34 Comments

• 1. Pro-Life Democrats Abando&hellip  |  August 28th, 2008 at 3:50 am

  [...] Original post by Mark Noonan [...]

• 2. New Conservative  |  August 28th, 2008 at 4:10 am

  Come vote in my VP poll while there is still time. The annoucement is Friday, but I’m sure they’ll leak it early.

  http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/

• 3. MEGAN  |  August 28th, 2008 at 5:38 am

  Questions for DNC Speaker Beth Robinson and her husband Matt:

  1- I would like to know how she will respond to the families who have had their loved ones deployed for more than a few weeks at one time? Beth states her husband has not been deployed for long periods. I have two family members who have been deployed 3 times since the war started at a minimum of 6 months each time. How can she compare her struggles of being a single parent when Matt has not been deployed for long periods of time? How do his fellow Marines react when they hear he has not served the same amount of Deployment time as them?

  2- I would like to know if Beth’s biography includes anything about abortion as a teenager? If so, what are her thoughts on Obama’s abortion views?

  3- Last, I would like to know if her husband Matt Robinson has a comment if any about his views towards people of color and in the Jewish religion? Does he regret his past involvement with the Skinheads while living in Denver?

• 4. js  |  August 28th, 2008 at 7:52 am

  support for killing defenseless, live, human beings is a very poor way to lead us into the future…obama is crashing and burning because of one thing…..

  the truth

• 5. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche  |  August 28th, 2008 at 9:52 am

  Very nice JS but you forget one thing. There is already a law on the books against of murder LIVING people. That Trojan horse legislation you “fundies” tried to sneak in was properly filed in the trash can.

• 6. yekepyt  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:50 am

  Republicans and Democrats agree that reducing abortion is in everyone’s interest. But they disagree on the best approach to take.

  The abortion-related bills that Obama voted against were specifically crafted to raise a political firestorm, by deliberately leaving out particular exceptions (e.g., when a procedure is required to protect the health of the mother).  Had the authors of these bills included this provision, Obama would likely have voted for them. By refusing to insert these provisions, the politically savvy authors of the bill could guarantee that they could later label Democrats as pro-abortion (or even “evil” or “pro-death”) when they didn’t sign them.  The intent of the bills was to provide political firepower against Democrats, not to reduce abortions.

  To quote Obama (on Fox news in April): “On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly [emphasis mine]. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.  Part of the reason they didn’t have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.”

  A McCain administration will continue to borrow huge sums of money to finance new wars.  I think it’s fair to say that McCain sees war as more of a first response to a crisis than a last resort. This, together with economic policies that favor a huge wealth gap and squeeze the middle class, and heath care policies that allow one in six Americans to be without health care, and social policies which do not provide for low-cost education and maternity leave, and corporate regulation that encourages or even rewards outsourcing of jobs internationally, result in a society with an increased number of abortions.

  Under Bush and the Republican congress, abortion rates either went up, or the rates of positively-trending change slowed.  The Republican’s approach to this problem is to use a sledgehammer, and a blunt instrument such as sweeping, draconian legislation just doesn’t work. Even if  their intentions were good, I cannot help but conclude that their approach to the problem was ham-handed: their policies actually resulted in America losing ground in the fight to reduce abortion rates.  Democratic social policies are more effective at reducing abortions than their Republican counterparts.

  In a prosperous, educated society with generous maternity leave and universal access to health care, including contraception, abortions will be minimized.  In a society that is borrowing trillions to fight unnecessary wars, and where 47,000,000 people have no health insurance, and good jobs are scarce, and public education is underfunded and college tuitions are unaffordable by most, there will be more abortions, whether they’re legal or not.  This can be confirmed by looking at data from the World Health Organization (among other sources).  

  Fighting abortion means taking a look at the “whole picture” and fashioning policies that actually reduce abortions… focusing a pinpoint on specific anti-abortion legislation just doesn’t work (in fact, it’s counter-productive).

  To vote against Obama because of his stand on abortion rights, in light of the political realities behind such a vote and the results one could realistically expect if the bill actually passed, is to ignore the bigger picture.

• 7. Rich  |  August 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am

  Yekept- peddle that trash somehwere else. Obama lied about his position, and then called the people calling him out liars. Then his campaing admitted he was wrong. Why are you going against Obama’s new position? Face it, Obama is eating it bad on this issue. Something about killing live babies seems to piss most Americans off.

• 8. yekepyt  |  August 28th, 2008 at 11:26 am

  Dear Rich,

  It’s a shame that your fanaticism blinds you to reality. My post is a well-reasoned argument based on research and thoughtful consideration. Love it or hate it, agree or disagree, but I can support my position effectively and with the confidence that comes from speaking the truth.

  Your post, on the other hand, is about name-calling and childish taunts: the very definition of a “trash” post.

• 9. rightlane  |  August 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

  yekepyt

  It’s my understanding these bills were crafted to provide medical care to infants who survived an abortion procedure. If so, it seems difficult to believe that, there exists any possible circumstance where denying an infant medical care, already born and living independently from the mother, “to protect the health of the mother,” is a “well-reasoned argument.”

• 10. yekepyt  |  August 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pm

  There is already a law against denying medical care to infants: look it up under “homicide.”

  These bills are unnecessary, politically motivated, and designed solely to create this exact political firestorm. And the GOP’ers fall for it every time, just parroting back the mush they’ve been fed (”Obama is a Muslem baby killer! He loves abortions and wants to kill infants and blow up federal buiildings!”) without taking the time to research or think for themselves. It’s sad.

  The truth, as usual, is more complex than a bumper sticker.

  If the authors were genuinely interested in preventing abortions, you’d see them advocating for universal health care, maternity leave, access to contraception, sex education, etc… the things that actually work in the fight to reduce abortions.

• 11. js  |  August 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  why do you continue, evey time…to demonstrate what a halfwit is Nitze…there is “no” law on the books that require anyone to even check if a child survived an abortion…

  you smell that odor? its the poo poo coming out of your keyboard….

• 12. js  |  August 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

  “If the authors were genuinely interested in preventing abortions, you’d see them advocating for universal health care, maternity leave, access to contraception, sex education, etc… the things that actually work in the fight to reduce abortions.”

  things that actually work? those things we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on….only to see 50 million abortions performed…and you want what? to spend more on ineffective programs…

  you must be the poster child for the DNC…deaf, dumb, blind, and willing to do the same thing over and over and over no matter how many times it doesnt work….

  why do you bring these old lies out…it must be an election year…..

• 13. yekepyt  |  August 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

  Uh, ok — I guess it’s to be expected that the posters here will address my argument by calling me a “poo poo head” or whatever. But for those in “read only” mode I’ll just ask that they do two things:

  - analyze how abortion rates have changed under the Republican White House and Congress (hint: they’re still improving, but more slowly than they improved under the Democrats)

  - look at the World Health Organization data that correlate abortion rates with laws and broader social policies

  Then you will arrive at the inescapable conclusion that progressive social policies are the most effective way to reduce abortions. All this bleating and babbling about infanticide is just a distraction, and all it takes is some research and a little bit of independent thought to see right through it.

• 14. yekepyt  |  August 28th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  js, you are upset because you think that America has spent “hundreds of millions of dollars on” the types of programs I’m advocating as a way to reduce abortions.

  Just a quick reality check — we have not spent any money on universal health care, we have not instituted a paid maternity leave requirement, and we argue bitterly about whether to teach our children about sex and contraception.

  So, we haven’t spent any effort on the programs that actually work to reduce abortions… it’s all blathering from the right wing about hyperbolic claims of infanticide, etc.

  And, js, even if we had spent hundreds of millions of dollars on these programs, that wouldn’t be nearly enough. To put it in context: we spend a hundred million dollars on the Iraq war every six hours. Every six hours of every day, every day of every week, every week of the year.

• 15. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot  |  August 28th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

  typekey,
  Your responses are neither reasoned nor responsive;

  Rich brought up the fact that Obama’s campaign admitted he erred in his assessment. You dismissed this rather than addressing it. Was Obama lying then or is he lying now.

  Rightlane pointed out that the law Obama fought was designed to protect a life, you didn’t answer merely dismissed. As a note; the laws in Ill. did not protect the infants; this is the reason for the legislation written and passed in Illinois and the Federal one as well.
  Even if it were redundant and especially if it is redundant why would Obama oppose a law already on the books? He didn’t state this redundancy as his reason in his opposition and in fact only brought it up recently.

  js correctly points out that money is currently being spent on education and prevention as recommended by the UN and sponsored by democrats, yet abortions continue to rise. You dismiss by claiming we don’t spend on universal health care (when you really mean universal health insurance) or some other nebulous program you haven’t defined. Seeing as no one is denied critical medical care, and with the family leave act offering more than sufficient time is afforded new mothers and fathers there appears to be little rational for Obama to oppose the bill. Finally you attach military spending as though that were relevant to the discussion.

  If the object is to minimize abortion on demand as a method of birth control; and the life of a child born is protected why oppose the legislation so adamantly? And why drop “rare” from the party platform which speaks of abortions as “safe, legal and …”?

  Obama’s abortion position is untenable from a politically realistic viewpoint, and that’s the reason pro-life democrats are abandoning him. argue with us if you like, but these facts are stubborn things.

• 16. megapotamus  |  August 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  We see here a glimmer of light. The murder of babies is, it seems, an opportunity for some common ground. For those who assert that the laws on murder are applicable here, I agree. But while it is documented that dozens of babies died under the circumstances the BAIPA addressed no one was ever charged, at least in Illinois. How does that square? Oh well, abortion isn’t really a big issue for me but Barry is able to bridge that gap by taking a position so extreme (and defending it so mendaciously) that even a choicer and secularist like myself has to say “Whoa!”. The trimester system is more or less okay with me but it should have been legislated and at the state level at that, not imposed judically.
  It is true that nations with socialized medicine (nearly everyone but us) have lower abortion rates but they also have much higher birth rates. Is this because of the benefits of Commie medicine? No but who knows? But anyone can predict that once the government subsidizes abortions we will have more of them. Anyone who votes from an anti-abortion position for Barry hoping for domestic declines is fooling herself but that’s okay. Doubts as to his Choice bona fides are another crack in the base. It is good to see someone on the Left objecting to infanticide at least in principle. Good, not great.

• 17. rightlane  |  August 28th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

  yekepyt

  What law are you referring too? When was it instituted? How does it prevent parents from refusing to grant permission for the medical treatment of a minor? How does this law strip parents of the right to issue an advance directive to a health care facility; thereby, restricting the type of care their minor child may receive, whom they’ve just attempted to abort unsuccessfully?

• 18. Rich  |  August 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pm

  You’re right Yekept, I was name calling for pointing out that Obama lied about his position, called the people liars that called him on it, then later had to admit he was wrong.

  http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/breaking_news_o.html

  “Bearing in mind the Obama campaign now admits he voted as state senator against the very same legislation passed overwhelmingly on the federal level to stop infanticide, read again what he told CBN’s David Brody only last night:

  Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.
  I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say - that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in IL that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.

  So for people to suggest that I and the IL Medical Society, so IL doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies common sense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it’s an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond.

  It’s one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it’s another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they’re wrong. And that’s what’s been happening”

  ”

  So yekept- asides from calling me a fanatic- (im not even religious) I would like you to respong to my “trash” post which you dodged earlier. Why is Obama not telling the truth about his support of infanticide? Bear in mind he did not state that it was because of an existing law about murder. What was that phrase Obama had earlier in the campaign, “Words mean something”?

• 19. Rich  |  August 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

  respond

• 20. Rich  |  August 28th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  ” which was to say - that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”

  Yekept- If this was such a sham law, why did he say he would have voted for it?

• 21. Rich  |  August 28th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

  Obama:
  “I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say - that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”

• 22. js  |  August 28th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

  14. yekepyt

  upset?

  you dont have a pot to piss in, and you want to tell me im upset?

  you just want to make folks laugh, right?

• 23. pansy  |  August 28th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

  Such a contentious issue, abortion. And for good reason: Nobody, except nihilistic teenagers, really wants anyone to have an abortion. So, in order to move forward on this issue, some sort of compromise must be reached.

  Here’s one: We criminalize abortion, but make birth control methods that PREVENT conception widely available. No morning after pills, just those birth control methods that prevent conception before it begins. And we include a great deal of education on the proper use of said contraceptives to everyone old enough to understand the English language.

  Some compromises will have to be made on behalf of women who have been impregnated under criminal circumstances, but that’s the gist of it.

  Looking at this compromise (a huge one) you have to ask yourself: Are you more opposed to the murder of the unborn or people having sex for purposes other than procreation?

  When you seek to criminalize or eradicate contraception, such a compromise is impossible. And the unborn die.

• 24. yekepyt  |  August 28th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

  Ok, so some folks are hanging their hat on the “was Obama lying then, or is he lying now” thread, and have chastised me for dismissing this instead of addressing it.

  During this presidential campaign (as in every other presidential campaign), the candidates’ positions will change as they try to gain any edge that they can. They will retract and adjust their statements to achieve political gain. McCain is far worse than Obama in this regard, but they both do it.

  Are you equally upset with McCain for “lying” about his positions on illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage, making Bush’s tax cuts permanent, “lying” about walking through Baghdad without body armour, how he would have handled Katrina, lying about what he said regarding his experience in the area of enconomics, etc., etc., etc.?

  No, of course not — because this is all par for the course during a presidential campaign. So, yes, I dismissed this thread, because it’s a non-thread for non-thinkers.

  Herkimer responded to my post by saying that “money is currently being spent on education and prevention as recommended by the UN and sponsored by democrats, yet abortions continue to rise.” Both parts of his statement are false: we’re not spending real money on on sex education that includes information about pregnancy and contraception, and abortions are not continuing to rise.

  If Herkimer had researched the issue at all, he would discover that abortion rates are DECREASING… albeit not as quickly as they were decreasing before Bush took office, and not as quickly as they would decrease under Obama.

  And Herkimer, js claimed that we were spending “hundreds of millions of dollars” on social policies such as guaranteed paid maternity leave and universal health care — also false. These policies would result in reduced abortion rates. (Did you get a chance to check out the WHO data that correlate abortion rates to laws and social polices? No, of course not — right wingers never let the facts get in the way of a good tirade).

• 25. yekepyt  |  August 28th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

  js, settle down and try to relax — don’t get so upset!

• 26. Rich  |  August 28th, 2008 at 7:40 pm

  Let all here note that Yekept has deflected, changed the subject and hid under his skirt on the topic of Obama and his lies regarding the born alive act.

• 27. yekepyt  |  August 28th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

  Hi Rich,

  Maybe you missed my post, because I’m certainly not changing the subject and I’m not hiding anywhere (I’m right here). In the post that you missed (#24), I addressed the subject head on!

  I’m including a brief recap below. The question at the end is a good one — it was originally asked rhetorically, but now I wonder whether you’ll answer it or hide under your skirt! I’ve put the important part in bold face so you won’t miss anything like you did last time.

  During this presidential campaign (as in every other presidential campaign), the candidates’ positions will change as they try to gain any edge that they can. They will retract and adjust their statements to achieve political gain. McCain is far worse than Obama in this regard, but they both do it.

  Are you equally upset with McCain for “lying” about his positions on illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage, making Bush’s tax cuts permanent, “lying” about walking through Baghdad without body armor, how he would have handled Katrina, lying about what he said regarding his experience in the area of economics, etc., etc., etc.?

• 28. Rich  |  August 28th, 2008 at 9:05 pm

  Haha. Still dodging my boy. You failed to answer the topic at hand (Obama’s admitted lies about the born alive act and his subsequent support for infanticide)and changed the subject, now you demand I take the bait and answer your ignorant off topic questions? No thanks. I will let you bask in the crapulence of your posts above.
  P.S. Claiming Obama is just another politician and changes his position for electoral advantage is not really a defense of lying and supporting infanticide. He hasn’t changed a position about anything, he has simply lied about what his position was in the past. Also, I though Obama was a new style politician? Just words? I see you also failed to comment on the Obama quotes from above that showed he lied on this issue.

• 29. rightlane  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

  yekepyt

  You didn’t answer any of my questions.

• 30. js  |  August 28th, 2008 at 10:59 pm

  still wearing that stupid hat yek…you probably didnt even notice…

• 31. js  |  August 28th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

  the only thing thats for sure is that obama is a compulsive liar…another clinton in an empty suit…why would anyone want to follow an empty suit…so its comes down to the DNC believing the majority of the US Population is blatantly stupid or they think they can get away with the lies…

  you cant trust the DNC….its a rotten tree….nothing good can come from a rotten tree….

• 32. js  |  August 28th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

  some of the lies from obama

  1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIAR, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965.
  2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIAR, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
  3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIAR, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had
  4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIAR, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya. It is the first widespread violence in decades.
  5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIAR, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn’t allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
  6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIAR, your name is Arabic and ‘Baraka’(from which Barack came) means ‘blessed’ in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
  7.) I Never Practiced Islam - LIAR, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years,until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
  8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - LIAR, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
  9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - LIAR, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
  10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia, I Have More Foreign Experience - LIAR, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn’t even speak the language. What did you learn, how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
  11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - LIAR, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
  12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - LIAR, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine.
  13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - LIAR, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.
  14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - LIAR, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn’t, and never did, exist.
  55.) My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church - LIAR, your church is so extreme, the pastor who married you, Rev. Wright, just got done blaming the US for 9/11 and named Louis Farrahkan their person of the year.
  56.) I Disagree With My Church All The Time - LIAR, you still have yet to repudiate Wright, who married you and your wife, and you still donate large sums of money to assist the church in furthering its message - hatred and revenge. You donated in 2006 alone,$22,500 to the church that you so terribly disagree with. That is nearly $500 PER WEEK - that sure is disagreement, Senator Obama.
  58.) I never heard sermons like Rev. Wright’s, that have been in videos all day, You Tube - LIAR! 3 days later during your Mea Culpa BS speech you said “Did I hear controversial statements while I sat in that church? Yes I did.”
  61.) My wife didn’t mean America is ignorant, she was just using a phrase - LIAR. Again, MicHELLe’s comments perfectly sync with Wright’s, Meeks’, and Farrakhans, both in language, anger, and direction.

• 33. js  |  August 28th, 2008 at 11:06 pm

  is there any doubt why pro lifers dont trust obama…its pretty obvious that he is a fools fool…and the only folks that will vote for him are hard core liberals like yek…

  yek!! that sounds terrible!!
  `

• 34. yekepyt  |  August 29th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

  Rich, post #24 is where you’ll find my answer as to why Obama “lied.” Post #24 is also where you’ll see me illustrate that McCain has done the exact same thing (only more frequently) — which is decidedly on-topic if the topic is what politicians will do in order to gain political advantage, and why.

  Post #10 is where I debunk the “infanticide” malarkey.

  Post #13 is where I direct you to research specific data that prove that progressive social policies consistently result in fewer abortions in places all over the world.

  I can’t hold your hand, Rich — you’re going to have to do some reading all by yourself, and engage in some independent thought.

  Just saying “nyah nyah nyah, you won’t answer my questions, your hat is funny and your keyboard smells like poo-poo” is not a very effective counterargument, especially when I can point you to the exact posts where those precise questions were in fact addressed.