Following a link in a recent comment here, I came to this post about Obama’s voting record on abortion, which he defended by saying attack ads referenced “votes taken out of context.”
The blog post in question says that a vote can’t be taken out of context - it’s a vote. I beg to differ, and agree with Obama that a vote can be taken out of context, even while disagreeing sharply with him on the issue of abortion.
First - to get this question answered from the start - I can in good conscience vote for Obama even while disagreeing with his positions on abortion. Why? Because I want there to be fewer abortions, and I believe that his social policies will lead to fewer actual abortions than McCain’s. Having a President who agrees with me is a far less important goal than actually reducing the number of abortions. See my post from the 2004 election season “Abortion in Context” for a fuller explanation.
If you want to paint Obama as a bad guy because of how he voted on a particular bill, you can do that, but let’s consider what else goes into a vote:
- The political motivations of both sides - often a bill is not really about what it says it’s about, but about political power struggles. People on both sides of the abortion debate seem to view any concessions that the other side may have a valid point as lost ground, even if there are no practical consequences to the ground in dispute.
- Bills are often loaded with junk - we’ve all heard how irrelevant garbage gets tacked onto bills that are sure to pass. During election season, though, if a bill has a nice ring to it, you’re toast if you vote against it, even if it contained a bunch of junk that had nothing to do with the emotionally appealing aspects of the bill.
- Bad bills can sound great in a short soundbite or attack ad, but can have major consequences that can’t be concisely explained in a counter-ad.
I haven’t investigated this particular bill from the Illinois legislature, so I don’t know whether the bill Obama voted against was a good one or not. I do know how I feel about abortion in general, and partial-birth abortion in particular - it’s one of the most reprehensible things humanity has devised. But the quality of the bill is something we need to ask about whenever judging a candidate for voting against a bill that we like the sound of.
I say that to say this: the fact that Obama voted a certain way on a certain bill that none of us have read does not justify painting him as a baby-killer. If you want to look into the bill itself, as well as the political environment in which it was proposed, and come to that same conclusion, go right ahead, but at least do some thinking along the way. Here’s a post that simultaneously calls Obama a baby-killer while documenting how politically motivated the entire thing was.
Make no doubt about it, Obama is 100% undebatably pro-abortion. He will defend it in every context. He even said that if his own daughters mess up, he doesn’t want them “punished with a baby”
That bill was what it was.. You admit you haven’t researched it. Research it. Obama was unapologetic about supporting it. It wasn’t laden with a bunch of extraneous stuff - it was the same bill that passed federally.
If winning the power struggle is more important than the principle of life, the guy’s priorities are out of line. That is the excuse for every bad piece of legislation passed. And that is exactly what makes the McCain ticket competitive. McCain has demonstrated time and time again that he is willing to lose a power struggle in order to get a pragmatic principle for the good of the country accomplished.
Besides rhetorically saying he is for fewer abortions what practical steps has Barack taken to lessen the number of abortions in his city and state?
Do we have anything but his votes to make any judgment about?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
C
(From Fact Check)
“Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.” [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]
The statement was still on Obama’s Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of “lying.” But Obama’s claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.”
Hi Josh,
I don’t doubt at all that Obama is pro-abortion, and I don’t defend him on that point. However, I think the phrase “pragmatic principle,” as you put it, is an oxymoron. Aren’t we talking about pragmatism vs. principle?
In other words, my argument is that Obama’s policies will lead to fewer actual abortions, while McCain’s policies will lead to more, despite his moral opposition to abortion (with which I agree).
As for whether Obama’s priorities are out of line, I would first say that I need to know more about the context of this vote (not just Obama’s motivations, but the political context in which the bill came up for a vote).
Second, I would say that abortion should not be the top priority for anyone who wants to be President. While I am opposed to abortion (and am more conservative on this point than McCain), and consider it an important issue, it is not something that the next President will likely have any say over.
I did struggle with whether to vote for Bush in 2004, because it seemed clear that the 05-08 President would appoint several Supreme Court justices, who could have an impact on abortion’s legality in the US (though not necessarily the abortion rate, as explained above). This turned out to be correct, but the new SCOTUS justices turned out to make many bad decisions, mostly about terrorism cases, and while they doubtless have many years left on the court, they haven’t done a thing to reduce abortions or change hearts and minds.
Here’s the context of the the vote (Illinois SB 1092). The post you referenced is by Jill Stanek, a victim of a saline abortion who survived. It was her add to which Obama was responding. However, he made it seem like the add came from McCain, not a private citizen.
Here’s the entire bill, Illinois Senate Bill 1092, direct from the state website: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1095.html
It’s only 132 word’s in length, including the amendment. Is this bill not about what it says it is about? Is this bill loaded with junk? What consequences ciould this bill have that cannot be briefly explained?
How can you possibly hold that a man who would oppose this bill would unltimately lead to fewer abortions. What does a vote against this bill mean? That babies who are born alive, in spite of an attempted abortion, who have a beating heart or are breathing on their own outside the womb are not granted the status of a human being and may be left to die or killed. Obama was the only Illinois Senator that spoke in opposition to the bill and when it came time for the vote, voted “present”. Obama is not content with abortion on demand, he want’s mother’s to be able to decide the life-or-death fate of their children even after they are born. Please, provide me with some “context” in which this is acceptable.
Illinois SB 1092:
Amends the Statute on Statutes. Defines “born-alive infant” to
include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born
alive at any stage of development. Defines “born alive” to mean the
complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any
stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes
or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite
movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical
cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or
extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
section, or induced abortion. Effective immediately.
SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 1.
Provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall
be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
protection under the law.
C - the argument that Obama will reduce abortion is not based on his specific actions or statements on that issue, but is more indirect, based on his social policies. From what I’ve seen, the evidence seems to indicate that directly attacking abortion does not work - you have to take an indirect route to reducing abortion by addressing the situations that lead to unintended pregnancies.
Anyone can look up the correlations between various social conditions and the abortion rate. Here is a very informative report from Guttmacher.
Justin, what indierect approach is Obama taking to reduce the number of abortions?
What are the situations that lead to unintended pregnancies and what are the social policies propsed by Obama that will lead to fewer unintended pregnancies?
The primary situation that leads to unintended pregnancies is having sex when you are not prepared or willing to be a parent. According to the Guttmacher report you cited, half of all unwanted pregnancies come from the 10% of women who just don’t use any form of birth control. The other half come from women who’s birth control method failed. If half of all unintended pregnancies are the result of two people having sex without any method of birth control, then I would assume that 1/2 of all abortions are from such unintended pregnancies. What can any policy do to change these statistics when birth control is readily available, often available cheap or free and they just can’t be bothered? If Obama has the answer, I’d like to hear it.
Also I erred above about the blogger, Jill Stanek is not the victim of abortion, she is a nurse who has held living aborted babies in her handsas a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn Illinois. The one who made the add, which was attacked by Obama as “vicious” was a victim of a “botched” abortion. Her name is Gianna Jensen.
Good question:
-Comprehensive sex education - not abstinence-only, which has been proven to be ineffective
-General social welfare
-Universal health care
to name a few.
Those are pretty broad generalizations. Any specifics? Have you been able to find a context in which a vote against IL SB 1092 would be appropriate?
I’m still wondering what was meant by a “vote out of context”. Any comments from the Obama campaign as to the proper context? How about you Obama supporters, can you put this vote in the proper context?
After more than a week I still have not heard anyone suggest the context out of which this vote was taken. I can only conclude that there is no context other than what the bill itself states. I guess the whole issue of life is above the paygrade of the Illinois Senetor. But is it above your pay grade?
Well, in the debate last night, Obama provided the context for his “vote out of context”. But I still don’t get it. Do you? Helping to save a baby’s life might lead to a slippery slope that would overturn Roe vs. Wade? That’s just sick!
No, it’s not sick - the bill was purely political, and would have accomplished nothing. As you noted, Obama explained last night that there was already a law that required medical treatment for babies born alive after botched abortions.
Again, I disagree vehemently with Obama on the subject of abortion’s acceptability, but in this case, he voted against a bill that would have accomplished nothing for the unborn. His vote makes it clear that he is pro-choice, but the context makes it clear that he is not in favor of abortion, which he called “always a tragedy.”
That was his explanation, but was it true? Can you site the law that was already on the books? If there was a law on the books already, how come doctors were not being arrested for violating the law in Illinois hospitals? Besides, this vote was not even for the unborn, it was for those already born. The problem I have with Obama is that EVERY vote is purely political. Nothing matters to him but his political career. What he says is merely rhetoric to placate the naive.
He had a real problem with Rick Warren about when human life is worthy of human rights. Apparently even birth is too unclear as a marker. What’s next? 27 year olds? 53 year olds? If the question of when human life is worthy of human rights is above his pay grade, what’s in store for our elderly, infirmed and imperfect? If a question of that nature is above his pay grade, he is unworthy of a promotion to the highest office in the country. Let me pose the question just that way:
If the question of when human life is worthy of human rights is the pay grade of a U.S. Semetor, why should he be promoted to the office of president?
Morfe on the “vote out of context”. The law in effect in Illinois at the time of Obama’s votes on the child born alive act was that doctors were to provide immediate aid to “viable” fetuses which were born alive. By the way, in Illinois, at least at that time, it was illegal to abort a “viable” fetus, so if a doctor delivered a live baby from an abortion, he would be in deep trouble for performing an illegal abortion. The Child born alive votes which Obama opposed removed the term “viable”. This bill was hardly about abortion, it was about infanticide, which was taking place in Illinois hospitals by doctors who did not want it known that they were performing illegal and unsafe, botched abortions. But of course, we can hardly expect Obama to get this right, after all, it is above his pay grade.