|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:19 pm
Found at http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life_article.php?id=7591Quote: Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us? Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions. The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster. Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn't provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival. Strang: You’ve said you’re personally against abortion and would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions under your administration. So, as president, how would do you propose accomplishing that? Obama: I think we know that abortions rise when unwanted pregnancies rise. So, if we are continuing what has been a promising trend in the reduction of teen pregnancies, through education and abstinence education giving good information to teenagers. That is important—emphasizing the sacredness of sexual behavior to our children. I think that’s something that we can encourage. I think encouraging adoptions in a significant way. I think the proper role of government. So there are ways that we can make a difference, and those are going to be things I focus on when I am president.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:26 pm
Oh no, he said "Abstinence education!" Clearly this means he is against teaching about contraception.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:07 pm
Well, he now has my vote. I hope he's not bullshitting here, like normal politicians would.
But wither way, even if he IS pro abortion, there's not much he could do now. He'd be more focused on the war in iraq, I think, than on abortion, since it is largely legal now. Basically, I have less to lose with Obama since he can't ******** up the abortion situation much more anyway. and I agree with him on other stuff.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:48 pm
divineseraph Well, he now has my vote. I hope he's not bullshitting here, like normal politicians would. But wither way, even if he IS pro abortion, there's not much he could do now. He'd be more focused on the war in iraq, I think, than on abortion, since it is largely legal now. Basically, I have less to lose with Obama since he can't ******** up the abortion situation much more anyway. and I agree with him on other stuff. He already had my vote (and no fewer than 5 stickers on my car), but this just makes me feel better about voting for him. And you're right: it's not like he would ever make abortion mandatory or something horrible like that, or even encourage women to abort. And no president can overturn Roe all by his lonesome. McCain, Obama, anyone, Congress would throw that idea in the trash, piss on it, then set it on fire.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:53 pm
You're right; And that's exactly why who we elect President doesn't even really matter. It's who we elect to Congress that matter. We need to push out these incumbents who have been in there for 20+ years. They're what's really wrong with this country.
It really annoys me that the President, who really has the least amount of power himself, takes the forefront in elections, leaving the congressmen to just get re-elected because no one pays attention to them.
But this doesn't change my vote; His being super Pro-Choice is the least of the reasons I wouldn't vote for him. The biggest, of course, being that he's black! 3nodding
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:31 pm
Ugh Obama has the WORST record of voting. Partial-birth abortions are fine by him. gonk
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:20 pm
In Obama's words! Quote: ... I just want to suggest... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable 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 nine-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 antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. Quote: What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that. Quote: Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade.... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill. (Note from Kate: When the bill was changed to be nearly identical so it specifically protected RvW, he proceeded to KILL the bill. Huh. So he said he'd do it, then didn't do what he said he'd do? What a surprise. Here's a politician I can trust!) It passed when he was out of office, but seriously, as much as you like Obama, can you really defend his stance on abortion? This has been an issue since before he even started running for president. This was floating around the web since way before he decided he would run. It is the damning issue and why he will never get my vote, for me. No matter what else I may think of him, he is in bed with Planned Parenthood. Quote: "When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.The language of this act allows for interpretation that laws like waiting periods and parental consent can be stripped, abortions must be funded by states, and it does away with any bans on partial birth abortion. It keeps saying health of the mother while using inaccurate statistics of how many people died from illegal abortions and misleading language to make it sound just awesome, and we all know what health of the mother means, we all know that third trimester abortions are done with "mental health" as the reason. We know this. I'm sorry. But Obama in presidency could undo all the progress in reducing abortion that's been made. Obama in presidency means thousands of babies dying each year. And I can't vote for that. I morally cannot bring myself to vote for someone who would say, "I don't want my daughter punished with a baby," and calls me antichoice on his own website. And anyone who doesn't realize that Obama panders, just like McCain, Palin, Biden, Kennedy, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, everyone else in politics does, is a damned fool.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:03 pm
lymelady I'm sorry. But Obama in presidency could undo all the progress in reducing abortion that's been made. ....There's been progress?! eek
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:03 pm
La Veuve Zin lymelady I'm sorry. But Obama in presidency could undo all the progress in reducing abortion that's been made. ....There's been progress?! eek Abortion rates in January were the lowest they've been in 30 years. There's been almost a year for them to go up, though. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1705604,00.html Think about "pro-life" legislation that includes informed consent, parental notification, blocking the use of federal funding for abortions, and 48 hour waiting periods. The abortion rates go down in states with these laws. Another thing I just ran across that makes me uneasy, Quote: Across the nation, crisis-pregnancy centers (CPCs) provide all manner of assistance to women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies, and they save the lives of many children. Some states have obtained a modest amount of federal funding for such programs. Late last year, RHrealitycheck.org, a prominent pro-abortion advocacy website, submitted in writing the following question to the Obama campaign (as part of a candidate questionnaire): “Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?” The Obama campaign response was short, but it spoke volumes: “No.” sourceI will grant that this comes from a biased source, so people should go read it for themselves. But it wouldn't surprise me. There's another source hereSo if crisis pregnancy centers start to disappear, doctors are not required to inform women of the risks physically and emotionally associated with abortion, parents are not notified when their daughters undergo these surgical procedures, waiting periods are abolished, and abortion is funded by the state if you make under a certain amount of money? You can bet there will be more abortions. FOCA is retroactive and can wipe ALL of those laws off the books.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|