Wash. Post's Solomon ignored Planned Parenthood support for Obama's abortion votes
SUMMARY: In an article on "what you might not know about" Sen. Barack Obama, The Washington Post's John Solomon wrote that, as a state senator, Obama "declined to take a position" on parental notification legislation, "voting 'present' instead of 'yes' or 'no.' " Solomon continued: "But five years earlier, he had filled out an issues questionnaire ... opposing such notifications." But Obama's "present" votes were reportedly part of a strategy he had worked out with the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, which opposed the measures.
In a December 14 Washington Post article headlined, "What You Might Not Know About Obama", staff writer John Solomon wrote that, in 2001, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), then an Illinois state senator, "declined to take a position on two pieces of legislation that would have required parental notification for minors who have an abortion, voting 'present' instead of 'yes' or 'no.' " Solomon continued: "But five years earlier, he had filled out an issues questionnaire for the influential Independent Voters of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization opposing such notifications. 'Do you support parent consent/notification for minors seeking abortion?' the survey asked. 'No,' he wrote." But, contrary to Solomon's suggestion, while Obama voted "present," he reportedly did not "decline[]" to take a position on the legislation -- rather, his "present" votes were part of a strategy he had worked out with the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council in an effort to defeat the bill, according to the Council's CEO, Pam Sutherland. As ABCNews.com reported on July 17, Obama voted "present" on the two parental notification bills in 2001 "with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council." The Chicago Sun-Times further reported on December 4 that the "goal" of the strategy was "to entice moderate Republicans and Democrats to also vote present, helping to defeat the bills." The article quoted Sutherland saying of Obama, "The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did."
As ABCNews.com's Political Radar blog noted on July 17, Obama cast his "present" votes on the parental notification bills with the support of Illinois Planned Parenthood:
When Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted "present," rather than "yes" or "no" on a handful of controversial abortion votes in the Illinois state senate, he did so with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.
"We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."
Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood's national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.
"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,' " said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."
"What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting "present," rather than "no," she was quick to note that "it's also not a 'yes' vote."
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, some of the specific abortion votes in question include two occasions in 1997 (HB 382 and SB 230) when he voted "present" on bills which would have prohibited a procedure referred to by its critics as "partial-birth abortion." In 2001, he voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if he or she survived a failed abortion.
[...]
But while he competes for the Democratic presidential nomination, he can use his cooperation with Planned Parenthood in Illinois to help assure supporters of abortion rights across the country that he will not cross them.
"Obama made sure those bills got as few votes as possible for passage," said Sullivan [sic].
From the December 4 Sun-Times article:
On the abortion bills, legislators who supported women's rights to the procedure were encouraged to vote "present" on bills that would have required parental notice before minors could obtain abortions and that would have barred what abortion foes call "partial-birth" abortions, a leading abortion-rights advocate said. The goal was to entice moderate Republicans and Democrats to also vote present, helping to defeat the bills.
"The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did," said Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.
Solomon's article was one of several in the Post's December 14 profile of Obama. The Post has profiled several of the leading Democratic and Republican presidential candidates as part of series called "The Frontrunners".
Solomon wrote:
SURE, YOU KNOW THAT BARACK OBAMA IS A U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS,
BUT YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW ...
1. In 2001 when he was an Illinois state senator, Obama declined to take a position on two pieces of legislation that would have required parental notification for minors who have an abortion, voting "present" instead of "yes" or "no." But five years earlier, he had filled out an issues questionnaire for the influential Independent Voters of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization opposing such notifications. "Do you support parent consent/notification for minors seeking abortion?" the survey asked. "No," he wrote. Obama also answered that he supported Medicaid funding and state worker insurance coverage for abortion and that he didn't support "any other" restrictions on the procedure.
2. As a state legislator, Obama, an avid poker player, was a regular in low-stakes games of draw or stud poker that brought Republicans and Democrats together during long legislative sessions in Springfield, the Illinois capital. After he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, his legislative colleagues took him to the poker table and reportedly cleaned out his wallet in one last bare-knuckles round. "We brought him down to earth real quick," state Sen. Terry Link recently told the Associated Press.
3. Much has been made about Obama's ability to energize his supporters via the Internet and to raise large amounts of money through small donations on his Web site. Less known is the fact that Obama wants to create a powerful executive branch position that would harness the Internet for government. In a recent speech to Google executives, he proposed the new position of federal chief technology officer, whose wide-ranging job would include overseeing the security of government networks and expanding the amount of data, information and products available to average citizens via the Web.
"they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats........."
Isn't that just too bad, (tearing up)...
So Obama was in Planned Parenthood's hip pocket and instead of taking a "yes" or "no" position, he agreed with them to play cutesy games and vote "present" instead? And that is something to defend or be proud of? I would think saying to Planned Parenthood, "NO, I don't care whether you like it of not frankly, I will vote definitively one way or another and let the chips fall where they may".
Sometimes, and you would know this if you knew how legislative bodies operate, when you are working with a group towards a particular end you develop a strategy where an up or down vote is not always optimal.
I know how politicians who are beholden to special interest groups operate - if you're fine with it, that is your business. It just doesn't set to well with me, sorry.
Of course the point of the thread is the fact that Obama's "present" vote was NOT proof that he is possibly wishy washy on pro-choice matters, which is what the article implies.
And for Obama not to dance the way Illinois Repub's wanted him to is a pretty stand up way to play it. Good for him.
So Obama didn't want to be "pigeonholed" into taking a stand yes, or no? And you are ok with that? Fine.
It's not that simple, and you know it. More deliberate obtuseness.
The Republicans were attempting to out pro-choice counterparts with false framing. A "do you or don't you want to kill babies" kind of stand up vote is not a fair one. Sorry.
How ridiculous, it was about parental notification......your excusing Obama for not taking a stand is your business. I demand more from elected officials, unlike you I am not a partisan tool.
Sorry.
"We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time ..."
Watch the insults, Tommy. Give that stuff a rest.
Like I said, the Republicans were using a strategy, to out their pro-choice counterparts as babykillers. This was but one of them. Voting present was a way to counteract that strategy so that they wouldn't be able to use false frames. I applaud Obama and PP for their clever way of being able to fight the Republicans in their own game.
If playing political games and parsing votes and waffling stances on issues is something you admire in any politician, then by all means continue your defense of it.
I, on the other hand, admire those who won't stoop to such levels even if their opponents do, vote straight up or down, vote your convictions and your principles, level with your constituents, be upfront and honest, stand up to special interest groups - and realize that integrity and honor is far more important than poltical expediency and maneuvings to gain some leverage or advantage, or worrying about pissing off lobbyists with big pockets.
We disagree.
But you don't have a problem with Republican false framing? The use of emotional language to sway public perception and to make a honest debate opaque?
That's the issue they were combating.
And, I might add, one of the reasons this site is so important.
If it was being falsely framed by Republicans then I would expect Obama to publicly call them on it, let the voters know exactly what is being done. To try and one-up them in some silly political game is not what we elect them to do. I don't excuse if from any of them.
That has obviously been proven unsuccessful, given the success of false framing in many cases. Abortion is only one.
False framing has been a massive campaign by Republicans over the last 20-30 years that captures the hearts of many people who vote outside their own interests in response. It's insidious, and very difficult to deal against.
Rather than let the Republican define the field in this particular case, I say Obama boldly stepped outside the paradigm. Good for him.
But you don't have a problem with Republican false framing?
Who, Tommy? No way, he's not a partisan tool!
Har!
Sorry, Tommy, you have your good days, this ain't one of them.
And he voted "present" on more than just the parental notification vote, in any case. Again, it was a smart move when they're trying to paint prochoice pols as killers.
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, some of the specific abortion votes in question include two occasions in 1997 (HB 382 and SB 230) when he voted "present" on bills which would have prohibited a procedure referred to by its critics as "partial-birth abortion." In 2001, he voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if he or she survived a failed abortion.
"Special Interest Groups" are made of people. Your family is a "special interest group". Vietnam Veterans are a "special interest group". You can't just lump them all into one category. When a "special interest group" happens to have the same position on an issue as a legislator, they work together. It only makes sense. When a legislator only wants to be a "lone wolf" they are ineffective.
My family is a special interest group? Now that is rich.
Wow, some of you go to any lengths to defend politicians, it is incredible.
Some politicians should be defended...others are scum. But yes, your family is a speical interest group. You advocate, at least I hope you do, for the issues and ideas that mean something for you. If a legislator works with a group because he holds the same position as they do, what is wrong with that? If he only works with them because they give him money, well then that is wrong. Planned Parenthood and Obama had the same position on that particular bill. They devised a strategy that they thought would work best to fulfill that position.
It's absurd - to equate a hugely funded politically motivated interest group who donates large sums of money and has considerable clout in legislation on their pet issues yielding pressure and power over our elected officials, with Dad, Mom and Junior who have nothing of the kind........well, they are not the same on any planet.
Parse words elsewhere, please.
And here *I* thought the Repugnants invented the strategy of voting agianst their own bills - they claimed, in order to seize some partisan advantage in regard to reconsiderations. Oh, that was the Federal Congress, though, so maybe this is a new trick by those slippery Dems, to do it in a State body.
Tommy -
Do you think that abortion should be a criminal act in any possible circumstance, including for victims of rape and incest? Note: you are only allowed to answer 'Yes' or 'No'.
My answer is No.
Excellent, Tommy. Thank you.
I'm glad that, as a conservative, you can see the value in keeping abortion safe and legal. Kudos to you.
Since you're an independent thinker, you can take that stance without worry about a political base, though.
Kyle,
A small point. It looks to me like you jumped at conclusions while awarding kudos to Tommy.
What about those abortions that are not rape or incest?
Personally I am in favor of outlawing all abortions as I believe human beings come into existence at conception. Whether it should be a criminal felony or a misdemeanor is a good question.ps. Some of my reply looks to me to be in a smaller font. Sorry. I wish I knew what happened.
AA -
What is your point? That not every issue can be defined by a simple 'yes' or 'no'? Thank you for illustrating that for me.
I can see your answer would have been 'yes'. What makes you so sure that life begins at conception? How would you explain to a rape victim that she must carry and conceive her attacker's child?
Kyle,
As I mentioned earlier, I simply thought your question left open some doors where one could answer differently. I don't know if Tommy has a different position regarding criminalizing abortions not including rape or incest.
I only included my own view, (which I've expressed here many times,) to answer your question since I jumped in.
My position regarding life a conception is based on biology. You have a separate human being with it's own DNA once the egg is fertilized.
If you want to get techinical:
"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development." [Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]
Seems pretty clear to me that is the starting point of a new human being. I know others disagree but anything after fertilization is simply an arbitrary point based on either size, age, viability, or location.
As for the rape victim. My heart goes out to her. Both mother and child are victims. As such the child is entitled to life as much as the mother. Yes, it'll be nine months of pregnancy for the mother, but afterward, she can entrust the child to adoptive parents if she does not want or cannot care for the baby. I support giving the mother all the financial and emotional and spiritual support possible during this time.
Having said that, I've read where rape pregnancies are exceedingly rare. Outlawing abortions for the other 99.?% that are performed every year would save millions of innocent lives that are now lost.
AA,
I don't believe that outlawing abortion and prosecuting women and doctors is a viable, workable, or even a realistic scenario in this country. I am not in favor of jailing women who have abortions. Although I personally despise it, it will never be outlawed - there aren't enough states to do it, nor the political will.
Tommy,
I am not in favor of jailing mothers who have abortions. However I think the state could hold the abortionist accountable. As for their punishment, there is a whole range of possibilities outside of incarceration.
You may be right about the failure to outlaw it. I hope society as a whole soon comes to realize that abortions are not the answer either for the mother and society.
AA -
I respect your viewpoint, and found your explanation quite eloquent. While it won't change my opinion, which is closer to Tommy's, I respect your position.
I'm also glad you didn't reference the bible in your argument.
Thanks for being candid and open with us on what all-too-often becomes a hostile forum.
The rape victim may not want what happened to be widely known. There's something called "shame" involved here.
She would clearly have to explain carrying a baby to term. Whose is it?
Does she answer honestly? Does she make up a story about some random guy, and risk looking like an irresponsible sl*t?
Can you imagine what it would feel like for people to judge you for being pregnant with no ring on your finger? Or for someone to be excited for you when you know that you are being forced to carry out a pregnancy that's the result of a violent crime?
Most importantly, it's obvious that someone who is a victim of such a thing would want to put it behind her as quickly as possible. Carrying a reminder for nine months, plus knowing that child is out there for the rest of her life is clearly not going to help with that.
Nice that you feel sorry for her, but when you care more about an embryo than an actual person your sympathies don't mean a whole hell of a lot.
That print thing happens to me all the time as well. But AA you have a very different belief than a lot of people as to what constitutes a human being. I don't believe that a human being is created at conception. That's just the very first step along a lengthy process that if uninterrupted will result in the creation of a viable human infant capable of surviving without a host body. That process can be intentionally or unintentionally interrupted and I have no qualms with a woman deciding early on before the process advances to the creation of a human being capable of existing without use her body to stop it if she feels that's best for her. Now I agree with H. Clinton here. I hope for abortions to become extremely rare and unnecessary, it would be nice if all pregnancies were planned and/or welcomed. And I’ll say again I really wish that the compassion and protection that you guys feel for the developing fetus would extend to developing compassionate policies to deal the post born. You can’t become indifferent once these children are born since many are born into horrible social circumstance. AA, you guys can’t have it both ways.
TOMMY,
You know as well as I that in order to make an accurate position (us about them) that we would have to see the entirity of the specific legislation that is being spoken about.
I realize that this was about minors having to maybe tell their parent about a possible abortion but whats to say that there wasn't something else attached to it....
Pork barrel projects? Little extra's that have little or nothing to do with the main law?
These people are only speaking from one angle and not the whole circle!
Also, isn't it also a better thing for 'we the people' to perhaps respect or like those politicians more that have changed their minds based on new facts they learn over time instead of calling them flip-floppers?
it would be a better thing, but unfortunately, politics doesn't care about the "better thing." It cares about "making money" and "staying in power."
Tommy -
I'm an Obama supporter - but I have to admit that I find this kind of parlimentary game pretty offensive. If you oppose a measure, vote against it. If you support the measure, for in favor of it.
I hope that Obama is more straightforward and honest in the future. We need to really get away from that kind of political foolishness.
I also like Obama very much and have said so many times. But I don't blindly support any candidate, I don't view this as some dealbreaker for me against Obama, but it isn't anything that he should be proud of.....to let some interest group dictate your votes is troubling.
Terming it as letting an interest group dictate his votes is unsupported by the facts. I could term it as Obama was working in concert with Planned Parenthood toward a common goal. Either of those positions is speculation, however mine is supported by statements from both parties.
On what basis do you choose to believe your negative spin?
"The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy that we, the pro-choice community, did"......CEO Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.
Their own words.
It was their strategy and he followed, sounds like dictating votes to me.
But that doesn't say that they dictated his actions. That could just as easily be read to say that he went along in full agreement with the strategy they devised.
It still looks to me that your spin is unsupported speculation.
He voted based on the strategy they devised. In other words, his vote was in direct response to what they wanted.......it was a vote with no convictions, a politician's dream, sadly. I give no credit to Obama for it whatsoever, it was weak, in my opinion.
No, he voted based on the strategy he devised with them. His vote was in direct response to dealing with the political issues in a way that addressed his concerns. It was a vote that directly supported progress based on his convictions. Obama deserves credit for helping craft this strategy in concert with PP.
The only support for your position is your personal spin on an isolated statement from Sutherland. Mine is supported by the sum total of all the statements from PP and Obama.
Are you saying that Sutherland lied?
That's a silly thing to ask. In my previous post I clearly stated "But that doesn't say that they dictated his actions" with regard to Sutherland's statement. And I'm correct, it doesn't.
Where did I ever say the quote from her was incorrect? Where did I suggest she lied?
That statement could as easily support my perspective as it could yours. It's just that all of the rest of the quotes clearly support mine.
Why does a politician need to go to a special interest group for some blessing of a vote he is about to cast, if it was as you say, a team effort or something?
A politician needn't be so concerned about catering to special interest groups as Obama apparently was here - even you can't deny that. I believe, as the CEO said, it was PP strategy and they got Obama to go right along with it.
Even if Obama felt it necessary to run it by them, how is that not equally troubling for you? I call that scared and spineless.......and not what I thought of Obama.
Every single part of your post is spin, unsupported by fact.
He didn't go to them for their blessing, he worked with them to devise a strategy toward a common goal.
I certainly do deny your suggestion that Obama was catering to PP. There was nothing to indicate that. The result of the strategy undoubtedly served Obama's wishes and strategy. Why would he have had to get permission from PP to do that?
There is nothing to suggest he had to "run it by them." What part of "shared goals" do you not understand? It's far from "scared and spineless." Working together toward a common goal is smart and logical.
Put your paranoid cynicism toward politicians aside for a moment. Try to imagine I'm right and they were cooperating because they both wanted the same thing. What would be different from the reality of what we see right now? Isn't the current situation exactly as it would be if it were mutual cooperation? What reason is there to think that it wasn't?
What part of Ms. Sutherland's own statement do you not understand - she took complete responsibility for Obama's vote, I ask you again, is she lying? You can't be that naive to not know how this works with big lobbyists and politicians? They say "jump", some politicians say "how high?"
she took complete responsibility for Obama's vote
Sorry, I gotta jump in here, because that is just a flat out lie. There is an entire article above these commenter posts that says otherwise- that they devised a strategy together. That's not something interpretable. She literally says they worked together.
She emphatically said the poor guy is getting heat for something he didn't do - IT WAS HIS VOTE, for crying out loud. If he is getting heat for one of his votes and shouldn't be because it was PP's strategy, then absolutely she is taking responsibility for his vote.
Come on, parsing words for liberals is commonplace, but this is flat out silly.
You ignore a large number of quotes that clearly indicate cooperation to focus on one single line that could conceivably suggest in the absence of all other evidence that it was strictly PP's strategy.
You are simply determined to maintain your condemnation of Obama regardless of the facts.
If this were something arguable, I would argue it. However, you are literally ignoring 95% of the article to make your case. I'm sorry you have to do that.
I usually respect your points, even though I disagree with them, because of the guts you have to be one of the few contrarians on this board.
But in this case, to essentially lie about the essence of the article to make your point, that Obama is some sort of mindless puppet to PP, I think it's unfortunate. I hope you don't continue to debate in this fashion, because it's been enjoyable up to this point.
And you both ignore the specific and very illuminating words of the CEO of Planned Parenthood, that is your choice.
And I am not dumping on Obama for no reason here. I am a fan of his actually and think much more of him by a mile than any other Democratic candidate, or Republican for that matter. As I also said, I criticize when warranted, I don't look away or blindly follow any of them. If they act in a way I disagree with, then I have no problem voicing my opinion as such.
Does this make me toss Obama out the window? No. But I don't admire his vote here either, sorry. It is the way I see it.
We can disagree.
I am not ignoring what she said, I am taking the entire article, and the more than one quote made, into account when I make my point. You are not. There is more information than the one quote you have harped on available to the reader here. An honest assessment would take the entire article into account. You have not.
Again, I hope you don't continue to debate in this fashion. There is no need to be so disingenuous.
Because the woman's quote is by far the most important regarding this vote, for it puts Obama's reasonings in context - if you want to give equal weight to everything else, be my guest.
And your worthless scolding on how I am debating this issue only to invalidate my argument is a little ridiculous, and is not resonating, sorry.
If you disagree fine, but lay off the lectures, they ain't working.
I stand behind my opinions.
Good luck with your dishonesty. I thought you were better than that. Guess not.
She was NOT taking complete responsibility. The very next sentence is "We worked with him specifically on his strategy." How does this not scream cooperation? You're creating a false either/or situation. Sutherland's statement is perfectly consistent with cooperation.
Beyond that, the strategy served Obama's wishes and strategy. If his own desires are being met, isn't it foolish to misportray the situation as him yielding to them? Isn't it exactly as I described, cooperation toward a common goal? What did Obama sacrifice in working with PP when they both wanted the same thing?
I am perfectly aware of the relationships between lobbyists and politicians. Sometimes it's as you you describe. However, many times it's a matter of shared goals and the overly-cynical try to portray it as politicians doing the lobbyists bidding. It's up to us to figure out whether the politician is doing something he/she otherwise wouldn't. In this case I think the strategy directly addressed Obama's goals on the issue.
We disagree, you view it as a perfectly acceptable and cozy relationship between special interest group and politician, shared goals or some such lofty framing. I am cynical, admittedly - and I see it as a special interest group yielding far too much influence on one of our elected officials.
Yours is the party line, mine is not.
So you don't think that Obama shares the goals of Planned Parenthood. He only acts on their command.
That's the logical extension of your unsupported assertions.
All these threads on Obama. What's going on? All the trolls said this site was a secret Hillary front group.
It's just a distraction! To FOOL you into thinking they're here to actually point out ALL conservative misinformation!
Bwahahahah!
Like I've said before, I never realized how tough it must be to be a politician in America until I started visiting MMFA on a daily basis.
It's easy to "Monday Morning Quarterback", either side - but this is just the reality of politics. Sometimes you have to do something that might not be the position you would have taken if not in office. What someone sees as "flip-flopping" or "selling out" is usually just playing it safe.
I was going to say something like "Try putting yourself in that position." - but if you never held public office (an most of us haven't), that would be impossible to do - even if you tried.
I'm not saying I don't play "Monday morning quarterback". Hell, I literally live for it during the NFL season (as my posts on the Browns Fans forum would show), and do a lot here too - but sometimes I have to sit back and look at the reality of my/our woulda, shoulda, coulda's. Sometimes I just shrug my shoulders and say "Thank God I'm not a politician".
Personally, I thing Obama has a good head on his shoulders, and to get where he is at such a young age speaks volumes of his ability to make the right decisions.
Tommy,
WITH?
:-)
I'll answer...It was a misleading statement. It tried to imply that his support for abortion rights was something less than whole, when in fact it was.
Mook,
My interpretation was the opposite. It looks to me like someone wanted us to know that B.O. did not stand four square with Planned Parenthood on parental notification when the time came to vote.
I gather it would turn off the lefties here as an example of B.O. playing politician. Obviously it shows the righties that Obama actually opposes P.N.
Kind of reminds me of that Hillary official in N.H. saying the G.O.P. could ask those hypothetical questions inferring Obama was a drug dealer.
Looks to me like they are trying to get this information out without it looking like negative campaigning by Hillary.
Who knows? Maybe it'll work. :-)
This is a little off-topic, but why are "parental consent" and "parental notification" so often grouped together for an up/down vote or yes/no opinion? Is one not allowed to discern between the two and have a different opinion on each?
Dex,
My view is they are synonymous and have to be linked. Otherwise, what's the use of having notification without consent? What purpose would that serve?
Well, I think your question is 2 parts.
1. I think "notification" and "consent" are two different things by definition.
2. There are times when, IMO, basically one has a natural right to at least be notified, when perhaps they do not have the right to have their consent matter. You should be notified if your property is going to be taken away and you will be reimbursed by the gov, although your consent isn't required. If a young girl is about to have an abortion, I'm not sure that the parents should have a say in it (unless they are somehow financially liable), but they certainly, as the parents of the child, should be notified.
Dex,
I understand your point.
I am of the opinion that the state, by notifying but not asking for consent, is taking away the rights of the parents to raise the child.
I think it is ironic that as a parent the school my daughter attends will not give her an aspiring unless they have my consent consent yet at the same time my daughter does not need my consent to go have a major medical procedure performed, which involves killing her child and possibly causing major long term psychological and physical problems not the least including increase cancer risk and sterilization? What a crazy world we live in.
I wonder why the Republicans in Illinois role in this wasn't questioned. Sounds like they were the ones repsonsible for this "game playing" to "get" Democrats.Chastize Obama all you want, but it's going to be like this as long as this partisan "game" playing goes on.
Right, Spintronic. There's mention in the item of the Repubs love of throwing in the "partial birth" legislation. Just time-wasters and attempts to get the Dems on record with votes on issues that fire up the Jesusland extremists.
HBL,
Not to pick on you but your post is another example of bigotry exhibited by those on the left here at MMFA against Christians.
You can make your point without resorting to derogatory and insulting comments against Christians, can't you?
Would you say something equally derogatory toward Muslims? Women? Blacks?
AA, as usual I have problems with your thoughts on abortion. You paint a rosy picture of a young girl carrying her rapists baby for 9 months but yet you paint a traumatised picture of a young girl having an abortion. Don't you think that young girl, already traumatised by rape, would be more traumatised having to live with the reminder of her rape for 9 months? Wouldn't she risk having long term psychological and possible physical problems including sterilization as well?
"You paint a rosy picture of a young girl carrying her rapists baby for 9 months but yet you paint a traumatised picture of a young girl having an abortion."
That was my first thought too. When it's a rape victim, somehow she'll gain the strength to deal with a nine-month pregnancy and then a birth, but for your everyday unwanted pregnancy abortion, well that girl will be scarred for life!
The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter whether it's a run-of-the-mill pregnancy, or a rape victim, or a 14-year old girl impregnated by her alcoholic father. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, because life is always good and must be preserved regardless of circumstance or that newfangled psychology or anything else.
And don't forget, "everything happens for a reason". When someone gets raped and becomes pregnant, that's just God working in his mysterious ways. He obviously sent that rapist to do what he did, so we can't disrupt God's plans, can we?
Towards the equivalent of the Jesusland extremists? I have used "Muslim Extremist", don't know that I've ever run into any women or Black people who were too intent on declaring us a Female Nation or a Black Nation..
I think your hypersensitivity is showing again, AA.Put on that God Armor, and stop being such a baby. It gives the impression that your faith is a little shaky. ;0)
BTW, AA, if you get back here, I may have seen something I missed before, regarding where you got confused and imagined bigotry; "Jesusland Extremists" is not interchangeable with "Christians", I just didn't think I had to explain that.
Hope that helps you out.