On “Live Birth Abortion” The Candidates Differ
By SusanUnPC on December 17, 2007 at 3:58 PM in Clinton, Current Affairs, Obama, Presidential Candidates
Like most Americans and the Democratic presidential candidates, I am pro-choice although I believe the first defense against unwanted pregnancy, and STDs, is prevention. (Today’s Washington Post reveals that the “best-kept secret” for AIDS prevention in Africa is birth control, not giving antiretroviral drugs to pregnant women. And, notably, Africa is but one of the continents where First Lady Hillary Clinton worked hard for eight years for women’s rights and economic empowerment (see also here).)
There is a compelling moral exception: A fetus born alive during an abortion becomes an infant, and shouldn’t be left for hours or days to die without medical care, a practice in some U.S. hospitals.
Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama differ markedly in their voting records on the live birth of an aborted infant. As an Illinois state senator, Obama “joined several other Democrats in voting ‘present’ in 2001 and ‘no’ the next year,” reports A.P./CBS News in “Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics — Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control.” [UPDATE: An expert on the voting history e-mailed me to tell me that Obama's proper vote would have been no, rather than present, because the Illinois bill didn't provide for an exception to save the life of a mother.]
During the same two years, as a U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton joined the 98-0 vote in the U.S. Senate on a 2001 amendment to the Patients Bill of Rights that protected “infants who are born alive.” In 2002, a House bill that protected infants born alive was passed by unanimous consent in the U.S. Senate — with Sen. Clinton joining the “Yeas” — and was signed into law.
If you think what Karl Rove did to John McCain in South Carolina’s 2000 primary was brutal, just imagine what the GOP will do with Obama’s “present” and “no” votes on “live birth abortion.”
How would the Republicans play it? Do Democratic primary voters know yet just how vulnerable Obama is on this issue? Has Obama been carefully vetted on his potentially explosive record? Will he be able to transcend conflict, or will he needlessly plunge Democrats into an old debate in which they will be on the losing side — particularly since Democratic U.S. Senators voted unanimously to protect the life of an infant born alive?
Obama’s votes have already enraged activists nationwide for years — as any Google search will quickly demonstrate. Pastor Rick Warren was slammed hard by other ministers when he invited Obama to a December 2006 AIDS conference. 
Then there’s Jill Stanek (photo), a highly articulate registered nurse in Chicago, Illinois, who has written numerous op-eds, and who also testified before the Illinois state senate and U.S. Congress on the “live birth abortion” she witnessed in a Chicago hospital.
It is near certain that the Republicans, in a general election race, would recruit Jill Stanek and ministers to speak out against Obama’s votes.
It is 100% certain that the Republicans would create a broohaha on this one issue, and that Obama would find himself explaining and defending his voting record for days, if not weeks.
There are more details on Obama’s Illinois state senate voting record, from a Chicago Tribune columnist, who quotes 2004 Democratic primary opponents’ concern about Obama’s record:
“You want to talk about ducking issues Mr. Obama? Where were you in Springfield when there were six pro-choice votes called? You were present or not present, but you weren’t there to vote. So let’s not talk about who ducked issues here.” –Cook County Treasurer [Democrat] Maria Pappas, at the Feb. 23, 2004 Democratic Senate Primary debate
“Seven times, Barack Obama ducked [the issue of abortion]. … Each time he ducked by voting `present’ instead of taking a stand.” –2004 [Democrat] Blair Hull campaign flier
The Tribune columnist, Eric Zorn, dug up the records on “then-state Sen. Barack Obama’s ‘present’ votes on tough issues in the Illinois Legislature–votes that at least two of his opponents in the March 16, 2004 Democratic U.S. Senate primary say mark him as a coward”:
In 1997 Obama voted “present” on two bills aimed at banning so-called partial-birth abortion. In 2001 he voted “present” on three bills that fell under the rubric of “born-alive infant” legislation, and on a bill to require parental notification in cases when minors sought to have abortions.
Additionally, in 1997, Obama voted “present” on a proposal to drop the penalty for carrying a concealed gun from a felony to a misdemeanor.
::::::::::
Of note: I am emphatic in reiterating that Sen. Obama is pro-choice and, in fact, receives a 100% rating from pro-choice groups. However, the “present” and “no” votes on the live birth legislation in the Illinois state senate have angered antiabortion activists around the country. If you search for “Obama live birth abortion,” you’ll see what I mean. It is undoubtedly an issue that the Republicans will pound on through a general election, should Sen. Obama receive the nomination.
Additionally, Sen. Obama’s various statements on abortion have confused me. I’ve sent his statements to others for their reaction and they tell me that they also find his statements confusing. Allow me to provide some examples.
On October 11, 2007, Garance Franke-Ruta wrote an article — “NOT VOTING IS NOT THE SAME AS VOTING NO” — at The Prospect’s TAPPED blog:
Indeed, Obama’s track record on controversial votes is something I’ve been thinking a lot about over the past few days, ever since he appeared to call for new regulations on abortion in response to a question from an anti-choice listener in Iowa on Saturday. According The New York Times Obama said:
“there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation.”
As there is no such movement toward a new late-term abortion regulation among any pro-choice group I am aware of, I asked Obama spokesman Bill Burton for elaboration on this over the weekend. He said:
”Obama did not suggest that new regulations were needed or appropriate. He simply stated the fact that there is agreement that late-term abortions should be limited to the rare instances where the life or health of a woman is at stake. And he has consistently made clear that abortion regulations, such as the Federal Abortion Ban, that lack exceptions for the life and health of women are unconstitutional and endanger women’s health.”
Both those statement suggest some comfort with banning second-term abortions, however, as most states already ban early third-trimester ones, as Roe permits them to do. And Obama is correct in that there is very little public support for keeping second-term abortions legal. Still, it would have been easier to interpret Obama’s statement if he had a clear voting record on this topic. Instead, Obama managed to absent his opinion from the Illinois legislature twice during votes on a partial-birth ban in Illinois — voting present rather than yes or no — muddying the actual record about his beliefs. Clinton in 2000 said that she would be open to a ban on late-term abortions, as well, but when push came to shove in the U.S. Senate, she voted against the partial-birth abortion ban which Bush signed into law in 2003 and which the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year. So her record is clear.
Then there is the interview of Barack Obama when he was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004 by Jeff Berkowitz, a Chicago discussion show host. Berkowitz covered the interview about abortion on his blog, Public Affairs:
Jeff Berkowitz: Switching over to abortion, you have said that you would vote in support of, if you were a [U. S.] Senator the federal law that came up that passed [the U. S. Senate] 98 to 0 and that was known as the Live Birth Infant Protection Act.
Barack Obama: That is exactly right. Because there was a different bill than the one that was introduced by [then] Senator Patrick O’Malley here in Illinois and we actually offered amendments that would have provided assurance that Row. v. Wade [U. S. Supreme Court, 1973] was still respected even as we dealt with what I think actually were some very anecdotal evidence that there might have been some problems although there has never been any hard evidence that there were. Unfortunately, Mr. O’Malley wanted to make a broader point because he does not believe that a woman should exercise a right to choose in any circumstances.
Berkowitz: But, if that happened in Illinois, if there were some abortions- so called abortions that went wrong- a live fetus was born. Would you seek to have legislation that protected those fetuses?
Obama: I would if there wasn’t already legislation. Unfortunately [sic?], there is existing legislation-
Berkowitz: On the state level?
Obama: On the state level that says if there is a fetus that is determined viable and there has to be a second doctor who assists in determining that that fetus is viable- they are required by current Illinois Law to provide that fetus with assistance to make sure that they can live outside the womb. The law already exists. That’s not what Senator O’Malley’s law was about. What Senator O’Malley’s law was about was identifying all fetuses as human beings as a way of going after the right of women to choose to have an abortion pre- viability and that’s the reason that I, like a number of other senators, including Republican senators, voted either present or against it.
Sen. Obama’s arguments sound reasonable if confusing, but there are bitter commentaries around the Internet on both the senator’s views and on his inconsistent voting record. The January 2007 A.P./CBS News story raised many questions:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may have a lot of explaining to do.
He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on.
With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn’t have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. …
“Explosive land mines.” That concerns me.
The avoidance by voting “present” is another issue. Influential columnist Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times writes about Obama’s 2004 Democratic primary opponent’s campaign:
[Democratic primary opponent Blair Hull's campaign staff] orchestrated a series of mailings to Illinois voters which referenced the Obama present votes on abortion with a picture of a duck and “He ducked” in the headline.
Garance Franke-Ruta pointed out, in “NOT VOTING IS NOT THE SAME AS VOTING NO,” that Sen. Clinton’s “record is clear.”
And Sen. Clinton has the votes in the U.S. Senate — in both 2001 and 2002 — to back up her stand on offering medical care to infants born alive.
Please know that I am not saying “Never!” to an Obama presidential candidacy. It’s just that, in this year, with his thin voting record in the U.S. Senate — where he’s only served two years — there are too many “landmines” that he’d be hit hard by without also being able to point to votes such as those Sen. Clinton took in 2001 and 2002.
::::::::::::::
[Emphases mine.]
TOMORROW: Look for a new story on the candidates’ positions on women’s rights and equal opportunities, worldwide.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
We have really terrible choices for candidates that are popular with the media. The media thinks they are telling us who to vote for again, but they are probably badly mistaken, as is now typical and common place for them.
if the voting machines can be de bugged, (funny, or sad) it is possible that the persons that the people of this country might want for president will get elected.
imagine the ones that voted to commit treason today by going against their oath of office? I hope they are relieved of the burden they are incapable of carrying very soon.
Seems like we’ll be stuck with the top two candidates from the Jerusalem Post list.
But one of them is a WOMAN! Who did toy “diplomacy” as first lady on her international cookie-baking expeditions! Doesn’t that just change EVERYTHING for you?
Uh, no. Trying to appeal to the pro-life or conservative female voters WILL. NOT. WORK.
I’m related to some of those women. They hate Hillary and will never support her.
I ran across this opinions as well.
Hillary Clinton is doing a WILLIE HORTON LITE on Barak Obama.
I will not vote for Hillary Clinton for anything ever. I don’t care if she gets the Democratic nomination.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/17/16371/069/169/420879
As a former police officer who has elected not to carry a firearm for more than twenty years, I’ve just got to ask, what are the issues here?
“He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes.”
The first is an imminently sensible extension of existing law and practice to electively arm a trained and experienced group of individuals who can be distinguished from active police officers only by the fact that they are retired. Who better to electively arm, I ask? What’s wrong with supporting that idea?
The second is a ridiculous proposition on its face! Allow people to use—okay, one more time for those who were not paying attention—BANNED handguns to defend against intruders in their homes? What the hell? Offering liability to lawbreakers who claim to be defending their homes with weapons that they are not entitled to possess? Think about the lunacy of such a provision for just a minute. What’s wrong with opposing such a measure?
Listen: Senator Obama is not my choice to take the nomination, nor is Senator Clinton, for the record. To criticize his record regarding post-birth critical care to aborted fetuses born alive is fair, if the report is accurate.* But, to pick those reference points to criticize his decision making and propose an entry point for debilitating criticism from the opposition strikes me as simply ridiculous.
*I might add that the election to abort is considered by those who oppose the criminalization of abortion as one of a ‘woman’s right to choose.’ How do you square that concept with the idea that the product of an unwanted pregnancy should be provided resuscitation and critical care, likely in opposition to the woman? Is this not the attempt to make viable the product of an unwanted pregnancy? And, seriously - how often can a first or second trimester fetus to be born live and viable? You might want to give that some thought before you excoriate one who would not mandate critical care for a fetus aborted from someone who did not choose to carry one to term.
It’s happened. And studies showed that it was standard practice for hospital staff not to intervene.
It surely is very rare. And it’d definitely occur in late second/third trimester cases. (And I’d guess that passage of the Senate amendment in 2001 helped the Patients Bill of Rights legislation pass — and that was VERY important in helping patients take on HMOs, etc.)
I find these issues tough personally — and I’m always VEXED by the ability to see both sides of arguments (wish I were more hard-headed sometimes). When I was pregnant with my daughter, I had a friend at work who organized for NARAL, and she invited me to her home for meetings… I went several times, and very much liked the spirit and mission of the women there. It felt strange to be at those meetings with my tummy sticking out about two feet, but everyone thought nothing of it. Then again, I’ve been turned off when NARAL — in years since — has supported Republican incumbents over Democratic challengers when both are pro-choice (because I believe there are other issues to consider as well, such as the Iraq war, etc.).
It’s good to read your comments on the gun issues. I think that the CBS News story was pointing out that it is the Republicans who will go after Obama on those votes — they’ll frame it as his being opposed to homeowners being able to defend themselves. (I think your analysis is wise, but I’m just saying that the GOP will make a big deal out of it.)
And it matters to a lot of voters. I’ll never forget a conversation I had just after the 2000 election: I was in Safeway at the checkout counter. My coat still had an Al Gore sticker from the last rally I’d gone to. The young man bagging my groceries said to me, “I’d have voted for Gore but he would take away my guns.” I told him that that was a false statement perpetuated by the GOP and NRA during the election, but of course it was too late to change his vote. In rural areas such as where I live — and in states with large rural populations (like Vermont, New Hampshire, and the states in the Midwest) — the right to own guns and defend one’s self is a big, big deal. Yeah, I don’t quite get it. But that’s the case.
No to Obama.
No to Hillary.
Who then?
And if you refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee — and you help elect the Republican nominee — are you willing to live with the repercussions for the Supreme Court, Social Security, Medicare, the environment, civil liberties, bombing Iran, and more?
You think Hillary, Obama, or Edwards will not bomb Iran? They have already said they were OK with doing that. So, they will try to get dominance over Iran by “diplomacy”, and if that doesn’t work, they’ll bomb. And Obama is even willing to consider bombing Pakistan.
Oh yes - and have you ever taken a really realistic look at Hillary’s record on Iraq? She was quite the hawk until very recently.
I will vote for whomever my conscience tells me to vote for. I can promise you, though, that it won’t be Hillary, and it won’t be Obama.
Dodd? Hillary and Obama were no shows.
Dodd Wins, Reid Pulls Fisa
Reid has pulled FISA from the floor. This wouldn’t have happened without Dodd, Feingold, Kerry and the other Senators who were willing to go the wall on this. It’s not a permanent victory, in January it’ll have to be fought again, nonetheless it is a win.
I’m very sad that although Dodd is a candidate for the Democratic nomination, he isn’t polling better. Because while I like things about Edwards and Richardson, Dodd has proved, over and over again, to be the only contender I could actually be really, really enthusiastic about.
I would suggest that Democratic primary voters take another hard look at Dodd. He’s certainly the only Senator running who’s actually serious about his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Ron Paul
Michael Bloomberg, that’s who.
http://www.RunMikeRun.com
Could you at least print the entire Zorn column?
Disparagement of Obama votes doesn’t hold up
“You want to talk about ducking issues Mr. Obama? Where were you in Springfield when there were six pro-choice votes called? You were present or not present, but you weren’t there to vote. So let’s not talk about who ducked issues here.” –Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas, at the Feb. 23, 2004 Democratic Senate Primary debate
“Seven times, Barack Obama ducked [the issue of abortion]. … Each time he ducked by voting `present’ instead of taking a stand.” –2004 Blair Hull campaign flier
This column has the dirt on the issue of then-state Sen. Barack Obama’s “present” votes on tough issues in the Illinois Legislature–votes that at least two of his opponents in the March 16, 2004 Democratic U.S. Senate primary say mark him as a coward.
In 1997 Obama voted “present” on two bills aimed at banning so-called partial-birth abortion. In 2001 he voted “present” on three bills that fell under the rubric of “born-alive infant” legislation, and on a bill to require parental notification in cases when minors sought to have abortions.
Additionally, in 1997, Obama voted “present” on a proposal to drop the penalty for carrying a concealed gun from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Hull, who has seldom bothered to vote at all in his life, sent out a mailing citing such votes to suggest they show Obama is weak on issues that his progressive base holds dear.
Do they?
“Anyone who says that a `present’ vote necessarily reflects that someone is ducking an issue doesn’t understand the first thing about legislative strategy,” said Pam Sutherland, Planned Parenthood’s chief lobbyist in Springfield. “People who work down here and know how things get done are hearing these accusations and saying, `huh?’”
In practical terms, a “present” vote is as good as a “no” vote because the law requires a bill to win the votes of a majority of the lawmakers in either body, not simply a majority of those voting.
If “present” sounds wimpy, that’s because it sometimes is. In many cases, according to Paul Green, head of Roosevelt University’s School of Public Policy and a longtime student of Illinois’ byzantine legislative process, lawmakers who anticipate a tough re-election challenge will vote “present” on a controversial bill they oppose so as not to give their prospective opponents a good club to bash them with.
Obama, however, was in a safe district and never faced a serious challenge for his legislative seat. He had no need to shy from hard-line stands on gun control and abortion rights. He actually took such stands frequently and is now highly praised by advocates for both causes.
Why would he then vote “present” instead of a resounding “no” on certain bills advanced by lawmakers opposed to abortion rights?
“To provide cover for other Democrats who were shaky on the issue in an effort to convince them not to vote `yes,’” Sutherland said. “The idea is to recruit a group to vote `present’ that includes legislators who are clearly right with the issue.”
Sutherland said this tactic makes the “present” vote look less like a hedge or a cop-out and more like a constitutional concern or other high-minded qualm.
She pointed to the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 2001, a bill requiring that an adult family member be notified 48 hours in advance when a minor seeks an abortion.
Obama’s “present” vote on that bill is one Hull is attacking him for in a flier decorated with rubber duckies.
Sutherland just laughs. “We also had [Democratic Senate leader] Emil Jones, [current Atty. Gen.] Lisa Madigan, Miguel del Valle, Rickey Hendon and other very strong pro-choice legislators voting `present’ on that one,” she said. “It was all done to pull `present’ votes off the fence.”
Obama confirmed Sutherland’s account of the legislative strategy and said, “No one was more active to beat back those bills than I was.”
“Criticizing Obama on the basis of `present’ votes indicates you don’t have a great understanding of the process,” said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.
Or you are willing to pretend you don’t to score cheap political points.
There’s dirt here all right. It’s all over the hands of those pointing the finger.
This column, addresssing charges that are now coming up in the Iowa presidential primary race, was originally published on March 19, 2004
++++++++++++++++++++
Changes the context a bit.
I can’t quote entire articles because it violates copyright laws — and that’s why I always provide a link to the article with every quote. And while there is context, the quote also stands on its own as a record of his votes. It is worth noting that his Democratic challengers in the primary for the 2004 Illinois Senate race cited his voting record, and the number of times he voted “present” to avoid taking a stand yea or nay — in debates and in their campaign literature.
LOL! Great. Just do the GOP’s work for them and turn off everyone who had a thought that they could vote for Hillary even if they didn’t trust her.
I just read another attack on Obama from Bob Kerry mentioning Barak’s entire name. Hussein! Get it?
We can look forward to president Romhuckani in 2008.
===I can’t quote entire articles because it violates copyright laws — and that’s why I always provide a link to the article with every quote. And while there is context, the quote also stands on its own as a record of his votes. It is worth noting that his Democratic challengers in the primary for the 2004 Illinois Senate race cited his voting record, and the number of times he voted “present” to avoid taking a stand yea or nay — in debates and in their campaign literature.
And no one took them seriously. Why not? Planned Parenthood backed his positions. And when he became Chair of the Committee overseeing abortion legislation when Democrats gained the majority, he killed those bills himself by not pulling them up for a vote. What is so obnoxious here is that he took the heat and has been repeatedly attacked by Jill Stanek–a complete loon if there ever was one–for killing those bills, but people are trying to say he didn’t take a position.
The same criticisms would have to apply to other choice leaders in Illinois including Debbie Halvorson, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Senate Majority Leader Emil Jones.
I searched and searched for information, via Google — and using numerous different search terms — and never once saw Planned Parenthood mentioned in any article. I’d like to see an article that explains that, and would appreciate a link.
However, that doesn’t take away the problem he’d face from a GOP attack. He could, carefully, make a cerebral argument explaining his votes (and hopefully people would listen to a complex answer to what would surely be a simple question*).
But how can Obama explain away his “present” vote when, as an expert just told me by e-mail, the proper vote (particularly from the standpoint of Planned Parenthood et al.) would have been “no.” Why did he duck the vote? Surely, Planned Parenthood couldn’t have been pleased with that.
:::::
*Those complex answers to simple questions: Some of us would listen. But, as we saw when both Hillary CLinton and Obama tried to explain the complexities of the driver’s licenses for “illegal aliens,” nobody will listen to their nuanced responses. Which I find tragic. But there it is. The point is that they’ll attack him on this, and it’ll hurt. Whether that’s fair or not is not the point.
It’s like my example in another comment in this same thread about the Safeway employee who told me he couldn’t vote for Gore because Gore would take his guns away — it’s not fair or right that the GOP and NRA spread that myth, but it worked. Devastatingly.
The GOP can, and will, use this against Obama. And they’ll do it in a way to maximize damage.
P.S. It wasn’t fair or right that the media didn’t trumpet the findings of the Resolution Trust Corporation that exonerated Bill and Hillary Clinton of any improper or illegal involvement in Whitewater, but that’s what happened. It also wasn’t fair or right that the media didn’t report that the prosecutor of Jim McDougall pointed out in his closing arguments that despite McDougall’s attempts to deflect blame by blaming the Clintons, there was no case against the president or his wife.
Wait ’til the media turns on Obama in a general election race, abetted by GOP talking points. Oh boy.
==The Tribune columnist, Eric Zorn, dug up the records on “then-state Sen. Barack Obama’s ‘present’ votes on tough issues in the Illinois Legislature–votes that at least two of his opponents in the March 16, 2004 Democratic U.S. Senate primary say mark him as a coward”:
This is extremely dishonest given Eric points out the argument is lame. Your selective editing suggests Eric agrees with the point–and I know he doesn’t because Eric, Rich Miller, and I have been writing on this for 3 years.
I’ll read the article again. I didn’t get that impression. You have to realize that, while you may have known where Zorn was coming from, I didn’t when I read his column, and I didn’t get that impression at all.
Seriously, read the article, he’s quite clear:
===I searched and searched for information, via Google — and using numerous different search terms — and never once saw Planned Parenthood mentioned in any article. I’d like to see an article that explains that, and would appreciate a link.
C’mon. The article you linked to included Planned Parenthood’s Pam Sutherland.
I never saw the link to the rest of his post because it looked, in my screen, as if that was the full article. (That was also a problem we had here at No Quarter until our new technical guy added the “Read More” with an arrow.)
However, I still think that the “present” vote was a cop-out. If he was opposed, he should have taken a clear stand and voted no … did he just do whatever Planned Parenthood suggested without thinking on his own that it’d look like a cop-out to future voters?
We can agree to disagree on that.
Do you work for the Tribune? Because you sound very much like an Obama campaign organizer to me.
Uh..no, I work for Washington University in Saint Louis and I have been writing my blog for over 5 years on Illinois politics. Hence, Rich Miller, Eric Zorn, and I have covered this issue in detail for 3 years and know the ins and outs.
=However, I still think that the “present” vote was a cop-out. If he was opposed, he should have taken a clear stand and voted no … did he just do whatever Planned Parenthood suggested without thinking on his own that it’d look like a cop-out to future voters?
No, it was a shared strategy with Planned Parenthood to promote pro-choice candidates and give those with a tougher time on some bills some room to maneuver.
Emil Jones went from being in the minority 2002 to holding a Supermajority after the 2006 election. He helped create this strategy with Planned Parenthood and other choice advocates in the Illinois Senate including Lisa Madigan, the first woman Attorney General in Illinois and Debbie Halvorson the first woman Senate Majority Leader in Illinois. Quite strategically, Planned Parenthood and Personal PAC worked on this sort of strategy to create a Democratic Majority that would then have the ability to simply not call anti-choice bills. The strategy was more successful than anyone thought. In conjunction with a decent remap and some shrewd targeting the Democrats now control every branch of government in Illinois and all of the Constitutional Offices.
The strategic thinking was the opposite of not thinking–it was thinking long term how best to serve the interests of reproductive rights and given the results, it’s pretty hard to argue with the strategy.
The problem with the theory that he should have stood up and proclaimed his views is that he did. When the Democrats took the majority from 2003 until his election to the US Senate, Obama sat on anti-choice bills himself and took all of the heat from the loons like Stanek.
In fact, it’s hard to tell how you think you can hit him from two sides. If he is vulnerable for not supporting the Born Alive Protection Act introduced in Illinois and killing it himself, he cannot also have a bad record of being pro-choice because he voted present. And vice versa. He has always said he would support BAPA that the US Senate passed with Hillary Clinton’s support, but the bills were significantly different. Trying to compare them plays into every right wing narrative on the issue which is a shame since both Clinton and Obama have strong pro-choice records.
===But how can Obama explain away his “present” vote when, as an expert just told me by e-mail, the proper vote (particularly from the standpoint of Planned Parenthood et al.) would have been “no.” Why did he duck the vote? Surely, Planned Parenthood couldn’t have been pleased with that.
Incorrect. Planned Parenthood Illinois helped create the strategy as the Pam Sutherland quote above points out. Please read the sources you link to.
It wasn’t just Obama either, it was now Attorney General Lisa Madigan, now Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson, and now Senate President Emil Jones. Part of the reason for there being a supermajority is that the strategy helped build a majority.
See my response above. So Obama just went along with Planned Parenthood’s marching orders, making a vote that looks like a cop-out because they said it was alright? Yikes.
Paul Krugman is as worried as me about Obama’s experience in taking tough stands, and backing them up:
It’s the same thing. In a few years, he can run for president, and he’ll have sufficient experience to have overcome his inexperience and “naivete.”
It’s the central point in the Des Moines Register’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton: She has the decades of experience that he simply doesn’t have. The Register thinks very highly of Sen. Obama — as do I. But the editors didn’t feel he’s ready yet to take the presidency — especially from day one. We can’t wait for a year or more until he gets up to speed. Not at this crisis point in our country’s, and the world’s, history.
Now, John Edwards doesn’t have that much experience either. But he strikes me as an entirely different kind of person — he’s far more decisive, far more a “buck-stops-here” kind of leader. Obama doesn’t display that leadership quality, especially if he goes for a vote that comes across as indecisive just because some group tells him it’s alright to do that.
And frankly I don’t know if Obama will ever have that leadership quality, aside from making occasionally inspiring speeches. Edwards has it. So do Dodd, Biden and Richardson … they have that “buck stops here” quality about them.
There’s nothing wrong with Obama not having that trait, but the lack of it means he’d make a better professor than a president.
But again, you don’t understand that it wasn’t just going along with Planned Parenthood, it was working with them and Personal PAC to get a permanent majority that kills all pro-life bills without even having to put the pro-life bills designed to split pro-choice office holders.
Of course, another telling issue is that Obama went out of his way to endorse Alexi Gianoulis over the Party’s preferred candidate for Illinois Treasurer. The Party wanted a pro-life candidate to balance the ticket. Jesse Jackson and Obama went to bat for Alexi who is strongly pro-choice and got him elected. Alexi is now a rising star in Illinois politics and committed to pro-choice issues.
Women would have fewer abortions if they knew any off spring would have access to health care, equity in education and a living wage. Health care for all, equity in education access to college without joining the military, and a living wage…..Pro Life
Beautifully said.
There was nothing scarier in my life than ending up raising my daughter myself and running my own business (which I did to be with my daughter more) and having to buy our own health insurance. When it hit $350/month by the early 1990s, I couldn’t afford it anymore.
Raised three daughters the majority of time on my own on 80 acres (they are now 30,28 and 20). I made between 25-30 thousand a year/no insurance…catastrophic health insurance ran around 400.00 a month so we did without. I spent no more than $6000.oo (not bull shitting) on doctors visits during the 28 years of them being at home. Thank you great spirit we did not have any thing that I could not handle out of pocket (severe ear aches etc). I have not ever taken anything from the state only paid taxes…..WE NEEDED CATASTROPHIC HEALTH INSURANCE.
On Bill Moyers several years ago there was some kick ass nun (brilliant with a PhD in something) addressing the real pro life issues…health care, equity in edudation, living wage. I repeat her righteous rant because it is an honest one.
So hypocritical that the folks who want to force women to have children are often the folks who will not vote or support fair wages, health care and access to a higher education.
Here she is
Joan chittister…
“In that other category are millions of faithful Christians, among them is Sister Joan Chittister. She is a Benedictine nun who served as a prioress of her order for 12 years.
She’s a social psychologist, she leads a worldwide network of women for peace and runs a spiritual Web site. Sister Joan has a Ph.D., 11 honorary degrees and was the recipient of the Distinguished Alumni Award from Penn State. And that’s not all.
She is the author of 30 books, including CALLED TO QUESTION: A SPIRITUAL MEMOIR, SCARRED BY STRUGGLE; TRANSFORMED BY HOPE, and this classic in contemporary spirituality, WISDOM DISTILLED FROM THE DAILY.”
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript346_full.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_20_28/ai_n9483761
That’s so impressive, Kathleen. But I have an inkling about the stresses that went with that life of yours. (I felt the same way about taking state help — and I loved having my own business, but it was terribly expensive since small businesses get no breaks, and pay a lot more for insurance, etc.)
What floored me was how quickly the rates went up even though we were both healthy — well, except for occasional things, like the time my toddler daughter aspirated a peanut my brother had left on the floor and needed emergency surgery.
I remember that nun. Thank you for finding the link! I sure wish we still got that PBS station called PBS You — it was national, and it offered old shows like that, and replayed old Charlie Rose shows, etc.
Will look at the linked story later. Thanks again.
A bit of the conversation between Moyers and Chittister
“MOYERS: All right, then they would say, “We went to Iraq to overthrow a brutal dictator who was persecuting his own people and to prevent Iraq becoming a terrorist haven.” You know what they say.
CHITTISTER: Sure and we have a terrorist haven in Iraq right now. We don’t have the so-called dictator anymore. But if those are our criteria, then we’re going to be, for religious reasons, in a lot of other countries in the next 12 months.
MOYERS: Depending on the sources, Sister Joan, there have been some 37,000 civilians killed in Iraq, or maybe a 100,000. Why is abortion a higher moral issue with many American Christians than the invasion of Iraq and the loss of life there?
CHITTISTER: Could I ask you that question? Because that is the moral question that brings me closest to tears. I do not understand that, Bill. You see, I’m absolutely certain that some of the people that we’re killing over there are pregnant women. Now what do you do? Now what do you do? That’s military abortion.
MOYERS: Somebody said to me… that’s what?
CHITTISTER: That’s military abortion. Why is that morally acceptable?
MOYERS: Somebody said to me the other day that Americans don’t behead, but we do drop smart bombs that do it for us.
CHITTISTER: And that are not smart as we think they are.”
Whats the difference?
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures.html
Abortion
Sister Joan Chittister “CHITTISTER: Well, I don’t believe… I’m not exactly sure that they were as decisive in the end. And I’m not sure that there’s any way we can measure that. But even if I say, “Yes, they were,” the fact of the matter is that they are some moral issues, they’re not all moral issues.
The fact of the matter is that they’re all in contention with something else which is also a moral value and also equally important unless you put it completely out of your mind or your heart. For instance, let’s look at the abortion question. I’m opposed to abortion.
But I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking. If all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed and why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”
and healthcare for chilren. I always think of the opening scenes of “Oliver Twist” , like a stuck tune in my head, when I ponder this. From womb to ascension, life is so fragile. What can relieve the burden of the moral choices the women of this planet have to make in a male dominated world? I wish I knew.
Why single out Obama for special concern about what the GOP says? The GOP is going to say what they’re going to say. Half the time they just make shit up…about Obama, Hillary or whoever. None of that will stop me from voting for the Democratic nominee, whether that turns out to be Hillary, Obama, Dodd, Edwards or whomever.
Amen to that, Leslie. Nothing will stop me from voting Democratic in the general election. Nothing! Too much at stake. Those on the Left who refuse to vote Democratic will effectively by default elect a Repub and that will be far worse than Hillary (if she’s nominated).
The issue of the next POTUS nominating the next Justice on the SCOTUS alone should be enough to vote Democratic. We can hold our noses and roll with the punches. That’s what adults do when life serves up something that stinks.
Reshaping the Democratic Party toward a more progressive agenda is a long-term strategy. Thinking that this election is it is foolishly idealistic to a fault and a rewind to Election 2000. Did you like how that turned out?
I will vote for Big Bill in the primary. That’s my chance to vote my conscience. After that, I will vote Democratic no matter who is on the ballot and it is the only sane choice given the possible outcome if a bunch of whiny pissypants stay home.
I think this one is for me Susan.
Moral issues. I do see, hear a lot of people spouting off about moral issues, but never ones that concern them. Those who are “pro-life” would never put themselves into a position of having an unwanted child. Those who are strongly for abortion, though often DON’T lead promiscuous lives, do see their right to control outcomes.
So really, either way, this is really all about more SPITE. I don’t like the way “other people” lead their lives, so I am going to become empowered through my sense of self satisfaction on the grounds that I have got my way and they haven’t got theirs. At its limit, this phenomena is a play on REVENGE. A family member had been affected by something, so a general war against the perceived transgression begins.
Ok, so some of you are already saying….”ok smart ass, what’s right?”
The right answer is that society should provide for its offspring, if society accepts social responsibility. By that, I mean, the circumstances of procreation are irrelevant, society has an obligation to support all at the highest moral level. But, take heed, I believe that we identify our parents before birth and become life because we want to join them. Why? Well we have our lives to find that out. Therefore those who opt for abortion commit a small, and society commits a greater sin for not holding itself responsible. Not enough money. Make more.
Because society actually doesn’t really give a damn about unwanted pregnancies and abortions, dissent is restricted to a few do gooders who crow from the sidelines. The cause is invariably to blame sexual administration in some way. After the mammoth job Reagan and Thatcher did in presenting the AIDs myths, Clinton has done on attacking “promiscuous” teenagers who are on their rite of passage, it is no wonder that safety under the condom is implied in the above article. The dynamite solution. I wonder what the World condom business is worth. Any ideas, MrM? I’d bet its in the billions. What did they do to guarantee safeguards against AIDs for instance? How were condoms tested? Did unaffacted individuals have sex with affected individuals to test out the theory?
Even those gullible enough to assume that condoms afford any protection against STDs (though I concur certain STDs are very low risk using condoms) surely must realise that the difficulty with laws that are asking people to sacrifice or change, is ensuring they are effective and if not, how to enforce them. Immediately you attempt to enforce something you have started a war and I think society has had a belly full of wars and its time to look at things more laterally.
Sen Clinton is still not my first choice in the primaries.
What exactly consitutes a “banned handgun”? Was Obama voting against all citizens having the right to bear arms? In their own homes? Or is a “banned handgun” a specific type of weapon that is cheaply constructed, inaccurate & with a track record of harming the person using it? Anybody know the answer? The Supremes may decide atleast part of the 2nd Amendment this spring in that D.C. case.
Santorum denied nourishment to his prematurely born, soon-to-be-pickled-and-displayed-to-its-siblings fetus.
All he has to do is crusade for a lack of medical privacy, and meet the standards he wants others to face, by a simple waiver of prileged family medical information…
I googled it: looks like Cook County/Chicago passed a 99% gun ban. People on the far left in the Democratic party really do need to understand to win they need the support of conservative Dems, who are proably 15% of the party. If Obama gets the nomination he’d be smart to say he’ll leave gun laws up to the states. He proably is a gun grabber. Don’t ya just love these wedge issues? Last time it was gay marriage, now its choice vs the 2nd Amendment.
Is it alright when he does it?
And believe me, if Obama wins, and if the Republicans ask, I will speak any- and everywhere about Obama’s support of infanticide.
politics and concealed weapon permits