There’s one abortion extremist in this race: the president

posted at 11:21 am on October 11, 2012 by Libby Sternberg

Google “Mitt Romney abortion,” restricting your search to the past 24 hours. You get pages and pages of hits, stories afire with the news that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney doesn’t envision abortion legislation coming before him if he were elected president, but he still supports various pro-life initiatives.

This has lit up the left, who see themselves as the protectors of  women’s “lady parts” with their pro-choice stance on abortion, and who view Republicans as enemies of women, licking their chops at the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Before things get too crazy—the vice-presidential debate is coming up, after all, and Paul Ryan is unabashedly pro-life—let’s not forget this: there’s only one candidate in the presidential race who believes that ladies, along with their lady parts, can be discarded with impunity, if they happen to be born as the result of a failed abortion. That is Barack Obama, the candidate who holds the most extreme positions on abortion in this campaign.

Let me repeat this, so journalists eager to report on all candidates’ abortion positions (not just Republicans’) can absorb it: when in the Illinois state legislature, Barack Obama would not support a law saving the lives of babies—real, live human beings, not “fetuses”—who happened to be born after failed abortions.

This places the president to the left of NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League. Here is their statement on so-called Born-Alive Acts from June 2001:

 “NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year’s committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

The president’s defenders (and the president himself) claim that Obama didn’t support Born Alive legislation in Illinois because it was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade, and that he would have supported a bill similar to the federal one on this issue. An investigation by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, however, agreed with the National Right to Life Committee when it found that the president voted in committee against BAIF even though it was “nearly identical” to the federal bill:

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee’s 2003 mark-up session.

It’s no wonder the president would want to gloss over or fudge this issue. Common sense tells us that if you were able to survey every single adult American on support or opposition to “Born Alive” bills, you’d probably find support in the super-majority range—certainly 60 percent, probably closer to 90. What reasonable, clear-thinking person could be for letting live infants die in trash bins?

But, as I’ve pointed out before, most Americans who identify with the pro-choice and pro-life positions are in agreement on many abortion specifics. Here’s a quick summary from a Gallup survey last year (click on chart to enlarge)

Of the nine points of agreement in that table, three could be considered solid pro-choice positions—keeping abortion legal under certain circumstances, such as rape or incest—while six of the positions line up with pro-life initiatives that pro-choice absolutists oppose. Pro-choice absolutists such as President Obama.

So even on these nine areas of agreement, most of the points are ones that pro-lifers such as Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan agree with, at least one Joe Biden supports (in 1999, he voted to ban partial birth abortion), while the president, whose administration recently promulgated regulations forcing all health insurers to cover birth control and abortifacients, regardless of conscience issues, is the extremist.

You could summarize the Gallup results by saying that America wants abortion to remain legal, but is not opposed to reasonable restrictions to keep it “rare.”

Speaking of that word, “rare,” scant attention was given to the fact that it disappeared from the Democratic platform’s plank on abortion, while much fuss was made over the Republican platform’s purist pro-life approach, which has remained virtually unchanged for years.

When the economy is in shambles and the Middle East in flames, it’s easy to get frustrated with discussions of abortion, especially when it is unlikely, as Romney said, that legislation will come before him, if he were president, on this topic. But to those who have strong beliefs on abortion and a woman’s access to it, that issue is paramount, above what happens in the world or to our economy.

I don’t dismiss that passion—it’s a serious subject, one dealing with fundamental issues of life and liberty. I especially respect pro-lifers, whose viewpoints are often misrepresented as out of the mainstream (despite the areas of consensus found in the Gallup poll) and whose advocates are often ridiculed as religious zealots who all approve of violence to abortion providers (cue Law & Order music).

So, go ahead, talk about abortion, write about it, ask candidates about it. But on this topic, be clear: someone who will not stand up for live baby girls about to be tossed on the trash heap is no true champion of girls, women, ladies or any of their “parts.”

Libby Sternberg is a novelist.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

+1000

I can’t add a thing to this excellent post.

rockmom on October 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM

You’d almost think every left-voting female was pregnant and planning an abortion before 2013.

Left-wing political ads for governor (and other state offices) in Washington depict similar hysterics.

Jeddite on October 11, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Wow, who is Libby Sternberg? Excellent…

OmahaConservative on October 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM

You could summarize the Gallup results by saying that America wants abortion to remain legal, but is not opposed to reasonable restrictions to keep it “rare.”

I’m guessing that’s not Libby’s position – am I wrong?
But perhaps she’s following Romney’s lead here and presenting moderate positions/arguments – while avoiding a fuller discussion that might reveal an agenda that isn’t so moderate.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I understand my priest not wanting to campaign from the pulpit for or against a particular candidate, but to fail to make Obama’s infanticide stance clear to his congregation is shameful. I hate that my church is run by leftist cowards who would rather fill collection baskets than speak the truth. I imagine God isn’t too happy about it either. Subtlety is not a virtue when human lives are on the line.

SKYFOX on October 11, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Obama is evil.

magicbeans on October 11, 2012 at 11:33 AM

I hope his daughters (if they are indeed his) will contemplate this evilness of his and recoil.

vnohara on October 11, 2012 at 11:35 AM

No misdirection available this time, Verbaluce.

Her position is irrelevant to the veracity of her facts in the article. Obama holds the position that a child born in spite of an attempt to abort, should be killed outright.

A position even NARAL refused to identify with. The most barbaric, inhuman, bloody action a person can take against another person, to destroy them in their most helpless state. And Obama approves.

This is all there is to talk about in this space.

The author’s commentary about poll results wasn’t about presenting a position, except in contrast to the murderous extremism present in the Oval Office.

Freelancer on October 11, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Don’t fall for the media campaign to get the focus off the economy and national security, and thus save Obama.

Stop it now. Victory over Obama is thisclose.

Moesart on October 11, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I never understood why pro-lifers have any problem with abortion. It’s not that Democrat spawn have any soul. In fact, I wouldn’t mind if they extended abortion right to the fetus age of 26. Isn’t it what Obamacare is all about, by the way?

Archivarix on October 11, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I’m guessing that’s not Libby’s position – am I wrong?
But perhaps she’s following Romney’s lead here and presenting moderate positions/arguments – while avoiding a fuller discussion that might reveal an agenda that isn’t so moderate.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM

What planet are you from?
Obama supported as a legislator killing babies that had been born but you want to say that pro-lifers are pretending to be moderate?

Obama’s position is almost as extreme as you can get while pro lifers for the most part support abortion except in cases where it’s being used as a form of simple “birth control” to avoid having a baby.

gwelf on October 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM

from Jim Hoft link

New Berlin, WI

A Romney-Ryan yard sign was a bus driver’s excuse to harass a 12-year-old student, telling the kid his mother should have aborted him. Understandably, this really upset the boy. Other kids on the bus
verified the boy’s account and are providing written statements.

maverick muse on October 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Obama says he voted against that bill because he felt the language was specifically targeted to work towards overturning Roe v Wade.
Illinois law already offered the same protection the bill did – so it was mostly a political effort to begin with.
So…Libby could have that argument. But that doesn’t serve her true objective here. Much easier to yell “baby killer”.
Again, Obama agrees with her that ‘live baby girls’ should not ‘be tossed on the trash heap’. If she’s eager to have a disagreement with the president on this issue, then she will need to take the position that she feels ‘live baby girls’ should indeed ‘be tossed on the trash heap’.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 11:46 AM

SKYFOX on October 11, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Be advised, the IRS is actively warning churches that any overt political activity will result in loss of tax exempt status. Funny they didn’t do the same four years ago, when Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the rest of the race-baiter gang was on a nation-wide tour of pulpits specifically campaigning for Obama. But now, as pastors of even black churches, who have come to understand the damage this administration is doing to the morals of this society, are turning against the current administration, it’s time to remind them of the “separation of Church and State”.

Freelancer on October 11, 2012 at 11:47 AM

If you want to know more about what a “born alive abortion” is check out Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Jill Stanek. If you support Obama after viewing this then you’re a profoundly sick individual.

Bill O’Reilly Interviews Jill Stanek

CrustyB on October 11, 2012 at 11:49 AM

pro lifers for the most part support overlook abortion except in cases where it’s being used as a form of simple “birth control” to avoid having a baby.

FIFY

But the statement is still inaccurate.

Most people just don’t want to get involved, which translates into DON’T TAX ME TO FUND YOUR ABORTION.

So long as “medical” institutions that provide abortions receive tax funds for whatever rationale, there is no way to mandate an exception “in cases where it’s being used as a form of simple ‘birth control’ to avoid having a baby.”

As far as making abortions illegal all together, until there are charitable contributions to actually raise the otherwise aborted children into adulthood, think again. Who will raise the children? The State. /Pot Meet Kettle.

maverick muse on October 11, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Obama says he voted against that bill because he felt the language was specifically targeted to work towards overturning Roe v Wade.

Except that NARAL’s declaration, noted in the article, that the bill was acceptable to them because it clearly DID NOT threaten their precious court-crafted law, ROE v WADE, came well prior to then sen. Obama’s vote and attendant comments. And strangely, his vote, which was extreme even by their standards, did not cost him any points on his NARAL rating, the highest in history.

Freelancer on October 11, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Obama says he voted against that bill because he felt the language was specifically targeted to work towards overturning Roe v Wade.
Illinois law already offered the same protection the bill did – so it was mostly a political effort to begin with.
So…Libby could have that argument. But that doesn’t serve her true objective here. Much easier to yell “baby killer”.
Again, Obama agrees with her that ‘live baby girls’ should not ‘be tossed on the trash heap’. If she’s eager to have a disagreement with the president on this issue, then she will need to take the position that she feels ‘live baby girls’ should indeed ‘be tossed on the trash heap’.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 11:46 AM

When did Obama say that? He voted against the bill that was supported by NARAL (who concluded that it didn’t threaten Roe v Wade). It was almost identical to the bill he supposedly supported on the federal level.

It’s also laughable that liberals claim that the pro-life position isn’t moderate and that they are extremists. There are more pro-lifers in America then pro-choicers.

gwelf on October 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM

maverick muse on October 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Dear God, have mercy on us.

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Obama supported as a legislator killing babies that had been born but you want to say that pro-lifers are pretending to be moderate?

Obama’s position is almost as extreme as you can get while pro lifers for the most part support abortion except in cases where it’s being used as a form of simple “birth control” to avoid having a baby.

gwelf on October 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM

You (and others) are being absurd.
He did not support ‘killing babies’.
Paul Ryan objects to a rape/incest exception for abortion – so in his mind anyone who supports such an exception is in favor of ‘killing babies’.
Maybe that includes you…maybe it includes Sternberg. It for sure includes a lot of ‘pro life’ folks.

‘pro lifers for the most part support abortion’

That’s an interesting suggestion.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Speaking of that word, “rare,” scant attention was given to the fact that it disappeared from the Democratic platform’s plank on abortion, while much fuss was made over the Republican platform’s purist pro-life approach, which has remained virtually unchanged for years.

Yeah. That wasn’t a coincidence. Distract people from your radical freakishness by trying to make your opponent look like the radical freak.

yhxqqsn on October 11, 2012 at 11:58 AM

A person must refute the entire premise of Natural Rights, unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS in order to advocate killing a surviving human life from a botched abortion, mandated to die of overtly cruel and inhumane neglect, from dehydration and exposure to the elements.

That “burden” is Obama’s bane to bear, his own chosen cross, torture of born premature babies forced from the womb by “medical” procedure.

I’d support the mandated sterilization of women asking for an abortion, nip unwanted pregnancies before they occur; except that such a mandate would end up being applied against all women regardless, as progressive politics take everything “well intended” into the absurd realm of insanity.

maverick muse on October 11, 2012 at 11:58 AM

gwelf on October 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM

To be clear – you believe Obama is in favor of ‘live baby girls…tossed on the trash heap’?
It seems that you’re pretty moderate on this issue –
you can imagine the rhetoric those less so would throw your way…right?

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Right now, the question isn’t whether something is worth doing, it is whether it is worth doing with government money such that government becomes indebted to China to accomplish this. The abortion lobby wants to give us all Puss in Boots eyes about all those 12-year-old rape victims with terminal cancer. This generally serves to keep our wallets open for any fool off the street wanting a free or reduced-price abortion. Again, the merits of abortion are now less an issue than whether this is something for which we should go in hock to China.

Those 12-year-old rape victims with terminal cancer are in reality rare enough that private charity set up for the purpose of paying for abortions under these circumstances are not strained. There are charities for cosmetic dentistry work and plastic surgery for domestic violence victims, and those nonprofits focus on setting women up with willing dentists and surgeons, not lobbying Uncle Sam to foot the bill for every Thomasina, Richelle, and Harriet who wants a nose job.

Sekhmet on October 11, 2012 at 12:03 PM

You (and others) are being absurd.
He did not support ‘killing babies’.
Paul Ryan objects to a rape/incest exception for abortion – so in his mind anyone who supports such an exception is in favor of ‘killing babies’.
Maybe that includes you…maybe it includes Sternberg. It for sure includes a lot of ‘pro life’ folks.

‘pro lifers for the most part support abortion’

That’s an interesting suggestion.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 11:56 AM

If he didn’t support killing babies then why didn’t he support the bill? It didn’t infringe on Roe v Wade. Better that some babies should die than risk some imaginary legal inroads on Roe v Wade?

Paul Ryan and I may disagree on rape/incest exceptions and that may put me in the baby killer column in his mind (however I am much closer to Ryan than I am to pro-choicers) but his position is – as far as I know – is the official position of the Catholic Church which is hardly an extremist organization.

gwelf on October 11, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Outside of his disgusting opposition to the Born Alive bills, there is still plenty of evidence of Obama’s abortion extremism:

* He supports abortion at any time in the pregnancy.

* He supports abortion for any reason.

* He supports taxpayer funding of abortion.

None of those positions hold anywhere remotely close to a majority in U.S. polling.

The Romney/Ryan positions of no taxpayer money and only in cases of rape/incest/life of mother are plurality positions in the U.S.

CDeb on October 11, 2012 at 12:04 PM

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 11:56 AM

His vote was in agreement that doctors MAY NOT ASSIST a baby born after an induced abortion (vaginally delivered, not chemically damaged, nor torn into pieces) if the infant is actually alive after delivery …..
Technically, i guess, Zero did not vote TO KILL those babies, but allowing them to die, instead of offering assistance is called WHAT ???

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 12:05 PM

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Yes, a good prayer.

But no one’s surprised by such antics. Not any more. Hence the school district’s silence on the issue without placing the mean old hag on disciplinary leave without pay if not simply being fired. The parents of the 12-year-old boy are organizing their community protest. The bus driver is so elderly, she’s probably had her job for years already. If this is her first outrage, I’d let it go with an “official” reprimand unless it’s her habit.

Regardless of political persuasion, consider how long either of us could drive a school bus without going stir crazy. Remember the other old lady bus monitor beat down story, mugged on the job just for existing, sharing space with student thugs.

Have Mercy

maverick muse on October 11, 2012 at 12:05 PM

And the ghouls arrive right on schedule.

CurtZHP on October 11, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Live babies are now dead, and so is the Ambassador.

faraway on October 11, 2012 at 12:07 PM

‘live baby girls…tossed on the trash heap’?
It seems that you’re pretty moderate on this issue –

words, just words

“pretty moderate” v. Liberal, no distinction?

maverick muse on October 11, 2012 at 12:07 PM

To be clear – you believe Obama is in favor of ‘live baby girls…tossed on the trash heap’?
It seems that you’re pretty moderate on this issue –
you can imagine the rhetoric those less so would throw your way…right?

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:01 PM

So you’re conceding that Obama as a legislator voted to blocked legislation that would save the lives of babies? And have moved on to trying to make me out as extreme as him to other pro-lifers?

So those that share the Catholic position will claim I’m a baby killer? There isn’t a whole lot of in-fighting on the pro-life side on this (at least that I’m aware of). Of course this is the internet so I can expect some will call me a baby killer. Honestly it’s something I’m persuadable on.

I also wouldn’t call those who share the Catholic position extreme.

gwelf on October 11, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Preach it sister…….

crosshugger on October 11, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Mitt Romney’s mother was staunchly pro-abortion rights.

Don’t expect any “radical” position on either side of this issue from her son.

As Ron Paul stipulated, abortion is a crime of bodily violence to be prosecuted by each State according to law.

Take the simplest route to the most logical approach.

maverick muse on October 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM

A person has to have a dark heart and no moral platform to support this administration or the demoncrat party.

crosshugger on October 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Freelancer on October 11, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Maybe they should read this.

SKYFOX on October 11, 2012 at 12:13 PM

A person has to have a dark heart and no moral platform to support this administration or the demoncrat party.

crosshugger on October 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Sadly I think many people voting democrat walk around with their heads covered with a sound-proof concrete box.

yhxqqsn on October 11, 2012 at 12:16 PM

A person has to have a dark heart and no moral platform to support this administration or the demoncrat party.

crosshugger on October 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Oh go hug a cross.
Likely the only use you make of one.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Obama says he voted against that bill because he felt the language was specifically targeted to work towards overturning Roe v Wade.

Which is precisely the point of the article, that Obama believes sustaining his vision of Roe v.Wade is more important than the life of a child.

Illinois law already offered the same protection the bill did – so it was mostly a political effort to begin with.

Yes, just as (by way of analogy) even though there are already laws prohibiting illegal immigration – as we have seen – that doesn’t in any way preclude the necessity for passing additional laws to ensure that people who don’t like the immigration laws never-the-less continue to enforce them.

Knott Buyinit on October 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Fourth trimester abortion.

rayra on October 11, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Oh go hug a cross.
Likely the only use you make of one.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Thread hijack time.

Please, everybody, ignore this Commie filth.

OhEssYouCowboys on October 11, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Verbaluce, you’re a damnable cretin.

rayra on October 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM

If he didn’t support killing babies then why didn’t he support the bill?

gwelf on October 11, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Why don’t you answer that –
Can you imagine no reason to oppose the bill…other than supporting ‘killing babies’?
If you truly believe he supports ‘killing babies’ then I’ll just accept that you think that.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Oh go hug a cross.
Likely the only use you make of one.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM


What a confession.

tom daschle concerned on October 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Killing live babies is just a bump in the road to Socialism

faraway on October 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Subtlety is not a virtue when human lives are on the line.

SKYFOX on October 11, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Let that be our standard when fighting for most innocent of innocents.

davidk on October 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Verbaluce, you’re a damnable cretin.

rayra on October 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM

I’m picturing you saying that a’la Katharine Hepburn…right before you plant a big wet one on me.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:24 PM

There’s one abortion extremist in this race: the president

…WHAT?…you mean no one else wants to cut up the babies into dog chunk size meat if they survive the abortion?

KOOLAID2 on October 11, 2012 at 12:25 PM

You could summarize the Gallup results by saying that America wants abortion to remain legal, but is not opposed to reasonable restrictions to keep it “rare.”

I’m guessing that’s not Libby’s position – am I wrong?
But perhaps she’s following Romney’s lead here and presenting moderate positions/arguments – while avoiding a fuller discussion that might reveal an agenda that isn’t so moderate.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM

This article is about exactly what the title says, “who is the extremist on abortion.”

And that person is Barack Obama.

The poll is quoted precisely to support that topic. There’s no need to look for some hidden agenda. The article at face value is perfectly clear — and persuasive.

Unless it just makes you uncomfortable to see the progressive agenda called out directly, and you’re trying to deflect.

tom on October 11, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Coming soon to a Congress near you:

“The Sandra Fluke Only Boys Can Be Aborted Act”

Ms. Fluke was quoted as saying ‘…boys don’t have lady parts’

BobMbx on October 11, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Moderate, conservative, extreme, mainstream, upstream, downstream. Call me what you will.

Abortion is murder.

Pro-choice is a euphemism for murder.

It’s easy to be pro-abortion when you aren’t the one being killed.

There will be a day of reckoning.

davidk on October 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM

So, go ahead, talk about abortion, write about it, ask candidates about it. But on this topic, be clear: someone who will not stand up for live baby girls about to be tossed on the trash heap is no true champion of girls, women, ladies or any of their “parts.”

-
Barry the Evil One

RalphyBoy on October 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Leftists kill babies, and save killers.

faraway on October 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Cognitive dissonance…anyone?

LizardLips on October 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Moderate, conservative, extreme, mainstream, upstream, downstream. Call me what you will.

Abortion is murder.

Pro-choice is a euphemism for murder.

It’s easy to be pro-abortion when you aren’t the one being killed.

There will be a day of reckoning.

davidk on October 11, 2012 at 12:36 PM

I equate an abortionist with the same kinds of murderous, death camp malignancies, who sent children to be gassed and cremated.

OhEssYouCowboys on October 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Unless it just makes you uncomfortable to see the progressive agenda called out directly, and you’re trying to deflect.

tom on October 11, 2012 at 12:28 PM

She was just noting his ‘progressive agenda’?
See I read that she was saying Obama supports ‘live baby girls(being) tossed on the trash heap’.
But maybe her next post won’t come off so misleading and sensational.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Every time the President calls himself a Christian, he needs to be reminded how unGodly & radical his record on abortion is.

On homosexuality, too, BTW.

itsnotaboutme on October 11, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Oh go hug a cross.
Likely the only use you make of one.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM

The mask falls.

27 days, Fluker.

spiritof61 on October 11, 2012 at 12:46 PM

The problem is that Lefties want to abort their own babies, not be bothered or”stuck” having to raise a child. Then they want to use the “education” system to co-opt and brainwash the children of the people who DO have the responsibility to raise their children.

PJ Emeritus on October 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM

If he didn’t support killing babies then why didn’t he support the bill?

gwelf on October 11, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Why don’t you answer that –
Can you imagine no reason to oppose the bill…other than supporting ‘killing babies’?
If you truly believe he supports ‘killing babies’ then I’ll just accept that you think that.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Sometimes the political rhetoric gets overheated and people go too far in their statements.

But the only thing that was at stake in that legislation was whether babies born alive should be allowed to die. And all newborns will die if no one takes care of them.

So describing Obama’s position as “supporting killing babies” is only marginally different from “supporting allowing babies to die.”

If you don’t like defending it, don’t. But quit trying to blame others for pointing out the unpleasant truth that Obama is such an extremist on abortion that he would rather allow live babies to die.

Bottom line: Obama is an extremist.

tom on October 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Unless it just makes you uncomfortable to see the progressive agenda called out directly, and you’re trying to deflect.

tom on October 11, 2012 at 12:28 PM

She was just noting his ‘progressive agenda’?
See I read that she was saying Obama supports ‘live baby girls(being) tossed on the trash heap’.
But maybe her next post won’t come off so misleading and sensational.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Definitely deflecting.

tom on October 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Such despicable people should not have power over any aspect of my life. Period.

Cleombrotus on October 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM

If you truly believe he supports ‘killing babies’ then I’ll just accept that you think that.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Well he did say during the 2008 campaign that he would support killing his unborn grandchildren if his children thought they would be “inconvenient”. Unless you’re calling President Obama a liar on this subject.

dominigan on October 11, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Definitely deflecting.

tom on October 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Irony.

You are welcome to hold the position that Obama supports killing babies (or ‘allowing them to die’).
But there’s no greater example of deflecting than that.
The issue at the center of the nutty suggestions is abortion remaining legal. Have that argument if you want – but this stuff is just an avoidance of such.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Margaret Sanger is still alive and well in the Dem Party, sorry to say. When will minorities realize that if they would stop the eugenics mill, they would no longer be minorites, but the majority in short order.

fortcoins on October 11, 2012 at 1:22 PM

On this issue, Barack Obama is a barbarian. This is, above all, the reason that my stomach turns every time I either see his image or hear his voice. It is an overwhelming sensation of revulsion.

There is no human being I can think of for whom I have a greater degree of contempt than for Barack Obama.

Eichendorff on October 11, 2012 at 1:22 PM

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:58 PM

WRONG as usual. Per Illinois Senator Obama’s speech on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30th, 2001, it is not a question of abortion remaining legal, it is a question of the VIABILITY of a living person…

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
(Obama starts his speech on page 85)

You can read it for yourself, but he is making the argument that the ambiguous term “viability” should be used in determining whether a person, a citizen of the United States, has Constitutionally protected rights.

He refers to babies who are born as “the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb”. I did not realize that babies who are born are still considered by the majority to be a fetus.

So my question to you, oh embracer of evil, you purveyor of pollution, you servant of sin…

What is the viability required to be considered a citizen of the United States through birth?

Because right now I have serious doubts as to your viability. Please explain why I should believe that you are viable human being that deserves protection under our Constitution. Please, define the requirements for viability, because I don’t see them defined anywhere, including Obama’s speech before the Illinois Senate.

dominigan on October 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Margaret Sanger is still alive and well in the Dem Party, sorry to say. When will minorities realize that if they would stop the eugenics mill, they would no longer be minorites, but the majority in short order.

fortcoins on October 11, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Never be sorry for speaking the truth.

davidk on October 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM

So my question to you, oh embracer of evil, you purveyor of pollution, you servant of sin…

What is the viability required to be considered a citizen of the United States through birth?

Because right now I have serious doubts as to your viability. Please explain why I should believe that you are viable human being that deserves protection under our Constitution. Please, define the requirements for viability, because I don’t see them defined anywhere, including Obama’s speech before the Illinois Senate.

dominigan on October 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Exactly.

This is the problem when an Absolute Standard is ignored.

davidk on October 11, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Exactly.

This is the problem when an Absolute Standard is ignored.

davidk on October 11, 2012 at 1:30 PM

There can be no absolutes. Absolutely none.

*eyeroll*

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM

There can be no absolutes. Absolutely none.

*eyeroll*

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Are you sure about that? Because that sounds like an absolute statement…

dominigan on October 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM

There can be no absolutes. Absolutely none.

*eyeroll*

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Wow… Now that I think about it, I think this may be a first on HotAir (although my memory fades over time)! Not only did you make a point, but also disproved it in the very same line! Congrats on being first in my book! Keep up the good work!

dominigan on October 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Are you sure about that? Because that sounds like an absolute statement…

dominigan on October 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Precisely the leftist’s dogma.

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 1:44 PM

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Not to be misunderstood … I meant that my
pambi on October 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM. post is the leftist dogma.

:-)

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM

IF you are a person who supports letting a child born alive from an abortion, that is supposed to be dead, but it lives,you are supporting the death of this living being by standing by & allowing it to die without helping it.
Ergo, you are a murderer.
I don’t really find it hard to understand.
One is being an accessory to the death of this child.
I realize there are many of you out there, verbaluce included, who like to parse words & definitions.
But imagine yourself in a room with a child like this physically dying in your presence & it is nothing for you to give it assistance so that it may live.
You might as well take a club to its head & bash its brains out.
Bcs the end result is the very same thing.
The kid is dead & you could have saved it.
This is not a parasite we’re talking about here.

Badger40 on October 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Although now I’m wondering if that was the point… sarcasm. It is is, I apologize for being slow on the uptake.

dominigan on October 11, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Precisely the leftist’s dogma.

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 1:44 PM

LOL! Yep… btw, great imitation of the Left. I completely fell for it since I know several of my liberal friends would whole-heartedly agree with you, without a second thought!

dominigan on October 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM

dominigan on October 11, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Understand … *eyeroll* was the only possible way I could think of to express my ABSOLUTE disdain for that ABSOLUTE dogma of the left.
I grew up with it, and am still surrounded by it with family on FB.
To them, the only stance one is allowed to take, is one that takes NO stand but theirs, which is that you shouldn’t assume there are any absolutes. OY !!!
Go figure.

We good :-)

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM

You could summarize the Gallup results by saying that America wants abortion to remain legal, but is not opposed to reasonable restrictions to keep it “rare.”

I’m guessing that’s not Libby’s position – am I wrong?
But perhaps she’s following Romney’s lead here and presenting moderate positions/arguments – while avoiding a fuller discussion that might reveal an agenda that isn’t so moderate.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Unlike many on the left, Romney is focusing on the real pressing issues of the time. Abortion is not one of them.

However, he has been open about his positions on abortion:

- Overturn Roe v. Wade (what an “extreme” concept from a : respect Federalism and send the decision back to the States and the people!!!)

- Support the Hyde Ammendment (which bars the use of federal funds for abortions OTHER than when the life of the mother is in danger and in cases of rape or incest)

- End federal funding for abortion advocates (i.e. don’t force those who are againts to pay for them via taxes, while eliminating wasteful spending)

- Support health care workers to follow their conciense (i.e. not force Christian hospitals/workers to perfom abortions and such)

- Nominate judges that know the difference between personal opinion and the law (i.e, no activist judges)

Oh my Lord, that evil, scary Mitt Romney!!! sarc/

Seriously, that’s the “extreme” agenda you are expecting and has been his platform all along.

So, between a candidate who wants to limit the federal involvement on the issue and return it back to the States, as our founding fathers intended, and a president who actually wants to dictate what is and is not right on the subject and force everyone to abide by his rule, who is the most “extreme”?

ptcamn on October 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Too many typos in the last post. I had to correct and re- submit:

You could summarize the Gallup results by saying that America wants abortion to remain legal, but is not opposed to reasonable restrictions to keep it “rare.”

I’m guessing that’s not Libby’s position – am I wrong?
But perhaps she’s following Romney’s lead here and presenting moderate positions/arguments – while avoiding a fuller discussion that might reveal an agenda that isn’t so moderate.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Unlike many on the left, Romney is focusing on the real pressing issues of the time. Abortion is not one of them.
However, he has been open about his positions on abortion:
- Overturn Roe v. Wade (what an “extreme” concept from a : respect Federalism and send the decision back to the States and the people!!!)
- Support the Hyde Amendment (which bars the use of federal funds for abortions OTHER than when the life of the mother is in danger and in cases of rape or incest)
- End federal funding for abortion advocates (i.e. don’t force those who are against to pay for them via taxes, while eliminating wasteful spending)
- Support health care workers to follow their conscience (i.e. not force Christian hospitals/workers toperformm abortions and such)
- Nominate judges that know the difference between personal opinion and the law (i.e, no activist judges)
Oh my Lord, that evil, scary Mitt Romney!!! sarc/
Seriously, that’s the “extreme” agenda you are expecting and has been his platform all along.
So, between a candidate who wants to limit the federal involvement on the issue and return it back to the States, as our founding fathers intended, and a president who actually wants to dictate what is and is not right on the subject and force everyone to abide by his rule, who is the most “extreme”?

ptcamn on October 11, 2012 at 2:25 PM

ptcamn on October 11, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Well done.

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 2:30 PM

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM

.

Although now I’m wondering if that was the point… sarcasm. It is is, I apologize for being slow on the uptake.

dominigan on October 11, 2012 at 1:53 PM

.
All of us “experienced” commenters have been on both sides of a misunderstanding regarding sarcasm.
In my case, that would be multiple times.

Such misunderstandings occur more easily and frequently on the “hyper-passion” threads, like this one.

listens2glenn on October 11, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Excellent; well done.

Midas on October 11, 2012 at 3:34 PM

See I read that she was saying Obama supports ‘live baby girls(being) tossed on the trash heap’.
But maybe her next post won’t come off so misleading and sensational.

verbaluce on October 11, 2012 at 12:41 PM

It’s a fact that babies born from botched abortions were being placed (likely not thrown – if that makes any difference) in trash cans and that nurses were even told that they were not allowed to even given them basic comforts.

Whatever laws that were supposed to protect these people did not do so.

You and Obama can pretend that his is the principled position, but when even NARAL thinks the bill is acceptable, then you can’t claim the high ground by rejecting it.

Esthier on October 11, 2012 at 3:44 PM

+1000

I can’t add a thing to this excellent post.

rockmom on October 11, 2012 at 11:24 AM

DITTO.

This post ought to be promoted to some sort of Top 100 or Best Of categories for this site.

Lourdes on October 11, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Unlike many on the left, Romney is focusing on the real pressing issues of the time. Abortion is not one of them.

ptcamn on October 11, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I wonder if the history books or God will beg to differ on that. The enthusiastic slaughter of millions of the most innocent among us for the sake of convenience. Seems like a pretty big deal to me.

You make a lot of great points, and I think we’re on the same side, I just hate that so many think that it’s an unnecessary distraction to want to fight for the lives of the unborn.

WhaleBellied on October 11, 2012 at 4:08 PM

WhaleBellied on October 11, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Understand what you’re saying.
Unless asked to clarify, tho, most Americans understand Mitt’s on the pro-life side, and it’s been SOOO politicized as a wimmenses’ (thereby divisive, single) issue, I’d think sticking to the MAJORITY issues is OK with God, too.
;-). WIN !!

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I wonder if the history books or God will beg to differ on that. The enthusiastic slaughter of millions of the most innocent among us for the sake of convenience. Seems like a pretty big deal to me.

You make a lot of great points, and I think we’re on the same side, I just hate that so many think that it’s an unnecessary distraction to want to fight for the lives of the unborn.

WhaleBellied on October 11, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I’m sure we are. I’m pro- life. However, I believe that from the conservative side we cannot lead a campaign purely from social issues. People don’t even comprehend the moral case against taxes, much less they will understand the moral case against abortion (I know- it sounds ridiculous but that’s the case).

I see this as well as priorities: the main priority is the economy, deficits, stability of the nation, inflation, value of the dollar, unemployment, AND the upcoming nominees for the supreme court. All of them are critical an immediate issues that will lead an entire nation down the drain. The latter is also critical in terms of the outcome of decisions such as abortion. However we have no crisis of abortion. We can debate all day how bad abortion on demand is, lost lives, and how high or not the number of aborted babies for birth control is, and I am sure we would agree on all those points.

But right now, in October 2012, this is not the issue for as much as the left would love to make it so. Romney has a great idea on this: send the issue back to the State and let the people debate it. I agree with that. I am pro- life but I am fine with the Federalist approach of letting each state decide what they want to do, as it should be.

There is an economic case that can be made about the funding of abortion, but the social case won’t go anywhere if it is mandated from the top down regardless who is in power. As such, and the reasons mentioned above, this is not a leading issues. But with a President and Congress that understands that this issue has to be reserved for the States we can start working on the ground to change people’s minds or, at the very least, make the decisions based on common sense instead of gut reactions, which is the first reaction you will get out of any social issue. When talked among the population, instead of decided by a few people in some chamber somewhere, we will have a better chance at reform. Check those polls above: there is more in common to work from than what one would think from what campaigns and the media reports daily.

But again, it is not THE issue at this time, and if you make it the focus of your side the other side changes it into an emotional issue and we end up with the “scary Mitt Romney” and the “scary Paul Ryan”, both excuses I have heard.

ptcamn on October 11, 2012 at 6:37 PM

WhaleBellied on October 11, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Understand what you’re saying.
Unless asked to clarify, tho, most Americans understand Mitt’s on the pro-life side, and it’s been SOOO politicized as a wimmenses’ (thereby divisive, single) issue, I’d think sticking to the MAJORITY issues is OK with God, too.
;-). WIN !!

pambi on October 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Exactly. :)

ptcamn on October 11, 2012 at 7:04 PM

ptcamn on October 11, 2012 at 6:37 PM

I’m not disagreeing with you from a political perspective. I totally understand and (sadly) agree that it’s not a winning area to focus on for this election.
It was more a musing of the sad state of society in general that it’s a “loser” issue to argue for the lives of the unborn.

WhaleBellied on October 12, 2012 at 10:17 AM

ptcamn on October 11, 2012 at 6:37 PM

I’m not disagreeing with you from a political perspective. I totally understand and (sadly) agree that it’s not a winning area to focus on for this election.
It was more a musing of the sad state of society in general that it’s a “loser” issue to argue for the lives of the unborn.

WhaleBellied on October 12, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I get you. I agree. It’s even more sad where you see a poll like the one above where, when all the yelling and blaming gets removed, both sides have more in common than what each side believes.

ptcamn on October 12, 2012 at 9:55 PM