« Veterans Affairs Secretary Resigns | Main | Edwards Chose Land Based on Better School District »

Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood

Share

July 17, 2007 12:33 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: 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.

If Obama makes it to the general election, he can expect the Republican National Committee to use his "present" votes on abortion -- and other controversial issues -- to paint him as “A Leader Who Has Never Led.

"Nothing quite says principled and strong leadership like a 'present' vote on a controversial issue," RNC spokesman Dan Ronayne told ABC News. "Apparently the rookie didn't take all his at bats in the minors."

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.

July 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (13)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/20105084

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood:

User Comments

In addition to this "different kind of politician" using "politics as usual" trickery to keep "most of the electorate" in the dark as to what he was actually voting for or against, Obama worked in committee to prevent a related bill from even reaching the floor for a vote.

Great guy, this Obama.

Posted by: Jerry | Jul 17, 2007 1:10:43 PM

A perfect example of Obama's exceptional non-record in government!
This guy has less experience than John Edwards in 2004--who had less experience than Dan Quayle in 1988! But, of course experience is not so important when the media have ordained you as "The Messiah."

Posted by: carl | Jul 17, 2007 1:29:38 PM

I've noticed the only time you can comment on Obama is if you can find a negative spin on something. Where is the coverage of his endorsement today. Where was you're coverage of Q2 financial report. Maybe you were at the cleaners picking up your bed linen. My last visit to this site.

Posted by: lyn | Jul 17, 2007 1:47:46 PM

I am ready to refer to ABC as the Hillary "Channel", if you do not support abortion and respect the rights of others to make a choice the correct way to vote is present. I respect the Senator for not pandering to either side. I wish other people, would do likewise. I struggle with this being a legal/political issue. Let me be clear I am not pro or con as it relates to this issue. I simply think it is a personal moral choice that women have to make and there is no correct answer. Conservatives and Liberals need to respect individual rights and stop keeping score. What Obama did took courage.

Posted by: murl41 | Jul 17, 2007 2:25:42 PM

Two days straight, two hit pieces by ABC on Senator Obama. This one even including a link to the Republicans attack memo on him.

Looks like we have two groups at ABC news that may be pushing for the attacks on Obama. First, George S. and the rest of the Hillary's. Secondly, the conservatives seeking to advance Hillary's nomination since they know she will rally their troops and lose in the general election.

Posted by: M.S. | Jul 17, 2007 3:29:10 PM

Jerry,Jerry,Jerry.........you missed the point completely. He had a choice and that was to pander and he choose not to do so. You may have a different opinion, but in a vote on abortion or gay marriages most people who have deep partisan beliefs believe you are either for or against. There are some of us who believe it's a matter of choice and both sides of the issue's need to be handle with respect and dignity. I believe that an abortion is a choice and civil union for all should be consistent. These issues with the way both side's have traditionally approached them have divided us and there is no room for civil discourse, in our society regarding them. Maybe a leader who would approach them from the center in the next 4-6 yrs can help put them behind us. Just a thought.

Posted by: murl41 | Jul 17, 2007 4:53:10 PM

As an independent social conservative, and neither a supporter of the Democrats or the Republicans per se, I will not vote for any pro-abortion candidate as a matter of conscience. If all the candidates are pro abortion, I will forfeit my vote rather than vote for the "lesser of two evils" even if one candidate is better qualified.

Posted by: john irish | Jul 17, 2007 10:01:07 PM

I believe it is undemocratic to deny people choices to do with their lives as they choose -- short of murdering someone, or breaking the law in some other blatant way. All of these so-called PROLIFERS who won't otherwise take a stand against the molestation of children, the miseducation of children, the fact that children are allowed to go hungry everyday, are the same ones who prove daily that they generally care nothing for the children who are ALREADY BORN, as opposed to those who may be born, or who are unwanted. But for abortion, multitudes of children could wind up dead in a garbage, and many do. How would you have us resolve these issues? The world gets more crowded and inhumane every day, and yet there are those of you who feel unwanted children have a great place to be born into. Wake up!

Posted by: Ginny Albert | Jul 18, 2007 8:32:30 PM

We have lived through 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush you may argue but I say two of them never received a majority of the votes of the people that bothered to vote ! We are facing 8 years of Hillary, then 8 years of Jeb ! America, PLEASE don't let that happen to US !!! 36 years of BUSH/CLINTON!?! The Insiders aren't showing any creativity. PLEASE stop Hillary! Foreign policy under Clinton won't change much from Bush's policies.(It's costing us billions) It's time to CHANGE course AMERICA...It's time for PEACE, 71% of us know it and the numbers are growing everyday...It costs the taxpayers about $40 million a day for this Iraq foolishness and even more importantly it's costing our youth's lives and limbs, BRING THEM HOME NOW...Anti-War Republicans, Democrats & Independents Please Help Keep the only Anti-War voice alive in the Republican primary race: DONATE TO vvvvvv. RonPaul2008. C0M\Donate\ it will SAVE lives and tax dollars to keep his voice in the race !!!

Posted by: Jerry T. | Jul 19, 2007 2:41:11 PM

Hillary is demanding a 100% pro-abortion candidate. She apperently is saying that a Good Democrat must oppose even parental notification of their minor child getting an abortion.

Posted by: Jane | Jan 6, 2008 1:41:57 AM

First I do like Barack Obama. Though I do not like his stand on abortion. I think abortion is a symptom of a huge issue. We have a high incidence of STD's that overshadow the amount of unwanted pregnancies. We have a lack of respect for our own bodies and others by letting ourselves get to the point where abortion is the "choice" Morals and respect are one and the same thing. Without morals you have no respect and without respect we have no morals. You see it on the roads with road rage. We as a society put price on life when all life is priceless. We need better education. We need to change our mindset and our culture. We have to stop thinking that if it feels good just do it. As a student of Geography with a major interest in history I find that with a lack or morals and repect the civilization falls apart. Neither the Republican or the Democrats fully respect life. We certainly need to learn to take responsiblity to our bahavior and think before we do things. Everything we do has an impact on other people. And did you know that Euthanasia is happening in Holland this very day. When do you think America will start following. Doesn't that raise a red flag? It is all related.
STD, abortion, Euthansia, drugs, alcohol are all related.

Posted by: Barb | Jan 27, 2008 6:25:18 PM

I don't really associate myself with any political party although for the last two elections I have voted for Bush. Not because I was necessarily pro Bush, but I felt a little threatened by the special interest groups that tend to cling to the Democratic Party. Pryor to Bush I voted for Clinton. At this time, I have to say I have never been more torn in my life. I am an AFRICAN, AMERICAN WOMAN who is a strong BELIEVER IN JESUS CHRIST; I am also a MOTHER OF THREE SONS none of whom I want to see sent off to war. As a forty-one year old African American I am very drawn to the prospect of having the first person of color as president of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. As a WOMAN, the thought of having a woman as president is fantastic. As a BELIEVER in Jesus Christ, I have to consider "WWJD". I don't feel that banning partial birth abortion is in anyway infringing on my rights as a woman and I would really like to know that anyone representing me would feel free to vote against such a thing. If there is a life threatening condition that would cause this procedure to be necessary, then I can understand that decision being left up to a woman and her doctor. When I was 24 I was pregnant with twins. Due to complications one survived the other died a few days before delivery according to my doctor, I barely made it myself. I gave both of my children names because they were both my children. I guess I feel as though I would be dishonoring the son who didn’t survive if I voted for anyone who couldn’t see him as a person. I’m not saying this to guilt anyone in to changing there views on partial birth abortion. I’m saying this to just be honest about my feelings. I really, really want to vote for Obama because I do believe he will bring something fresh to the table, but I really need to know where he personally stands on this issue.

Posted by: Donna | Feb 4, 2008 3:25:30 PM

evey election every candidate say they will lower taxes on the middle class and raise taxes on the upper class.and it has never happened yet.the poor are just getting poorer to the point of there is no middle class,the rich get righer.i,m a single parent of a 18 month old son,i work 6 days a week just to try and mahe it week after week.cant afford health insurance on my son or myself,but the government says i make too much money to get any help.gas prices are so pathetic it turns my stomache how the rich and the government can push the hard working class americans to the point that we cant even afford gas,food,medical,cant even enjoy time with our families for working too much just to be broke before the next check.family vacation,what is that.

Posted by: james fernandes | Jun 14, 2008 1:57:19 PM

Post a comment