Barack Obama and Pro-Abortion Politics

NewsMax reports today that NARAL Pro-Choice America has directed its endorsement to Barack Obama.  The organization had been holding its cards close to its vest because of internal division, awaiting the emergence of a reasonably certain nominee.   Some of its people had wanted to support Hillary.

But the fact that NARAL was initially split on whom to direct its endorsement does not mean that Obama is not ardently pro-abortion.  In fact, he is.

Last summer, Senator Obama spoke before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund--  a fund which helps the notorious organization achieve its objectives.  Planned Parenthood, of course, is the largest abortion provider in America.

What did Obama tell them?

Will our daughters grow up with the same opportunities as our sons? Will our daughters have the same rights, the same dreams, the same freedoms to pursue their own version of happiness? I wonder because there’s a lot at stake in this country today. And there’s a lot at stake in this election, especially for our daughters. To appreciate that all you have to do is review the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong.

Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.

Of course, Obama is speaking of the partial birth abortion ruling.  According to his standard of reasoning, it is constitutionally impermissible for the states to decide whether it is legally acceptable to take the life of a late-term baby as it is being delivered, even if the mother's life is not jeopardized.  That decision must be made by the federal courts, according to Obama.

 

We know that five men don’t know better than women and their doctors what’s best for a woman’s health. We know that it’s about whether or not women have equal rights under the law. We know that a woman’s right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have and when—without government interference—is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country.

Throughout the speech, Obama uses rhetorical devices, and plainly inaccurate assertions, to make his case in favor of legal abortion on demand.

We know, we know it’s not just one decision. It’s the blow dealt to equal pay in the Ledbetter [v. Goodyear] case, it’s the blow dealt to integration in the school desegregation case, it’s an approach to the law that favors the powerful over the powerless—that holds up a flawed ideology over the rights of the individual. We don’t see America in these decisions—that’s not who we are as a people. We’re a country founded on the principle of equality and freedom. We’re the country that’s fought generation after generation to extend that equality to the many not restrict it to the few. We’ve been there before and we’re not going back.

I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality.

He speaks about jurisprudence and judicial interpretation as if they are to be assessed by the political outcome they produce.  He doesn't seem to care whether the case is correctly decided.

I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito [Applause].

There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield.

But I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page. We want a new day here in America. We’re tired about arguing about the same ole’ stuff.

Obama clearly paints himself as an extremist.  A number of Senate Democrats voted in favor of Roberts and Alito.  Obama did not.  Roberts has thus far developed into a fine Chief Justice. 

He pats himself on the back for how inflexible he will be on the issue; and he mischaracterizes the pro-life movement as outdated.

It is time to turn the page on policies that fail to deal with tragedy of ten thousand American teenagers getting an STD everyday... It’s time to turn the page on a policies that provides almost 1.5 billion dollar to teach abstinence in our schools but refuses to teach basic science and basic contraception.

Obama fails to acknowledge that it was the culture of contraception that created the explosion in unwed pregnancies and STD's.  And he fails to point out that Planned Parenthood gets much more funding from the federal government than abstinence programs ever did-- even when the Republicans controlled Congress. 

There’s nothing wrong with science. It’s actually made our lives better. [Applause] Let’s teach science to our kids.

Does this strike anyone else as condescending?  Is he asserting that pro-life individuals are against science?  This is silliness.

The truth is, too often our daughters don’t have the same opportunities as our sons.

Obama's conception of legal abortion on demand and federal funding for contraception is that they are necessary to help women achieve quality.  In fact, the real world suggests otherwise.  In high schools and universities, girls and young women are outperforming (and in many cases, outnumbering) men significantly.  Concerns have been registered over the future many young men may face because of a failure to pursue higher education.

This was a horrible, yet revealing, performance by Barack Obama.   The rhetoric he employed is quite unlike that which we see displayed in front of the American people on television.  Unfortunately, however, this is his message when he speaks before one of the national Democratic Party's key interest groups.

And it is probably a lot closer to his true worldview than the homogenized picture to which we are regularly treated in the media. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Everest]

Great post Joe, on an extraordinarily important subject. Perhaps finally, during the general election cycle, people will begin to understand how liberal Obama really is. Not just on the abortion issue, but taxes, health care and as you point out above - judicial philosophy. He was one of only about 20 Senators that voted against John Roberts - I mean McCain voted to confirm Ginsberg and Scalia passed 98-0...and Obama can't vote for someone like John Roberts...??? Obama is easily as liberal as any Democratic candidate that's run for President in the last 50 years...McGovern included...

[Stormy]

Everest,

Make that 100% on the left end, farther than Hilliary Clinton, John Kerry, and Teddy Kennedy. Wow.

Hillary Clinton is dangerous because she is dishonest and is a control freak, and a far leftist at heart.

Obama is dangerous because, if elected, he wants to take this country in a new direction to socialism. It already has elements of socialism now, but, he wants it to be 100%. If we get Obama as President, with controlling majorities in both houses of congress, we'll see the likes of socialism we have never seen in this country.

As far as abortion, in four years, Obama would be able to appoint and get confirmed 2-3 justices to the Supreme Court that will seal abortion into law for decades. There would be a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

[Everest]

Stormy - that's what's so frustrating about the 4-5 years after Bush won in 2000. With both houses of Congress AND the White House, Republicans had a chance to implement many more conservative programs - maintain lower taxes, control spending, reform Medicare/SS, get rid of earmarks, remake the judiciary, etc...Yet, Republicans became drunk with power, spent money like Democrats on a bender, and lost their way. They caved to unprecedented filibuster threats from the left and accomplished very little....

And Republicans still haven't learned their lessons from 2006. Most think the reason we lost seats was because of George Bush/Iraq...the fact is that we lost seats in 2006 because of ethical/spending scandals. It's clear from the looming farm bill that we haven't learned anything and are destined to be in the minority for a while. Republicans win when they campaign AND govern like conservatives.

It's interesting in the recent Mississippi race that Republicans lost, that they ran against a conservative Democrat that ran AWAY from the Obama/Pelosi cabal..at least they've learned something from the past.

[Joe Guarino]

Everest, thanks. I agree that there will be greater scrutiny of Obama's more extreme policy positions over the next several months. And over the last week or so, it has become apparent that there will be no shortage of examples.

But you are right, Everest-- Republicans have had a certain talent for snaring defeat from the jaws of victory. And also for failing to learn from mistakes and make adjustments expeditiously.

And Stormy, I agree with you entirely that an Obama presidency would be devastating from the standpoint of judicial nominations and appropriate constitutional interpretation.

[Stormy]

Everest,

I agree. The difference between Republicans and Democrats really comes down to one thing. When Democrats are in power, they are true to their ideology. Any representative that wanders off the reservation gets whacked...like Joe Lieberman. When Republicans get in power, they go wobbly, thinking that they can govern like Democrats. They are not as smart as Democrats, who realize that you have to dance with who brought you to the dance. And, now it is the far left that is taking them to the dance.