Thursday, February 28, 2008

Obama's Pledge to Planned Parenthood: “I Will Not Yield”

(Hat tip: Diocese of Toledo's Catholic Chronicle)

Keeping with the today's Obama theme, comes this story from Catholic News Agency:
Washington DC, Feb 28, 2008 / 06:15 am (CNA).- On Wednesday a full transcript of Democrat presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama’s July 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in which he vigorously defended legalized abortion became available.

In the July 17 speech, Obama attacked the Supreme Court decision that upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban and the nomination of Supreme Court justices who favor overturning Roe v. Wade. In the speech the senator said, "There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."
[ED.: "Post-partisan" indeed. The guy's a typical left-liberal Democrat hewing to the Democrat Party's pro-abortion orthodoxy. There is nothing about the man - apart from his flowery rhetoric that sends people who should know better into flights of fancy - that indicate that he is a "different kind of politician" bringing a "new kind of politics".]

He specifically argued against the Supreme Court decision Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld restrictions on partial-birth abortion. [ED.: Keeping with his general support for infanticide, of course. (NOTE that the late Democrat Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan referred to this procedure as "too close to infanticide".)]

“For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart,” Obama said, “the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong. [ED.: See CourageMan's excellent contribution debunking this nonsense in the comments.]

He warned abortion supporters that the partial-birth abortion ban should not be construed as an isolated effort, saying it was wrong to presume the law was “not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women.” [ED.: Who's playing on people's fears now? Surely not the Obamessiah of "Audacious Hope™"?]

The senator said he had a long tradition of support for legalized abortion, citing his efforts in the Illinois State Senate and his classes as a law professor. “I have worked on these issues for decades now,” he said. “I 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.” [ED.: Imagine that. A typical left-liberal Democrat putting Roe v. Wade at the center of his ideology. Who'd 'a thunk it.]

The dissent of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in Gonzales v. Carhart won praise from Obama [ED.: You mean the dissent that was nothing short of a full-fledged brief for infanticide? Yeah, "stick 'em in a closet and let 'em die of exposure" Moloch Obama would praise something like that.] while Justice Anthony Kennedy, who spoke for the majority, was held up for ridicule.

Obama also depicted his opponents as divisive, saying, “They want us to believe that there’s nothing that unites us as Americans—there’s only what divides us. They’ll seek out the narrowest and most divisive ground.”
[ED.: Yeah, the left hasn't been the least bit narrow and divisive over the past 8 years.]

Senator Obama said he was “absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties,” saying it was “time to turn the page.” [ED.: Hey, those of you with traditional values, what's ours is ours and what's yours will soon be ours. So get over it and shut the @#%& up!]

“We’re tired about arguing about the same ole’ stuff,” he continued. [ED.: Can't we stop talking about all those icky dead babies and move on to more important matters like the minimum wage and farm subsidies?] And I am convinced we can win that argument. If the argument is narrow, then oftentimes we lose. [ED.: If the focus is on all those icky dead babies, then there's the risk that we can be exposed as supporting a monstrous genocide.]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
But, you know, "apart from the life issues", the guy's "a Catholic natural".

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"Why American Catholics are Supporting Barack Obama"

Former Head of "Catholics for a Free Choice" and So-Called "Philosopher of Abortion Movement" Says Obama A Better Choice than Hillary

Sen. Moloch H. Obama Celebrates Abortion, Warns Supreme Court Could Reverse Roe

National Catholic Register: "Religious" Democrat Barack Obama Sticks to the Abortion Line

Litmus Test: Democrat Candidates Demand Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justices

Obama, Clinton Slam Supreme Court on Abortion Ruling

Democratic Candidates for President Give Unanimous Pro-Abortion Views

During First Debate, Democrats Back Abortion, Criticize Efforts to Save Terri Schiavo

Reaction to Court’s Abortion Ruling Falls Along Predictable Party Lines

The Dissenters' Reasoning & Its Logical Conclusion

Regular Guy Paul on Barack Obama: "Nice is Different Than Good"

Labels: , ,


At 2/28/2008 3:51 PM, Blogger CourageMan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

At 2/28/2008 3:53 PM, Blogger CourageMan said...

One other point, Jay, from Obama:

For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong.”

Since when, exactly, has a core principle of the Democratic Party been Ayn-Rand-ism in matters of regulating health care?

Every drug has to win state approval to be sold; every person needs some sort of state license to practice medicine at any level (doctor, nurse, aide, pharmacist); every medical procedure needs to have approval of the state or some quasi-state board to be performed; the state holds liable all practice of medicine of which it doesn't approve.

All these decisions -- all of them made thus by the Democratic Party -- presume EXACTLY that the health of persons of both sexes is best protected by the state, and not by doctors and not by patients themselves. Saying "that presumption is wrong" is deeply dishonest for all non-Libertarians.

If abortion were treated by the state as merely one more medical procedure among others, Planned Parenthood, Obama, et al would be having fits. Parental consent? Clinic rules? Pre- and post-care standards? The train left long ago on the state should regulating medicine or interfering in doctor-patient relationship and none of us this side of Ayn Rand want that Express back.

At 2/28/2008 8:45 PM, Anonymous BillyHW said...

Yes we can!

At 8/31/2008 11:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama is the best man for this job and I am catholic and I am pro life to the extent that I don`t think people should have abortions. But making it illegal will not stop them, it will just put abortions into Clothes hanger abortions in dark alleys that will wind up killing women as well. But maybe "you" think that is the "punishment" A life for a life. I think the Catholic Church should stop trying to tell its people who to vote for. There are many issues like economy,health care and the war. You won`t vote Obama becasue of abortion issues then why vote for a Republican when they have the blood of 3000 of our young soldiers who have been killed in Iraq on their hands. Yes the republicans don`t believe in allowing abortions but they think its okay to wait til our children are 18 years old to kill them. A vote for Mccain is just like putting Bush back in for another term.

At 8/31/2008 11:23 PM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

... they think its okay to wait til our children are 18 years old to kill them. A vote for Mccain is just like putting Bush back in for another term."

Sen. McCain has 2 of his own sons in harm's way, and Gov. Palin has her 18-year-old son preparing, as I write this, to depart for duty in Iraq.

And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.


Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter for blogger