Breaking news: McCain to hit Obama on Born Alive
From Newsmax.com, June 18:
In coming weeks, John McCain is planning to confront Barack Obama on three issues dear to conservatives’ hearts.
First is Obama’s support of the recent Supreme Court ruling that gives foreign enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detention in federal district courts….
Second is Obama’s opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, which says a state is not required to recognize same-sex marriages that are performed in other states. Congress overwhelmingly passed the bill in 1996, and Bill Clinton signed it into law.
Third is Obama’s vote in 2002 as an Illinois state senator against a bill to define as a “person” a fully born baby who survived an abortion. The bill was intended to make it clear that if an abortion were botched, an infant born alive would not be killed and would receive medical care. Twice, Obama voted against various versions of the bill and twice voted “present.” The Illinois bill did not pass….
The legislation was similar to the federal Born-Alive Infants Act, which even Hillary Clinton supported in 2001. Leading abortion rights groups, including NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, said they would not oppose the federal legislation.
Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed the bill, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote. President Bush signed that bill into law in August 2002.
Until now, McCain has generally left the pursuit of Obama to the Republican National Committee, while McCain himself has largely conveyed a positive message….
The coming major attacks on Obama over substantive issues will be by McCain himself. He will paint Obama as having extremist positions or as being out of touch with the fact that we live in a dangerous world. The attack on Obama’s born-alive abortion position could come later in the summer, a McCain aide said….
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Finally, McCain will take Obama to task over what could possibly make or break or Obama’s success.
Oh goody….
Then we could have another 4 years of Bush-esque insanity.
A glowing example of McCain’s “family values”:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
Funny thing about “similar” laws. See, the Virginia ban on so-called partial birth abortion is similar to the Federal one, but the Virginia law was declared unconstitutional while the federal law was not. Subtle differences in the Virginia wording put any doctor performing any second-term procedure at risk of criminal liability, while the federal law only criminalized doctors who set out to perform an intact dilation and extraction. The court ruled that the Virginia law constituted an undue burden on women and the federal one didn’t.
So it doesn’t surprise me that a senator or an organization like NARAL might object to a state law but not to that law’s federal counterpart.
Still, I have been looking for detailed and unbiased information about the Illinois Induced Infant Liability Act, and McCain challenging Obama on this issue might churn some up from somewhere. I suspect that IILA was really an anti-abortion law disguised as an infant protection law, but that’s not the same as knowing it.
“So it doesn’t surprise me that a senator or an organization like NARAL might object to a state law but not to that law’s federal counterpart.”
Thats true DRF, there is a right way and a wrong to kill a baby. If you kill the baby the right way, then the abortionist is safe.
DRF, 6:54a, said: “Funny thing about ‘similar’ laws. See, the Virginia ban on so-called partial birth abortion is similar to the Federal one, but the Virginia law was declared unconstitutional while the federal law was not.”
First, you’re comparing apples to oranges. The US Supreme Court declared the federal pba ban constitutional after 3 federal courts found it unconstitutional. Likewise, the VA pba ban has thus far been found unconstitutional by a federal court. We’ll see what the Supremes say.
Second, Obama single-handedly killed an amendment that would have made the federal and IL Born Alive bills identical. He went on to stop the bill from even being let out of committee. This was in 2003.
Want to see unbiased info? How about checking out Obama’s votes and Senate speeches directly:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
As it was, the definition of “born alive” was identical in both bills.
McCain is going to hit Obama on the social conservative issues? I’ll believe it when I see it.
DRF: Go to Obama’s site Know the facts section. (Working on that unbiased for you.)
It’s in the Archives. Here’s a partial:
Major Difference Between State And Federal BAIPA: “The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have Been Used To Challenge” Roe V. Wade. “Perhaps on no other issue is Keyes’ rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. Keyes repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring ‘infanticide’ because of Obama’s vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The failed measure would have required doctors to provide medical attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of abortion procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed through Congress. But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to hammer Obama with the “infanticide” charge virtually daily on the campaign trial. Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he’s “deeply offended” by Keyes’ assertion because he knows it’s false. Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on late-term abortions that Bush signed – but federal judges since have put on hold – and Keyes would have voted for it.” [Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04]
Comparing these two sites should giv eyou the unbiased DRF.
Illinois Bill:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&LegID=3910&SpecSess=&Session=
Federal Bill:
http://www.govtrack.us/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2175
This is the section missing from the Illinois Bill but included in the Federal Bill
`(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born alive’ as defined in this section.’.
Which is what Obama has been saying all along – antichoicers would have used the wording of the Illinois BAIPA to come between doctors and women and their families in making medical decisions and banning the right to a safe and legal abortion and possibly other medical procedures.
J Keller Thanks for the article on McCain linked above. If he wants to play the “family values” game, bring it on. Not every news outlet is Fox.
This explains McCain’s do nothing policies on health care and the economy. All you need to do is marry someone worth $100 million dollars, and if necessary get rid of your old, poor and sick former spouse.
As established in yesterday’s thread, Obama’s opposition to the IL legislation in 2002 on technical grounds had no effect whatsoever, since the federal act was passed that year.
Few voters are likely to be swayed by this non-issue or Jill’s personal grudge against Obama.
As for “defense of marriage”, since that bill was signed into law 12 years ago, I fail to see the relevance.
If McCain wants to play “family values”, he better be prepared when the story of his ex-wife hits the media.
Most voters consider the “substantive issues” to be health care, the economy, the war and energy, not the wedge issues that the Repubs want to tout to distract from their miserable record.
Notwithstanding the popularity of Sean Hannity and Fat Boy, most of the voters have a brain, and won’t be afraid to use it in November.
Oh noes! Gays and abortion! Gays and abortion! Everybody, gays and abortion!!!!
Sounds like a winning strategy…
…if this were 1990.
P.S. I can’t wait for McCain to start touting his anti-choice position. Many independent voters still mistakenly believe that McCain is pro-choice. When they learn that he is actually anti-choice, he loses their support.
Second is Obama’s opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, which says a state is not required to recognize same-sex marriages that are performed in other states.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Defense of Marriage act was co-authored and introduced by Rep. Bob Barr – who happened to be on his THIRD marriage at the time (It has since been dissolved…)
Strangely, Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr is opposed to the act which he claims oversteps federalist jusrisdiction.
Phylo, 9:31a and 9:48:
You quoted the Daily Herald as an unbiased source, which it is not. For instance, the DH reported, per your quote:
“But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision.”
The federal bill did no such thing. The definitions of the federal and state bills were the same. The federal bill added this, as you quoted. Read it carefully:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ?born alive? as defined in this section.
This addition actually takes on Roe by saying, so to speak, “just because we’re declaring born babies persons does not mean we are saying unborn babies aren’t.”
Nevertheless, this is precisely the amendment Obama disallowed from being added to the state version, which I addressed in a previous comment, when he was chairman of the IL Senate Health and Human Services Committee.
See the amendment here:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082sam001&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session=
See where Obama killed it (“Amendment No. 1”) and the bill here:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=3910&SessionID=3&GA=93
Hard to believe McCain is wrong on all three issues. The first two are the most important. He’ll sink his campaign by trashing the constitution and gays.
Do you think Americans really want the President to have the power to lock someone up forever without any right to challenge to basis for it?
Let’s say Cindy McCain is locked up by President Obama in 2010 as a foreign enemy combantant. She’s not those things, she’d like to say. But there’s no one to say those things to, as she doesn’t have the right to say them in court. Habeas Corpus doesn’t exist anymore.
The court ruled that the Virginia law constituted an undue burden on women and the federal one didn’t.
The whole idea that there can possibly be an “undue burden” on somebody who is, after all, trying to have a BABY KILLED is a sign of how profoundly this country has gone morally bankrupt. ANYTHING that stands between a baby and somebody who is trying to kill him ought to be universally recognized as a GOOD thing, not some sort of “burden”.
One might as well lament that the presence of police place an “undue burden” on criminals who wish to rob, rape, and murder.
Jill:
1) please reread. The note above the Daily Herald post said “working on an unbiased for you.”
2) What is 1/2 born alive? Or is it time for some site maintenance – c’mon JIll, stop being cheap and put some money into this blog – or is it WND’s problem?
3) As Obama clearly explains in his own words on the Senate Floor, this bill oversteps by requiring another doctor to second guess the attending doctor.
4) anti-choicers get really pissy when they get called out don’t they? Obama (as a constitutional law scholar) clearly saw that BAIPA could be a wedge used to overturn Roe. Then again, wasn’t that when the antichoice side had Keyes as it’s candidate? Anyone not comfortable voting for Bozo the Clown would have been embarrassed by him, so maybe it’s understandable that you’re so irritable.
Exactly what choice is McCain anti?
Most people are anti choice on rape, arson, drunk driving, child abuse, and fraud. And I believe that McCain is anti-choice on those as well. He’s probably also anti-choice on shoplifting, tax evasion, speeding, drunk driving, and drive-by shootings.
He’s anti many choices. So?
Christina…. you rock!
Phylosopher, when you’re attacking someone for a glitch in a post, that’s when you know you’re getting desperate and grasping for straws…
Christina at 11:38, an excellent post! That should be quote of the day.
On the flipside, here is a story about some rational Republican women who are seeing the light:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/06/19/mccain/index.html
You hardcore antis seem to love ragging on Obama for refusing to support a blatant wedge bill like the born alive nonsense, but the majority of Americans, and fewer and fewer Republicans, agree with you.
Uh, rather the majority of Americans DISagree.
This is the best news yet to come out of the McCain camp. It looks that they have finally come alive. Even though some disagree that social concerns are key issues, conservatives and many swing voters see them as very important. First, there is the matter of national security and the impact of the recent supreme court decision on our ability to detain enemy combatants. As Justice Scalia noted in his dissenting opinion this could very well result in higher casualties for American troops in present and future conflicts. McCain rightfully excoriated the decision, while Obama praised it.
Next, it is beyond the pale that a court would declare same sex “marriage” as a “right.” But John McCain doesn’t see it that way, while Barack Obama is just fine with it. Also, it is hard to believe that an otherwise intelligent Barack Obama would be so blind to the humanity of an infant having its brains sucked out while in the birth canal and not try to do everything within his power to stop that practice. John McCain on the other hand does recognize the brutality of that procedure and has voted to outlaw it.
Add to the above McCain’s agressive proposals on drilling and on nuclear power and it is clear that he is firmly rooted in reality, whereas Obama is holding on to untenable ideas on how to deal with these matters.
“McCain rightfully excoriated the decision, while Obama praised it.”
The court didn’t release anyone, just said they have a right to ask the court for a hearing if they’re being held for no reason at all. If they’re being held for some plausable reason, they stay where they are. Hardly the end of the world.
“Next, it is beyond the pale that a court would declare same sex “marriage” as a “right.” ”
Marriage is a right. Same sex couples (in California) now have the same rights as the rest of us. Harldy the end of the world.
“Oh noes! Gays and abortion!”
Please pay attention. This thread is about Sen. Obama’s refusal to help protect INFANTS born alive after an attempt to abort them failed. It’s about infanticide, not abortion.
Ray: “You hardcore antis seem to love ragging on Obama for refusing to support a blatant wedge bill like the born alive nonsense, but the majority of Americans, and fewer and fewer Republicans, [dis]agree with you.”
Um, no. I’m fairly certain that the majority of Americans does NOT favor infanticide. If you have any poll numbers to contradict this, Ray, please feel free to share them.
Next, it is beyond the pale that a court would declare same sex “marriage” as a “right.”
Hal: Marriage is a right. Same sex couples (in California) now have the same rights as the rest of us. Hardly the end of the world.
Edyt: It’s not a stretch to think in the future the Supreme Court might make it a right too.
Yeah, just as we got around to seeing that “separate but equal” really wasn’t equal, and that interracial marriage wasn’t the “end of the world” though some at the time figured it was.
When someone changes your natural state, they are held responsible. If I give you $1 million, I have changed your natural state and am praised for it. If I take $10000 from you, again I change your natural state and will be prosecuted since that change is deemed illegal. If a doctor’s actions change your natural state in a way that suits you, it is praised. If those same actions change your natural state in ways that don’t suit you, to such degree you would pursue due process against the doctor. Our entire legal morality is based on how peoples actions affect others’ natural state.
Now, after conception the living person’s natural state is to CONTINUE to grow for the next 20+ years into a fully matured adult. in RARE cases the person’s natural state as handed down by nature does not allow growth to an adult. My concern therefore is not with this invented word ‘abortion’. There were already plenty of words for the taking of a human life before this one. My concern is with the lack of due process for the SEVERE altering of a person’s natural state. Why is there no due process for the death of certain people below a certain age? Why is it that when a couple of people decide to take a very young person’s life, they aren’t made to be accountable before a jury who decides what the appropriate word is for that particular taking of a human life?
If you follow the logic you will find the basis for the tangled mess of legal support for this denial of due process is very similar to the denial of civil rights. It’s a ‘since nothing says we can’t’ approach. Since ‘all men created equal’ wasn’t specifically defined, hence the need for the Civil Rights Act. If EVERY taking of a human life rendered the involved accountable to a jury who would weigh the merits, then justice prevails and the entire ‘abortion’ (whatever that is) arena disappears. Our legal system is already designed to handle cases where lives are lost due to the actions of others.
So when a ‘Personhood Act’ that establishes pre-born people as having equal protection under the law is finally the goal, I’m ready to fight. Until that, nothing really matters—the killing continues and due process denied. Somehow I’ll keep on living as if my country doesn’t ignorantly slaughter inconvenient people who can’t scream for help. In some ways they are like little illegal aliens who aren’t on the books yet—-they’re safe to kill……..right?
a ‘Personhood Act’
This would create so many problems… It’d be opening up such a can of worms that nobody can see where it would really lead.
Prior to viability, the gov’t has no business butting in when this should be a matter for the woman and her doctor to decide.
This makes a fundamental assumption that a human life does not exist prior to “viability”. It is SO important to realize that ‘pregnancy’ is nature’s choice of PLACEMENT of an existing human life, not the place where cells become a human life at some age called ‘viability’. The place where cells create a living human being is at conception. Therefore we must stay focused. This is not about the adult but about the helpless and dependent child. We can debate for days where responsibility lies for conception and what privacy is and what viability is and what implications laws may have, BUT the focus is protecting the unjust loss of life. The key here is ‘unjust’. In our society the justified circumstances for the taking of human life involve lethal threat and due process before a jury (excepting death penalty). Is a person’s privacy equivalent to lethal threat? Is pregnancy a lethal threat by definition? A pregnancy can be a lethal threat, but not without proving it be so in the moment. To say otherwise would be the same as saying if a man comes into my house and I decide he poses a lethal threat, I can kill him and depose of him without any due process because it happened in the protected privacy of my home. An adult person has a fundamental right to life in the eyes of our laws, except where he poses a lethal threat to other life and even then the burden of proof of that threat lies on the accuser. Stay focused: lethal threat should remain the threshold for the taking of ALL human life and we are wrong to make an age requirement to qualify as a human life. Lethal force is not justified just because nature decided the placement for a living, growing human life is inside a female. I know there are complicated implications of beginning-of-life/end-of-life issues, but how can we disregard our most basic human duty? If you believe a human life starts at ‘viability’, a little more digging into the science of human development (and adherence to scientific principles) will show you the human life begins at conception.
Stacy,
No, that “a human life exists prior to viability” is not in doubt. Nobody told you that human life begins at viability.
The issue is most certainly about adults. The debate (and the votes) comes from people with differing opinions. You more want every unborn life to continue, and I more want women to heep the freedom they now have.
Pregnancy is almost never a “lethal threat,” but that’s almost never why people have abortions. Most abortions are because the pregnancy is unwanted, and regardless of how much you want them, unless you’re the one who is pregnant then your wishes are not primary there. You saying “not justified” for abortion does not trump the pregnant woman if she says “justified.”
We don’t have a “human duty” to expand the population any faster than what is already the case, especially not against the wishes of the woman who is pregnant.
Thank you Doug for continuing this conversation and for the candor of your response. I am surprised how quickly you ‘cut to the chase’ as most whom I have such conversations with do not so quickly get down to this level of reality. Yet acknowledging your statement:
“Pregnancy is almost never a “lethal threat,” but that’s almost never why people have abortions. Most abortions are because the pregnancy is unwanted, and regardless of how much you want them, unless you’re the one who is pregnant then your wishes are not primary there. You saying “not justified” for abortion does not trump the pregnant woman if she says “justified.”
brings me to one baffling question. What is the reason a woman is given the authority to take a life to end a pregnancy? Since pregnancy is merely the PLACEMENT (by nature) of an EXISTING life, then an unwanted pregnancy means unwanted PLACEMENT— similar to tenants who don’t pay rent or protesters at an unwanted location. Just because you want to change their location doesn’t give you the right to kill them. Your comment about ‘expanding the population’ seems to suggest that continuing the pregnancy would expand the population. Problem is, since the human life already began at conception, then the population ALREADY expanded. Can we take life merely because we don’t like its location?
I own guns and would use them to defend my home and family. But I also agree with the legal threshold of lethal force and would not use them to kill a person who invaded my home yet posed no lethal threat to me. I would not use them to kill someone trespassing on my property, cutting me off in traffic, or living in my country illegally just because I don’t like their location. Now I realize that civil authorities can change the placement of all the above situations and that neither medical technology nor nature itself has given women a way to likewise force the unborn person to change it’s location, but only for a certain amount of time. Unlike deadbeat renters or trespassers, unborn children are guaranteed to leave within a few months. Yet since a woman may not want to wait that long, she is given the authority to end a life just to change it’s location a little earlier than normal.
So again I’m baffled; perhaps it is because I see birth as merely a change of location, not a beginning of a life. Perhaps I don’t get it because I don’t believe the taking of human life is justified except when posing a lethal threat. But I certainly don’t see how the taking of a life is justified to merely speed-up a change of location. Wouldn’t that be like demanding a person leave your home, but then driving over them with your car if they don’t run fast enough?
Stacy, you’re most welcome. The abortion debate takes us to the unprovable assumptions we all make, so yeah – “cut to the chase.”
I certainly agree that the unborn here are human, and that “human being” applies, and that with normal development those lives would continue, etc.
…..
What is the reason a woman is given the authority to take a life to end a pregnancy?
Because there is sufficient opinion for her having the authority, in this case to viability. I realize that you and many others disagree with this, but for now your will in the matter does not hold sway. It does not “have” to be that way, but for now it is that way.
…..
We really can take life because we don’t like its location. The morality of that, of course, is a matter of debate. We don’t say the population has been increased at conception, we say it at birth. After birth, the life is no longer inside the woman’s body, and thus the whole deal changes – it’s no longer a matter of the desire for that life against the desire of the mother (if she wants an abortion). There’s no significant amount of sentiment for allowing born babies to be killed, reflecting the difference in people’s perception versus when it’s inside the mother’s body.
Just because you want to change their location doesn’t give you the right to kill them.
In the case of abortion, it’s not about changing the location, it’s about the life not being wanted in the first place. If it was wanted (enough) then abortion would not be had willingly.
…..
I own guns and would use them to defend my home and family. But I also agree with the legal threshold of lethal force and would not use them to kill a person who invaded my home yet posed no lethal threat to me. I would not use them to kill someone trespassing on my property, cutting me off in traffic, or living in my country illegally just because I don’t like their location. Now I realize that civil authorities can change the placement of all the above situations and that neither medical technology nor nature itself has given women a way to likewise force the unborn person to change it’s location, but only for a certain amount of time. Unlike deadbeat renters or trespassers, unborn children are guaranteed to leave within a few months. Yet since a woman may not want to wait that long, she is given the authority to end a life just to change it’s location a little earlier than normal.
As you note, it’s not really the location of the person in your home that matters, it’s whether or not their behavior justifies them being killed. You don’t want to kill just because they are inside your home, but some women do want abortions just because they are pregnant. It’s a different deal.
It’s also different in that while we are blaming the intruder if we say that deadly force is justifiable against them, that we are saying their behavior is the cause, we are not saying that with respect to abortion. There is no necessary “blame” assigned to the unborn, no presumption of “guilt.” That applies to the intruder, but not to the unborn – the unborn are just unwanted (for whatever reason) when abortion is desired.
……
So again I’m baffled; perhaps it is because I see birth as merely a change of location, not a beginning of a life. Perhaps I don’t get it because I don’t believe the taking of human life is justified except when posing a lethal threat. But I certainly don’t see how the taking of a life is justified to merely speed-up a change of location. Wouldn’t that be like demanding a person leave your home, but then driving over them with your car if they don’t run fast enough?
If it’s just a change of location that’s at issue, then abortion is usually restricted, anyway, i.e. it’s past viability and delivery can be induced and the baby live outside the womb. Agreed that birth is not “the beginning of a life,” but people don’t have abortions because “life doesn’t appear until birth,” they have them because the pregnancy isn’t wanted.
You more want all the unborn lives to continue, and I more want women to keep the freedom they now have in the matter.
there is something I want to throughly think about before I post a reply. please check back on Thursday
Stacy, after two weeks from the beginning of a thread (topic), comments usually become disabled. July 3 is the two week date for this post, so beware, though right now comments are being allowed for a little more than 14 days.
We’re not supposed to “jump threads” more than necessary, but if you or I can’t respond here we could change to a new thread.
Doug
Hmm… Well, now it appears that comments are enabled until the thread gets to be….
Four months old. Wow.