Looking at Obama's Words On Abortion From The Floor of the Senate

David Freddoso:

When Barack Obama spoke on the Illinois Senate floor in 2001 against Illinois' born-alive protection bill, did not say that a pre-viable baby is not a "person." He argued, rather, that even though the state should perhaps provide care for these babies, any recognition of their personhood would create unacceptable consequences. Again, his words, at length, so there's no uncertainty about context:

There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were deliever in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, infact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old - child that was delievered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. (Taken from the transcript of the Illinois 92nd Assembly, Mar. 30, 2001.)

Wow. Did you catch that? Since Roe vs. Wade is threatened, then we are allowed to commit murder? You would think it would be the other way around, right? We should not be allowed to kill babies that are born alive from survived abortions and if Roe vs. Wade is threatened, then so be it. Does that logic not follow? But Obama's stance is as follows: If we have to sacrifice some born alive infants to make sure "women have the right to choose" then that's what we'll have to do. How backwards is that?

Read this again: "Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, infact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old - child that was delievered to term..."

You would think that if you read this paragraph in isolation that what would come next is, "so we need to do exactly that. Protect these persons." But sadly, it's not. For Obama, our personhood is not defined by anything specific other than the need to uphold Roe vs. Wade. I think the basis of our personhood should be rooted in ground that is much more solid than the pragmatic need to see the Democratic ticket upheld. Would you not agree? Does this not follow for you Obama voter?

Friends, this man has morally disqualified himself on this issue alone. Don't drink the Obamalaide.

Please read this article that continues to help us think through this issue.