August 7, 2008

What a Vote for Obama Means: First in an Intermittent Series (Update: Bob Casey Jr., PLINO)

Filed under: Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:15 am

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote supporting the reinstatement of partial-birth abortion. ANY candidate supporting Obama gives de facto support for reinstating partial-birth abortion.

______________________________________________

In a speech to Planned Parenthood in July 2007, “The One” I refer to as “Mr. BOOHOO-OUCH” (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” Obama – Objectively Unfit Coddler of Haters) decried the Supreme Court ruling a few months earlier that had given the constitutional okay to the recent federal law that prohibited partial-birth abortion (a term, by the way, accepted by the Supreme Court as appropriately descriptive in the course of its deliberations and in its pronouncement).

Thus, it is clear Obama would like to see the legality of partial-birth abortion restored. It is clear in the context of the Planned Parenthood speech that, as president, he would work to see it restored.

A President Obama would nominate any and all judges, up to and including justices of the Supreme Court, who would conform to his radical proabort views. Once appointed, his judges would rule to reinstate partial-birth abortion when given the first opportunity.

Additionally, it appears probable that there will be no meaningful counterweight. As president, Obama’s party would likely have a Senate majority that would vote to confirm any and all judges he nominates.

Thus, a vote for Obama for president would be a vote that would more than likely lead to a reinstatement of this heinously barbaric procedure (WARNING: I’m about to link to descriptions of the procedure which contain disturbing graphic words, pictures, and upsetting language — Here, in words; here, in pictures).

Partial-birth abortion so disturbed the late Democratic New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that he initially said:

“I think this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus. What on Earth is this procedure?”

Later, in a March 2, 1997 Meet the Press interview, Moynihan went further:

“….. it is infanticide, and one would be too many.”

With Obama, it’s not just about continuing the abortion status quo; it’s about extending it. So another politician’s position that he or she is “personally prolife, but Roe v. Wade is the law of the land” no longer suffices (as if it ever did; but that’s an argument for another time).

Anyone who supports Barack Obama is supporting a presidential candidate who will work to see that partial-birth abortion is restored, and who will, if elected, more than likely be in a position to see that it is restored.

Thus, any politician supporting Obama, or anyone voting for Obama, is giving de facto endorsement for the reinstatement of partial-birth abortion, regardless of his or her own supposed “personal views.”

For starters, this would include Mr. “Abortion Is ‘a Distraction from What Really Matters,’ But I Really Am Prolife.” That would be John Boccieri, who is running for the open seat in Ohio’s 16th Congressional District. The video at the link shows that Boccieri, who claims to be prolife, won’t make any kind of commitment to voting prolife. Boccieri’s Issues page at his web site is, conveniently, silent on abortion.

But it really doesn’t matter what he claims to believe anyway, because since he has endorsed Obama (I confirmed this), he has give de facto endorsement the reinstatement of partial-birth abortion, and is not in any sense prolife.

The only way Boccieri can regain any kind of prolife credibility is to formally announce that he has withdrawn his endorsement of Obama.

More names will be named as the campaign season progresses. But the fundamental point, that supporting or voting for Obama for president endorses the reinstatement of partial-birth abortion, remains salient for those both named and unnamed.

This is not arguable, and there is no rhetorical dodge.

________________________________________________

UPDATE: Add to the list the Pennsylvania Senator who is now officially a PLINO (ProLife In Name Only).

That would be Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania.

Casey’s endorsement of Barack Obama (“I believe in this guy like I’ve never believed in a candidate in my life, except my father”) gives de facto support for reinstating partial-birth abortion. Sorry, Bob, your father is spinning in his grave, and you are a disgrace.

Casey’s rumored agreement (HT Hot Air) to speak at the Democratic Convention in an attempt to shore up the CINO (Catholic In Name Only) merely confirms the obvious.

As with Boccieri, the only way Casey can regain any kind of prolife credibility is to formally announce that he has withdrawn his endorsement of Obama.

UPDATE 2, August 9: The certainty that Obama would nominate judges who would overturn the court ruling on partial-birth abortion is further reinforced by Obama’s consistent opposition as an Illinois state senator to a bill (the Induced Infant Liability Ac) “mandating medical care for children born alive during induced abortions.” Deal Hudson at Life News runs down the history:

No one disputes that in 2001 he voted against medical care for these children in committee and voted “present” on the floor; in 2002, against the bill both in committee and on the floor; and in 2003, as chairman of the committee, kept the bill from going to the floor at all.

And yet in spite of the facts, Obama’s backers continue to insist that he should not be considered a supporter of infanticide.

But why shouldn’t his opposition to the Illinois bill earn him that label? After all, in opposing the state legislation, Obama signaled his willingness to allow newborns to die without receiving medical attention after surviving a failed abortion.

….. Obama claims he would have voted for the 2002 federal bill if he had been presented with it.

That’s a strange assertion, given the fact that the 2003 state bill was identical to the 2002 federal bill.

Obama’s record makes it very difficult to believe anything other than he has been a supporter of infanticide. If he has changed his mind, all he has to do is say so.

UPDATE 3, August 9: While at the Democrats’ national convention, Michelle Obama will be at “a gala reception” of the national organization that will only give money to candidates who will reinstate partial birth abortion:

MichelleOatEmilyList2008Conv0808

Thomas Edsall of the Washington Post laid out Emily’s List’s radical views in 2002. The organization’s reaction to the 2007 Supreme Court partial-birth abortion ruling is here (“a call to arms”). This June 6 statement at Emily’s List’s web site leaves no doubt that it supports Barack Obama for president.

UPDATE 4, August 11: Captain Ed took a long time to get there, but correctly concluded that there is no “Catholic Conundrum.” Even if you somehow think Obama is better on issues of social justice (a very weak claim, IMO), life and death issues trump those considerations. It’s not arguable.

Share

2 Comments

  1. Fully agree with your point. These politicians want it both ways. They want to claim to be pro-life and simultaneously supporting the most pro-abortion candidate to run for the presidency.

    On the same subject, there is a growing controversy in the Western Hills area about Planned Parenthood opening a new abortion mill in a residential area, within a block of Western Hills High School. People put up yard signs opposed to the infanticide clinic being opened in their neighborhood and all the signs were stolen.

    Comment by largebill — August 7, 2008 @ 12:32 pm

  2. #1,

    People put up yard signs opposed to the infanticide clinic being opened in their neighborhood and all the signs were stolen.

    How typical. Maybe that gal who was fired from NKU a couple of years ago for taking down the prolife crosses is busy again.

    Comment by TBlumer — August 7, 2008 @ 1:53 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.