Peter Kirsanow makes a really good point about Senator Abortion and the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.
Even if one accepts any one of Obama’s (four and counting) explanations for his vote against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, his position remains problematic, if not untenable. Consider:
Obama sits through testimony that babies born alive after an unsuccessful abortion are left to die alone in a utility closet. The babies are provided neither comfort, care, nor sustenance during their brief lives. When this practice was brought to public attention horrified citizens petitioned their legislators to address the matter. Proposed legislation is drafted.
Obama examines the draft of the Born-Alive Act and declares it deficient. Obama maintains that he would vote for the legislation if it did not curtail or derogate extant abortion rights.
Remedying the alleged defect in the draft legislation is not a difficult task. It requires merely the insertion of a “neutrality clause” that says, in effect, “this legislation won’t affect existing abortion rights.”
Obama, lecturer in constitutional law at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School, former Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review and undoubtedly the one most qualified in the entire Illinois state legislature to address the issue lifts not one finger to remedy the alleged defect in the draft.
Instead, when the draft is amended to include the neutrality language, Obama votes against it.
Obama is the agent of change and compassion. He can heal the planet and lower the oceans. By stating that he would’ve voted for the bill had it contained the neutrality clause, he conveys that he supports the principles of the Born-Alive Act. Yet he takes no action whatsoever to make it happen.
Therefore, even if we accept any one of Obama’s explanations regarding his vote against Born-Alive, we’re holding him to an incredibly low standard for someone who intends to lead the nation. If he supports the principle of Born-Alive, the question isn’t why he voted against it — the question should be, “Sen. Obama, given your education, skills and background why didn’t you take the relatively simple step of amending the draft so that the bill would work?” Isn’t that what we expect from a leader?
Obama voted “present” more than 100 times in the Illinois state legislature. Why did he rouse himself to vote “No” on this one?
Obama has found time to ponder the habeas rights of foreign terrorists but no time to ponder the rights of babies born alive? Is it that far above his pay grade?
As far as I’m concerned, this issue trumps all others when it comes to Senator Obama. I cannot find any charitable interpretation of his actions and nothing his campaign has said has changed my mind.
You’re being unfair when it comes to Obama’s abortion stance. The reason he voted present was because he saw this act as an attempt to erode the ground under abortion laws, and he was right. Do your homework. Why are people so consistently surprised that there are different opinions on this subject. Obama is pro choice. He is a Christian with a different opinion than yours. There are people out there who don’t believe life starts at conceptions. There are people out there who aren’t Christians and don’t value life the same way we do. There are people who don’t think that abortion laws are the best way to stop abortion. There are people who believe that you can’t legislate morality. This is the world we live in. Wake up. The Bible doesn’t say, “thou shalt be pro-life.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m adamantly pro life, and my belief in scripture has lead me to this stance. I disagree with Obama on this issue. But you simply can’t be a single issue voter. It’s ignorant. The world of politics is far too complicated and the stakes are too high. We don’t live in John McCain’s 1050s black and white world. Obama has said repeatedly that we need to work together to lower abortions. What is the problem? Can’t we agree on that. The rest is just rhetoric. Bush had eight year, and abortions didn’t go down. John Roberts has said point blank that he won’t overturn Roe v. Wade. No Senate would approve a supreme court candidate that vowed to overturn Roe V Wade. The only practical solution is to work together to decrease abortions. We have to stop the grandstanding and start working together. If we don’t, I promise you, NOTHING will change.
Thanks for the comment joe.
I do agree that lowering abortions is the main focus. And I do agree that legislation isn’t always the best course of action. I strongly believe in adoption and I believe Christians should do more to help expectant mothers, so that abortion doesn’t seem like the only way out of a bad situation.
But I think this situation did require legislation. This issue, this very specific “Infant Born-Alive” issue, is an area where legislation is the best way to stop an abortion. Many ancient societies left undesired infants out in the elements, to let them die. How is criminalization not the best way to end this? How is any doctor or nurse or “parent” who engages in this practice not a moral monster?
Finally, you should do some research of your own. Both bills — the federal version and the Illinois version — had a clause that specifically stated that the bill would not affect the legal status of any other form of abortion. This law would not have eroded any of the ground underneath abortion laws. It simply would have ended one particularly barbaric practice.
And Senator Obama voted no. Something that no Democrat in the US Senate did.
Finally, Senator Obama was either misinformed or blatantly lying when he said that abortions haven’t gone down during President Bush’s 8 years. Abortions have gone down. Nationally, abortions are down 25% since 1990. I’m not sure what the specific drop over the last 8 years is, but I’m pretty sure it’s not 0.
I’m not sure where the 25% number is coming from. I’ve never seen such a number. Even if that’s true, 1990 would include 8 years of a pro choice president.
Those bills could have been built upon in the future to deal with other abortion laws. When you successfully pass a bill you earn a certain amount of credibility and a certain amount of political power.
joe, maybe some people would have used this bill as an effort for future legislation. Maybe, maybe not. I certainly don’t think a stricter bill would have gained much traction in Illinois. But this bill isn’t controversial. Again, an identical bill passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent. That means 100% of Senate Democrats either voted “Yes” or abstained.
That’s because this form of “abortion” in question is indistinguishable from infanticide. Babies are born alive and then abandoned to die. Obama actively voted “No” (he didn’t vote “Present” on this bill) on a bill that would have end this practice — and only this practice.
No matter what the legal argument is, I cannot believe that opposing the criminalization of infanticide is a valid Christian position to take.
Sorry.
This bill was not an “opposing the criminalization of infanticide” bill.
You’re being intellectually dishonest.
Again, please don’t be a single issue voter. The world we live in is way too complicated.
I’m curious. How would you characterize the bill?
I’d characterize it as the “criminalization of infanticide” because having a baby born alive and then killing it sounds a lot like infanticide.
key word. characterize.
Look. I’m not trying to defend Obama on his lack of support for this bill. I disagree with him. I agree with you.
My main point here is that it’s unfair to demonize Barack Obama over this one issue, and that it’s ignorant to be a single issue voter.
I believe abortion is an extremely important issue and I understand why people are tempted to let it be the only issue, I’ve let it be that at time. But I’ve come to realize that there are other extremely important issues that also need attention. PLEASE look at the whole picture. If you come out still voting McCain then fine, but be fair.
If you would let your guard down for a moment you might be able to recognize that this is an exciting moment in American politics. We have two really quality candidates running for office. They are both good men with a lot to offer our country. I know that Rush, Hannity and the like can’t bring themselves to say such a thing, but it’s true. Both of these men love America and want the best for America. They just have different ideas about how to make that happen. To demonize one or the other is just not helpful. Enough with the silliness. How about a little charity from both sides.
Why not change your posts to why you like McCain instead of what you don’t like about Obama. If you don’t like McCain tell us what you believe instead of what you don’t. It’s much more productive to talk about what you’re for, not what you’re against.
I don’t like McCain either. My next series is “Why I Don’t Like McCain”. I think McCain’s rants against people working for profit instead of country are contemptible. I think McCain’s desire for “clean politics” above free speech is dangerous and misguided.
I haven’t gotten around to enunciating my reasons for disliking Senator McCain. But I have them.
I’ll write a post tonight about why I’m a single issue voter on abortion. I do have my reasons. It may surprise you to learn that I’m pretty libertarian. I don’t like the majority of what I hear on talk radio and I certainly don’t take marching orders from Rush, Hannity, or anyone else. Read my posts on immigration if you want some examples.
By the way, you still didn’t answer the question. How would you describe the Infant Born Alive Act? Take a minute to read the full-text of the bill (all three paragraphs) and let me know.
A couple of pieces of information that I’ve found so far: - The report that abortions have been dropping is originally sourced here: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/17/index.html There are many reputable sources in the linked PDF – so I don’t doubt the statistics.
I don’t think that being a “Single Issue Voter” is a wrong thing. I wouldn’t put it that way though, because no endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue should end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office. So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It’s simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him—except that child-killing is more serious than those. People are free to have their own opinions of what would disqualify a person from running for office, but describing it as a “Single Issue Voter” isn’t telling the whole story.
James pretty much nails it on the head; it’s not that I don’t care who I vote for so long as he’s pro-something. It’s that people who are willing to do certain things should not be allowed into public office.
Killing children is one of them.