Speaking on Father’s Day Barack Obama took the opportunity to emphasize the importance of a father’s role in the rearing of children. As he put it “Responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.” True enough. It is worth noting that Obama seemed to take the moment of conception as a critical one. If responsibility doesn’t end there it must continue on through the course of the pregnancy. One would think that “responsibility” would entail, among other things, an effort to preserve the child from harm, and neccessarily, from the life-ending procedure of abortion. Indeed, what would “responsibility” mean, having continued from conception as Obama observes, if it did not involve looking out for the child’s very life?
And yet we are reminded that Obama has voted against even the most modest of measures regarding restrictions on when human life might legally be destroyed. One of his “Present” votes in the Illinois state legislature was on the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” which merely protected those children who survived the abortion!
So once again, despite Obama’s flowery rhetoric, we are left wondering, on this Father’s Day, has he said anything of substance at all?
9 responses so far ↓
1 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // Jun 15, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Forget about the rhetoric - let’s look at the issues. It’s true that Sen. Obama is pro-choice and Sen. McCain is pro-life. Whatever your position is, I think we can all agree that advocating responsibility after conception is a good thing.
When we talk about responsibility, however, we must also talk about education. Sen. Obama is for comprehensive sex education so that young people have the information to make responsible choices. Sen. McCain (who was admittedly confused as to his position in March ‘07) seems to stress abstinence.
I get the feeling that this might be an important issue to Amherst students. So while it’s important to ask about responsibility after conception, I think it’s also important to talk about learning responsible practices before it. We should compare the different approaches and find out which best produces the effect we ALL want to see - that is, less unwanted pregnancies.
As for the present vote, I think we’ve hashed this out already. Sen. Obama found it to be unconstitutional, so he voted present. This has little to do with the responsibility of fathers after (or before) conception.
On another note, I’m halfway done with “The Audacity of Hope.” It is excellent - I’d recommend it for students of any and all political persuasions.
2 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Jun 16, 2008 at 12:16 am
Why would one ever believe that bill to be unconstitutional? It passed the US senate, without amendment, unanimously: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Infants_Protection_Act
That is not a mainstream, pro-choice position, that is the vote of a representative beholden to the abortion lobby. Just to re-iterate, the bill protected infants who SURVIVED the abortion. That presents no constitutional issues whatsoever. Indeed, I don’t know of anyone who would deny the proposition that a baby, once born, does not deserve the full protection of the law. Except, I suppose, Senator Obama.
I find it impossible to believe that this “responsibility” we are all in favor of advocating should take a nine month holiday so that Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton can intervene to facilitate the termination of the pregnancy.
3 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // Jun 17, 2008 at 12:41 am
Actually, just because the two bills had the same focus and name doesn’t mean that they are the same bill. Inclusion of various clauses and language can make things make all the difference, as my very limited LJST knowledge tells me. But read Obama’s response for yourself.
And give us some credit - would we really have nominated someone that supported infanticide? And give yourselves some credit - would Sen. Obama really still be standing if the GOP could get away with saying that he supported infanticide? And do you honestly think that Obama would support the killing of a child that survived an abortion? Please.
There’s a reason that Sen. McCain hasn’t attacked him on this issue - because it’s silly and because Sen. McCain is an honorable man. Instead, this brand of swift-boating will be left for Alan Keyes and his radical ilk.
4 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Jun 17, 2008 at 10:50 am
Dave I’m afraid you’ve picked a remarkably bad issue to defend Senator Obama on. The differences in the statutes were not critical, both protected children who survived abortion ONLY when they had been “Born Alive.” Here is the paragraph Obama objected to:
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.
the federal version did specify that this right to life would not be retroactive previous to being “born alive”: 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.
But guess what? The sponsor of the bill in the Illinois legislature introduced an amendment to the bill, changing it to the federal version just to satisfy Obama’s concerns: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=3910&SessionID=3&GA=93
Obama, the head of the committee, then killed the bill despite the ammendment!
Furthermore Obama’s website, aside from being obviously partisan, has some bad facts on it. The partial birth abortion ban which it calls “held up in the courts” was actually vindicated by the Supreme Court! Maybe we need to start shopping for our facts at independent websites?
5 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Jun 17, 2008 at 10:54 am
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=000500700K1.36
that is the link within the link from the previous comment which shows that section C of the bill was indeed amended to match the federal bill which passed unanimously
6 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // Jun 18, 2008 at 12:29 am
Sam, if you’ll scroll down to the end of the paragraph, you’ll see that the entire thing is a quote from the Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was upheld in the Supreme Court well after that (in a 5-4 ruling, I may add - not exactly an overwhelming mark of support). So there are no bad facts on the website.
But let’s be clear here - you are indicating your doubt that Sen. Obama would object to the murder of a living human being - an infant, nonetheless. Think about that for a minute to understand how silly it sounds. That would be pure evil. As Obama said himself on the Senate floor:
“This issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if there are children being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.”
7 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Jun 18, 2008 at 1:48 am
I know that Carhart v. Gonzalez came afterward, but Obama’s website doesn’t tell you that and leaving it unsaid in an attempt to paint Obama’s constitutional judgment in a favorable light is deceptive. If one didn’t know better one would be led to believe that the bill was still caught up in the courts. Quoting outdated sources to misrepresent the facts is no better than misstating them yourself.
Lets be clear Dave, lets be as clear as the record, Obama voted against and then killed, as the chair of the relevant committee, a bill to require doctors to preserve the life of infants who survived an attempted abortion. The bill he voted against was very similar to the bill that passed unanimously in the US senate and the bill he killed was identical to the bill that passed unanimously in the US senate. Obama’s confidence is misplaced, the bill was introduced because a nurse noticed that an infant who survived an abortion was place on a shelf to die unattended. That is the record.
Furthermore, I agree that supporting infanticide is “pure evil,” what would you call a third term abortion? Even if you don’t believe life begins at conception, surely you must concede that it begins before birth. Or else how would you explain charging murderers of pregnant women with double homicide? Infanticide takes place every day and is perpetuated by a large swathe of the political and legal classes. While appalling, such positions are not rare or surprising.
8 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Jun 18, 2008 at 2:31 am
Dave gets the last word on this one and then this blog is taking a one post vacation from politics.
9 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // Jun 19, 2008 at 12:16 am
Well, as for the website, I can’t fault the campaign for quoting a source that explained the situation as it was happening. The vote is old news; therefore, it’s not surprising that they would have to dig up old newspaper clips as well.
As for the bill, let’s also remember that state law in Illinois already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions. Obama probably killed it for its redundancy and unlikeliness to have any type of real effect; i.e., would a doctor who was fine with leaving an infant to die really be swayed by more law? Nurses can say whatever they want, and evil doctors will always be evil, but I still think this bill is about abortion and not live births.
And it seems like it is late-term abortions that trouble you. I feel you here - that’s a personal issue and if you feel that fetuses are living human beings then you would consider abortions to be infanticide.
The double homicide thing is a tough issue. Pro-choice proponents of double homicide findings would probably center their argument on the woman’s choice - that is, the mother had already chosen to keep the fetus and thus that choice should be respected. But that’s a pretty narrow argument, and I’m not sure if I buy it.
Ultimately, I don’t think there’s any question that Obama is pro-choice. Anti-abortion activists can and will be upset with this. Which is why I’d advise them to stick to that line of attack, rather than dealing with live births that Obama supposedly would not want to protect. Because abortion is a real issue backed up by fact and faith that many Americans care about.
Now everyone should brace themselves for Sam’s self-congratulatory Celtics post. I can’t hardly wait.
You must log in to post a comment.