Barack Obama said last night in the third Presidential debate that he wants to reduce abortions. This is another one of his calculated misstatements to confuse the American people and assuage their feelings on the subject of abortion. The average person does not want to discuss the issue. Any explanation or opinion that can resolve the internal conflict for that person will be embraced. Obama has managed to do that so far by saying that abortion is a profoundly moral issue (why), that he wants to offer alternatives (sounds nice), but he believes in "choice" (never explaining what the results of that choice really mean - that is a dead baby).
But Obama is on record as favoring passage of the Freedom of Choice Act.
Passage of the Freedom of Choice Act would have the effect of increasing the number of abortions throughout the nation. At least that is the conclusion of Michael J. New, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama. According to Dr. New, Political candidates who support legal abortion have been changing their rhetoric in recent years. Indeed, during the current election cycle, a number of pro-choice candidates, including Barack Obama, have expressed an interest in lowering the incidence of abortion. Such statements present a unique opportunity for the pro-life movement. Indeed, pro-lifers should insist that these candidates support pro-life parental-involvement laws. Such laws enjoy broad support and unlike other laws limiting abortion, they can be easily justified as a parental-rights issue.
Dr. New's recent study provides evidence that well designed parental-involvement laws have been surprisingly effective at reducing abortion rates among minors. There is only one problem with knowing this information. It conflicts with the public stated position of Barack Obama.
Obama has pledged to Planned Parenthood that the "first" legislation he would sign would be the "Freedom of Choice Act." FOCA as it is called would disassemble all state laws restricting abortion in an effort to provide a federal preemption over the States' rights to regulate this procedure in order to protect parent and patient rights.
If he does sign FOCA into law, then federal tax dollars would be used for abortion. State laws would be overturned and abortion would return to being the most unregulated medical procedure in the country. Efforts to protect women from abortion profiteers and unlicensed abortionists would cease. Without parental consent laws, predatory males over the age of 18 would force their underage victims to abort and no one would be able to prevent the incident. Abortions would increase overnight s women were put under additional pressure to procure abortions.
Obama knew he was misleading the American public last night. He repeated the same errors regarding the Born Alive infants Protection legislation in the Illinois State House. He thinks that the American electorate is only concerned about the economy. Remember the Clinton campaign's mantra, "it's the economy, stupid." Well, it is true that Ross Perot's entrance into the 1992 election diluted the strength of the pro-life and values voters. But it is not true that the pro-life and values voters are not important in this election. It explains why there has been a concerted campaign by the Left to confuse the public's understanding of Obama's position on abortion and same-sex marriage.
The special interests who support Obama want to defeat the state laws protecting traditional Marriage. The special interests who support Obama want abortion on demand, paid or by the taxpayer. The special interests who support Obama want doctors to be FORCED to perform procedures that violate their conscience.
And Obama. He just wants everyone to feel good and vote for him. So he can take over and serve this country up to those who put him in power.
Can John McCain and Sarah Palin win?
Yes they can.
You and I have to make it happen.
In the third presidential debate Senator Obama made the claim that he would ban Partial Birth abortions if protection was given with regards to the health of the mother. This is an empty argument since the baby is killed after it has been 90% delivered and only its head is still in the womb. The mother's health is not in jeopardy for that last second it takes to deliver the baby. He is just being dishonest. Take a look at this video which goes into detail of the procedure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5qu87aXc20
As a mother I am horrified that anyone would think it's ok to allow my daughter to have an abortion without my consent or knowledge. What if there were health concerns? or something went wrong during the procedure? These are the lefty illuminati in DC filling our heads with their over liberal views again!
If you have not adopted a child then you have no argument for being pro-life.
Nancy,
There is no logic to your comment, but lets follow it to its logical conclusion. If all of us wanted to adopt, then can we agree that all abortions should cease? After all if we can provide a million couples to adopt, then there are no unwanted children.
As a matter of fact, the National Council on Adoption will advise that there are over 2 million couples certified to adopt.
So the pro-life movement is ready to adopt them all. In my extended family, we have done so. My sister and her husband have walked the walk. T
The point is - there are no unwanted children that need be killed by abortion. We CAN offer life and help to them ALL.
John,
Well said! Certainly nothing I can add, except to say that the "follow-the-argument-to-its-logical-conclusion" sounds awfully familiar (Blackstone, perhaps?). :o)