Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Kathleen Parker is one of America's most popular opinion columnists, addressing the country's mental health through her views on current national ...
Read more about Kathleen Parker.
Kathleen Parker is one of America's most popular opinion columnists, addressing the country's mental health through her views on current national ...
Read more about Kathleen Parker.
Obama's Born-Alive Problem
Kathleen Parker
Republicans recently have been focused on Barack Obama's opposition
several years ago to "born alive" legislation in Illinois that
mirrored similar federal legislation aimed at granting personhood to a
fetus/baby that was alive after removal from its mother's body, either
by abortion or premature birth.
In the past few weeks, Obama has been accused of everything from favoring infanticide to lying about his vote, to inventing a cover-up, to being a baby-killing extremist.
Politics is no place for the squeamish.
What is more likely true is that Obama is studiously cautious, too smart by half, and ambivalent to a fault. Suddenly, the man whose campaign seemed helium-propelled is being pulled back down to Earth by the force of his own vagueness. Abortion, of all things, has become his kryptonite.
The long history of the Illinois born-alive bill is, well, long. Sixteen versions of the legislation came and went during the period under scrutiny and finally passed after Obama left for Washington. That history is also complicated and not as straightforward as is being advanced by Obama's and abortion's common foes.
It is probably fair to say that Obama does not favor infanticide, though his position on the Illinois bill was extreme even by pro-choice standards. But Obama's current problem isn't really about his position on abortion. It is about his central weakness as a presidential candidate: He overthinks and ends up seeming not to know what he thinks.
He can't seem to give a straight answer.
To briefly recap: Obama's initial opposition to the born-alive legislation was a concern that such a law would undermine Roe v. Wade. Based on his comments at the time, he apparently reasoned that granting personhood to an aborted fetus, albeit one with a heartbeat, was a subterfuge tactic aimed at granting personhood to a fetus.
Not without cause did he reach that conclusion. Most observers of the abortion debate understand that the legislation was fueled in part by hopes that personhood eventually might find its way back inside the birth canal. This may have been a tactic, but so it goes.
It has always seemed to me perfectly appropriate that we find terminating human life troublesome. Although settled as the law of the land, abortion at any point should be an unsettling proposition. The fact that abortion refuses to recuse itself from present politics merely confirms that many Americans are not ready to be gods.
Obama, perhaps, excluded. When asked to explain his position as a state legislator, Obama said he would have voted for the law had it included a neutrality clause -- similar to one added to the federal law -- affirming that the bill would not impact Roe v. Wade.
But the Illinois legislation in final form did include such a neutrality clause, prompting charges that Obama deliberately lied. Or did he merely misremember, as often happens in politics?
What did Obama mean and when did he mean it?
Alas, the more he tries to explain his position, the more muddled the picture becomes and the more confused voters are. The most revealing answer may have come when pastor Rick Warren asked the Illinois senator when a baby gets human rights.
"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade."
Well, uh, not really.
Yes, Warren's question was complicated, especially if you're a politician afraid of saying the wrong thing. But the answer is really pretty simple. It's whatever one thinks. It is not above anyone's pay grade to be honest.
Instead, Obama punted.
Americans are accustomed to differing views on abortion and will tolerate a flip-flop now and then. But a politician who finesses or fudges out of an instinct to please will be viewed as either spineless or insecure or both -- none of which inspires confidence.
The result of such exquisite ambivalence isn't a higher level of discourse, but a lower level of trust, as recent surveys reflect. A new Reuters/Zogby poll shows McCain running five points ahead of Obama nationwide. Other polls show McCain pulling even.
Obama's born-alive problem ultimately could prove fatal to the man who thought too hard and lost his sense.
========
Kathleen Parker's e-mail address is kparker@kparker.com
(c) 2008, Washington Post Writers Group
This news arrived on: 08/22/2008
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
08-30-2008 15:49
Texas Katie wrote:
Pittbull
I understand that you are a Christian. You have made that very clear and I respect that.
Do you not understand that we have freedom of religion in this country? Because of that wonderful fact, many citizens of this country are of other religions. Many of them as well as some religions that are also Christian disagree with your statement that life begins at conception and that is their right.
I respect their rights and that is why I strongly support Roe vs Wade.
Before you bluster about that, let me tell you that I, too, am a Christian. I have three children and, given the life I have been privileged to lead, I would never, ever have considered abortion.
That does not allow me to pass judgment on others who have not been as fortunate and/or do not share my beliefs.
I am guessing that you are a good, considerate man who just "loses it" when someone does not agree with you. Please try to learn to accept that not everyone agrees with you, nor are you right all of the time. Perhaps living with WWJD may be helpful?
Do you not understand that we have freedom of religion in this country? Because of that wonderful fact, many citizens of this country are of other religions. Many of them as well as some religions that are also Christian disagree with your statement that life begins at conception and that is their right.
I respect their rights and that is why I strongly support Roe vs Wade.
Before you bluster about that, let me tell you that I, too, am a Christian. I have three children and, given the life I have been privileged to lead, I would never, ever have considered abortion.
That does not allow me to pass judgment on others who have not been as fortunate and/or do not share my beliefs.
I am guessing that you are a good, considerate man who just "loses it" when someone does not agree with you. Please try to learn to accept that not everyone agrees with you, nor are you right all of the time. Perhaps living with WWJD may be helpful?
08-26-2008 22:46
Pspaay wrote:
To Bob
You are right about aborting a baby at so late a stage is murder. With todays medical knowledge, there is no reason that a live birth should threaten the mother's life. If necessary, they can do a cesarean birth. I have a friend who was pregnant with twin girls many years ago. She already had two boys that almost cost her, her life. Her doctor told her she would not survive carrying the twin girls. Both her and the babies would die. She had no choice but to have an abortion. This broke her heart but she wanted to live for her two sons that she had already. For reasons like this I can understand late term abortion. Just because some healthy woman has decided that she doesn't want a normal healthy baby when it's so close to being born, doesn't give her the right to murder it. Call it choice if you want but it's still murder!
08-26-2008 18:30
Bob wrote:
Abortion
If all of these folks who favor rhe right to abort their babies had been aborted at birth I wonder how they would view their parents decision. Aborting a baby who is alive and well in the birth canal seems like murder to me, unless a live birth would endanger the life of the mother!
08-26-2008 18:12
Pittbull wrote:
Obama the Gutless wonder
Hey Orminion! You said you will vote for the thoughtful candidate who thinks before he answers the question. OBAMA NEVER EVEN ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
Hey Katie: It is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that life begins at conception. Apparently to Obama, life doesn't even begin for babies that survive an abortion & who could be saved by medical attention that should be recognized as a basic human right even by Democrats.
It's funny that pro slavery people use to say "Slavery is the law of the land." & cited the Dred Scott supreme court decision as proof. The SUPREME LAW of the land overruled Dred Scot. The Declaration of Independence listing that "all men are CREATED (listening Katie?) equal & are endowed by their CREATOR (hear that Katie?) with certain INALIENABLE rights. That means our rights DO NOT come from government but FROM GOD & that everyone is BORN with these rights & a government has no right to take them away & call it "The law of the land."
The inalienable rights are LIFE (so much for Roe vs. Wade) Liberty (so much for Dred Scot) & the pursuit of happiness.
I say Parker's article is right on & "Citizen of the world" Obama doesn't even have the guts to answer tough questions.
Hey Katie: It is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that life begins at conception. Apparently to Obama, life doesn't even begin for babies that survive an abortion & who could be saved by medical attention that should be recognized as a basic human right even by Democrats.
It's funny that pro slavery people use to say "Slavery is the law of the land." & cited the Dred Scott supreme court decision as proof. The SUPREME LAW of the land overruled Dred Scot. The Declaration of Independence listing that "all men are CREATED (listening Katie?) equal & are endowed by their CREATOR (hear that Katie?) with certain INALIENABLE rights. That means our rights DO NOT come from government but FROM GOD & that everyone is BORN with these rights & a government has no right to take them away & call it "The law of the land."
The inalienable rights are LIFE (so much for Roe vs. Wade) Liberty (so much for Dred Scot) & the pursuit of happiness.
I say Parker's article is right on & "Citizen of the world" Obama doesn't even have the guts to answer tough questions.
08-26-2008 13:45
Texas Katie wrote:
Orminion in North Carolina
You said it all so very well --- thank You!
What has annoyed me for years is whenever I hear the phrase"pro-choice means that you approve of abortion"---NO! Not true! It simply means that I approve of every woman being able to make a choice based on her beliefs and her situation. Just as I do not believe that anyone can make a decision about religion for anyone else.
Do they not understand that this nation is comprised of literally dozens (if not hundreds) of religious beliefs and many simply do NOT believe that life begins at conception.
What has annoyed me for years is whenever I hear the phrase"pro-choice means that you approve of abortion"---NO! Not true! It simply means that I approve of every woman being able to make a choice based on her beliefs and her situation. Just as I do not believe that anyone can make a decision about religion for anyone else.
Do they not understand that this nation is comprised of literally dozens (if not hundreds) of religious beliefs and many simply do NOT believe that life begins at conception.
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
|
View Kathleen Parker ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
Body Mass
