they are born.

Sorry to spoil the suspense, but it's not true. As an Illinois state senator, Obama opposed a bill that could have had the effect of outlawing abortion, thus violating Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 US supreme court decision that guarantees a woman's right to choose. More about that in a moment. But first, let's look at the swamp from which this thing emerged.

I learned about Obama's alleged support for baby-killing a few weeks ago while perusing a local right-wing website called Pundit Review. What I found, in turn, referenced a 2006 blog post for the ultraconservative website of Human Events, written by Amanda Carpenter, laying out the parameters of the accusation.

According to Carpenter, the Illinois legislature in 2002 rejected a bill that "would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions", even though the wording was identical to a federal bill that passed overwhelmingly, and that was so non-controversial even Naral Pro-Choice America, the leading abortion-rights group, did not object to it. She added (accurately, unlike some of her other claims) that the Illinois bill came up for a vote twice, with Obama voting "present" the first time and "no" the second, and that he derailed the bill in committee in 2003.

Tracing the accusation back further, I discovered that Obama's Republican opponent in his 2004 US senate race, Alan Keyes, had sought to use the issue against him, accusing Obama of supporting "infanticide". At what must have been a memorable news conference, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Keyes actually said: "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."

Finally, I came across a blog entry written in August 2004 by Chicago Tribune reporter Eric Zorn, who clearly laid out the differences between the state and federal bills (scroll down to "Apple/Orange Report"). According to Zorn, the federal bill contained language that specified the law would do nothing to threaten a woman's right to obtain a legal abortion - language that was not included in the Illinois bill. (In other words, Amanda Carpenter's Human Events post was wrong.) Indeed, Obama said at the time that he would have voted in favour of the federal bill, but couldn't support the state bill because it appeared to be at odds with Roe v Wade.

Please keep in mind, by the way, that all of this is much ado about nothing. .Murder is a crime. The federal and state bills were purely symbolic. Infanticide remains a grave offence in Illinois, despite Obama's efforts to defeat one piece of politically charged legislation

Now, up to this moment in the presidential campaign, the infanticide charge has only occasionally appeared in mainstream circles. It received perhaps its most thorough airing on June 30, when CNN's Carol Costello looked at the charges and accurately reported Obama's concern that the Illinois bill was aimed at outlawing legal abortions (see video). But in the talking-head segment that followed, the conservative pundit William Bennett asserted, falsely, that by 2003, when Obama worked to derail the state bill in committee, the language of the two bills was identical. (The Obama campaign has called Bennett's statement "inaccurate".)

Nevertheless, the story continues to build. The liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America has already called out conservative radio and television host Sean Hannity for letting right-wing activist Jerome Corsi (of Swift Boat infamy), author of The Obama Nation, falsely claim on Fox News that Obama favoured infanticide if a botched abortion resulted in a live birth. "Obama's on record as let's kill the baby if that's what the mother wants," Corsi said.

On the other end of the media spectrum, the New York Times referred to the accusation in a story this week on Obama's troubles in appealing to anti-abortion Catholics. "Republicans are gearing up campaigns to depict Mr Obama as a radical on the question of abortion, because as a state senator in Illinois he opposed a ban on the killing of foetuses born alive," wrote Times reporter John Broder near the end of his article.

In the Huffington Post this week, Seth Colter Walls predicted that infanticide would be "the next smear against Obama".

Ugly and false as this is, there is a certain cold political logic to it. Conservatives who oppose abortion rights have never quite trusted Obama's Republican opponent, John McCain, despite McCain's anti-abortion rhetoric. Nor should they. During the 2000 presidential campaign, McCain ran into trouble when he committed a gaffe - that is, he spoke the truth by mistake - in suggesting his then-15-year-old daughter would be allowed to make up her own mind should she find herself with an unwanted pregnancy.

With Republicans fearing that evangelical voters will stay home this fall, accusing Obama of being soft on baby-killing could have the effect of helping McCain by depicting him as the lesser of two evils.

But there's something else going on here, and it speaks volumes about our broken political culture. Apparently we are so divided that it seems perfectly reasonable to at least some voters that a major-party presidential candidate would support murdering newly born infants.

Red and Blue America don't just misunderstand each other - we don't even recognise one another as having come from the same planet. All Obama can do is fight the lies and hope for the best.

Programmer
09-01-2008, 11:58 AM
The problem I see is that it's Obama himself that feels he shouldn't be punished if his girls make a mistake.

It would be their choice, not his. Their opinion might be different unless he brainwashes them into thinking like he does.

FAX
09-01-2008, 12:19 PM
It's just another person's viewpoint on the subject and likely just more unhelpful noise amidst the cacophony, but over the years, I have been on both sides of the abortion question.

I have listened carefully to the arguments and ultimately come to believe that "abortion" for the sake of "abortion" is extremely difficult to justify using any reasonable moral standard. Of course, the issue of morality is, in and of itself, an highly debatable philosophical question. When you cut away the chaff, it appears that most pro-abortion positions seem to boil down to what is the most "practical" and "convenient" solution to a perceived problem while ostensibly framing the overall concept as a societal "freedom" or governmentally endowed "right" conferred to the mother. Nevertheless, these arguments simply don't fall into place very naturally when the discussion is elevated to the higher planes associated with the debate including just what constitutes "good and right" conduct or whether or not, in human beings, an actual universal, intrinsic moral determination even exists.

I do not, for example, contend that "morality" (as the word is typically used) is, in and of itself, a personal choice. All properly functioning persons are born with the fundamental knowledge that raping an infant or murdering one's grandmother are "wrong", for example. We enter early life with an inherent, essential aversion to such acts. So, is this reluctance merely nature's way of sustaining the species? Or, is the rape of a child (which does nothing to specifically impede a species' continuation) interpreted as unconscionable by the human mind for other, more profound, reasons? And, if such a universal, innate "morality" does exist in our early years, what changes over time? Is is possible that, as we mature, we are re-programmed by society to understand that acts which were previously deemed insufferable or even reprehensible can be viewed as acceptable under certain, specified circumstances?

If that is the case, an individual's personal decision to end even "potential life" may well be influenced by factors, agendas, and cultural momentum that have little or nothing to do with the current circumstances surrounding, for example, a single teenaged pregnancy. And, is that a framework in which a decision like that can even be thoughtfully made? In other words, does any individual possess the clear, uncluttered foresight - free from the outside intrusion of a culture, that is - necessary to make the decision to eliminate that potential? If not, an abortion conducted when both the mother and child are healthy strikes me as "destructive" on many levels of human existence.

FAX

Programmer
09-01-2008, 12:32 PM
It's just another person's viewpoint on the subject and likely just more unhelpful noise amidst the cacophony, but over the years, I have been on both sides of the abortion question.

I have listened carefully to the arguments and ultimately come to believe that "abortion" for the sake of "abortion" is extremely difficult to justify using any reasonable moral standard. Of course, the issue of morality is, in and of itself, an highly debatable philosophical question. When you cut away the chaff, it appears that most pro-abortion positions seem to boil down to what is the most "practical" and "convenient" solution to a perceived problem while ostensibly framing the overall concept as a societal "freedom" or governmentally endowed "right" conferred to the mother. Nevertheless, these arguments simply don't fall into place very naturally when the discussion is elevated to the higher planes associated with the debate including just what constitutes "good and right" conduct or whether or not, in human beings, an actual universal, intrinsic moral determination even exists.

I do not, for example, contend that "morality" (as the word is typically used) is, in and of itself, a personal choice. All properly functioning persons are born with the fundamental knowledge that raping an infant or murdering one's grandmother are "wrong", for example. We enter early life with an inherent, essential aversion to such acts. So, is this reluctance merely nature's way of sustaining the species? Or, is the rape of a child (which does nothing to specifically impede a species' continuation) interpreted as unconscionable by the human mind for other, more profound, reasons? And, if such a universal, innate "morality" does exist in our early years, what changes over time? Is is possible that, as we mature, we are re-programmed by society to understand that acts which were previously deemed insufferable or even reprehensible can be viewed as acceptable under certain, specified circumstances?

If that is the case, an individual's personal decision to end even "potential life" may well be influenced by factors, agendas, and cultural momentum that have little or nothing to do with the current circumstances surrounding, for example, a single teenaged pregnancy. And, is that a framework in which a decision like that can even be thoughtfully made? In other words, does any individual possess the clear, uncluttered foresight - free from the outside intrusion of a culture, that is - necessary to make the decision to eliminate that potential? If not, an abortion conducted when both the mother and child are healthy strikes me as "destructive" on many levels of human existence.

FAX

Well put.

On the abortion issue I have some questions I feel should be considered. What kind of person are we denying the right of life to? What would the world be like if some of the great minds of our time and times past had of been aborted? What about some of the hero's of our nation? Is there a possibility that the man or woman that would have found a cure for cancer was/were aborted?

FAX
09-01-2008, 12:39 PM
Well put.

On the abortion issue I have some questions I feel should be considered. What kind of person are we denying the right of life to? What would the world be like if some of the great minds of our time and times past had of been aborted? What about some of the hero's of our nation? Is there a possibility that the man or woman that would have found a cure for cancer was/were aborted?

There is probably an equal chance that the next Hitler would have been, Mr. Programmer.

FAX

KILLER_CLOWN
09-01-2008, 12:44 PM
I've got Jesus thank you. You feel the same about the death penalty?

You sure you have the right one?

Programmer
09-01-2008, 12:46 PM
There is probably an equal chance that the next Hitler would have been, Mr. Programmer.

FAX

I understand, but who are we to decide?

chiefforlife
09-01-2008, 12:49 PM
I understand, but who are we to decide?

Exactly! Deciding to abort is a personal decision between a woman and her God.

Who are we to decide?

Programmer
09-01-2008, 12:52 PM
Exactly! Deciding to abort is a personal decision between a woman and her God.

Who are we to decide?

It looks like the supreme court has decided for us. Not something they need to be involved with. I seem to remember the SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the constitution not rewrite the meaning of it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-01-2008, 12:54 PM
it has nothing to do with my candidate.

well if you believe in abortion.... that's yours and Nobama's choice.

The tide has been turning for awhile since Roe v.Wade....

Other than the fact that most Americans are pro choice and a sizable majority don't want Roe v. Wade overturned...well, you'd be exactly right if you weren't completely wrong.

chiefforlife
09-01-2008, 12:55 PM
It looks like the supreme court has decided for us. Not something they need to be involved with. I seem to remember the SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the constitution not rewrite the meaning of it.

The Supreme court gave you the choice. If dont want an abortion, dont have one. For those who do, they have the choice. That is the meaning of a free country. No?

Programmer
09-01-2008, 01:11 PM
The Supreme court gave you the choice. If dont want an abortion, dont have one. For those who do, they have the choice. That is the meaning of a free country. No?

Not really. If you feel life begins at conception it's murder. If you feel life begins when the fetus is viable on it's own, it's murder. If you believe that late term abortions are OK it's still murder.

People have been convicted of double homicide when they killed a pregnant woman and the baby dies. You are saying it's ok for momma to kill the baby but not someone else, even if it's an accident that the mother and baby die in.

I can't have an abortion. I would never recommen one. I understand some of the situations that call for one, but even at that I couldn't recommend it.

chiefforlife
09-01-2008, 01:20 PM
Not really. If you feel life begins at conception it's murder. If you feel life begins when the fetus is viable on it's own, it's murder. If you believe that late term abortions are OK it's still murder.

People have been convicted of double homicide when they killed a pregnant woman and the baby dies. You are saying it's ok for momma to kill the baby but not someone else, even if it's an accident that the mother and baby die in.

I can't have an abortion. I would never recommen one. I understand some of the situations that call for one, but even at that I couldn't recommend it.

No one is asking for your recommendation, nor mine. It isnt our business or anyone elses. It is between a woman and her own God. The fact that she has the choice, means that we live in a free country.

StcChief
09-01-2008, 01:54 PM
No one is asking for your recommendation, nor mine. It isnt our business or anyone elses. It is between a woman and her own God. The fact that she has the choice, means that we live in a free country.no it means Rove V.Wade a sham from the beginning.... still needs to be over turned.

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 01:58 PM
no it means Rove V.Wade a sham from the beginning.... still needs to be over turned.
:spock:

Dick Bull
09-01-2008, 01:59 PM
You sure you have the right one?


Quite sure.

Baby Lee
09-01-2008, 02:03 PM
The Supreme court gave you the choice. If dont want an abortion, dont have one. For those who do, they have the choice. That is the meaning of a free country. No?

If you don't like stealing and murder, don't steal or murder anyone, MIRITE??

chiefforlife
09-01-2008, 02:21 PM
If you don't like stealing and murder, don't steal or murder anyone, MIRITE??

Not even in the ball park.

Programmer
09-01-2008, 03:22 PM
No one is asking for your recommendation, nor mine. It isnt our business or anyone elses. It is between a woman and her own God. The fact that she has the choice, means that we live in a free country.

You are totally off the mark here. That would be expected.

It is our business if a life is being taken. If you feel it's between her and God then why do you throw in "it's a free country"?

I see, you feel it's free for us to commit murder. Maybe your momma just might decide to have a delayed abortion and take you out. You OK with that? She is your mother and you say it's her choice, between her and her God. You might want to watch your step around the home front.