Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
08.14.2008 2:55 pm

Barack Obama & aborted babies left to die

Special to the Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

This week the Democratic party made clear its total support of abortion on demand.

Gone is the “safe, legal and rare” rhetoric of the past few years and in is this:

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, clearly ultra liberal on the abortion issue — look at his Senate record — is surely pleased.

Less clear is whether the conflicted electorate will be.

And now, as of three days ago, we have new charges from the National Right to Life organization about candidate Obama’s  abortion obfuscation as well as his well known abortion extremism.

NRL accuses Barack Obama of being a whole lot less than truthful when he defends his opposition — three times as an Illinois state senator — to a proposed Illinois state version of the popular federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act  :

New documents just obtained by NRLC, and linked below, prove that Senator Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.

Summary and comment by NRLC spokesman Douglas Johnson: “Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion — even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion.

Obama’s legislative actions in 2003 — denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions — were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.”

…..The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style. To see the language of the two bills side by side, click here.

As you delve into the history of Mr. Obama’s “reasoning” for refusing to protect these dying infants, you might become weary, as I do, of the minced words and split hairs that so often accompany his rhetoric.  Nuancing this is not.

And if you have the stomach for it, listen to Jill Stanek, R.N. — also from Illinois — as she recounts watching these abandoned little ones left to die.

62 comments

Comments are closed.

I’m going to be a grouch for a minute and suggest that this item would be better posted on the politics blog than the religion blog. It is primarily a call to vote Republican due to abortion politics. I see no religious message or discussion in this.

— hs
8:17 pm August 14th, 2008

Wrong, this is a religious question. Politics should stay out of this.

— A CENTRIST
9:07 pm August 14th, 2008

hs

Politics is within religion and religion is in politics, according to the following Wikipedia definitions:

1. “Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.”

2. “The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.”

It seems to me the celebrated Barak Obama, who has been called the Messiah - see http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/ - has, by his very nature, injected religion into politics. The Obama clash with his former pastor, Rev. Wright, shows politics gets into religion.

Since both politics and religion involve “groups of people” but abortion is a “personal practice”, Sherry’s presentation fits the category of religion better than politics.

— davel
2:06 am August 15th, 2008

hs,

Abortion is a moral issue. Religion is all about morals. Remember the “Thou shalt not kill” commandment? Abortion clearly violates that commandment and it is completely expected that a religious blog would post strong entries about this topic.

Barack’s position on this is completely extreme, yet you will hear many claim that it is a populace position. A baby survives an abortion, and he would support finishing the kid off after being born? That’s murder in everyone’s book except his.

— Think|
6:22 am August 15th, 2008

Allow me to be clear: I think one of the biggest struggles in the country today is the pandering of the political parties for the religious vote, and the willingness of religious leaders to endorse party politics of either side. Neither major political party has a corner on “Christian” morality or thought.

I agree, abortion is a moral issue. It will not be decided by or eliminated by law. Nor will it be encouraged by law. I have yet to see a serious abortion opponent specify what the penalties for performing or having an abortion would be under a law banning the practice.

On the face of it, yes, this story seems to be exposing some reprehensible thinking and lawmaking. I’d really be interested in what ‘the rest of the story is’. That is the problem with this issue. Both sides do their very best to use the most loaded language to make their opponent look either uncaring, evil, or stupid. The TRUTH is always somewhere else.

I just tend to think that GOD’s priority for us is not tied up in our opinions about Abortion. I have the feeling that there is a whole lot more that is required of us.

I reiterate: A particular political position taken by a candidate for high office is a political question. It is NOT primarily a religious one.

— hs
8:27 am August 15th, 2008

I have to agree with hs on this. This is a political topic because it comes from a political party and a presidential candidate. We are not talking about the morality of abortion, we are talking about the stance of a party and their candidate. Davel is right that these two topics (religion and politics) often cross paths, but that doesn’t mean that they fall if both areas with equal weight.

Abortion sickens me, just for the record.

This blog is almost a letter to the editor, and doesn’t belong here.

— Tim
10:45 am August 15th, 2008

Gentlemen,
While you’ve been disagreeing about this story being political or religious, the Obama camp has been responding to the NRLC charges. After you read the Obama Campaign statement below, go back to the link in the original St. Louis Post-Dispatch post, the link that compares the wording in the two bills. Read carefully. This story is not over:

Barack Obama’s Campaign Responds to Charge He Lied About Abortion
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The campaign of pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama has responded to charges that he misrepresented his views on an abortion bill that protected babies who survive abortions.

The Obama camp essentially repeated the claims that Obama opposed the bill for legitimate reasons.

New documents released by the National Right to Life Committee from the Illinois legislature show the same language found in the federal bill was added as an amendment to the Illinois legislation and that Obama voted for it but ultimately voted down the anti-infanticide bill.

The Obama camp responded to the charges saying, “In recent days the right wing blogosphere and rumor mongers have falsely accused Senator Obama of misrepresenting his position on ‘Born Alive’ legislation.”

“The state and federal born alive infant protection acts did not include exactly the same language,” Obama’s camp claimed and it complained the Illinois bill said “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.”

However, Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for National Right to Life, says Obama’s campaign is still misrepresenting the truth.

“It is rather astonishing that, in light of the new documents that came to light this week, the Obama campaign here continues to brazenly misrepresent the content of the state Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that Obama killed in 2003,” he told LifeNews.com. Full story at LifeNews.com.

— Sherry Tyree
1:03 pm August 15th, 2008

And, Sherry, while you’ve probably been trying to get this piece of right-wing character assassination in every publication you can, there are those who would prefer that the election be based on issues, not propaganda. The moderators of this blog have a responsibility to keep it on subject, which is religion, not politics. It doesn’t matter if the hate letters are aimed at Obama or McCain, they are still hate letters. Yeah, we get it, Obama is the anti-Christ, a baby killer, a secret Muslim terrorist, an elitist, etc., etc. Keep it on the political blogs.

— beenthere
3:34 pm August 15th, 2008

So far as I can tell, Sen. Obama is a pathelogical liar and a very devious person. If he supports infanticide then so be it. Come out and say it.
If that is his position, so be it. I am sure there are many in his base that support it also. Why does he always have to nuance everything? Seriously, does any body even know where he stands on anything anymore? His positions are getting murkier and murkeir by the day.

— A CENTRIST
4:13 pm August 15th, 2008

hs,

Abortion is a moral issue that can be eliminated by law just like other immoral behavior (murder, robbery, rape) are. On this issue, one political party clearly supports a Catholic’s view of the issue. To say that a religious writer can not post a political view is ridiculous.

This serious abortion opponent can think of a punishment that is a similar type of offense: use the sentencing guidelines for killing a human: murder, manslaughter, self defense, …

Now you’ll probably counter with some exceptional circumstances, which we can debate all you want. However, you cannot deny that this is a valid religious and political issue.

Mr. Obama’s stance on this particular issue is disgusting and is completely valid to use when evaluating him for the highest political office. If he has such a disregard for human life at it’s most innocent and vulnerable time, then how will he rule the land when 300 million lives are at stake?

— Think|
8:32 pm August 15th, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Show All