Posted on 08/16/2008 9:30:20 AM PDT by cpforlife.org
In speech to Planned Parenthood in July 2007, said he would sign Freedom of Choice Act to enshrine Roe in federal law
By Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C., February 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Barack Obama, the young, dynamic contender for the US Democratic presidential nomination, is continuing to send strong signals to members of his party that he is the strongest anti-life candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
At the last Democratic debate before the March 4 primary showdown in Texas and Ohio that could effectively decide the Democratic nominee, both Sen. Hillary Clinton - a fierce abortion supporter who is aspiring to be the first female president of the United States - and Sen. Obama - who is vying to be the first black US president - were asked which votes they would take back in their senatorial careers. Clinton cited her vote for the Iraq war; Obama said his vote for Terri Schiavo.
“It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake,” Obama said at the debate. “And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better ... and I think that's an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.”
Obama was referring to his vote in March 2005, when the Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent that permitted Schiavo’s parents and brother to make their case before federal courts to keep their brain-injured daughter alive via feeding tube. Terri Schiavo’s husband Michael, who had guardianship over her while engaged in public adultery with a girlfriend, had a state judge remove her feeding tube, dehydrating her to death, because he claimed she never wanted to live in a so-called persistent vegetative state (PVS).
“Everyone with a disability, or who knows someone with a disability, should be outraged that a potential US president would so callously reject his own action taken in favor of life over death,” Terri's father, Robert Schindler said in a statement released to the press by the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation. “Is it so incredulous that a family had the ‘audacity of hope’ to believe its government would care about one profoundly disabled woman? It is a shame that Senator Obama, who claims to embody ‘hope,’ is crushing it for the families of people with profound disabilities.”
Obama has been riding a surge of support and enthusiasm among Democratic voters after having won 11 straight primary contests over Clinton. He leads the delegate count, and now seems poised to take the nomination from Clinton.
However, Obama has been seizing the mantle of the Democratic Party's pro-death wing, where once Clinton held an unassailable position as all-but crowned abortion nominee. Despite the fact that 10 influential feminists and leaders of the abortion movement endorsed Clinton last week, Frances Kissling, former president of the abortion advocacy group Catholics for Free Choice and dubbed the “philosopher of the pro-choice movement”, came out strongly in favor of Obama, saying that he, not Clinton was the better candidate to “complete the social transformation promised by Roe.” (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021910.html)
Obama has an extremely anti-life record that verges into the realm of condoning infanticide, including repeated votes during his career in the Illinois Senate against bills that would have protected babies that survived an abortion. Obama voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act numerous times on the basis that it might infringe on women's rights or abortionists’ rights.
“Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country-and for men, who have enough sense to realize you are helping them, all across the country,” Obama told supporters.
In a speech to Planned Parenthood activists in July 2007, Obama made clear that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act to enshrine Roe in federal law, include Planned Parenthood in a universal health-care scheme, increase funding for sex-education and contraceptives, and select judges in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Pro-life advocates may discover that Barack Obama’s rhetorical abilities may make him a more powerful abortion president than the acrimonious Hillary Clinton, who, despite having more political accomplishments as First Lady and a US Senator for the abortion movement, has suffered considerably in the polls in part to her inability to overcome Obama’s charm and oratory skill.
“I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page,” Obama said in July. “We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole’ stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument.”
See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:
“Philosopher of Abortion Movement” Says Obama A Better Choice than Hillary
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021910.html
See transcript of Obamaa’s speech to Planned Parenthood in 2007
http://lauraetch.googlepages.com/barackobamabeforeplannedpar...
Schiavo Foundation Laments Obama’s “Mistake” Comment on Terry Schiavo
http://www.zenit.org/article-21905?l=english
“So ninties” Are civil rights So nineties because we want them restored to citizens waiting to be born?
“We're tired about arguing about the same ole’ stuff.” Because you can't win the argument. You loose the argument every time.
“same ole’ stuff.” Children are being murdered TODAY you sick barbarian.
Why not keep the Congress in session 365 days a year for the sole purpose of intervening in family disputes?
Obama: If I had one thing to do over, it would be to not try to save the life of a severely disabled woman. What was I thinking?
This man is a pig.
So-called "damage to the GOP" vs standing in opposition to the deliberate taking of innocent human life.
Hmmmmmmm
That, my friend, is classic no-brainer.
LOL autumnraine, please don’t insult pigs like that!
Some of us realize it very well. But we really do not care. Keeping the GOP in business is not what we are about.
I a convinced he is a Muslim and that his entire Christian persona is nothing but a charade. Muslims have so little regard for the truth that it wouldn't bother him at all to lie through his teeth about his beliefs. In fact, they consider it just fine to lie about anything as long as it's being done to further the cause of Islam.
I see absolutely nothing in this man's persona that says to me that he is Christian. The Bible gives a list of the fruits of the Spirit, and he displays none of them. As my mom used to say, if being a Christian were a crime he would be acquitted for lack of evidence.
It really goes against my grain to be so negative about someone, but he just does terrible things to my sense of what's right and what's wrong, and what would be good for America.
I am greatly distressed that so many Americans would give any thought at all to having him occupy the Oval Office. But I have no faith in polls, especially when they fly in the face of common sense.
I have to agree with you. That whole Schiavo fiasco hurt the party. It didn’t help it.
If your precious GOP is built on the bodies of innocent victims, I want no part of it, but will instead direct my efforts toward doing as much damage to it as I am able.
Do I detect a note of sarcasm in your reply?
Sometimes it isn’t about politics, it’s about doing the right thing.
Me, Sarcastic? Not in a million-billion years. /sarcasm
Cantor or Duncan Hunter.
Yes, I agree. However, should the House and Senate enter into special session when ever their is a family dispute regarding the decision to terminate life support of have an abortion?
If that is not the case, what made Terri more important than the hundreds of thousands of people that have been pulled from live support over the last three years?
Unfortunately, abortion remains perfectly legal, so that isn’t at issue. As for family disputes involving removing someone from life support, the Shiavo case was different because her husband was her guardian and it was argued that he did not have her best interests at heart because he would benefit if she died. I guess her case is a good reason to consider a living will or document stating if you do want to be kept alive. IMO, the judge in her case made very bad rulings and eventually congress decided to get involved. They were not mandated to, they chose to and I believe they did the right thing under the circumstances.
So what made Terri more important that all the other people that have been the subject of end of life decisions which led to a family dispute.
Should Congress get involved in all such cases?
Why not grant Equal Protection to all people on life support so that Congress treats them as equally as they did Terri?
I think my prior response answers your question.
*sarcasm
So you believe that the Terri Schiavo case was the only time in United States history where there was a family dispute of whether to pull someone from life support?
Dogz is playing with you because it disdains pro-lifers. There is a thin facade of ‘protect the alive unborn’ but in the end the protection is a situational transaction not related to unalienable rights, as the poster’s vacuous-soul posts indicate. This poster has a template of why Terri should be put down and ignores any of the points regarding parents that wanted to care for Terri, any points that support she was not brain dead albeit severely retarded via neglect carried out over years by the very guardian a sick dead-soul judge protected. And there is so much more, but be advised there are dead-soul liars at FR who enjoy the anguish they can generate by insulting the very memory of Terri Schiavo.
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.