New Ad: Obama's Approach Would Reduce Abortions More than the Republicans Would!

There are a few things that we know for sure.

First, Obama certainly does not want to support the work of the crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) that actually provide all manner of practical assistance to women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies, which save the lives of many children. A very modest amount of federal funding going to such centers in some states. Pro-life lawmakers have pushed legislation to greatly expand such funding, but it has been blocked by lawmakers who allied with the abortion lobby. Late in 2007, RHrealitycheck.org, a prominent pro-abortion advocacy website (representing the side hostile to government funding of CPCs), submitted in writing the following question to the Obama campaign: "Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?" The Obama campaign's official written response was short but spoke volumes: "No."

Anybody who is surprised by that has not been paying attention. Obama has never parted company with the abortion lobby on anything. Even on issues on which the abortion lobby itself was divided, such as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, he has always come down on the most pro-abortion position and stayed there.

The current claims that Obama is interested in "abortion reduction" is merely a short-term post-nomination "messaging strategy."

We also know for sure that Obama would provide unlimited funding to abort the unborn children of the poor. He advocates repeal of the Hyde Amendment, the law that since 1976 has blocked almost all federal funding of abortion, which has been one of the most successful "abortion reduction" policies ever adopted. By even the most conservative estimate, there are more than one million Americans alive today because of the Hyde Amendment. Indeed, the pro-abortion groups periodically put out papers complaining about this effect. According to a 2007 NARAL factsheet, "A study by The Guttmacher Institute shows that Medicaid-eligible women in states that exclude abortion coverage have abortion rates of about half of those women in states that fund abortion care with their own dollars. This suggests that the Hyde amendment forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead."

In 1993, there was debate in Congress over whether to continue the Hyde Amendment. The Congressional Budget Office (at that time under Democratic control) wrote, "Based on information from the Centers for Disease Control and from States that currently pay for abortions using state funds, the federal government would probably fund between 325,000 to 675,000 abortions each year [if the federal government resumed Medicaid funding for abortion]. The increase in the total number of abortions would be smaller, however, because some abortions that are currently funded by other sources would be partially or totally paid from federal funds . . ."

Although Speaker Nancy Pelosi and most other Democratic congressional leaders are hostile to the Hyde Amendment, the law has been extended anyway because President Bush issued a letter in early 2007 saying that he would veto any bill that weakens any existing pro-life policy. However, because the Hyde Amendment (and a number of similar provisions that govern other federal programs) must be renewed annually, things could change quickly under a president determined to re-establish federal funding of abortion on demand.

By the way, the "abortion providers for Obama" page is not merely a message board, but a group that applied for and was granted official recognition by the Obama campaign, which was a predicate requirement to getting its own area on the official Obama campaign website, which in turn serves as a conduit for donations to the campaign.

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
legfederal//at//aol-dot-com

Doug Kmiec is a fraud! He doesn't represent faithful Catholics. He is a "cafeteria" or "cultural" Catholic. He's not convinced anyone of anything. He's just making folks feel better about their decision to vote for a radical pro-abortion candidate. In Catholic circles, he's referred to as "Doug 30-Pieces-of-Silver Kmiec".

Obama supports Medicaid funding for abortion for constitutional reasons—equality for low income woman. Before abortion was legal, only people with enough money to pay a doctor received a safe abortion. McCain has consistently voted against health care, education and contraceptives funding.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain Side-By-Side Comparison women's health and reproductive issues

http://tinyurl.com/3hqk7g

Obama:

# Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
# Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)

McCain:
# Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
# Voted NO to required insurance companies to cover contraception. 2003
McCain has not sponsored or cosponsored any bills to provide solutions to reduce abortions.

Obama:

Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women.
Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (S.2916/H.R.5795) 06-S2916 on May 19, 2006

Obama co-sponsored ensuring access to and funding for contraception

A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women's health care. The Congress finds as follows:

1. Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of unintended pregnancies as an important health objective to achieve over the first decade of the new century.
2. Although the CDC included family planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the US still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.
3. Each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, nearly half of all pregnancies, in the US are unintended, and nearly half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
4. In 2004, 34,400,000 women, half of all women of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services, and nearly half of those were in need of public support for such care.
5. The US has the highest rate of infection with sexually transmitted diseases of any industrialized country. 19 million cases impose a tremendous economic burden, as high as $14 billion per year.
6. Increasing access to family planning services will improve women's health and reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and infection with sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive use saves public health dollars. For every dollar spent to increase funding for family planning programs, $3.80 is saved.
7. Contraception is basic health care that improves the health of women and children by enabling women to plan and space births.
8. Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at greater risk for physical abuse and women having closely spaced births are at greater risk of maternal death.
9. A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater risk of low birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.

Source: Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819) 2007-HR819 on Feb 5, 2007

McCain:

GovWatch: 1999: Don't force women to have illegal operations
Top McCain Flip Flops: #4. Roe vs Wade:

In August 1999, McCain told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would "not support repeal of Roe vs Wade" because it would force women to undergo illegal operations. He has subsequently said that he was speaking about the need to change the "culture of America", and supports the repeal of Roe vs Wade.
Source: GovWatch on 2008 campaign: "Top Ten Flip-Flops" Feb 5, 2008

"What I want to know is why reducing abortion is our goal instead of increasing justice?"

Because ensuring that the most vulnerable humans of all can't be killed with impunity on the whim of the mother or anyone else is a pretty strong justice issue. Being killed without your consent turns out to be a big injustice.

It really is that simple, GL.

Kmiec has children's blood on his hands. Obama voted to allow children who SURVIVE abortions and are born ALIVE to be left to die in sinks, trash dumpsters, etc. Just let them cry 'til they die, he voted. Kmiec is a disgrace and will have to answer the Lord for this moral crime someday.

It's disingenuous to suggest that only poor people are having abortions, and that Obama's economic plan will make everyone so wealthy that it will reduce the selfishness that causes abortion.

Obama wants to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, meaning he doesn't want children conceived and not wanted. Will he do anything to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion? That is, if a woman doesn't want her baby, should anyone or anything stop her from killing him or her? Obama would answer with a resounding "No." He has said quite clearly that if a woman decides her baby should die, and if in the process of the killing the baby makes it out alive, even then nothing should be done to pressure the woman to keep the child.

(PS- If 60% of abortions are performed in the wealthiest country on the planet, doesn't that suggest that the primary reason for these abortions are NOT economic?)

Planned Parenthood is a major part of the Democrat coalition, and it profits greatly from the abortion trade. PP is not simply pro-choice - witness its attempts to shut down crisis/caring pregnancy centers.

The Democrats are so pro-abortion that they once refused to allow one of their governors (Bob Casey) to speak at the national convention (because of his pro-life position), while inviting a pro-abortion Republican to speak there.

Obama:

1) Has told Planned Parenthood he will blow away all restrictions on abortions
2) Voted "no" on the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" because he thought that might reflect badly on abortion
3) Voted "no" on an Illinois partial-birth abortion bill whose language was IDENTICAL to one which passed the Senate (with the vast majority of Democrats there voting "yes")
4) Has said the taxpayers should fund abortions (it's a basic fact of economics that when a service is subsidized, the use of that service increases)

So it's simply ludicrous to claim that Obama's plans and policies will cause a drop in the abortion rate.

Lorraine:

It's not true that Obama want's to tax the middle classes. His plan, compared to McCain's gives more money back to the middle classes. What he also does is reccomend a tax structure more like that of Eisenhower's administration. That is to say, a progressive one, which taxes those who get more (and the well to do get more from gov't than the less well to do, they just don't get it in direct handouts, but they get more police coverage, use more fire department resources when they need them [larger houses have bigger fires], they buy more, which uses more roads, etc.).

McCain/Obama Tax Plans

If you don't want to read the commentary, just scroll down to the graphic, see what you make, and see who is going to give you more money.

The idea that republicans are the party which is best for the economy is based on the ideology that doing things which are pro-business, and pro-rich people is good for the economy.

The facts, however, bear out the argument that Dems do better for the economy than the republicans, esp. for those who aren't rich (recall that McCain said rich starts at 5 million dollars).

Anyway, here's a link to some numbers, many of which counter the prevailing ideas (such as the Republicans are fiscally more responsible, reduce spending, have smaller governments). The trendlines go back decades, and smaller gov't, better spending and thrving economies are more often the fruit of democratic administrations.

Are you better off than you were eight years ago? Are your neighbors? Your neighborood?

The Comparative Record

I am an anti-abortion Christian that is going to vote for Obama. Why? Because when we select a candidate for president, I believe it is important to consider all of a candidates stands, not just one.

In regard to abortion, if the Republicans were as concerned about overturning Roe v Wade as they claim they are, why hasn't it been overturned by now? The GOP has been in control of the presidency 20 of the last 28 years. Don't you think that would have given them enough time to overturn it? Apparently, abortion isn't as important to most Republicans as they say it is during a campaign. In my opinion, most Republicans use this issue to get votes from the Christian right. Once they are elected though, they aren't as interested in Roe v Wade. I am sure there are some Christian Republicans that are truly interested in overturning Roe v Wade, but their definitely not the majority.

We are currently in a financial crisis that is only 2nd to the Great Depression. We need a president with a REAL economic plan. Since de-regulation (primarily Reublican idea) has primarily caused this disaster, maybe it is time to go in a new direction. Personally, I think the financial industry needs some regulations on it. A cap on the interest that people pay on their credit cards is a good start. Maybe we need to cap interest rates at 18% like an old law that Maine used to have. ATM fees are also a product of de-regulation. Many years ago, banks never charged YOU fees to withdraw YOUR money out of YOUR account.

De-regulation and trickle-down economics are both failures. In an altruistic world, they would both work. However, in reality, there is something that most people call GREED. That is why these policies DON'T work.

Obama doesn't have the solution for everything, but he does have some great ideas that will restore this country to it's former greatness.

Obama-Biden '08

I feel sorry for all those Christians that are going to vote for a man that is not only pro-abortion but is also going to deregulate abortion laws. One day, you will stand before God and have to answer, why you voted/put a man in power that allowed this. May God show his grace on you.

My husband and I work with inner-city youth and I can tell you that teenagers are not getting abortions due to financial hardship. In fact many have kids for the government paycheck, it's their type of employment. The reason kids are are getting pregnant is because they are taught that it is the normal process of adolescence, because older men-allowed by their mothers-come into their homes and pressure them into sexual relationships. It's a generational normalcy, it's even cool, and a sign of "maturity". So Obama wants to relieve economic hardship. Great! Do that by creating jobs and opportunities for the people to be responsible, empowered, educated...and not by giving hand outs. Do we really think that more money and programs will solve this problem. Does money change the hearts and impulses of men? Does money stop ignorant youth from lusting and performing in sexual relationship out of the context of marriage? Does money teach our youth what true sexuality was created for and who it was created by? Is money and government more powerful than God. We are not discerning what the true cause and true solutions are to our current national problems. If a woman decides to have sex, she also must decide that she may produce life and take that responsibility on herself. Like I said-more government will never change the hearts and habits of man. We the people, make up this nation. We choose what our nation looks like by the lives we live. Everyone wants to blame someone else and put that responsibility on the government. But no one wants to change their own lives filled with greed, consumerism, lust, and hatred. Only Jesus Christ, who has the power to transform hearts and habits can produce solutions for this nation. Until we return to our Savior and Creator who has all the solutions, we will never change our current condition.