NOTE: The HOPE ON Callout Campaign will cite the vast differences between the stated positions of certain Democratic candidates for political office in Ohio and Barack Obama, the presidential candidate these Democrats have nonetheless endorsed.
The lucky person receiving the first not-so-coveted callout is First District Congressional candidate Steve Driehaus.
Here’s how Steve Driehaus characterized himself in an item carried at Cincinnati TV station WLWT’s web site:
The person who answered the phone at Driehaus’s campaign office yesterday informed me that Mr. Driehaus has endorsed Barack Obama for president.
Steve Driehaus cannot claim to be pro-life, or for that matter “not wildly liberal” (though I will not cover that here), while endorsing Obama.
As to life issues, oh yeah, Driehaus answered the Cincinnati Right to Life PAC’s questionnaire quite satisfactorily. Though incumbent Steve Chabot received CRTL’s endorsement, Driehaus’s answers were pretty close to Chabot’s.
That’s nice, but Driehaus’s support of Barack Hussein Obama makes all that irrelevant.
Driehaus’s perfunctory prolife positions will more than likely mean nothing in a possible Obama administration. If he thought it through, Dreihaus would surely know that (if he hasn’t, that’s just another argument against his candidacy).
Here is what Barack Obama has either promised he will do if he becomes president, or can be relied on to do based on his past life-hostile record (Sources – Princeton Professor Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essays, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism” and “Obama and Infanticide,” excerpting with some paraphrasing from what was assembled in this brilliant post at Pro Ecclesia, who also excerpted from George):
- Obama supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions, and which has been credited with saving over a million lives.
- Obama has promised that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act“, which would create a federally guaranteed “fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including “a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons”, and would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry.
- Obama, unlike even many allegedly “pro-choice” legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice.
- Obama has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a “punishment” that she should not have to endure.
- Obama has stated that women’s equality requires access to abortion on demand.
- Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies.
- Obama, as an Illinois state senator, opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist’s unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. The Obama campaign lied about his vote until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done. In fact, Sen. Obama continues to lie about his inhuman voting record in regard to the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even stooping so low as to run a disgusting television ad attacking the disabled survivor of a botched abortion.
Obama’s positions on embryonic and adult stem cell research are, if it can be imagined, even MORE outlandish (sources again are George and Pro Ecclesia):
- He has co-sponsored a bill that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. Despite being falsely positioned as an anti-cloning bill, what it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.
- Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos (often referred to as “adult stem cell research”). But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
Driehaus cannot excuse himself by trying to claim that Obama won’t have the power to make things worse. There is little doubt that the current Congress would pass the aforementioned Freedom of Choice Act if a Democrat were in the White House. Barring a sea change in party representation in the House, Driehaus couldn’t stop it.
This mountain of evidence shows that Steve Driehaus’s claim to be prolife and his support of Barack Obama cannot exist in the same universe. In fact, if Team Driehaus tries to claim that the statement I heard came from someone without the authority to say it, Steve Driehaus’s claim to be prolife and his failure to speak out forcefully against the life-hostile record and plans of Barack Obama cannot exist in the same universe. It is not arguable.
Perhaps this explains why there’s not a single word on the Issues page at Driehaus’s web site about his allegedly prolife positions. There’s some guidance from a book the Democratic candidate may be aware of suggesting that while this handling may be politically opportunistic, it is indefensible. Note well that Steve Chabot isn’t hiding his life-related light under a lampshade.
While I’m in the neighborhood, the apparent silence of Democrats for Life, which has endorsed Driehaus, on the horrors Obama plans to visit on the most helpless is truly disgraceful.
Driehaus can remedy the situation by repudiating Obama’s candidacy, as well as any and all financial and other support he might have received from him. Absent that, he has proven himself untrustworthy as a defender of life, and unworthy of serious consideration as a candidate.