I do have my facts straight. I repeat, nothing in NARAL’s scorecard is a direct abortion vote. The votes are as follows:

HR 976 – has to do with nomenclature. HR 2764 pertained to a dispute over activities of the UNPF and presidential authority. HR 2764 (2 votes) had to do with contraception and overseas groups. HR 3043 had to do with contraception and domestic groups.

The indirect connection with abortion had to do with making grants available to non-profit groups to distribute contraceptives. It was proposed that private groups that use their private money to provide abortions should not be allowed to apply for these grants. Fair enough. There is a debate as to if “all money is fungible” or not.

For an example of politicians rank hypocrisy, observe this debate when the issue is school vouchers (illegal financing of religion?) or health care services (Planned Parenthood?). Few, on either side, show any consistency.

You need to get your facts straight. The Mexico City policy does, in fact, have something to do with abortion, Planned Parenthood gets more than $250 million in taxpayer funding a year, and the federal born alive bill, like most federal laws, applies only in certain circumstances, meaning that the state born alive bill Obama killed would not have been redundant. Whether the Freedom of Choice Act might pass if you had an overwhelmingly Democratic congress and a Democratic President is debatable. That nothing on NARAL’s scorecard has to do with abortion is just laughable.

yes, but no chance it will pass either House of Congress.

- wants increased federal funding, including for Planned Parenthood

There is no federal funding of abortion. You can’t increase what doesn’t exist.

- 100 percent rating (and endorsement) from NARAL and other groups

And not one issue in NARAL’s scorecard is a direct abortion issue.

- opposes the Mexico City policy

which is not a direct abortion issue.

- actively opposed and lobbied against a bill to define as a “person” a fully born baby who survived an abortion

No. There was already a federal law as to this.

- opposes ban on partial-birth abortion

which has no chance of being repealed.

The items here may give evidence to the fact that Obama is pro-choice, something we already knew. They do not answer the question that is election would cause a rise in the number of abortions (the last major rise was under the pro-life/”me generation” individualism administration of Ronald Reagan. The steepest decline was under Clinton).

The implicit wasn’t enough for its own sake so I’ll make it explicit: I have no issue proscribing where abortion occurs for its own sake. Like most any rational person I will cede lesser goods for greater goods. I can’t for the life of me fathom why I should vote for McCain to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians, injure countless more, and displace equally as many so Obama won’t elminate the abortion free zones at bases overseas. It’s tantamount to claiming opposition to drug free zones around schools is encouraging drug use.

You certainly appear to support increasing the legal ‘footprint’ of abortion, as long as doing so gets you other things that you want.

I think you mean ‘UCMJ’. Your whole discourse is a sidetrack, an attempted red herring, from the simple fact that Obama will in fact make abortion legal in places where today it is not.

While it is true that particular children would be murdered on military bases were such a policy to be enacted, it is also true they go off base for abortions now and would continue to do so if such a policy weren’t implemented. It is a question of geography and is not a particularly high consideration in a vote for President.

The only clear cut case where support would be untenable would be the case where the license to abort children would be expanded. Given the liberality of our abortion laws, this scenario is near impossible. Presently, the Republicans aren’t proposing to limit the abortion license, so it is pretty difficulty to hold their position as morally compelling. I know you don’t find either candidate compelling, but that is not the plane where many of us our making our choice.

But he isn’t going to remove them, and he is is going to authorize abortions on them, and particular children will be murdered in cold blood on them.

You can’t change the subject as though a vote for Obama was a vote for you, with all that you say you would do. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama, not a vote for yourself.

And, yes, I LIKE caps; it’s an 18th century writing style I like. I don’t agree with the modern convention that it represents YELLING, but think it indicates EMPHASIS, and I WILL continue to use it as much as I please.