Wash. Post's Gerson suggested Obama should "come out strongly for policies that would reduce the number of abortions" -- even though he already has
SUMMARY: Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson suggested that Sen. Barack Obama should "come out strongly for policies that would reduce the number of abortions -- support for pregnant women, abstinence education, the responsible promotion of birth control." In fact, Obama has advocated the policies Gerson mentioned: "education" that "include[s] abstinence" and "information about contraception."
In his April 2 Washington Post column, Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President Bush, claimed that Sen. Barack Obama's "record on abortion is extreme," citing as evidence Obama's claim "that he would not want his daughters to be 'punished with a baby' because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life." Gerson went on to write that Obama "could take the wise counsel of evangelical Democrats such as Amy Sullivan and come out strongly for policies that would reduce the number of abortions -- support for pregnant women, abstinence education, the responsible promotion of birth control." Gerson failed to note, however, that in the same remarks in which he said that he "would not want his daughters to be 'punished with a baby,' " Obama advocated the "policies" Gerson suggested he "come out strongly for" -- specifically, "education" that "include[s] abstinence" and "information about contraception."
Gerson also claimed that Sen. Bob Casey Jr.'s (D-PA) endorsement of Obama "recalled another dramatic moment in Democratic politics. In the summer of 1992, as Bill Clinton solidified his control over the Democratic Party, Robert P. Casey Sr., the senator's father, was banned from speaking to the Democratic convention for the heresy of being pro-life." As Media Matters for America has noted, several Democrats who opposed abortion rights spoke at the 1992 convention and at every subsequent convention.
CNN reported on March 29 that Obama, responding to a question at a campaign event "about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls," said, in part:
OBAMA: So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.
From Gerson's April 2 Washington Post column:
Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr.'s endorsement of Barack Obama last week -- "I believe in this guy like I've never believed in a candidate in my life" -- recalled another dramatic moment in Democratic politics. In the summer of 1992, as Bill Clinton solidified his control over the Democratic Party, Robert P. Casey Sr., the senator's father, was banned from speaking to the Democratic convention for the heresy of being pro-life.
[...]
But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.
[...]
Having endorsed partial-birth abortion, Obama has little room to maneuver on the broader issue. But he does have some. He could take the wise counsel of evangelical Democrats such as Amy Sullivan and come out strongly for policies that would reduce the number of abortions -- support for pregnant women, abstinence education, the responsible promotion of birth control. An organization called Democrats for Life has proposed the creation of a "95-10 Initiative" in which states and the federal government would work toward the reduction of abortion rates by 95 percent within 10 years. That would be a unifying national goal.
I think NAC is doing great in spite of itself. Sarcasm generally doesn't work when one is wrong (as the contrary position is right), but I don't think anybody can deny that the best way to deal with social issues is legislation and severe punishment from our protector, the government.
Never mind that abortion is shown to decrease with education and availability of social services, NAC and I are going with the tried-and-true success of prohibition of alcohol.
Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr.'s endorsement of Barack Obama last week -- "I believe in this guy like I've never believed in a candidate in my life" -- recalled another dramatic moment in Democratic politics. In the summer of 1992, as Bill Clinton solidified his control over the Democratic Party, Robert P. Casey Sr., the senator's father, was banned from speaking to the Democratic convention for the heresy of being pro-life.
The elder Casey (now deceased) was then the governor of Pennsylvania -- one of the most prominent elected Democrats in the country. He was an economic progressive in the Roosevelt tradition. But his Irish Catholic conscience led him to oppose abortion. So the Clintons chose to humiliate him. It was a sign and a warning of much mean-spirited pettiness to come.
Gerson started off this column with a lie that has been repeatedly debunked, and MMFA has been at the forefront of that charge. In fact, Governor Casey was not allowed to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention because he would not endorse Bill Clinton, the party's nominee for president. Some falsehoods just refuse to die.
Some falsehoods just refuse to die.
True that.
I've heard this lie numerous times. It simply proves the old (Mark Twain? Winston Churchill?) saying:
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
Deez and 1st,
Casey maintained that he was denied a speaking spot because he intended to give a speech about his opposition to abortion, while the Clinton camp said that Casey did not speak because he had not endorsed the Clinton/Gore ticket.
You can believe the Clinton's if you want but that doesn't make Casey's contention a falsehood. One could just as easily say the Clinton's were telling the falsehood. (No one would believe that now would they.) :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_National_Convention
As Media Matters for America has pointed out on numerous occasions (here, here, here, here, and here) Casey was denied speaking time in 1992 over his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket, not his anti-abortion views. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, Sens. John Breaux (D-LA) and Howell Heflin (D-AL), and five other governors who opposed abortion rights did address the convention in 1992, as detailed in a September 16, 1996, article in The New Republic on the Casey myth. In addition, anti-abortion speakers have spoken at every Democratic convention since 1992, including Breaux in 1996 and 2000, former House Democratic Whip David Bonior (D-MI) in 1996 and 2000, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2000 and 2004.
Mary,
This does not disprove Casy's contention. None of them, (correct me if I am wrong,) spoke at the conventions on the issue of abortion as Casey maintains was the reason he was denied a spot.
AA:
This issue has been addressed. Only in right-wing circles is it still kept alive. You don't endorse the nominee, you don't get a speaking slot. Pretty simple.
I've beed doing a Google search to find out what really happened, and have found Google hits supporting both sides - that Casey was not allowed to speak because he didn't endorse Bill Clinton, and that he wasn't allowed to speak because of his anti-abortion beliefs.
I found some new information on a CNN page from 1996 that provides a brief history of all the Democratic Conventions from 1831 to 1992:
The Democrats had three keynote speakers address their convention. Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gov. Zell Miller of Georgia and former Texas Rep. Barbara Jordan gave keynote speeches on the first night of the event. All three speeches bashed President George Bush and emphasized how the Democratic party has changed to meet the needs of the future. Most analysts noted Bradley's speech was thoughtful but dull; Zell Miller attacked Ross Perot and warmed the crowd up for Barbara Jordan's eloquent speech.
The Democrats snubbed Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, a strong opponent of abortion rights. Casey held a press conference on July 13 to announce he would ask convention officials for a chance to speak on the abortion issue. The request was denied and, adding insult to injury, Clinton officials let a group of pro-abortion rights Republican women address the convention. Source: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/chicago/facts/convention/index.shtml
So it looks as if it was not his anti-abortion position that got Casey bumped off the speakers' list. It was the fact that he announced that he intended to give an anti-abortion speech - a very divisive issue, to be sure - at a convention that was intended to unite the party behind its candidate and project a positive image. I can understand why they turned down his request to speak. It would be like having soemone from NAMBLA ask to address a group of child molestation survivors.
I strongly suggest that Michael Gerson do a little reading and know what he's talking about before he offers suggestions to anyone like Barack Obama. It might do him some good to go the Obama's web site and read how they have shown he's wrong:
Gerson Wrong on Obama and "Born Alive" Legislation
April 02, 2008RHETORIC:"In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion." [Washington Times, 4/2/08]
REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation, A Move Pro-Choice Groups Would Not Have Opposed Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born
Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]
NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal BAIPA Because of Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That's Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, "We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them." [CNN, 8/5/02]
NARAL Statement: "NARAL Does Not Oppose Passage" of BAIPA.In a statement, NARAL said, "Consistent with our position last year, 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." [NARAL release, 6/13/01]
Major Difference Between State And Federal BAIPA: "The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have Been Used To Challenge" Roe V. Wade. "Perhaps on no other issue is Keyes' rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. Keyes repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring 'infanticide' because of Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The failed measure would have required doctors to provide medical attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of abortion procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed through Congress. But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to hammer Obama with the "infanticide" charge virtually daily on the campaign trial. Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he's "deeply offended" by Keyes' assertion because he knows it's false. Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on late-term abortions that Bush signed - but federal judges since have put on hold - and Keyes would have voted for it." [Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04]
Source: http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
Obama saying he would have voted for a federal bill when he was not able to vote for it does not really disprove Mershon's suggestion for Obama to come out with policies to strongly reduce the number of abortions.
Is there anyone anywhere who says babies after they are born should not be protected? That is what this act says.
What is so ugly is that it protects the baby from being killed after someone attempted to kill it in the womb. Does anyone see how killing it in the womb is that much different than killing it if the abortion fails?
The bill says nothing about reducing the number of abortions. So it is like comparing apples and oranges.
Obama voting against the States version (and his other votes on this issue) shows his allegiance to NARAL, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
Obama needs to do more than simply talk about sex education. He needs proposals to back up the rhetoric. Yes, he actually needs to come out and talk about abortion rather than obfuscating and avoiding saying the word. The problem is he can't do that since most Americans oppose abortion, talking about it will only illustrate his support for it.
My guess is that no matter who the Democrats nominate, this will be a major issue in the fall.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.htmlAs an astute lawyer, Obama obviously recognized that the language places in teh Illinois bill by dishonest GOP right-to-lifers could (and would) be used to undermine Roe v. Wade, and he wisely voted against it. There was already laws on the books mandating medical care for live fetuses, so that is not an issue.
Once again, I see evidence of right-to-lifers having to resort to dishonesty and lies to support their agenda. You're not making the pro-life side look good here, AA.
Uh... How about comprehensive sex education?... INCLUDING ACCURATE CONTRAPECTION INFO??!! San. Obama's been the ONLY candidte to address this!!! What an idiotic story on the Post's part!
Well, they come from the same city as the Washington Times. I guess the Moonie Times' stupidity is wearing off.....