Barack Obama Tries to Fool Pro-Life Voters Soft-Selling His Pro-Abortion Views

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Jan 28, 2008   |   9:00AM   |   WASHINGTON, DC

Barack Obama Tries to Fool Pro-Life Voters Soft-Selling His Pro-Abortion Views Email this article
Printer friendly page

RSS Newsfeed

by Laura Echevarria
January 28, 2008

LifeNews.com Note: Laura Echevarria is a LifeNews.com opinion columnist. She is the former Director of Media Relations and a spokesperson for the National Right to Life Committee and has been a radio announcer, freelance writer active in local politics.

In interviews with Beliefnet, Christianity Today and CBN, Mr. Obama has been trying to reach Evangelical Christians who, up to now, have paid him little attention—and with good reason.

Barack Obama has been an ardent supporter of abortion on demand. He has actively worked against any protective legislation—he even opposed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

In his interview with Christianity Today, Mr. Obama tried to justify his position on abortion, saying:

I don’t know anybody who is pro-abortion. I think it’s very important to start with that premise. I think people recognize what a wrenching, difficult issue it is. . . ..Ultimately, women are in the best position to make a decision at the end of the day about these issues. With significant constraints. For example, I think we can legitimately say — the state can legitimately say — that we are prohibiting late-term abortions as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health.

There are several glaring errors with his comments.

First, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act he is referring to when he says ‘prohibiting late-term abortions” bans only one particular abortion technique, most of which are done in the fifth and six months of pregnancy—there is no ban on all “late-term” abortions.

Second, if you are for abortion-on-demand you are for abortion thus you are pro (Latin meaning “for”)- abortion. Simple. It’s not as if you have to draw a complicated diagram to get from point A to point B.

Third, the infamous “health” exception that pro-abortion groups and politicians like to trot out to justify why they oppose pro-life legislation is a legal loophole through which you could drive a semi-truck.

When Roe was handed down, it’s companion ruling, Doe v. Bolton, received very little press but that ruling gave Roe it’s broad, unlimited scope. Doe v. Bolton defined “health” to mean:

"all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient."

In a speech before Planned Parenthood activists in July, Barack Obama claimed to have “put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality.”

As a lawyer who taught Constitutional Law, it’s disingenuous for Mr. Obama to say that we should pass laws that “prohibit” abortion only if there is an “exception for the mother’s health.” He knows that such laws would not prevent a single abortion because of the Court’s definition of health.

But Mr. Obama wants Evangelical Christians to believe he’s not pro-abortion and he wants our votes.

Well, as one of those Evangelical Christians Mr. Obama is trying to court, I say phooey.

Really, does he think we are idiots or uneducated dolts?

Mr. Obama please don’t insult us. We know when someone is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. We are very much aware of the scope of Roe v. Wade and its companion ruling, Doe v. Bolton. We’ve been working in the trenches for years now with our Catholic brothers and sisters trying to change the law to protect unborn children. If we voted for you, we would be rolling back the clock on everything the pro-life movement has accomplished.

So our answer is no. Thank you for your time but we’re not interested.