Here's a new Obama ad on abortion. It's responding to an independent ad featuring, Gianna Jessen, a survivor of a botched abortion who criticizes Obama for opposing Illinois "born alive" legislation.
Putting aside for a moment the conflict over the Born Alive bill, which I'll address again in a separate post, what's notable is the evolution of the Obama campaign's rhetoric on abortion.
Until now, they've always talked about preserving "choice" and protecting "Roe v. Wade." I've never understood the emphasis on philosophical principles and court cases. It's why the hosts of The View went through an entire conversation with McCain on abortion without seeming to realize his party supports a ban on all abortion. You could have watched that show and come away believing that McCain just wants the states instead of the Supreme Court to decide these matters, and whichever way they go was fine with him.
This time the Obama campaign went directly at the plank in the Republican platform calling for a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion. "He's running on a platform to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest." Only 15% of the public supports that position.
Here's the anti-Obama ad on the Born Alive bill, which strikes me as also extremely effective.
Two other things strike me about this exchange of ads.
First, the Obama campaign is finally taking the Born Alive issue seriously. This has been HUGELY damaging to Obama, especially among those moderate evangelicals he's been courting. The Obama campaign's response at first was slow and then muddled.
Second, there's no mention of abortion reduction. May have been two many notes to strike in one ad, but I wonder when they're planning to mention that? Or have they now concluded that since they've probably blown it with moderate evangelicals, there's no point it emphasizing abortion reduction?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Obama actually voted "No" on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act four times. The last time he voted "no" was on March 13, 2003, at a meeting of a committee that he himself chaired. He led all of the committee's voting Democrats in voting against the bill, which killed it. The complete text of that bill appears below.
Obama did vote "present" on the bill once, on the Senate floor, in 2001. But that did not reflect ambivalence about the bill -- he had already voted "no" in committee, and he was the only senator to speak against the bill on the floor. There is a provision in the Illinois Constitution that requires that an absolute majority of the sworn members of the state Senate or state House vote affirmatively in order for a bill to be passed. This means that the substantive effect of voting "present" on a bill on the Illinois Senate floor is exactly the same as voting "no." The chief Planned Parenthood lobbyist for Illinois has publicly explained that she worked with Obama against the bill, and that voting "present" was merely a tactical move by opponents.
Here is the ENTIRE TEXT of the bill that Obama voted against, and killed, in a committee he himself chaired, on March 13, 2003. What you are about to read is the bill that Obama (and some posters above) want you to believe would have banned abortions.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
www.nrlc.org
legfederal--at--aol.com
Michael: "I'm not sure what Obama gains from trying to lure "moderate evangelicals" when it means abandoning women and civil libertarians."
Michael again: "Is McCain's position--and the presence of Palin--turning off women, who tend to support abortion rights? Maybe the reason Obama is taking the position he does has nothing to do with Evangelicals and Catholics and everything to do with shoring up female voters."
These remarks assume that "women", "female voters," and "civil libertarians" constitute a separate group from "Catholics" and "Evangelicals." Well, I'm a woman, a female voter, a civil libertarian (I extend these liberties to the unborn as well, a Catholic, and I was an evangelical for some time, too.
Catholics are composed, by about half, of women, as are Evangelicals and Civil libertarians; women also constitute around 50% of the unborn.
Women, as a category (the "female voters" mentioned), are more pro-life, more anti-abortion, than are men--every survey out there shows this. Most of us know, from having born children, that an abortion is basically an execution by drawing and quartering. It's a brutal form of torture the true nature of which is not acknowledged by those who view it as the only mechanism which ensures female equality. It isn't, not by a long shot, and the fecundity of Sarah Palin proves it and enrages her enemies for just that reason--it destroys their most cherished belief. (And no, I'm not voting for her).
Abortion on demand is more supported by males, because it ensures them constant access to, and availability of, women. How about we tell men this? Don't pressure women for sex. Don't go out with women you wouldn't marry. Don't have sex with a woman unless you're either willing to marry her or, in the case of an unexpected pregnancy, to BE FAMILY with her. Men who get women pregnant and then want nothing to do with the child are selfish cads.
Women, the same for you. Start respecting yourselves.
Men and women, you're not going to die from sexual deprivation; you might actually mature and develop and become a real person--a giver instead of a self-centered taker. That's the paradox--you really want to be happy? Stop trying to fulfill yourself and start sacrificing yourself for someone else.
It's not about trying to put a genie back in a bottle or toothpaste in a tube. Human beings are moral agents with free will, not toothpaste.
On the topic of abortion, even many people who defend the possibility of legal abortions, they say they are not pro-abortion, but they don’t want to punish women who are in this difficult situation. In Germany a curious thing has happened. Something that reflects that legal abortion affects adversely to the country. And also that the change is possible: you can promote a culture of life with the support of the citizens, when really there is a real wish of avoid abortions. Since the liberalization of abortion in this country, the number of abortions is officially four million. For that reason, among others, children are seen as an unintended effect of having sex. Many people thought it was necessary to promote greater social acceptance of children in an aging society. And civil society acted, without waiting for action by the State to promote births. They joined several media organizations in a campaign. Interestingly, after the campaign, the birth rate has risen in Germany. The video is exciting. Look here: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=SztG8JpxvHY
Santiago Chiva (Granada, Spain)
Women, as a category (the "female voters" mentioned), are more pro-life, more anti-abortion, than are men--every survey out there shows this.
But a majority of Independent and Democratic women are pro-choice and a significant number of them say abortion is a top issue for them. So by focusing on his pro-choice credentials, he can keep Democrats and get Indpendents who are afraid of the GOP's stand on abortion.
Barack Hussein Obama has to please the abortion rights crowd first and foremost because he is a Democrat. Secondly he has to pretend that he is anti-abortion to the rest of the country. A country in which 48 states have tried to ban or restrict abortion only to have their wishes overturned by federal judges.
It is hard to do both and he hasn't quite found the rhetoric yet.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.