Amidst Her Dodging, Palin Contradicts the Republican Platform on Abortion

Waldman, we have been down this road before. McCain and Palin did NOT shift on abortion or change position in any way. They have both repeatedly stated that Roe v. Wade -- the case that allowed virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason -- should be overturned.

Next, the platform calls for a human life amendment that protects the right to life of unborn children and doesn't atually say whether exceptions should or shouldn't be a part of that amendment -- so you're technically wrong on that point.

You're also wrong saying that encouraging women who have been victimized by sexual abuse to keep their baby is not a pro-life position. The opposite is encouraging them to have an abortion. Is that what you think we support? Palin is absolutely right that we should support women who are rape victims and not shove abortion on them. The need medical support and their attackers need a long prison term -- and Palin appears to understand that.

How can you claim that Palin's urging a woman to "choose life" is pro-abortion when abortion advoctes have repeatedly opposed motorists being able to get Choose Life license plates?

I'm not sure how you can ask whether Palin supports sending women who have abortions to jail when she clearly said she didn't in the very transcript you cite here!

Finally, if you're worried about deviating from the platform, where is the critisim for Obama taking out the language saying abrotions should be safe and rare. Apparently he doesn't believe either.

What Obama does believe -- and what is in this current Democratic platform he constructed -- is that abortions should be legal for any reason any time in pregnancy and that taxpayers should be forced to pay for them. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat4110.html)

Not only that, Obama believes every single pro-life law should be overturned -- including bans on taxpayer funding of abortion, partial-birth abortions, parental involvement, informed consent, everything. And that's in the Demcoratic Party platform as well.

Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com

I'm disappointed that Couric (and you) continue to misrepresent Barak Obama's position on abortions that result in late-term live births. Factcheck.org has done a couple of stories on this, and while Obama has not always been consistent in explaining his voting record, he has clearly affirmed his support for medical care for infants born live as a result of an abortion, and has consistently declared his support for the existing Illinois stature that mandates medical care in such cases.

This excerpt from the first factcheck.org article is relevant:

A Matter of Definition

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."

If the economy continues to be an issue, this whole matter will be moot by next summer after the FOCA becomes law because right now it does not look like there will be enough Republicans left in the Senate to even mount a filibuster on the matter.

I am waiting for textual evidence as to the FALSE claim that the Republican Platform would ban ALL abortions, as opposed to endorse "a human life amendment" -- the content of which is DELIBERATELY undefined. It doesn't say "the" human life amendment. It doesn't say "ban abortions." It says pass "a" human life amendment.

Please just read it: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm#5

John McCain didn't need to ask for 'exceptions' because it wasn't necessary. This is a canard peddled by those who want to make the Republican party position seem more extreme than it is. The question of what an amendment would look like is left to the legislative process. Again, go to wikipedia (as just one source) to see the various different meanings of "human life amendment."

Wow... this exchange is one of the only exchanges she had with Couric that fully made sense and is something that a lot of folks would be on board with. It's too bad that she can't be this articulate and knowledgeable about foreign policy and the economy.

Palin erroneously said that the Vice President does not make law. She should have known, if she is truly qualified to assume the post of Vice President and possibly President, that the Vice President presides over the Senate and casts the deciding vote in the case of a tie.