Check out the link above. Donald Miller came out in support of Obama, and is even campaigning for him. One of his main reasons is because Obama has a plan to decrease abortions, where as McCain hasn't voiced how he would reduce abortions; he is just vocally pro-life. I read that Donald Miller interview, as well as a few responses to it. One of the respondents said something questioning Miller's logic to vote Obama based on his abortion policies. It went something like: "If Donald lived in the time of Abe Lincoln, he'd vote for the other guy because he had a plan to decrease the amount of slavery." I know that can be a ridiculous comparison, but is there any truth in it?The facts: no one thinks abortions are wonderful. Some just think they are necessary. What is the best way to get rid of abortions? Is it to instate laws and education and support programs that would lessen the amount of abortions while keeping the choice available? Or is it to elect someone who given the chance would appoint enough supreme court judges to overturn Roe v. Wade (I'm not sure but I believe McCain is for overturning this).
This has really got me thinking. I know abortions would still happen illegally in some places and in back alley clinics. But how long did it take after slavery was illegal for the mind set to change and become demonized? Now, anyone who would even allude to slavery as okay would be seen as a villain. If abortions were outlawed it might take a long time, maybe 100 years, but could you imagine if the mindset of the whole country eventually recognized it as a terrible and disturbing act? Maybe it isn't an awful comparison to slavery after all, maybe I have just become soft for fear of being uncool.
What do you guys think? Any thoughts on this? I was trying to not be one of those voters who vote based off of one ticket item, but is this item big enough?
Posts
4 comments:
I found ontheissues.org very enlightening when looking at the candidates. Gives you an overview of their comments on issues AND voting record.
I guess where the slavery argument breaks down on this issue for me is that Obama would not have a moral stand about when "someone is really enslaved" and would want us to consider "the slave owners rights." That is such an absurd comparison for today's candidates (though perhaps philosophically fair), that I don't think it can be a very productive conversation.
It's difficult to make a decision on voting looking only at one issue... however, its clear that the Abortion issue is a decent litmus test when it comes to a candidates moral and social philosophy for government and politics.
That is where I am disappointed with McCain's campaign. Their rough draft for their platform included a statement (I can't find my reference) that basically was a call for everyone to reduce abortions for the common good. They felt this statement somehow softened their Pro-Life stance, so it got nixed before the Republican National Convention. That makes the cynical me think that they are not really committed to reducing abortions, but selling a political position. But, I'm WAY cynical.
Obama said a lot of right things at Rick Warren's forum in regards to an approach to reduce abortions, but the sound bite was his statement about his pay-grade . . . hard to believe someone who will be writing/submitting legislation about abortion does not have some kind of opinion about when life begins. And abortions have significantly been reduced under Bush because of the first legislation limiting abortion since Roe v. Wade.
So if I am left to only the abortion issue, I think both show significant signs of being swayed by things other than their convictions (like populism and partisanship). Making both the lesser of two politicians... and the decision will have to come down to more than their approach to one issue.
I'm leaning towards a third party candidate for the first time. I have been disappointed with McCain's ability to clearly express his agenda (perhaps skewed by media, but hey, I watch FoxNews). And I just can't fundamentally agree with Obama that we would be better off with the government being more involved with our lives and trusting them with using more of our money in an effective way.
I think Obama doesn't have much chance of getting my vote, McCain is on the skids, so it looks like Bob Barr might be a possibility! We'll see...
What do you think of voting for third party candidates? Is it a throw away vote? Is a vote for McCain in California a throw away vote?
In the year Schwarzenegger was elected governor of California, I decided that a vote for an unpopular candidate was never a throwaway vote. Polls showed if people voted for who they thought would do the best job, we would have McClintock as our govenor (who I think would have done a much better job). As much as I hate to think of a vote as "wasted," to vote for who you really don't think is best is selling your right to have an opinion because your opinion won't come to fruition anyway. That's why I stand by my choice to vote for Dave Grohl on Nov. 4th. His platform is mainly about having more bbq's, which I think would only be for America's best interest.
I still can't get over the fact that our next president will have the chance to pick more supreme court justices. THAT'S HUGE. I don't think I want a proven "far-leftist" to pick far left judges.
I am the longtime legislative director for the National Right to Life organization. As such, I have observed John McCain on pro-life issues since he entered Congress, which was a quarter-century ago -- in 1983. I am also very familiar with the record and commitments that Barack Obama has made on pro-life issues.
With respect to the records of both men, Donald Miller has made, and continues to make public statements, that are at odds with the facts -- and I mean facts that are pretty darn easy to check out.
For example, Mr. Miller wrote recently, on his blog, that "McCain's only stand on the[abortion] issue has been a recent switch to a prolife position." Yet 10 minutes research, consulting scorecards by pro-life groups or pro-abortion groups, or "neutral" sources, would demonstrate that McCain has consistently voted against abortion since the year he entered Congress, which was 1983.
McCain has voted against Roe v. Wade. He has voted against federal funding of abortion. He has voted to protect infants who are born alive during abortions. He opposes the “Freedom of Choice Act.” On all of these abortion policy issues, and others, McCain’s record is in stark contrast to that of Obama.
Mr. Miller wrote recently that Obama "opposes late-term abortions." In fact, Obama has consistently opposed meaningful attempts to curb late abortions, both in Illinois and at the federal level. As an Illinois state senator, Obama led the opposition to proposed legislation to ban partial-birth abortions, and his campaign boasted about his leadership on this issue during his campaign against Hillary Cllinton. (See http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140004) Obama also advocates repeal of the congressional ban on partial-birth abortions, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2007 on a 5-4 vote, in a ruling that Obama harshly criticized.
Obama even led the opposition to a simple three-sentence bill to ensure that all babies who are born alive during abortions are given legal protection. On March 13, 2003, Obama personally killed the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in a committee he chaired. Although Obama misrepresented his actions on this issue for four years, the documentation is now readily available, at www.nrlc.org and elsewhere. Both FactCheck.org and Politifact.org have reviewed this matter and found that National Right to Life has been accurate in reporting Obama's 2003 actions and that Obama has misrepresented them.
The claim that Obama will pursue policies that will "reduce abortions" is a cynical post-nomination marketing strategy by the Obama campaign. But for success, it depends on Obama and his surrogates deflecting attention away from the fact that Barack Obama is firmly committed to an agenda of abortion-related policy changes that, if implemented, would greatly increase the numbers of abortions performed.
The pro-life movement has won enactment of literally hundreds of state laws related to abortion -- laws that save many lives, despite the severe limits imposed by the Supreme Court's pro-abortion rulings. Studies by both pro-life researchers and pro-abortion researchers agree about this effect, although of course the pro-abortion side uses different language to describe it. These laws include informed consent laws (some of which now require the woman seeking an abortion to be offered ultrasound images of the unborn child), waiting periods, and parental notification and consent laws. All of these laws, and any other law that would "interfere with" access to abortion, would be nullified by the "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA, S. 1173), which is a proposed federal law that Obama has cosponsored. As the National Organization for Women put it, it would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."
On July 17, 2007, Obama stood in front of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and pledged, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
Obama also advocates repeal of the Hyde Amendment, the law that since 1976 has blocked almost all federal funding of abortion. In other words, he wants to repeal one of the most successful "abortion reduction" policies ever adopted. By even the most conservative estimate, there are more than one million Americans alive today because of the Hyde Amendment. Even the Alan Guttmacher Institute (linked to Planned Parenthood) and NARAL admit that the Hyde Amendment (and the similar policies adopted by many states) have resulted in many, many babies being born who otherwise would have been aborted -- indeed, the pro-abortion groups periodically put out papers complaining about this effect. According to a 2007 NARAL factsheet, "A study by The Guttmacher Institute shows that Medicaid-eligible women in states that exclude abortion coverage have abortion rates of about half of those women in statesthat fund abortion care with their own dollars. This suggests that the Hyde amendment forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." Because the Hyde Amendment must be renewed annually, it could quickly be endangered under a president determined to re-establish federal funding of abortion on demand.
Obama has also pledged to make abortion coverage part of his proposed national health insurance plan.
McCain opposes Roe v. Wade. Obama has pledged the appoint Supreme Court justices who will vote on the pro-abortion side. When the unborn child is protected by law, it does stop many abortions. Not all, but a great many. There is abundant evidence that the effect of making abortion on demand legal, and all that flows from legalization, greatly increases the number of abortions performed.
In the years immediately after Roe v. Wade was handed down, as the modern "abortion industry" was being established and freestanding "abortion clinics" established across the nation, most states adopted requirements for reporting legal abortions, so we have a handle on how many legal abortions have been performed annually since Roe. The curve went up sharply for quite a number of years -- for example, the number of legal reported abortions increased by about 75 percent just between 1974 and 1981, leveled off around 1.6 million for a number of years, and then began to drop to the current annual level of about 1.3 million. From this trajectory and from analysis of data from before Roe, researchers have come up with responsible ranges for the number of abortions that might have been performed annually in the U.S. prior to legalization, and it is a small fraction of the current figure.
The effect of removing legal barriers to abortion, and of creating a situation in which abortion can be turned into a big business, results in a great increase in the number of abortions performed, with many people relying on abortion as a method of birth control. Even Stanley Henshaw, Ph.D., the longtime research director for the Alan Guttmacher Institute (closely linked to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest abortion provider) has written, "In most countries, it is common after abortion is legalized for abortion rates to rise sharply for several years, then stabilize, just as we have seen in the United States."
Let me close with just one more example that illustrates the phoniness of the Obama "abortion reduction" sales pitch. Across the nation, crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) provide all manner of assistance to women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies, and they save the lives of many children. A very modest amount of federal funding going to such centers in some states. Pro-life lawmakers have pushed legislation to greatly expand such funding, but it has been blocked by lawmakers allied with the abortion lobby. Late in 2007, RHrealitycheck.org, a prominent pro-abortion advocacy website (representing the side hostile to such funding), submitted in writing the following question to the Obama campaign: "Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers?" The Obama campaign's written response was short, but it spoke volumes: "No."
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
Washington, D.C.
www-dot-nrlc-dot-org
legfederal--at--aol-dot-com
lol. Who is this guy? Thank you anonymous stranger
Post a Comment