Obama More Than An Abortion Radical

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) recently paid Sen. Barack Obama an undue compliment by suggesting he is an abortion radical. If you look at his whole record on abortion, it suggests he has gone beyond being a radical to being firmly enshrined in the lunatic fringe.

In reaching its conclusion, the NRLC focused on Mr. Obama's opposition to the Illinois Born-Alive Infant Protection Bill. This was a bill designed to protect infants after live births, whether or not as a consequence of an abortion procedure.

One of the crusaders for that bill was nurse Jill Stanek, who worked at the Christ Hospital in the southwestern suburbs of Chicago. A mother came in for a second trimester abortion and had what is called an "induced labor abortion" or "prostaglandin abortion." In this procedure, the doctor administers drugs to dilate the mother's cervix and to induce contractions. This forces a small baby out of the mother's womb, and most of the time the baby dies in utero during such an abortion, killed by the contractions.

In the case in question, the baby was one of those born alive. Under such circumstances, the baby is not treated but simply left to die. A nurse was told to put this baby in the soiled utility closet to die (the hospital later claimed there were "comfort rooms" used for such dying babies; some comfort). Ms. Stanek offered to take the baby instead.

She said, "I couldn't let him die alone. And so I held him for the 45 minutes that he moved. He moved a little bit. Of course he didn't cry." Ms. Stanek says she was horrified and went to work in Christ Hospital thinking because of its name, abortion and such other practices would not be tolerated. But she later found that Christ Hospital is aligned with two Christian denominations that support legal abortions, of which one is Mr. Obama's old denomination, the United Church of Christ.

What happened to that little baby sounded more like murder than abortion to Ms. Stanek so she complained to the attorney General of Illinois. He investigated and found under Illinois laws this murder by neglect, infanticide, or whatever you choose to call it was perfectly legal.

So Ms. Stanek started to crusade for legislation to get protection for such "born-alive" babies. Her Illinois state senator introduced Senate Bill 1095, the so-called "Born-Alive" bill.

SB 1095 clearly applied only to babies born alive, and could not be interpreted to somehow outlaw otherwise legal abortions. The language of the bill is as follows: "As used in this Section, the term 'born alive,' with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, 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." Then the bill gives such live child the full rights and protection of a human being. That is essentially the whole bill.

Now enter "radical" Mr. Obama, at the time a member of the Illinois legislature. He was and always has been a proponent of abortion, without exceptions or qualifications, the most extreme abortion advocate in the Illinois legislature (and later the U.S. Senate). He was the only senator to speak against the bill. He made a weird argument against the bill suggesting that unless the child was delivered full term after nine months it might not be a person.

Despite his opposition to the bill, he voted "present." That's a device he commonly used to oppose a bill and still avoid the "no" vote. According to the important new book by David Freddoso, "The Case Against Barack Obama," the present vote was worked out with Planned Parenthood. This account is taken from ?Mr. Freddoso's book.

Twelve other senators voted "present." The bill did pass the Illinois Senate but died in the House. The bill was introduced on two subsequent occasions. Mr. Obama then voted against the two bills and, once again, spoke against them on the Senate floor.

In his book, "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama offers this explanation for his opposition: "It mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies (the bill didn't mention that such measures were already the law) - but also extended personhood to pre-viable fetuses, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade."

Mr. Obama was clearly wrong, as the protection of born-alive babies was not already the law of Illinois, as demonstrated by opinions of the Illinois Attorney General and Department of Health. Nor did the bill overturn Roe v. Wade, as it only applied to babies born alive.

When a Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate about the same time, even Barbara Boxer, considered the most avid supporter of abortion rights in the U.S. Senate, voted for that bill. So Mr. Obama is even more radical than the senator considered to be on the most extreme fringe of the abortion rights debate. So it is fair to say that Mr. Obama is not only the most pro-abortion member of the U.S. Senate but is also the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history.

According to the NRLC, Mr. Obama justified his vote against the Born-Alive bill by saying it did not have a "neutrality clause," which expressly states that the Born-Alive Protection Bill would not apply to otherwise legal abortions. But documents produced by NRLC show Mr. Obama supported the "neutrality clause" and then still voted against the bill, even after the addition of that clause.

An NRLC spokesman said, "Obama's legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Mr. Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL [National Abortion Rights League] ultimately did not oppose."

An item on the Obama Web site claims he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act had it contained a "neutrality clause." This is contradicted by evidence produced by NRLC and others. It also doesn't make sense, as the intent of the bill was clear and did not apply to otherwise legal abortions. Hence, there was no need for a "neutrality clause."

Now, based on the evidence I've seen, I conclude that anyone - including Mr. Obama - who favors legalized killing of born-alive babies is not just a radical but a member of the abortion lunatic fringe.

And for full understanding of Mr. Obama's thinking on the subject, consider his extreme position on every other abortion issue. For this account, I also rely on Mr. Freddoso's book and Jerome R. Corsi's "The Obama Nation."

Mr. Obama voted against Illinois Senate Bill 230 to prevent partial birth abortion. That type of abortion was described by Mr. Corsi: "In a partial-birth abortion the baby is delivered feet first, so the head remains in the mother's womb, allowing the courts to maintain that the baby has not yet been born. The doctor then uses surgical instruments to crack the back of the baby's skull, permitting a suction tube to be inserted, so the baby's brain can be removed from the body." Mr. Obama voted no or "present" every time a partial-birth abortion ban came before the Illinois legislature.

Even the late, great pro-choice Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, of New York, once said of partial-birth abortion: "It is as close to infanticide as anything I have come upon in our judiciary."

Michelle Obama gets into the act on this one, according to Mr. Corsi. She sent an e-mail to build support for her husband. Mr. Corsi writes, "Mrs. Obama describes this law as a 'ban on a legitimate medical procedure' that 'is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned...On March 16th [referring to an earlier Obama election date], we have a chance to nominate a candidate who will be tireless in the fight to protect women."

When you review Mr. Obama's record on abortion and his pronouncements on legal decisions on the subject, you learn that he views the right to abortion as the supreme human right, overshadowing the right to life and all other rights.

This is a proposal, writes Mr. Freddoso that would "cancel every state, federal and local regulation of abortion, no matter how modest or reasonable." So this would abolish federal laws on parental notification. It would abolish laws protecting doctors and others who do not want to participate in abortions. It would abolish state restrictions on government funding of abortions.

Mr. Freddoso cautions, "Politicians' promises are often empty, but this one deserves to be taken seriously. Obama has a real record of 'accomplishment' to back it up."

If Mr. Obama should be elected, he would appoint justices of the U.S. Supreme Court that would strike down every restriction on abortion, and would ignore the constitution while turning liberal lunacy into the laws of the land.

He has said he would appoint justices along the lines of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter. They were involved in opinions that would strike down criminal penalties for the promotion of child pornography and that made it possible for private developers, under local laws, to grab the homes of citizens under the doctrine of eminent domain. They also voted to make it possible for the Boy Scouts to bar gay scoutmasters.

Mr. Obama has said he believes in the interpretation of the Constitution as follows: "that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." He also writes, "It is unrealistic to believe that a judge, two hundred years later, can somehow discern the original intent of the Founders or ratifiers." That is short hand for ignoring the intent of the Founders and adopting the liberal views of the president and his appointees to the court. That is the rationale for legislating lunacy from the bench rather than interpreting the Constitution.

He voted "present" on parental notification, which in effect is a no vote. That is "notification" and not "consent." He has a 100 percent voting rights record with every abortion group. He always votes pro-choice, and has never voted in favor of any restriction on abortion, no matter how reasonable.

When Mr. Obama votes in favor of partial-birth abortion and protection of born-alive children, he is clearly a divider, off on an extreme and uncivilized lunatic left-wing plank. He is not a uniter on this issue in deed or word. Consider what he had to say about the so-called Christian right:

"The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it's always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility."

So when the Christian right and conservative believe a born-alive child should not be murdered and when they oppose partial birth abortion, they are guilty of "intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia." When you favor murdering a born-alive child and sucking out the brains of a child that might otherwise survive, you are reaching Mr. Obama's higher moral grounds and his land of family values.

The position of Mr. Obama on the radical fringe and the lunatic left on abortion is not an exception to his overall political views. Examine his total record by reading the important and excellent books by Messrs. Corsi and Freddoso and you'll understand this if you don't already. I've been focusing on Mr. Obama now, and have written dozens of columns on the subject, which I think support my bottom line on Mr. Obama - he's a phony, a fraud, an extremist, a radical, a hypocrite and a pompous ass. I don't ordinarily describe presidential candidates in such strong terms, but I think when you're trying to understand someone who might be president, commander in chief and leader of the free world, you better not be politically correct, polite, or exude false civility. This is the time for the unvarnished truth.

Pat Buchanan, the politician, broadcaster and syndicated columnist whose work appears in The Bulletin, recently put the abortion issue into the framework of "Catholics vs. Obama" (Aug. 13, 2008). But it is a broader issue than that. It's Mr. Obama and infanticide versus Mr. McCain and protecting the right to life of a living, breathing infant. It's Mr. Obama and sucking out the brain of a child in its mother's womb, and Mr. McCain and outlawing uncivilized medical procedures that serve no medical purposes. It's Mr. Obama and the extreme, radical, lunatic fringe, versus Mr. McCain and a centrist, conservative view that understands the value of human life. It's Mr. Obama and uncivilized barbarism versus Mr. McCain and the values our nation, our great religions, and our civilization hold dear.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

I look at it this way. It is not necessary (and might not even be possible) for a political leader to be a paragon of all virtues. Sobriety, physical courage and fidelity are good virtues, but a person who occasionally gets drunk (in private, not on the job) and who is a wimp in the face of physical pain, and who has a weakness for pretty ladies who freely dispense sexual favors, could still be a good political leader.

I'm not saying I'd admire him, but these weakness and vices would not nullify his ability to govern rightly.

However, one virtue which is essential, definitive, for good governance is the virtue of justice. If a man (or woman) lacks a strong commitment to justice, he or she simply cannot govern rightly.

Here's where abortion comes in. To deliberately and intentionally kill an innocent human being is the most primorial and fundamental offense against justice that a human being can commit.

To carry out such a killing is an act of outrageous injustice; to be an accomplice is to be corrupted by collusion in injustice; to justify it is to betray a dangerous deficiency in justice; and even to tolerate it shows a basic unfitness to exercise political power, since the power to govern others --- if it is not to be tyranny --- must embody the strictest principles of justice.

Much as I value virtues such as sobriety, humility, chastity, diligence, thrift, and even truthfulness and the rest, they are of secondary importance in the political realm, while justice is supreme.

If a man knowingly tolerates the ongoing deliberate killing of innocent human beings for whatever reason, he is intrinsically unfit to govern.

That statement really cuts to the heart of the matter. There are many now, among those who describe themselves as "religious," who have convinced themselves that abortion is somehow a minor issue compared to "social justice" for those they see as poor and oppressed, nationally or internationally.

But who are the most deserving, the most needing, of justice? Who are, in Christ's words, "the least of my brethren?" Wouldn't that be those who cannot defend themselves, those who have no advocacy groups, or organizations, or political structures to defend them? Those whose very existence depends on the whim of one person or organization -- such as the unborn child, and those at the end of life? Those who die anonymously, for the sake of someone's convenience, with none to mourn the passing of their souls?

Let us insure justice for the "least," before we insist on justice for others.

Exactly right. There is a great deal of talk, in religious justice groups, about God's "preferential option for the poor," and that's true and right; but at least equally striking is God's "preferential option for the child." Jesus teaches, "It is not the will of your Father who is in Heaven that one of these little ones should perish"

--- and literally identifies with the child (as He does with the poor in Matthew 25) when He says, "Whosoever shall receive one of such children in My name, receiveth Me; and whosoever shall receive Me, receiveth not Me, but Him that sent Me."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.