Barack Obama: Morally Depraved

Let us not mince words.

By Leon H Wolf Posted in | | | | Comments (152) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Obamania is sweeping the country. The phenomenon has become so powerful that otherwise sensible conservatives and alleged center-right pundits have written posts explaining why he is worthy of at least their primary votes. The general feeling expressed is that he seems to be a good, kind and generous person, would be loads better than Hillary, and probably wouldn't be all that bad as a President. I am writing this story today to hopefully disabuse all people with moral sense of the notion that Barack Obama is either a morally decent person or a potentially decent President.

More below...

Being a good President is ultimately about having good judgment. Candidates win votes by looking good on TV and embracing positions that voters like. Being a good President, on the other hand, has very little to do with television savvy (I would have said "none" before the Presidency of George W. Bush) and/or holding the right policy positions. Although he was much mocked for saying it, George W. Bush was correct when he noted that the job of President basically involves being the "decider," of being the person at whose desk the proverbial buck stops. Day in and day out, difficult decisions concerning issues that don't come up on the campaign trail find their way to the President's desk. Often, he has to sift through mountains of carefully constructed and conflicting advice in a split second and ultimately make a gut decision on an issue that could affect the safety and lives of millions of people.

Which is why, when I examine what Presidential candidates say on the campaign trail, and how they have voted or governed in the past, I am not so much looking for a checklist of positions, or someone who makes me feel warm and fuzzy when they speak, but rather I am looking behind all of that to see what those speeches/votes/actions say about the judgment of the candidate. I do this because I know that when new and important questions approach the Presidential desk, President X will not go back and consult what he said as Candidate X in stump speeches; he will go where all leaders and decision-makers go: to his character and gut. And if a President's character and gut are rotten, it is a safe bet that bad decisions will flow from it.

This brings us to Amanda Carpenter's excellent story about Barack Obama and the Born Alive Infants' Protection Act ("BAIPA"). For those who may not know, abortion is not always a "successful" procedure, insofar as "success" is defined as the killing of an unborn child. Most early term abortions involve the dismemberment of the child in utero and subsequent removal of the "pieces" of the uterus via suction. As you might imagine, this method does not leave many unborn children alive. However, most late-term abortions involve some combination of poisoning the unborn child and inducing the mother to deliver early. However, some of the unborn children in question are not as ready to die as their mothers are ready to... ah... "eliminate" them, and they are born alive. The Born Alive Infants' Protect Act requires, very simply, that if doctors are unsuccessful in killing the children through abortion, they may not kill them by refusing medical treatment, thus ensuring that they will die cold and alone on, say, an operating table. Or perhaps a toilet.

With this information given, Barack Obama's vote against [updated for accuracy - the IL version of] BAIPA really needs no further explanation. By way of contrast, BAIPA passed in the United States Senate unanimously, without even a dissent from Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy. The House passed the vote by a shocking 380-15 vote. NARAL was fine with BAIPA. I disagree strongly with this notion that we can draw an arbitrary line between small humans in utero and small humans ex utero wherein the former class may be legally killed but the latter may not. However, the latter proposition is not opposed by even the most committed merchant of death, with the exception of the proudly morally depraved like Peter Singer. And it is in this company that we find the alleged moderate and decent person Barack Obama.

It cannot be said that Obama voted against this bill in ignorance. As Amanda's story notes, Jill Stanek appeared personally in front of Obama's committee and explained in painstaking detail the horrors endured by children who were born alive after "failed" abortions and left to die in toilets and on steel tables. Obama, we are told, was summarily unimpressed with it all, and singlehandedly kept the bill from coming to the floor of the Illinois Senate.

The question I have for conservatives and moderates - and, what the heck? liberals - is this: what sort of man thinks it should be legal to allow living infants to drown in a toilet immediately after birth? The answer is very simple: a morally depraved one. And the next question that I have is this: do you want such a man making the most important decisions that will face this country over the next four years?

Morally serious people should not allow themselves to be so easily swayed by good looks and public speaking ability that they refuse to look behind the facade to see the moral depravity that lies beneath. Because a good speech and a comforting smile will not be able to undo the damage that putting such a man in power will cause.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | If Only Barack Obama Had Been Here, Lazarus Would Not Have DiedComments (23) »
Barack Obama: Morally Depraved 152 Comments (0 topical, 152 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

There were only 15 people willing to oppose this.

Excellent post about a truly frightening fact.

The truly frightening fact is that there are already people who oppose this in decision-making positions.

www.republicansenate.org

There are 435 members in the House; 395 voted. Where were the other 40? Was this issue not important enough to bother showing up for 9% of the members? Or was it too scary for them to go on record? I shall have to look to see who those cowards were...

I had lunch at the firm commissary yesterday with a few of our new para-legals.

Of course the topic turned to politics and I, now sitting with 3 highly educated self described liberal kids in their mid to late 20's, took the opportunity to ask them about the Obama phenomena.

The consensus, in short, was this:

They believe Obama has caught fire because he is genuine. That believe he is very intelligent and speaks from the heart. They are also tired from 8 years of W and what they consider an opaque presidency and a man who can barely put two sentances together.

They want Obama's intellect. They want a leader who is sincere in not demonizing opposing viewpoints which they believe Bush and the GOP has done when Democrats don't do what he wants them to do to fight terrorism.

And finally, they want to move forward. They have high hopes that an Obama victory will spell the end of racism in America - while also showing blacks that if they work hard they can reach great heights as well. And they see Hillary and McCain as "yesterday" politicians who will only continue the hyper-partisanship they despise in government.

You can point out Barack's position on abortion as it pertains to this blog, but I don't think it will make a dent in this race. The Obama movement is about moving forward and using wedge issues to try to demonize him only sounds like old school fear and hate mongering to them.

At least that is their view.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Where I said that this post was directed at morally serious people.

And, you'll note that the BAIPA is not an "abortion position," which is why NARAL did not oppose it. It's a "being a decent human being" position.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

must be to develop shiny objects that cause them to forget to vote.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

actually tell us how to create those shiny objects. We have to show voters that Obama is not a completely new politician--he is the old style politician who can deliver a speech. When this becomes a contest between "just two politicians", the cult of personality will disappear for the young voters.

In order to sell the idea that he really is as much as "yesterday" politician as anyone else.

Let's wait for him to slip up and then pounce.

But things this could definitely sway southern and/or conservative Democrats, swing voters, and independents.

Self-described "liberals" in their 20s are not in play for Republicans, and they have never been with Bush either.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I agree. People who are part of Obama's cult of personality don't what to hear about issues. They have been convinced that disagreement about issues=partisanship=bad. They want everyone to hold hands and sing kumbayah rather than discuss messy things like issues on which people may have disagreements.

The people who can be moved by Obama's support for killing not only unborn children but actually born children are the swing voters--Catholics, conservative Democrats, married couples with kids, etc. I also think some of the "youth" vote can be swayed by this, although not the liberals or the Obamaniacs. But the undecided voters among the youth may be swayed. Polls consistently show that younger people are more likely to be pro-life than their parents and grandparents. If younger people are more likely to oppose abortion itself, how horrified will they be by a candidate who not only supports abortion but supports killing babies after they are born?

I think McCain has an opening to jump on this issue. It gives the lie to Obama's claim to want to reach across the aisle and escew partisanship. Only the most radical partisan would support killing born children out of fear that making it illegal would undermine abortion. Obama is a radical partisan, not a bipartisan savior, and McCain needs to make sure the voters see that.

Please tell me how voting against this piece of legislation can be equated with "support for killing babies?"

Do you think when Obama's driving to work and he sees a mother pushing a stroller down the street he takes the opportunity to crush that baby under his wheels?

Hard to make the case that the GOP is the "pro-life" party in the middle of a GOP war.

Then again, from what I've read of abortion demographics, melanin levels... well. That's such a harsh judgment to make about you, wouldn't you say, Dick?

Goodbye, Dick.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

When you ban them, they get to get up on their cross and act the martyr. They crave that like plants crave Brawndo. I bet the second you banned them, they penned their missive of how badly they were treated here for whatever site it is they hang out in.

If I was a betting man, this user will post their "I WAS BANNED AT REDSTATE!" diary at either:

Daily Kos 5 to 6 odds
MyDD 1 to 3 odds
Wonkettee 1 to 1000000 odds

Just saying.

The Angry Left makes up a small, yet nontrivial part of our overall traffic.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I don't agree with richard woodcock but dammit he made a legitimate comment in support of Obama, again I disagree with him but I think I can argue my point with him intelligently enough that, while I don't expect to change his mind, it might compel other readers to look a little closer at Obama and maybe ask him some tougher questions....but now that won't happen because you rocket scientists banned the user and squashed the debate....you took your ball and went home.

Man up, stare the guy down and tell him why you don't agree with him. We bitch and moan about the liberal slant of the media and the liberal blogs you listed above but where do we expect to be able to debate important issues if you ban these guys for making a post.

What you've done is made this board exactly what we all hate about Huffington, dKos, and all the others, one-sided rant fests where no one with differing opinions is willing to share ideas and maybe get some of these people back on board with the good points the GOP has been built on.

There, so go ahead now and ban one of your own for calling you out. If you can't argue your point intelligently, then don't argue it....but if you won't give those that disagree with you the ability to debate you, then you're just a gutless turd.

you got a mouse in your pocket?

He's not "one of our own" and neither are you.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

That's kinda juvenile. What is this -- a fourth grade playground? Maybe the Richard/Dick namecalling is back in vogue. Or maybe I'm so old I missed it making a rebound it becoming funny again.

Attack his position, attack his ideas, but when you attack someone's name it undercuts your argument.

I didn't really check out the last name and realize it was a bit of a trollbait until after I hit the "post" button. That being said, I still think calling someone "Dick" is not in good form.

When it comes time to toss a twerp who pretends to progressive principles to keep himself from realizing just how badly he hates people not of his skin color, it seems a shame not to give him the send-off he secretly craves. I figure that was worth two, maybe three Special Times for him.

Just all part of the service here at RedState - besides, he's the type that would really get going off of an impeachment scenario, so there's still going to be a slightly bitter taste involved for him in all of this.

Moe

PS: Further objections may be sent to the Directors via the Contact link.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Yes, he supports killing babies. He may not support killing ALL babies, but he supports killing some babies--particularly, unborn babies and babies born after a botched abortion. He opposed a bill that would make it illegal to kill the second category of babies. Why? Because he thinks it should be legal to do so. That is support. If he opposed killing babies born after a botched abortion, he would have voted for the bill, just like the Senate did, unanimously.

The fact that we are at war with terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan is irrelevant. Our military doesn't target civilians, babies or otherwise. In fact, they take whatever steps they can to avoid killing civilians (unlike the enemny, who targets them). And the war is not a "GOP war." It is a "U.S. war." It's statements like that which cause people to question Democrats' patriotism. When Clinton sent troops into Kosovo, did Republicans call it a "Democrat war"? I am not aware of any who did; I certainly didn't. The U.S. was at war, not just Democrats.

With a username like Dick Wood Cock, it was only a matter of time before you talking-points'ed your way out of a membership. I'm sure the blam patrol is on its way.

GOP war ... yeesh. Adios, Dick.

absentee

Dick was releieved of his RS privileges hours ago. Unfortunately it was less fanfare than I like to see from the blam patrol, but perhaps its because I'm tired, ready for the weekend, and hungry for blood....

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

Well then ... so there!

absentee

If the Obamaniacs are this offended over their man's defense of infanticide, imagine when the topic turns to war and terror.

Obama voters are concerned about issues - they just don't want hyper-partisanship involved in the debate of those issues anymore.

For that matter, many Republicans have grown tired of hyper-partisanship which is why polls show some GOP moderates either supporing Obama or are willing to consider him.

It's not the issues - per se - that are the problem. It is equating gross immorality to the opponent of the issue (Iraq, abortion, taxes etc...) that citizens have grown tired of.

I think this line of reasoning is more in line with how we live our lives. For example, my neighbor is a stauch anti-abortion citizen. He knows I am pro-choice. However, we don't demonize one another. Our kids play on the same little league team. We have worked together for a local charity. We even baby sit for each other on occasion. In short, though we have a deep and profound disagreement on the issue (and a damn sensitive one at that) - we don't demonize each other as a result of the disagreement.

And that, in my opinion, is the chord that Obama has struck and that has resonated with many people. Someone once said "we can disagree without being disagreeable." I think that sums it up well. Many Americans simply do not want to be disagreeable in the hyper-partisan sense of the word. They are worn out with being coerced by either side to see folks as good citizens or immoral pieces of dung.

Of course partisanship in one form or another will always be with us - and some of us believe the hyper-partisanship ways of the Clintons or Delay is good for government or good for the particular political team you support.

That may be true and I'm not here to defend or attack the hyper-partisan approach that both parties have been known to employ. I simply am making an observation that I see a broad cross section of this country being very adverse to bare knuckled partisanship and Obama has captured and articulated that sentiment to great success.

This is NOT about "choice" or abortion. It's about infanticide.

Try to defend infanticide and don't forget to not be disagreeable.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I agree with you on the actual issue (abortion), but I wish I were not on your side with that attitude.

I'm perfectly willing to have a reasoned and rational debate over abortion at very low tones.

I'm not willing to grant that pass to supporters of infanticide. BTW, perform that procedure outside of a clinic and it's called - in all 50 states - murder.

The Werewolf is getting himself all worked up about tone while Obama wants to legalize the murder of new born babies.

If you've got a problem with my attitude in respect that subject, be even gladder you're not within arms reach of me. Hey, I avoided the temptation to refer to the Werewolf as a butcher's apprentice.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I'm not hear to debate infanticide or Barack's vote in the Illinois legislature.

I simply wish to point out that in regards to an issue such as this that I believe the political climate in this country is reflexively against a candidate or party taking a highly inflammatory issue issue like this to try and nuke the character of a politician or party.

The liberals have also done this type of nuke attack on Bush regarding war, katrina etc.... It got so bad with the liberals we gave it its own name - BDS.

So while I agree with your position and find your critique of Obama - vis-a-vis this issue - to be relevant and accurate - I also do not believe the political ground is fertile at this time to use an issue like this to attack Obama.

Perhaps we disagree on the degree of political enmity in this country and the intensity of the "politics of personal destrcution"; but it is my view that a clear majority of Americans want a MUCH MORE civil debate on the issues of the day - and I attribute Obama's success to this prevailing attitude in society.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I just don't see this line of attack by the left or right - garnering much support outside of the small minority on the far right and far left. As correct as you may be on the issue - people view these types of attacks as "bomb throwing" and simply don't want to hear it from the left or the right when it comes to "infanticide" and "war crimes".

Why? Because your accusations of being a supporter of infanticide get replied to with accusations of war crimes and then we escalate from there. So, to avoid the escalation people just don't want to "get into it" right now with bomb throwing from the right or left.

The liberals have also done this type of nuke attack on Bush regarding war, katrina etc.... It got so bad with the liberals we gave it its own name - BDS.

See, Rasmussen, et al

Bush got re-elected.

And the Congressional losses in 2006 were much more about the behavior of Congress then Bush.

In addition, Bush's sacking of Rummy not only validated the biggest critique against Bush - but also resulted in the great gains since Rummy went packing.

The constant criticism really kicked in after 2004 as the polls reflect. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

And frankly, this is one issue where Obama richly deserves criticism. It probably won't sway an election, but it needs to be done.

What if McCain supported the death penalty for jaywalkers? Would that matter or would it be uncivil to discuss his view that was very far from the mainstream?

"a highly inflammatory issue issue like"

Again I think you're conflating this with abortion. This isn't about abortion. That's why NARAL isn't against it and why people like Kennedy, Kerry, and Clinton voted for it.

There's nothing "inflammatory" about it. Obama has a view that is far outside the norm in that he believes it is legal to end the life of a child who was born. This isn't about civility. It's about an extreme view held by a person who is running for President and is espousing the mantra that he can "bring the people together" and "bridge the divide." It would seem to be hard to do so if he holds extreme views that most of the country reject as both incorrect and morally depraved.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

No one will believe Obama favors infanticide.

Plain and simple. They won't buy that accusation.

The left will view his vote as being about worrying about how passage of the law will effect basic abortion rights and will counter-argue that this is just another bomb throwing exercise to nuke Obama's character.

In short, they will turn it into a straw man attack on Obama that is part and parcel of the "politics of personal discussion."

You think I'm wrong - watch what happens if McCain's folks decide to try to make hey out of this.

Forget for a moment your predictions about the American electorate. Let's get you on record: By defeating the Illinois BAIPA, was Obama on record as pro-infanticide? Yes or no.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I misread Neil's comment. My bad.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

The question in the subject wasn't the same as the one in the body. :-)

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

electoral consequences. As a matter of substance, it would be wrong not to point out Obama's record here, though.

I completely agree it would be wrong.

That's why this board is a wonderful place.

Conflating infanticide with "war crimes", and I assume we'd be talking about Abu G, would be a welcome shot from the left.

War crimes ARE illegal. When charged and proven they are punished. What Obama wants to do is make the murder of new borns LEGAL. If you can't figure out the difference you're hopeless.

Oh, and BTW, if we don't "get into it" now, Peter Singer and Obama will prevail and we'll be discussing a version of the HLA that includes both unborn babies but new born babies as well. And physically and mentally handicapped children.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

But I am an idiot who does not employ personal attacks when debating a point.

is not a personal attack.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

when you make what I believe to be an "idiotic" comment.

Or will I be banned?

And you'll have to really cross some language lines to get yourself banned for taking a swipe at me. I'm generally open season as far as the Mods are concerned, and that's more than fair and fine with me.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Though I doubt you will see me call anyone names here. I'm more of a stick to the debate kind of guy.

But we all have our "moments" from time to time.

Exercise care. The unofficial policy I refer to above works on taking shots at only *ME*. Shouldn't try it across the board.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"I'm generally open season as far as the Mods are concerned"

But that's about right especially b/c becker usually throws the first punch (which he did here).

I think you're Werewolf is making strategic/electoral points while the rest of us are still focused on the actual policy. Thus we are taking past one another.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Because I don't see a rational reason for Obama's vote.

However, election tactics are much more interesting to me and Leon most definitley made campaign tactics vis-a-vis this issue part of his post.

I think the increasing acrimony was because you and others were talking past one another.

"OBAMA SUPPORTS LEGALIZED MURDER"

"But no one is going to care"

"DIDNT YOU HEAR ME, LEGALIZED KILLING OF A CHILD"

"Yeah but, uh, it isn't gonna matter"

"ARRRH"

"ARRRH"

Or something like that.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Naysaying isn't particularly constructive. We're trying to come up with a way of informing the public that Obama is just another lefty.

So instead of just saying "It won't work," how about helping us find a way that *will* work?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Keep in mind that McCain's age and old boy congressional persona make it a very steep hill to climb to defeat Obama. Given that, here are some recommendations.

1. Be proactive on the biggest issues and don't throw bombs (Obama fravors infanticide) because you look desperate if you do.

For instance, most citizens don't know what McCain's plan is to address the health care issue. But they know about Obama's opt in program. McCain must articulate a clear plan and explain why it it is SIGNIFICANTLY better then Obama's. And he has to do it repeatedly.

2. Terror. He must paint Obama and liberals as quitters on Iraq. America by a clear margin wants out of Iraq, but they hate quitters even more. McCain will not gain votes with a 100 year strategy - in fact he'll lose votes making that argument. Americans cringe when they hear the "100 year" commitment argument. But arguing against quitting while ahead will resonate - and makes Obamam look weak without labeling him a terrorist enabler (remember, bomb throwing like this will equal defeat).

3. Drop the "experience counts" line of debate. No one cares. If anything, experience means same old hyper-partisan crap. Hillary has used this argument for absolutely zero gain and McCain will suffer the same results if he persists in trying to make gains with it.

4. Create a BIG distance from Bush whose approval ratings get even worse. Talk about placing competence over cronyism. Include examples. Mention a couple of possible Secretary of State possibilities. AG possibilities. How he'll listen early and often to all sides of issues instead of hunkering down with his inner circle. McCain must be the anti- "bubble boy." Talk about really understanding what combat and sacrifice is about.

McCain won't win this rallying the right. He will win this by dominating the middle and the middle wants cooperation and dignified politics. The brass knuckle days of the 90's and Bush's administrations are over and McCain must show he is much better suited to bring the middle together - not some far left ideologue.

5. Make Roe -v- Wade a MAJOR issue. Talk about how the struggle of 35 years against the worst decision in the modern court's history will end if he is elected - or will stay in place for another 35 years if Obama wins. This will rally prolifers while showing the moderates he's not going to fight for an amendment to dictate to everyone how to live their lives - which is the true conservative position anyway.

6. Do not attack Obama's character. Attack his judgment. Any bomb throwing attacks are completely aginst the current political grain of the country right now and will be ruthlessly put down by the MSM. If mcCain wins it will be on issues - not character. Swiftboating is not in play this go round.

Well, those are 6 key ideas off the top of my head that I believe McCain must follow to give himself a chance.

How is it "hate mongering" to point out Obama's views on abortion?

Sooner or later, his policy positions will have to become fodder for debate.

when you quote an opponent's words and actions.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

A Candidate's views on abortion are clearly fair game and raising the issue does not constitute in anyway "hate mongering".

However, if one calls a candidate "morally deprived" or "a butcher" or similar language for having a particular view on a sensitive issue then that is "pushing the envelope" in my view.

Personally, I get a sense that citizens across the political spectrum are very tired of having their preferred office holder/candidate being branded a murderer or butcher etc... for taking a position contrary to the opposing point of view.

Obama can get away with taking the "high road" so long as he or his campaign does not take out the sharp knives to attack - or if they up the ante in counter-attacking an assault on their candidate's position.

And remember what happened to Hillary. The minute her sharp knives came out her campaign went in the toilet.

If McCain wants to win I would recommend he focus his campaign squarely on the issues and leave the hyperbolic rhetoric behind. As long as Barack doesn't start with his own brand of wedge issues and fear mongering attacking him in that manner simply won't work.

I heard this:


UPDATED: or this?


------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

Leon is not claiming a mere lack of morality behind Senator Obama's position on abortion; he is forthrightly calling him immoral. Telling him that it's counterproductive to feel that way demonstrates a worse tin ear than the one that you're currently suggesting Leon has.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

He defines, the "high road" and anybody who disagrees with him is dispatched by his minions in the MSM. They've even turned on Hillary.

Part of the problem is that at the moment the Dems are in about the same state as Germany was before Hitler. For all the evil Hitler was, everyone agreed he was charismatic, gave a great speech that rallied that masses, and made Germans feel good about themselves. Obama is using the same techniques on the Democratic party and they are being just as effective. The question is how effective they will be on the general population, and even there, signs don't look good.

The guy votes to legalize drowning a new born baby - NOTE: not a fetus!, a baby - and you somehow seem to think that the tag "morally depraved" is excessive.

Wow, I don't even want to know what you WOULD consider morally depraved.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

on the left don't. It is a constant quibble with them, but in this instance, ain't no quibbling.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

This isn't about abortion or an "abortion position." This is about whether a child who has been born can then have his life ended. How would describe a person who voted to make infanticide legal? I think many would consider that depraved.

No one made Obama support infanticide, he choose to.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

"No one made Obama support infanticide, he choose to."

Bingo.

absentee

Obama is labeled immoral because of his stance on abortion. Is John McCain immoral for deserting his first wife to have an affair with his eventual second wife. Never seem to hear anything about this so I assume most people feel the sanctity of marriage isn't important.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

The point is relevant not because there is a logical nexus between the two, but because when we get to the final round where McCain is the nominee, this question is going to be put to anyone who tries to question Obama's morality.

For me, it's easy, he posts a D behind his name, odds go down on his having a God-fearing morality. And the closer and closer he comes to having a perfect liberal record, the more quickly the odds diminish. But then, I'm not the target of the original post by Leon.

If you want to bash John McCain re: Obama, write your own flipping diary.

Don't make me give anyone a time out.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

The thesis for Leon's argument is that there is a moral avenue of attack against Obama. My point is that in the current environment, one can't assume a common point of morality. Furthermore when someone attempts to raise a point of morality, those who are without moral compass will immediately move to the equivalency counter-attack. I can wail all I want to about the unfairness of it all, but in the public arena we don't get to blam our opponents, and right now that equivalency attack is winning more often than it is losing. And in the case of Obama, because of the cult of personality surrounding him,... Well, let's just say Reagan was only "the teflon president" he didn't seem to own that magical dwarven barbarian armor that actively attacked his enemies. So if we advance Leon's argument without knowing how to respond to the next attack we know is coming, we haven't advanced our cause at all and we may actually damage the argument Leon is making. So how do we counter that attack?

*I personally think the whole question of McCain's marriage is not relevant to the morality question. Divorce is too common these days to be even an indicator of a need for further investigation. I will grant you I don't give a **** about defending McCain, but I do give one about Leon and the argument he makes to advance our cause.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

is this "moral equivalance"? I think not...the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other...immoral to leave your sick wife and get another woman...that's for God to judge....to kill an innocent life? that is for all mankind to judge before of course the judgement day....we will all be held responsible if we sit in silence....Obama is a depraved human being.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Was he immoral? Did he not win the vast majority of values voters?

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

During floor debate:

I just want to suggest that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a 9-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

He did teach constitutional law for a decade, so his stance on this piece of legislation was more from a position of withstanding court scrutiny than moral determinations. To extrapolate from this vote that he's "morally depraved" is a stretch.

This papered-on rationale presumes that courts can't read, and ignores the existence of several canons of statutory construction (most notably Avoidance). If you really support a bill, but are afraid that a court will overturn it, then vote for the freaking bill and let the courts overturn it if they will. As a legislator, Barack Obama was not acting as a judge.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

To be sure, I'm not defending Obama's position either on the issue itself or on the constitutionality question, but legislators and executives do have a responsibility to ensure that the legislation that they enact is constitutional. Judges are charged with applying the law to particular cases. Legislators are charged with the duty of determining the constitutionality of the laws themselves and must not pass that buck to the courts. That said, he had a responsibility to read the Constitution and make his own determination about the constitutionality of the legislation, and clearly he preferred to adopt the standard that he argued had been adopted by judges rather than making an independent determination, as the duties of his office require.

www.republicansenate.org

Absolutely agree, but...

1. If in fact, his constitutional objection was sincere, it is a sign of the perversion of his mind that he thinks the Constitution PROHIBITS the states from offering protection to these homo sapiens, and instead protects a right not simply to end a pregnancy, but get a dead baby too.

2. His own words, as reported by the bill's supporter, was that his objection was , at least in part, not constitutional, but his own concern in protecting "women."

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

I wasn't defending Obama, and I agree with everything you said here. He holds an indefensible position and must be held accountable for it. There are plenty of lines of attack that we can use. I just want to stick to those that don't contradict other conservative views on the Constitution and the role of each branch of government.

www.republicansenate.org

to the courts.

Interesting way of defending him, that.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I don't follow Obama's reasoning here. Even Roe v. Wade allowed states to prohibit abortion after viability of the fetus. Here we're not just talking about a viable fetus, but an already born infant. So this statement doesn't make sense to me:

"I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional."

To the extent it does make sense, it sounds like such poor constitutional reasoning that it suggests that Obama is not really concerned about the Constitution but is making a substantive judgment about the proposed bill itself. Do you have the wider context for Obama's statement? I'd be interested to see it.

The dictum of Roe, which did acknowledge that in the future the trimester rationale would be useless, has all but been forgotten. The future bodes ill here.

but here's the record from the Illinois legislature. If you CTRL-F "Obama" and go to the fifth result (almost at the end of the page)you'll find the key portions of debate. Page 87, precisely.

...to the rather obvious point that Obama was apparently wrong about the constitutionality of this law after all.

But full points for tracking down an actual link.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

See the link, where he reported that he mentioned his concern--the woman's choice--apparently to make sure that she not only terminate the pregnancy, but also end up with a dead baby.

Was he also wringing his hands over the prospect that the courts might strike down the law? If he means the leftists who read the Constitution and can find a right to partial-birth abortion but can't find the right to bear arms, then I suppose, yes, the law (or any law, for that matter) might be in danger of judicial nullification.

But he either doesn't know standard constitutional law, or he's full of it. He says that if we find the unborn is a child under the Equal Protection Clause, that would, ipso facto, forbid abortion. I actually might go along with that under a reasonable interpretation of the text and original understanding, but as Obama should know, the courts for over 100 years have held that the Clause only restricts state actions. The abortionist is not a state actor (no matter how noble or woman-affirming he may be).

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

They truly make no sense, legal or otherwise. They are obviously meant as a diversionary tactic so as to draw one's attention away from the killing of babies outside or inside wombs.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com

This will not impact Obama at all. Modern politics is me, me, me. In another generation, voters will be so desensitized that there will be full-throttle euphanasia and many me-too Republicans will argue for it on a cost/benefit basis. This will not get better. As we see in Latin America now, this virus of egocentricism not only has spread, it is incurable.

Mark me down as one who doesn't look forward to the future.

Some do care.

And most importantly, those who do care are largely represented in (1) the swing Catholic voters, and (2) the Evangelical voters whose votes, and enthusiastic support, will be critical to victory in November.

McCain needs to hammer home what a radical Obama is.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

If crumbs like free health care are thrown at either group, many if not most can be bought off. I would love to be proved wrong but don't expect it.

Kerry was throwing similar crumbs around four years ago. Helped him some, but his radicalism on (anti)life and (redefinitions of) marriage lost him the Catholic vote, and motivated Christian conservatives in general.

Obama is just as radical, if not more so.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

And in this case, I would love to be proved wrong.

I am a Democrat, but I would never vote for Barack Obama for a plethora of reasons. However, his vote on this procedure is one of the top reasons in my very long list of reasons why I would not vote for Obama. I am pro-choice--if it's extremely early in the pregnancy (6-8 weeks), if the mother's life is in danger, or in the cases of rape or incest. Even though I was raised Catholic and now attend an Episcopal church, I want to have some compassion for sick or abused women alone in a terrifying situation. And, I don't want poor women to have resort to using coat hangers again, and then dying from septic shock. However, this vote has nothing to do with trying to help poor or abused women. This is simply the case of someone who is six or seven months pregnant waking up one day and deciding that they don't want to be a parent. This is about someone wanting to "dispose" of their baby--or leave it to die, plain and simple.

On a side note, if Obama wins this nomination (which is looking more likely unless people start to get buyer's remorse), then--believe it or not--you can use this issue to help woo some of Hillary's voters. The Catholics (who break heavily for Clinton) and Reagan Democrats who are voting for her aren't going to like this one bit--just like they probably don't like a lot of Obama's foreign policy positions either (pulling out of Iraq immediately, invading Pakistan, sitting down with dictators). If you guys can resist the urge to gloat when Hillary loses, then you can use this, and a host of other issues, to win over a significant chunk of her voters. I'll write a diary about this, if Hillary loses, going into further detail. Y'all have a good day.

I don't see any gray at all here. Most life issues have at least a bit.

I find it incredible that anyone can defend this action whatever their political party or ideology.

Just because he voted against a piece of legislation that you think might have been a good idea doesn't mean crap. Don't forget this guy is a graduate of Harvard Law School, has taught Constitutional Law, is endorsed by one of the greatest Constitutional Law scholars in this Country (Lawrence Tribe) and has more than a layman's understanding of the semantically nuanced terms of this type of legislation.

So much poor legislation has flown through the senate and house over the past 8 years, that I hardly think you can use the "consensus" of those rubber stamps as a benchmark against which to measure Obama.

By contrast, Hillary and McCain both supported the wrong minded, poorly defined and ill-planned mission to invade Iraq before crushing Al-Qaida. Obama at least understands the nature of the Al-Qaida threat and the reasons why the Iraq invasion has actually hurt our war effort against Islamic extremists and, frankly, rendered that enemy stronger today than any of us could have conceived possible on 9/12.

The fact that he understands and acknowledges these strategic and tactical blunders places him head and shoulders above the rest of the field.

Obama at least understands the nature of the Al-Qaida threat and the reasons why the Iraq invasion has actually hurt our war effort against Islamic extremists and, frankly, rendered that enemy stronger today than any of us could have conceived possible on 9/12.

Does he, and do you? If so, I would very much like to hear an explanation of this "nature" and these "reasons."

Very much.

...that he'll give you his real reasons? They absolutely hate doing that, you know.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Barack wants to change our Iraq policy, because only he can bring hope to the Middle East. These new changes are hopefully going to work so well, it will change the way we think about America today, and give us all hope in America, and in America's ability to change course, in a way that brings hope to our future. For the first time since reading their posts, I too have great hope that Obama will truly change everything that I have hoped for in US foreign policy. :-)

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Oh, yes. Yes we can.

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

Obama wants to talk to the terrorists.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

and that celebration of Obama's warrior aplomb as he was borne on his shield in triumph at the moot court.

Was the state bill that Obama opposed worded differently from the federal bill that Congress passed 380-15? If not, then I think we can presume there were not particular problems with the wording or the constitutionality of the bill, given the fact that it would have been vetted by many experts on various congressional committees.

He votes against protecting the life of a live, newborn baby because he's so goshdarn smart and has lots and lots of "smart guy" credentials. Well now, that's different. Of course he did the right thing.

At least for me, the invocation of Larry Tribe--that eminent "scholar"--drives me into fits of conservative indignation.

So a bunch of pro-abortion liberals get around an annoit someone as a leading scholar--why exactly should I defer to such authority? Do they defer to James Dobson?

While I cannot count among my achievements either attending Harvard, or adjunct teaching at Chicago, let alone the receiving the adulation of Larry Tribe, I have been to law school and even taught constitutional law.

And as I mentioned above, his stated concern that declaring the unborn person a person would, ipso facto, make constitutionally compulsory a ban on abortion, flies in the face of the "state actor" requirement of the 14th Amendment--a requirement that is over 100 years old and should be familiar to all first-year law students.

I don't think he's being honest. He opposes the bill because he loves legalized abortion and opposes the passage, and even the discussion, of legislation that serves to remind the public of the humanity of the unborn child, and the brutality of abortion, especially late-term abortion.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

if you can sit there and say that" we have rendered an enemy stronger today than any of us could have conceived possible on 9/12" with a straight face. What we have rendered thousands of them is DEAD. Go ask Al Q in Iraq just how strong they are feeling these days. And talk to anyone with a moderately functioning brain who lived through Sept. 11, 2001 here and ask them if they thought we would go as long as we have without another terrorist attack on our own soil.

You are just another in a long line of leftist dweebs who reflexively push the "America is wrong" button when it comes to our defense of our nation and her people. Oh, as to Obama standing "head and shoulders above the rest of the field", you DO realize that that just makes him a more accessible target, don't you?

"Don't forget this guy is a graduate of Harvard Law School, has taught Constitutional Law, is endorsed by one of the greatest Constitutional Law scholars in this Country (Lawrence Tribe) and has more than a layman's understanding of the semantically nuanced terms of this type of legislation."

And yet if one reads his book "The Audacity of Hope", one cannot help but come away with the impression that he is an absolutely blazing ignoramus about constitutional law.

but I had the sense not to learn them.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Right you are sir! Obama is certainly a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is very dangerous because he is deceiving people into believing he is somehow going to change things for the better. Unfortunately, if he is elected we will see the real Barack in the form of more gov't regulation, higher taxes, increased spending, increased debt, weak nat'l defense, demoralization of the military, stock market crash, etc. I saw an interview on Bloomberg with Brezenski from the Carter era. He had nothing but praise for him. It looks like the old Carter people are all lining up behind Obama and against Shillary. Carter was worse than Clinton. This will be a nightmare.

Delay
Shadegg
Thune
Talent
Tancredo
Watts
Young
many others on that list voting Yea.

It appears that lots of our guys are morally depraved too.

Didn't we just have a big letter campaign to convince Shadegg to not retire? You have heard some of the rumors surrounding that retirement I assume? They are ugly.

My point is that judging the morality of others is a tricky business at best, itself an immoral act at worst.

The point is that Obama's position is equivalent to the No vote on that bill.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

That's kind of the point.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

"Didn't we just have a big letter campaign to convince Shadegg to not retire? You have heard some of the rumors surrounding that retirement I assume? They are ugly."

Nice.

Look here.

If you meant to suggest that the McCain situation is similar in that he is also unjustly being smeared by someone, then you're right.

absentee

Since Leon said that the Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously and since he was never in the House, I was wondering how he could have voted against the BAIPA.

To be accurate, what he voted against was the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act in the Illinois legislature [and I think he only voted against it (or maybe even voted "present") in committee]. Although the Human Events article says it's equivalent to the BAIPA, it isn't really.

The IBILA would have entitled the parents of a child who was the product of an induced labor abortion to sue the doctors, hospital, etc. for damages. "If a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian of the county in which the child was born may maintain an action on the child's behalf for damages"

The BAIPA, as I read it, just says that a born-alive infant is a "person" under the law.

And, of course, both of these bills came up 6 years ago.

Here are links to them both:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1661LV.html

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_publi...

Obama's position on the IBILA may be controversial or even wrong, but it's not the same as voting against the BAIPA, which is what Leon [and the Human Events article] implied.

They weren't the same bills, but both accomplished the same goal, which was to give cover to infanticide.

There may not be much of a substantive difference [and I would direct you to the bills themselves -- they're each only 2-3 paragraphs], but Leon would make a more convincing argument if he didn't imply that Obama "voted against" a bill which came up when he wasn't even in the Senate.

an understatement. Your point is noted, though.

This post and the article referenced is a distortion of the facts. The Induced Infant Liability Act and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act are not the same. The IILA allows a woman who has chosen to have an abortion to then turn around and sue the hospital and doctor if they do not do everything possible to extend the life of a possibly viable aborted fetus. It does not adequately define "born" as the BAIPA does. It doesn't criminalize the killing of the born viable fetus as the BAIPA does. The BAIPA extends the definition of "person" in federal law to include a viable born fetus. To equate the poorly drafted IILA and the BAIPA is apples and oranges.

I'll prob be in the minority on this viewpoint but I don't think this is going to matter much to the swing voters much when they perceive the economy as going down the drain and at the same time gas likely reaching $4.00 a gallon by the next November. If you believe most opinion polls abortion/moral values is extremely low on the list of priorities. Using this to turn out the social conservatives and other members of the base is a way to get them behind McCain, but thinking this will drive swing voters is a losing strategy. Rightly or wrongly this fall its going to be all about the economy for the people in the middle, especially those in the Midwest were many of the swing states are located.

I will never trust a pro-choicer's judgment on these issues without examining the text. And lo and behold, you're superficially right in that the bills aren't EXACTLY the same, but are substantively wrong because they are the same in their goal: to protect infants born alive in spite of abortion attempts from harm.

Section 5. Findings and intent. The General Assembly finds that all children who are born alive are entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of the circumstances surrounding the birth. Children who are born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion or any other abortion are in special need of protection due to the fact that the intent of their birth is to cause the death of the born child. Therefore, it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect a child who is born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion or any other abortion and to ensure that the child receives all medical care necessary to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child.
Section 10. Induced labor abortion; actions. If a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian of the county in which the child was born may maintain an action on the child's behalf for damages, including all costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney's fees, against any hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth [i.e. fails to fulfill the Hippocratic Oath]. Any damages recovered shall be used to pay for the cost of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child.

This bill does criminalize the killing/harm of a born-alive infant. Upon successful civil prosecution, the penalty is damages. Why would one ever oppose it?

Does not adequately define "born"? I guess it doesn't adequately define damages, child, punitive, to, any, and safety either. How are you confused by the concept of "born"?

And why didn't Obama point defend himself with your arguments then? He obviously didn't have a problem with understanding what "born alive" means.

Instead, he revealed his true reasons:

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Nice attempt to defend Obama by using argument he didn't use. His argument was that "pre-viable" infants aren't infants even when they are outside the womb and have been born. But that would mean that prematurely born infants (which are common) kept alive by medical equipment until they are viable are somehow not infants. And you can kill them or harm them in the incubators and there's no problem with that.

to criticize Obama (heavily) based on the precise facts. It is true that IBILA is not EXACTLY in every way the same as BAIPA. We ought not to make that argument, or do anything else to "overplay" this and cause moderates to think we're exaggerating.

We ought to make the argument that IBILA's aim was to protect infants born alive (not just pre-viable, but all infants) in spite of abortion attempts because they are infants outside the womb. They have been born, have fingers and toes, and like other "preemies" may (or may not) need to spend time in incubators. But they may not be killed just because someone wants to.

We should ask Obama, "So exactly how old do babies have to be before you're not allowed to kill them? 9 months as you said in defense of your position on the IBILA?"

Your arguments are more likely to be persuasive if they are precise and less likely to get nitpicked by your opponents. Asleep06's argument was much more convincing [at least to me] than either Leon's or Human Events.

asleep06, you write: "Nice attempt to defend Obama by using argument he didn't use. His argument was that 'pre-viable' infants aren't infants even when they are outside the womb and have been born."

When I first read Obama's statement, it seemed wrong to me along the lines you are suggesting here. But after I read the IBILA, I realized that what Obama could have been referring to is the provision that would hold a doctor liable if he treats an infant born alive and it does not survive. The law itself seems to create the possibility of this odd category of an infant who is "born alive," but who is nonetheless a pre-viable fetus--in that the infant could have been developed to the point of being able to survive outside the womb but only for a very short time.

I think it was a flaw in the bill to create liability for doctors in such a situation. I don't know if it amounted to the kind of constitutional flaw (under the S.C.'s case law) that Obama was arguing for, but it does seem to have opened the door for his argument.

First, born-alive pre-viable infants can still be saved. There is nothing "odd" about this. More importantly and to the point, attempts to save them are possible and easily proved (tried to get them into the incubator, gave them IV fluids, monitored their vital signs, etc).

The precise language of the law (which you should quote in the future because I'm unclear as to why you think the law has the implications you attribute to it) is:

... who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth.

This is standard malpractice law for any adult, child or infant. It means that if the doctor intentionally harms the child or doesn't take reasonable measures to save the child, then they are liable to be sued. There is nothing wrong with this. If the doctor makes the effort, he is safe from guilt, just as he would have to make the effort for adults under his care, or else face the consequences.

The point of the law is to say pre-viable infants ought to be given the same effort of care as any other infant, child or adult.

I don't understand why you take issue with "liability" unless you oppose all malpractice laws.

And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill

I've now read the two bills, and the bill proposed in the Illinois state senate (the IBILA) is very different from the BAIPA. I'm a lawyer, a specialist in constitutional law, and utterly dedicated to the pro-life cause. In my opinion, while the BAIPA is a model of precision and good drafting, the IBILA is very poorly drafted. Its goal is laudable, but the liability of provisions of section 10 are not very well thought out. For one thing, it is a bit odd to empower a woman who has tried to abort her child to sue the doctor for a failed abortion. This oddness is apparent in other areas of the law as well (e.g. laws in some states that allow parents to sue a doctor who didn't warn them of a birth defect--the assumption being that they would have aborted the child if they had known). Nonetheless, the liability provisions of this bill are an odd--and arguably dubious--method by which to protect the unborn child. Another problem that goes to the internal logic of the bill is the provision that holds the doctor liable if the child does not survive. This could create a situation in which an infant survives only for a few minutes or hours--which might indicate that the infant had not reached the point of viability outside the womb--and yet the doctor could be sued for infant's death. In fact, it seems that this peculiarity is what opened the door for Obama to make his (somewhat confused) argument about personhood and the equal protection clause.

I've read Obama's statement in the transcript linked above by stefan beckett, and I think that his reasoning is both constitutionally flawed and morally troubling. He deserves to be questioned on it, but his argument seems to turn on some rather fine points of interpretation of the proposed bill and constitutional law. I don't think Obama's reasoning would necessarily commit him to oppose the BAIPA. It would be good to find out, as Adam C suggested, if Obama would support the BAIPA. Unfortunately this might not be possible. I doubt any debate moderators are going to ask him about it.

In conclusion, I think that the Human Events article linked in this post is misleading in that it treats the IBILA as equal to the BAIPA. Though the goals of the two bills are basically the same, the means chosen are very different--and that is an important distinction to keep in mind when criticizing a legislator for voting against a bill. The BAIPA is clearly the product of careful, precise, professional drafting, whereas the IBILA has many ambiguities and in my view does not meet professional standards of drafting.

A rough analogy here is the recent Senate vote on interrogation techniques, which would have required interrogators to use only techniques in the Army field manual and would have explicitly banned waterboarding. McCain voted against the bill because he thinks it might be acceptable to use certain techniques not presently authorized in the Army field manual. But his vote was construed by some critics as a flip-flop on waterboarding and thus as an endorsement of what he had previously called torture.

It's important that our means be crafted carefully and accurately so that they both achieve our ends as well as honor the virtue of our ends - to support life.

And Rightly So!

It's important that our means be crafted carefully and accurately so that they both achieve our ends as well as honor the virtue of our ends - to support life.

And Rightly So!

Unlike civil truth, I'm not so sure your characterization has much merit at all. Perhaps you should read the IBILA again...

You say: "For one thing, it is a bit odd to empower a woman who has tried to abort her child to sue the doctor for a failed abortion."

At no point does the actual legislation say anything like that. Your characterization is false and borders on the disingenuous. The law would not empower a woman to sue the doctor for a failed abortion. The law would empower a woman to sue the doctor for harming or neglecting the care of the born-alive infant. Any "oddness" in this law with respect to giving a woman power to protect the born-alive infant when she wanted to kill it as a fetus in her womb does not make your false characterization of the law any truer.

Of course it's odd. But the oddness lies in the perverse legal distinction we have enshrined in our laws between a baby in the womb and out of the womb: in the womb, not a human person. Out of the womb, all of a sudden it's an infant. Of course this is ridiculous. But the law doesn't address this at all, nor is it meant to.

Then you say that "the liability provisions of this bill are an odd--and arguably dubious--method by which to protect the unborn child" but give no reason for us to think so, or to think that's relevant. I think it is a fine way to protect the BORN ALIVE child.

Your last mischaracterization is as follows: "Another problem that goes to the internal logic of the bill is the provision that holds the doctor liable if the child does not survive."

That's false as well if you read the relevant, admittedly long sentence in the bill. The law explicitly holds the doctor liable NOT for the child's non-survival, but for the harm to or neglect of the child.

If the doctor makes every reasonable effort to save the child, as is easily documented, then the doctor would not be held liable for the death of the child. It's only for HARM or NEGLECT.

I suggest that the deficiencies lie not so much in the bill, however easy it would be to simply blame the text of the law, but in the reading of it...

And based upon the facts that Turing presented at the time, I would stand by that characterization. What has become clear since that discussion point (and even Turin acknowleged that he was not aware of other facts at the time he was writing) is that subsequent revisions of the language of the bills resolved the legitimate concerns that the earlier draft had left open.

I certainly support the intent of these laws. However, sometimes the devil is in the details, and if the laws are not crafted tightly enough, they can open to door to unintended consequences that may be a bad or worse than the evil that we are trying to end.

The point is that we need to avoid a rush to judgment (in the absence of clear necessity) and to avoid intemperate language until the facts clearly make no other interpretation reasonable. We don't want to end up sounding like Chicken Little or the Boy who Cried Wold.

And Rightly So!

After doing further research into this topic, I've found that bills other than the IBILA (which I criticized above) were presented to the Illinois Senate during Obama's tenure. Here is a link to one of them, Senate Bill 1082 from the 93rd General Assembly:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&...

The wording of Senate Bill 1082 is virtually identical to the federal BAIPA except that it lacks the following section, which was an amendment added to the BAIPA to affirm that it does not have an effect on Roe v. Wade:

‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, and, 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.’’

According to Terrence Jeffrey, Obama said in a debate against Alan Keyes in 2004 that he would have voted for the federal BAIPA because it included the above amendment. Jeffrey's article is here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24481

Jeffrey also claims that in fact Senate Bill 1082 was amended in committee to include the above language, and that Obama voted against it in the committee. But the only documentary evidence that Jeffrey points to is that of the Republican committee staff; he relies on interviews with Illinois Republican senators who recite the contents of the staff records.

It sounds like more research needs to be done into exactly which bills (and amendments) Obama voted against or opposed at various times--and what arguments he used against which bills. Until we have a more definitive account, we need to keep in mind that Obama said in the debate that he would vote for the BAIPA in its current form. But that doesn't necessarily excuse him for opposing Senate Bill 1082, even in its unamended form.

The idea that you would have the audacity to question the hope that Barry Henry brings, means that you don't want things to change in the Senate. I just hope that you change how you feel about the Senate. Yes You Can GC! YES YOU CAN! I just hope you can change before its too late to fix the partisan politics of hopelessness in Washington.

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

I'll have one of what he's having.

www.republicansenate.org

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service