No, You Can’t. Don’t.

For those of you who don’t know, I voted for Hillary in the California primary about a month ago. Rather than reiterating my reasons, I shall direct your attention to an op-ed by Rick Santorum on Obama and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (HT: Justin Taylor), for that is explanation enough, I think.

I know some who read this blog disagree with my view of Obama’s position on infanticide. Please reconsider your priorities.


2 responses to “No, You Can’t. Don’t.

  1. In his opinion piece of 2-27-08, “The Elephant in the Room: Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image, Mr. Santorum has taken an emotionally complicated issue and spun it so it represents his own personal agenda. The Illinois bill that he refers to, and that Barack Obama cast votes of “present” and “no” the second time around, included no protections for the health of the mother. (Funny how the protections for the health of the woman always discounted?) And as far as providing medical help for a live born fetus, laws addressing that were already on the books in Illinois. Why add more laws when all we have to do is enforce the ones we have.

    Here is the interview of Barack Obama when he was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004 by Jeff Berkowitz a Chicago discussion show host. Berkowitz covered the interview about abortion on his blog Public Affairs:

    Jeff Berkowitz: Switching over to abortion, you have said that you would vote in support of, if you were a [U. S.] Senator the federal law that came up that passed [the U. S. Senate] 98 to 0 and that was known as the Live Birth Infant Protection Act.

    Barack Obama: That is exactly right. Because there was a different bill than the one that was introduced by [then] Senator Patrick O’Malley here in Illinois and we actually offered amendments that would have provided assurance that Row. v. Wade [U. S. Supreme Court, 1973] was still respected even as we dealt with what I think actually were some very anecdotal evidence that there might have been some problems although there has never been any hard evidence that there were. Unfortunately, Mr. O’Malley wanted to make a broader point because he does not believe that a woman should exercise a right to choose in any circumstances.

    Berkowitz: But, if that happened in Illinois, if there were some abortions- so called abortions that went wrong- a live fetus was born. Would you seek to have legislation that protected those fetuses?

    Obama: I would if there wasn’t already legislation. Unfortunately [sic?], there is existing legislation-

    Berkowitz: On the state level?

    Obama: On the state level that says if there is a fetus that is determined viable and there has to be a second doctor who assists in determining that that fetus is viable- they are required by current Illinois Law to provide that fetus with assistance to make sure that they can live outside the womb. The law already exists. That’s not what Senator O’Malley’s law was about. What Senator O’Malley’s law was about was identifying all fetuses as human beings as a way of going after the right of women to choose to have an abortion pre- viability and that’s the reason that I, like a number of other senators, including Republican senators, voted either present or against it.

    Nobody thinks that abortions in any form are a good or desirable thing, but they are very emotional. We all should take a moment and look a little deeper when someone like Rick Santorum tries to use it as an issue to rabble rouse.


  2. »Mr. Santorum has taken an emotionally complicated issue and spun it so it represents his own personal agenda.«

    It may be emotionally complicated, but there is no moral complication here. The Spartan way of exposing infants in the hills had no complication. And the emotional nature of a decision does not indicate in any way that it is not dead wrong or even that it is only a “minor” fault.

    »Funny how the protections for the health of the woman always discounted?«

    I fail to see why this piece of legislation in particular would need any provision for the health of the mother.

    »Nobody thinks that abortions in any form are a good or desirable thing, but they are very emotional.«

    People must think abortions are sometimes at least the lesser of two evils, am I right? As for their being emotional, that is the concern of those with whom the mother has personal contact, not of the one impersonally making legislation. Laws are not themselves compassionate. People are compassionate.

    But if Obama is so staunchly in favour of Roe v. Wade and acts as if he believes it, and even its supporting assumptions, cannot be questioned, then I cannot give him my vote.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s