October 28, 2008

HOPE ON Callout Campaign: Steve Driehaus is NOT Prolife

Filed under: Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:23 am

HOPEONlogoNOTE: 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.



  1. For a greater understanding of the hidden Obama, see the site at this link:


    Review and decide if the Obama wants to CHANGE our system of government or destroy it.

    Comment by Bea Covington — October 28, 2008 @ 12:37 pm

  2. By that rationale, Tom Ridge, who is regarded as pro-choice in your party (although hardly an apt describer), isn’t really pro-choice because he supports John McCain- a pro-life candidate for president.

    But Ridge wasn’t pick for VP because he’s pro-choice, even though he supports McCain…my head is swimming.

    Tom, didn’t you tell them you’re logic that anyone who supports a candidate MUST support ever issues that candidate has taken?

    This is a harebrained argument.

    Still waiting for you to write a Dealbreak on Husted’s residency, pal.

    Comment by Modern Esquire — October 28, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

  3. #2, got a link?

    Also you chose to ignore this:

    Dishonestly I suspect.

    Your argument on Ridge goes in the wrong direction, and he’s not a candidate, i.e., your argument is a complete POS (Perfectly Outstandingly Shallow).

    Mine stands, and you d*** well know it. So should voters. You don’t like that? Too bad.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 28, 2008 @ 3:16 pm

  4. No, Tom, I’m completely aware of your non-post about Husted, and had read it when I wrote what I did yesterday.

    And, no, I’m not surprised that you couldn’t find the time to write about Husted the way you did Strickland. You spent more time setting up your joke of the DDN than you did critizing Husted which was tame, at best.

    BTW, http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/bizzyblog_sarah_palin_opposes_drilling_in_anwr_supports_redistribution_of_wealth_and_opposes_mlk_jr_s_legacy

    Comment by Modern Esquire — October 28, 2008 @ 3:20 pm

  5. McCain/Chabot weren’t exactly pro-life when they voted to authorize our invasion of Iraq, a war that Pope John Paul II termed “immoral.”
    Obama sided with the Pope.

    Comment by Tony B. — October 28, 2008 @ 4:24 pm

  6. #4, your link isn’t relevant to Husted, or from an original source, and last time I checked, a) the weight of my opinion isn’t measured by number of words; b) you don’t decide my priorities on how to spend limited time.

    #5, thx for walking into the trap:
    - The Pope’s and the Church’s pronouncements on abortion and euthanasia are infallible.
    - Driehaus is a Catholic.
    - Driehaus would thus appear to be in the same gravely dangerous position with the Church as described here.

    I didn’t even get to that matter in my post, even though it is quite relevant, so I appreciate the opportunity to pile on.

    As to Iraq:
    - The Church has a guidance on what a just war is and isn’t. The Pope expressed his fallible, non-binding opinion relating to it. It is open to debate. So?
    - It seems from this statement that Driehaus might be a supporter of the war on terror and the decisions (both supported by a large plurality, if not a majority, of Democrats in Congress, INCLUDING JOE BIDEN), to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan — “Steve Driehaus believes it is time for our soldiers to come home from Iraq, however, understanding that the United States will have to retain a presence in the region to fight terrorism and to provide stability. Our efforts should now be focused on diplomacy and bringing the leadership of Al-Qaeda to justice.”

    The number of innocent preborn babies murdered in the US in two days in the name of selfishness and convenience is greater than the number of consenting adult US soldiers who have died in noble causes in Iraq and Afghanistan in seven years. The number of innocent preborn babies murdered in the US each year in the name of selfishness and convenience is many, many times greater than the number of civilians killed in the two wars in the past 7 years.

    You have a problem with the latter parts of each statement, and apparently no problem with the former. Your priorities are objectively out of order. Thx for giving me the opportunity to demonstrate that.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 28, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

  7. You do realize that the Pope never declared the war in Afghanistan to be immoral; only our invasion of Iraq. 100,000 plus dead Iraqis do figure heavily into the pro-life equation, don’t you think?

    Comment by Tony B. — October 28, 2008 @ 11:45 pm

  8. Tom- the fact is that you’ve wrote one passing reference about Husted while you went on a virtual campaign against Strickland on the same matter. Except in Husted’s case, he’s legally required to live in the district for both the office he’s currently serving in and presently running for. Second, he’s the likely GOP candidate for Secretary of State, so he’s voting residency issue would seem to have some particular political implications on his candidacy.

    It’s just odd that you found the time to write nearly 20 posts on Strickland but a brief glancing reference to Husted.

    I can’t help but consider that it’s the result of partisan hackery. After all, you’ve had no problem finding time to write about ACORN’s alleged voter registration fraud, why not mention Husted’s in passing so it’s clear you aren’t just being a partisan in your criticism? I would seem to think bringing up Husted would lend to some objectivity to your “outrage.”

    So, Tom, since you obvious support John McCain, then (by your logic with Driehaus), it’s fair to say you support granting amnesty to illegal immigrants? Since you supported pro-choice Joe Lieberman in his Independent bid in 2006, does that mean you aren’t really Pro-Life? I mean, what’s the difference? If Driehaus can’t be considered Pro-Life despite his voting record and public policy statements because he supports Pro-Choice Obama, then why can you be considered Pro-Life even though you’ve publicly supported a Pro-Choice candidate?

    Comment by Modern Esquire — October 29, 2008 @ 12:04 am

  9. #8, when you find my name on a ballot somewhere, let me know. It will be in the same place as my supposed “endorsements” of Lieberman and McCain — smack dab in the middle of your imagination. Expressions of support on certain issues in certain cases, or favorable impressions after speeches, are not equivalent.

    In any event, human life is a first principle. Betraying it has serious gravity, by far transcending illegal immigration. Supporting someone who will have the intent and the means to enforce the most heinous antilife measures, and to pack the courts with judges who will perpetuate them, should carry serious consequences from prolife voters at the ballot box …. and it will.

    #7, what about ….

    The number of innocent preborn babies murdered in the US each year in the name of selfishness and convenience is many, many times greater than the number of civilians killed in the two wars in the past 7 years.

    …. didn’t you understand?

    Once again, you fail basic comprehension. And I should pay attention to you because ….?

    Comment by TBlumer — October 29, 2008 @ 12:45 am

  10. I fail to see why you not being a candidate makes the application of your reasoning to you is unfair. Please explain. Seriously, I’d like to hear you explain why that’s a distinction with any material difference.

    Second, since Lieberman was running for the U.S. Senate and said he’d caucus with the Democrats, I think your past support over an actual pro-life candidate who would be voting to confirm judges regarding issues like abortion would be a significant factor for your interest in the race.

    After all, Lieberman had that same year voted against confirming Justice Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Comment by Modern Esquire — October 29, 2008 @ 2:36 am

  11. I’ve explained myself quite well. You’re wasting my time.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 29, 2008 @ 7:05 am

  12. So, Driehaus can’t be pro-life, because of what someone else (Obama) believes, but Chabot and McCain are pro-life, despite the fact they personally voted to authorize an immoral and very deadly war? You keep thinking, Tom.

    Comment by Tony B. — October 29, 2008 @ 9:11 am

  13. #12, asked and answered. Quite well, I might add.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 29, 2008 @ 9:43 am

  14. You didn’t answer anything, Tom! You’ve dodged, ducked and weaved like a professional dodgeball player.

    Does John Boehner support John McCain for President? Then doesn’t that (by your logic) mean he supports amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    Comment by Modern Esquire — October 29, 2008 @ 7:17 pm

  15. #14, I answered everything (exclamation point)!

    You either can’t read, can’t comprehend, or pretend not to.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 29, 2008 @ 10:06 pm

  16. You haven’t answered my question about Lieberman or Boehner or any other Republican Congressional candidate, either. You are lying, sir, to suggest you’ve done otherwise.

    And now you are repeating your blatantly lie against Boccieri on gun rights. Worse yet, you are also lying about Obama’s record as well.

    You have no decency, morals, or dignity. The fact that you cannot answer my simple questions demonstrates that you know you are lying.

    You should be ashamed, Tom.

    Comment by Modern Esquire — October 29, 2008 @ 11:09 pm

  17. Aw, poor baby. Gets his answers and pretends he didn’t, and expects me to just repeat them again, and again, and again. Nope.

    The Driehaus and Boccieri posts are your answers. All you need to know is in there, and you know it. All the immature name-calling in the world, accompanied by absolutely nothing of substance and mindless subject-changing, won’t alter that.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 29, 2008 @ 11:37 pm

  18. You’re the one changing the subject, Tom. You have answered a single question. All you’re doing is repeated the same logical fallacy with a different Democratic politican while refusing to say whether the same fallacy is fair to apply to yourself and Republican candidates like House Minority Leader John Boehner.

    You haven’t responded to a thing. You just pretend you have and keep whistling past the graveyard. Nobody is buying it, Tom. Save your credibility while it still can be.

    Comment by Modern Esquire — October 29, 2008 @ 11:45 pm

  19. #18, yawwwwwwwwwwwwn. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    The post is about Driehaus and Obama. It’s not about McCain. It’s not about Lieberman. It’s not about Ridge. It’s not about ACORN. It’s not about Iraq. It’s not about your other petty and irrelevant complaints.
    And it’s dead-on, which is why you’re so unhinged.

    Subject-changing is over.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 30, 2008 @ 6:53 am

  20. Guys, guys…

    Driehaus can clear all of this up by coming out and clearly stating that he disagrees with “The Messiah” on abortion, but that being pro-life is not a priority with him, so he is supporting Baal – uh, I mean Molech – uh, I mean the “Messiah,” – uh, I mean Barack Hussein Obama, anyway.

    If not, then he is a liar and a coward just like B.O., who won’t remain true to any of his ostensible convictions whether they be life, getting out of Iraq or whatever else he has said to get votes.

    Comment by Rose — October 30, 2008 @ 8:00 am

  21. # 20- Rose, then by that logic should I assume that John Boehner supports John McCain’s plan to pack the federal judiciary with judges that will reverse the Supreme Court’s findings that parts of McCain-Feingold are unconstitutional?

    Since when did candidates who support other candidates who have different views become required to publicly state the issues in which they disagree are not important to them.

    Sarah Palin supports McCain even though McCain opposes drilling in ANWR. Is she saying that energy independence based on drilling in ANWR isn’t important to her?

    No, I don’t think so, which is why this entire construct is irrational.

    Comment by Modern Esquire — October 30, 2008 @ 12:35 pm

  22. Well hello Sir Cumference! Unfortuantely, circular arguments don’t work here…

    Funny, Palin and Boehner openly admit (read: have the brass) to point out where they disagree with McCain and their intent to change his mind. Driehaus on the other hand cowers before the “messiah” and anyone else who might hold the power strings with which to annoint others.

    Disappointing that you compare the lives of Americans (17 million who were African American) to energy. Get off the plantation friend, I did.

    Comment by Rose — October 30, 2008 @ 3:21 pm

  23. Where during this election has Boehner and Palin done that, exactly? Because Rose, I’ve been there at campaign rallies when Boehner is doing the warm up act, and I’ve never heard him this entire election mention in any circumstantce that he supports McCain but differs with him on ANWR or illegal immigration or campaign finance reform.

    I’ve never heard Palin say a word about McCain’s unpopular stance on immigration or global warming.

    Comment by Modern Esquire — October 31, 2008 @ 10:28 am

  24. That’s b/c you have selective listening skills…happens to typical liberals.

    Comment by Rose — November 2, 2008 @ 3:29 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.