Johnstown, Pennsylvania was the site of a speech made by Sarah Palin on the subject of abortion and human life. Pennsylvania is the home of many Catholic voters.
This speech established Governor Palin as the most eloquent, prominent defender of human life on the national scene. Here are her actual words:
...(A)s defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?
When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.
Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.
As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.
It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.
I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.
Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.
Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.
In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.
Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.
In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”
In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.
But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.
A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.
For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.
He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.
Wow...no wonder the Left is afraid of her....
Regardless of politics, the bill in the Illinois legislature that Obama was against - the one that was identical to the federal bill - tells you all you need to know about him. It's not an issue any longer at that point whether it's a viable fetus or not, whether life begins at conception or not. It's whether or not we value a living infant, healthy or not...that should be a pretty simple test.
When the entire US Senate can agree on a bill, that should tell us how barbaric this procedure was. And when Barack Obama can't bring himself to vote for the same bill, it tells you an awful lot about him. So I keep waiting for these Obama supporters to tell us why they think he is the best man for the job...perhaps it's votes/opinions like this one that keep them from articulating those views.
Posted by: Everest | October 12, 2008 at 03:00 PM
Everest, I did not see the TV coverage of this speech; but the McClatchy article the N&R ran this morning could not even remotely attempt to represent accurately what she said, and how powerfully she said it.
At least it was covered, and the article was run.
This issue, which involves taking about a million innocent lives every year, is more important than short-term fluctuations in the economy.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | October 12, 2008 at 03:20 PM
The crowd went wild when she got onto the topic of special-needs kids, and the enthusiasm continued unbridled when she went on to discuss abortion. Finally somebody in the national spotlight is starting to articulate these things!
Posted by: Christina | October 12, 2008 at 04:20 PM
Obama simply meant what he said that he didn't want one of his daughters, who made a mistake, punished with a baby. That succinctly describes his policy on abortion. He didn't specify at what point "not having a baby" had to occur.
Posted by: Stormy | October 12, 2008 at 04:20 PM
Christina,
It seems that when Sarah Palin is allowed to speak without filtering, she speaks very clearly, which is what the American people crave to get. The American people have been frustrated for decades with politicians that use doublespeak and filtering to confuse voters on their true agendas, if and when elected.
Sarah Palin provides a stark contrast to all politicians of both parties in this regard, and that is why people admire her so. You know where she stands and what she thinks. Can we say the same for Barack Obama? So, tell me for example, what tax policy will Barack Obama impelement, if elected? Yes, no one really knows.
Before Roch says something about it, I do not think that John McCain speaks as clearly now either. He made his mark with the straight talk express, but now his talk isn't quite so clear as it was when he was the Senate Maverick. McCain should get back on the straight talk express with voters, speak as he believes, and let the chips fall where they may. Let the voters decide how th4ey feel about his principles and beliefs. If it is not what they want, so be it, but he might be surprised that is exactly what they want. At this point, there is nothing to lose.
Posted by: Stormy | October 12, 2008 at 04:35 PM
Uh, huh. That was Palin "unfiltered," you betcha.
When McCain speaks his mind, the crowds boo him.
Posted by: Roch101 | October 12, 2008 at 05:08 PM
Hey Roch - could you take a minute to share with us your thoughts on Obama's stance on this issue? While he doesn't mention it AT ALL, his voting record is pretty clear. So what are your thoughts, or is that "out of your paygrade?"
Posted by: Everest | October 12, 2008 at 05:12 PM
My understanding is that when McCain speaks his mind about "reaching across the aisle" to Democrats, he is booed. The regular "red-state" Joes and Janes on the stump are angry and disgusted.
A lot of folks, my self included, are tired of trying to reason or work with enlightened "progressives" who regard half the country with such condescention and disdain.
I think a lot of them are just stewing until they can vote.
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | October 12, 2008 at 05:58 PM
Roch,
If Obama spoke his mind and told the truth about his principles and beliefs, he would never get elected. He's at the top of the list of politicians that doublespeak. Many of those would, not walk, bur run away from Obama is he spoke clearly as to what he plans to do when elected. He dares not tell them what "change" is going to look like and what it means to them.
Posted by: Stormy | October 12, 2008 at 06:07 PM
Everest,
I've seen some prior comments by Roch, and he is fully supportive of Obama's position on abortion. Roch won't say it clearly, he'll just try to muck-up the discussion as usual, but in the end, he fully supports everything that Obama says and does, including the unlimited right of a woman to terminate her child's life.
Posted by: Stormy | October 12, 2008 at 08:19 PM
Joe,
Thank you for your good service of keeping us informed. This was an excellent speech from Sarah Palin. I am so thankful that someone is speaking up for the "least of these." Abortion is bad enough at any point in time, but that anyone would refuse to support legislation outlawing live birth abortions, and "partial birth" abortions, is not just inhumane but Brave New World kind of stuff - Hitler-esque, Hitler in the early and mid 30's when he was targeting the elderly and senile and handicapped. Obama has shown utter disregard for the sensitivities of a great number of the American people, the vast majority, who oppose infanticide. He is so far to the left that the only change he can effectively bring is, with a Democratic Congress, a tidal wave of leftist legislation. That he is coy and flip on an issue of such deep importance to so many American is beyond disappointing. He could take a serious and informed and sensitive approach and he has chosen not to. Why? I think it's because it's an issue he just cares little about. Either that or he thinks a woman should have a right to choose to partially give birth to a child well down the road of viability, only to have it put to death? Well, most Americans are not with him on this issue and he oguht to at least show respect to how such a thing is so utterly horrifying to so many. But he does not.
Thank goodness for Sarah Palin.
Roch, Joe printed a very large block of the text of Palin's speech, which is certainly less filtered and interpreted than the N&R summation. Yet, you mock the notion of it being unfiltered. What more would you want Joe to do, abstain from opening comments?
There is a point when the folks will not ever agree on this issue, yet, when the chance came to be bipartisan on two aspects of this issue in which the majority of Americans do find common ground, Obama punts, or worse. There is simply no evidence that he is going to bring any change in the way Washington works except to ramrod leftist views down the country's throat. I thought we were tired of the ramrodding approach to things, or is this "change" really just about payback?
Posted by: Joel Gilespie | October 12, 2008 at 08:40 PM
Well put Joel...and this is one issue that has not gotten enough "press." Clearly that's because Obama is so far to the Left of the general public that the media hasn't dared touch it. But where is McCain on this? Why hasn't he said anything before now? If I were McCain or Palin I would be on every TV show that would have me between now and the election - Fox News Sunday made mention of this today, and the pundits were right. He's got to take his message to the airways - or let her do it, she's far better at it than he is!
I think the debate this coming week is on "domestic" issues, and hopefully abortion will come up...but the debates so far (save for the Saddleback Church) have been snoozefests, thanks again to the MSM...
Posted by: Everest | October 12, 2008 at 08:51 PM
Joel, you just hit the nail on the head.
It's "payback" - on so many levels.
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | October 12, 2008 at 08:53 PM
Uh, huh. That was Palin "unfiltered," you betcha.
When McCain speaks his mind, the crowds boo him.
What a moron, the crowd booed because McCain wouldn't call Obama what he is, a proponent of infantcide! How would you have liked for Obama to have decided your fate. Beau
Posted by: Beau D. Jackson | October 12, 2008 at 08:54 PM
By the way, when was the last time, if ever, that a VP running mate had so much impact on a presidential campaign, of both parties? Sarah Palin is sucking the air out of both campaigns. The Democrats are using nearly all of the ammo against her. Yes, she is a threat to Democrats and the Left, or they would just be ignoring her. Unfortunately, it does not seem as though the McCain campaign can leverage that sufficiently to their advantage.
The Democrats will hear from Sarah Palin again. She will be stronger as a result of this fight and come with heavy weapons for the next battle. She is now firmly on teh national political scene.
Posted by: Stormy | October 12, 2008 at 09:42 PM
Christina, I share your enthusiasm that Sarah Palin discussed the issue at length.
Stormy, I agree with you about the power of Palin's oratory, and how her words on this issue contrast with those uttered by Obama.
Joel, thanks for your kind words. The interesting thing is that Obama at one point indicated that he would support greater restrictions on third trimester abortions. I think he may have recanted, but in fact, as long as an activist Supreme Court writes abortion law, any statements he makes like this are moot. He intends to appoint activists to the bench, so we would get more of the same type of abortion law we have had in the past.
And yes, I think we are bound to see a bunch of "payback".
Everest, there is an entire range of domestic issues on which Obama has taken extreme positions that McCain has not yet discussed. I share your hope that he or Palin or both will begin to do so.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | October 12, 2008 at 10:30 PM
I wonder how Roch feels about the new t-shirts being worn by Obama supporters that say "Palin is a c..."?
Posted by: Stormy | October 13, 2008 at 05:41 PM
By the way, if Obama supporters say that it's okay for Obama to sit on a board with a terrorist bomber, like Bill Ayers, would they say it okay for Obama to sit on a board with a terrorist that bombed an abortion clinic, like Eric Rudolph? Somehow, I doubt it.
Posted by: Stormy | October 13, 2008 at 05:49 PM
Excellent point, Stormy. If McCain had sat on a board with an abortion clinic bomber, we would never hear the end of it.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | October 13, 2008 at 08:03 PM