Last night’s debate was not among the best we’ve seen, but there was one particularly memorable moment. It came to us courtesy of Newt Gingrich.
When the candidates were asked (from a pre-selected e-mail) about their views on contraception, Gingrich responded by saying, “I want to make two quick points, John [King]. The first is: There is a legitimate question about the power of the government to impose on religion activities which any religion opposes. That’s legitimate. But I just want to point out — not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.”
What Gingrich is referring to is that Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator, opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. (For more, see this October 16, 2008 article, “Obama and Infanticide,” by Robert P. George and Yuval Levin.) The evidence clearly points to the fact that Obama, in the name of abortion rights, would not support laws against infanticide. It is a stand that remains even today both sickening and almost impossible to comprehend. And yet the entire universe of political reporters showed an amazing lack of curiosity (and certainly not an ounce of consternation or outrage) on this topic.
It’s so hard to imagine why.
The simple-minded among us might assume that many journalists, leaning very much to the left on social issues, are more offended when candidates express personal objections to contraception than when candidates oppose laws against infanticide. Those of us who are unsophisticated on these matters might even come to the conclusion that for reasons of ideology, many members of the press hyper-focus on contraception and completely ignore infanticide, an act one might think qualifies as morally problematic.
Does anyone think a Republican candidate could survive a primary with that vote in his past. One reason why I still 2008 campaign is still relevant and could help a Republican deflect media criticism
If this is in fact so – it doesn't help that the pol first to point this out is Newt Gingrich. He lacks all credibility on any moral issue of consequence, and thus, one suspects – he will be the last pol to bring this up.
Gingrich doesn't need moral credibility, especially now. He has intellectual credibility (though some would argue that) and does a great job being very professorial in way that makes one want to hear what he says.
I'm confused. Where's the contradiction? Obama favors both contraception and infanticide. He is a maximalist when it comes to "a mother's right to choose." And a minimalist when it comes to a fetus' right to life. Most on the left would agree with him.
I believe you are right. Obama and the left does not mind at all the killing of the unborn for the sake of convenience. Or in the case of infanticide it is the actual killing of LIVE babies that the left will willingly do.
What hysteria here! n nNo one sane left or right favors infanticide or the willing killing of babies. Under Roe's trimester analysis the state itself has a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn in the last trimester and the only exception is concern over the health and the life of the mother. My understanding is that opposition to a ban on the hideousness of partial birth abortion, which no one favors, is premised there being no legislative space to weigh the life of the mother as a countervailing factor in considering whether to allow the procedure. n nTo translate the proper concern over that countervail into the willingness to let babies die or indifference about them dying is really hysteria combined with stupidity.
Nice side step. That legislation was prompted by a nurse telling the story of live babies surviving a late term abortion and put in a closet to die alone. Obama voted to ensure that no effort would be made to save that baby's life. That's infanticide and and you can't hide that. "No legislative space to weigh the life of the mothers a countervailing factor": how cold that sounds, but it is possible to sound dispassionate once you convince yourself that the contents of a woman's womb is not a human child. Shame on you.
As I say hysteria combined with, to be kinder, myopia. Do you really think Obama favours baby killing? Do you really think anyone who has spent two minutes thinking about it grounds support for late term abortions when the mother's health is imperilled on the basis of women's rights to control their bodies or on some blasé, indifference to the developing baby? Don't you think that the only rationale for late term abortions is exactly and no more than profound danger to the health of the mother and that it's a legitimate ground, however tragically infused?
Anyone so callous as to support, or demand the killing of a live baby – a abortion survivor – has no right to claim integrity, better yet, this/they should never be able to serve as presient or in a position of power all together!
What's the difference? The status quo allows it to be done. That is why the bill was brought up.