Home > Politics > Political Punch
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

The Abortion Vote the GOP is Planning to Use to Bring Down Obama

January 10, 2008 9:50 AM

In her successful effort to defeat Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in the New Hampshire primary by focusing on Democratic women voters, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, tried to paint him as insufficiently committed to abortion rights.

Clinton's campaign described Obama as "unwilling to take a stance on choice."

In a Granite State mailing that cited votes Obama cast in the Illinois state legislature, Clinton's campaign claimed, "Seven times he had the opportunity to stand up against Republican anti-choice legislation in the Illinois State Senate. Seven times he voted 'present' -- not 'yes' or 'no,' but 'present.'"

One of these votes will assuredly come under further scrutiny should Obama win the Democratic nomination -- but from the opposite direction as the criticism from Clinton.

Republican operatives have been examining Obama's record in Springfield, Illinois, and think they have caught Obama voting the wrong side of an abortion bill that will turn off the public "like partial birth abortion cubed," in the words of one GOP operative.

The bill would have required medical care for babies born during unsuccessful abortions -- an issue no Democrat trying to win over independents and Republicans would want to spend any time discussing.

The Republican party, of course, plans on attacking whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Clinton will be called partisan and shrill; Edwards a slick trial lawyer; Obama too inexperienced. Whoever wins will be painted as too liberal for America.

But Obama's abortion vote, the GOP hopes, may prove to be the sort that Clinton alludes to when she suggests he has not been vetted, his having been blessed by the Gods of Fate during his 2004 US Senate campaign.

In Obama's 2004 Senate race, both a multimillionaire Democratic primary opponent and a multimillionaire GOP general election opponent self-combusted in ugly divorce-related scandals and the latter's replacement was out-of-state ultra-conservative Republican Alan Keyes who was not difficult for Obama to defeat.

Two days after the New Hampshire primary, Obama still has yet to have a negative TV ad run against him.

The Illinois legislation would have mandated medical treatment to any child born as a result of a failed abortion. Clinton faults Obama for having voted "present" on the bill -- abortion-rights allies in Illinois say Obama was unquestionably on their side and voted present as part of a legislative strategy -- but on other occasions Obama voted against the bill.

Republicans suspect Americans will find the vote indicative of out-of-the-mainstream liberal views.

On March 27, 2001, the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee passed out of committee legislation that would have banned any abortion procedure "that, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken" unless another doctor were present to assess the viability of the fetus and provide he or she with medical care. If a live child  was born, the law would have mandated that the doctor provide medical care for the baby, which would be legally "recognized as a human person."

Read it HERE. 

That bill passed out of committee by a vote of 7 to 4; Obama voted against it. (See the vote tally HERE).

That same month, voting on a bill (read it HERE) that would "protect the life of a child born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion" on the floor of the Illinois Senate, Obama was one of 13 legislators to vote "present." The bill passed 33-6.

Obama at the time said he took particular issue with the part of the bill that defined a "born alive" child as “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”

"Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution," Obama said at the time, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, "we’re saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to term …That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place."

In March 2002, a similar bill came before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee that would have required "a physician inducing an abortion that results in a live born child" to "provide for the soonest practicable attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the child."

That bill (read it HERE) was passed out of the committee 6-3, with one "present" vote. Obama voted against it. (See the vote tally HERE.)

That bill was never voted upon in the full Senate, but the next month -- in a 31-11 vote, with 10 "present" votes -- Obama voted against a bill that stated "all children who are born alive are entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of the circumstances surrounding the birth." (Read the bill HERE.)

A federal version of the bill, after all, became law in August 2002. "This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive -- including an infant who survives an abortion procedure -- is considered a person under federal law," President George W. Bush said at the signing ceremony. "This reform was passed with the overwhelming support of both political parties, and it is about to become the law of the land."

The National Abortion Rights Action League did not oppose the federal law; writing that the "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."

Obama has said that had he been in the US Senate at that time, he would have voted for the federal "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act," despite his votes on a similar measure in the Illinois legislature in 2001 and 2002. Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 the state measure "lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade."

-- jpt

January 10, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (25)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

a baby is a baby before it enters a mothers whome say's GOD he knew you before you entered your mothers whome so it is murder! i agree with most of you. if you kill someone out of a mothers whome than the same conviction should aply for those who kill by way of abortion...

Posted by: robin | Jul 27, 2009 1:26:02 PM

Obama has said that had he been in the US Senate at that time, he would have voted for the federal "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act," despite his votes on a similar measure in the Illinois legislature in 2001 and 2002. Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 2004 the state measure "lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade."

Obama is Pro Choice so his rational and actions are consistant with maintaining Roe Vs Wade. Insuring that women maintains their legal rights.

Obama 08

Posted by: Elitist | Aug 17, 2008 5:04:51 AM

skootle,

A two month fetus would not be born alive. If Obama used that as his argument, IMHO the facts of the argument are incorrect.

Posted by: liloleme | Apr 5, 2008 12:20:58 PM

*
Scott Peterson received a death sentence for killing the unborn baby inside his wife who he also killed. According to Obama this baby was not a baby and Peterson was convicted of killing a thing.

Obama is a lawyer, he should get to work on Scott Peterson's appeal.

*bert

*

Posted by: BERT CONVY | Jan 12, 2008 9:10:53 PM

This is so disappointing!!! Tell me it's not true that he would really refuse medical attention to a newborn baby??? Are you serious? I mean, I tried to rationalize this, Obama, I really did...But there is no way to rationalize this. It hurts to say this, but Obama you have not only my vote, but the profound respect I had for you.

Posted by: Lany | Jan 11, 2008 5:42:56 PM

Killing a baby is a bad choice.

Most pro-aborts draw the line at birth. But not Obama!

As more and more Americans are educated on what abortion does to an unborn child and the tide in this country turns more and more toward the side of life, I'm confident that a politician like Barack not-that-Hussein Obama will lose in 2008.

Some choices are wrong. Abortion is one of them. Barack is another.

Posted by: Tom | Jan 11, 2008 5:40:53 PM

CDF (Jan. 11) thanks for explaining Obama's stance. For a second I was actually disappointed. Maybe the rest of the people on this blog should read it to. Go Obama!

Posted by: Sally | Jan 11, 2008 4:22:43 PM

These are a couple of things that boggle MY mind:

"It boggles my mind how some people can twist words and phrases to meaning something entirely different from their intended definitions. Example: How does "pro-choice" become anti-life which is implication the "pro-life" label implies on those who take opposite stance?"

And

"I don't think an issue that is really in the back of the line as far as priorities at this point needs to be addressed. You're trying to address a tiny scratch on your arm, and ignore your amputated leg. Economy, Iraq, Immigration, Healthcare, Social Security... do we really need the abortion distraction right now?"

In the first instance, just what is "choice"? Isn't it a bit twisted to call the killing of a child "choice" which is, of course, what happens during an abortion? Pro-life people are just that - pro-life, but pro-choice people are only pro-life in certain instances and for certain people while they are okay with doing away with others. But saying they support killing the most innocent lives does not sound so good, so they "twist" their terms and call it "pro-choice". Let's get the terms straight here.

In the second instance, what on earth could be more important that life itself? "Economy, Iraq, Immigration, Healthcare, Social Security..." and every other issue that concerns people are only issues to living people. Life is the foudnation for all other concerns. Without life nothing else matters.

What we need to do in this country is get out of our own selfish little selves and think of the bigger picture. Are politicians who advocate killing any portion of us really capable of having at heart the best interests of everyone in our country?

Posted by: Mary | Jan 11, 2008 4:00:41 PM

Let's be clear.

Obama, every abortion kills a living, growing baby.

The only people who have an abortion are women who are "having a baby" they say they don't want.

Of course a woman wants a dead baby after her abortion.

The whole idea of having an abortion is to kill the living baby.

Those who support abortion support logically support baby killing whether it is before or after birth.

The reason some supporters of leaglized baby killing back off killing the baby after birth is political opportunism , not their respect for the baby's right to life.

Thanks ABC for exposing Obama to me.

Obama, you have now lost my vote.

I'll be telling others the tragic truth.

Eugene Ahern

Posted by: EUGENE AHERN | Jan 11, 2008 1:30:43 PM

I agree with skootle's comment. The only reason that I won't vote for Obama is his stance on abortion. It makes me sad that I can agree with everything that he stands for and then he thinks it's ok to kill a child. That is what abortion is. The bottom line is that the second there is a heartbeat there is a person.

Posted by: Elizabeth | Jan 11, 2008 11:27:04 AM

Obama & Moloch'08!

Posted by: DEnise martin | Jan 11, 2008 8:43:09 AM

It boggles my mind how some people can twist words and phrases to meaning something entirely different from their intended definitions. Example: How does "pro-choice" become anti-life which is implication the "pro-life" label implies on those who take opposite stance? And how did Obama become someone who "allows children to die" because he didn't vote for a bill with very unclear and unclarified wording? Sen. Obama's stance on abortion may not be entirely clear given the "present" votes but no more unclear than the bill he voted against.

Obama merely voted not to make into law, a bill that could ultimately stand in the way of a woman's right to choose, ---he did not vote for allowing children to die.

It is precisley those who twist words that make it so important to have someone who actually reads them, understands them, and makes sure there is no way for them to be misinterpreted before they become laws. Senator Obama is apparently on top of the game.

Posted by: CDF | Jan 11, 2008 8:24:13 AM

The stance Obama has on abortion is the only reason I won't be voting for him. The fact is, abortion is the murder of a child. I don't want a leader that is fine with killing children.

Posted by: Skootle | Jan 10, 2008 7:36:08 PM

Obama's stance is correct. One comment quoted the Constitution: "The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

Obama's point is that if a 2 month old fetus (ie, a non-viable fetus) is "born" due to a failed abortion, then it would be considered a person under the law under debate. If that 2 month old "born" fetus is a person, then it logically follows that an ubborn 2-month old fetus is also a person. If that is the case, then all fetuses are people, and abortion is unconstitutional.

It is still disgusting to a pro-life person, but his stance is entirely consistent with the pro-choice logic.

Posted by: Paul | Jan 10, 2008 4:36:37 PM

I don't think an issue that is really in the back of the line as far as priorities at this point needs to be addressed. You're trying to address a tiny scratch on your arm, and ignore your amputated leg. Economy, Iraq, Immigration, Healthcare, Social Security... do we really need the abortion distraction right now?

Posted by: Blake Foster | Jan 10, 2008 4:26:01 PM

I don't see the issue? Anyone paying any attention at all knows that abortion opponents are using every trick in the book to try and weasel in on bans to abortion. They put forward bill after bill with convoluted and tricky language to try and undermine abortion rights. Obama was very right to vote the way he did on this measures. How do you define "alive"? How do you define "viable"? How do you define "child"? I mean, now that we have test tube babies, technically a fetus at any stage could in theory be considered "viable". Viable under what condition, and how much care? I don't see these vote as undermining Obama at all actually.

Posted by: Jeff | Jan 10, 2008 4:20:48 PM

Etam: I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but disagree that abortion is a "painful" issue. To those opposed to abortion, I say "don't have one."

Posted by: DKNY | Jan 10, 2008 1:27:19 PM

Abortion is one of the most painful issues in American discourse...

I welcome an oppurtunity for Senator Obama to explain his votes...

I know he will do it in a clear, true and gentle way that helps millions of Americans understand their own feelings toward the issue.

This is the type of politics that he has warned us against. I shudder to think of the motives and personalities of the operatives that are digging up this stuff and framing these issues. And the whispered furtive passing on of this information to the press.

America - let us rise above this ---

Let us try and share an understanding of these complex issues...

Not allow them to be used to divide us and turn us against each other ---

Let us ask more of our political system and press...

Posted by: Etam... | Jan 10, 2008 1:05:05 PM

For saying Obama taught Constitutional Law, he sure doesn't know the constitution. (Or, more likely, he knows the Constitution but used it as a shield to hide his real motive for opposing the bill.)

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says, "All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" (emphasis mine).

According to the Constitution, all persons born are American citizens, and one who is born "unviable" would simply be an American citizen who, given our current medical technology, won't live very long.

Posted by: Matt E. | Jan 10, 2008 11:58:18 AM

Obama has already promised to unleash his Chicago political machine against Hillary. This is why he is compared to JFK. remember the fraud of 1960?


We see the true Obama and it isn't pretty or honest.

Posted by: SHuy | Jan 10, 2008 11:52:49 AM

Next Comments »

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS