New Obama Ad Slams McCain on Abortion
Barack Obama has launched a broadside against John McCain’s opposition to abortion rights and moved one of the most divisive issues in modern American politics to the airwaves on a large scale for the first time in this presidential campaign.
“Let me tell you: If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, the lives and health of women will be put at risk. That’s why this election is so important,” says the nurse-practitioner who narrates Obama’s ad. “John McCain’s out of touch with women today. McCain wants to take away our right to choose. That’s what women need to understand. That’s how high the stakes are.”
An announcer then claims that “as president, John McCain will make abortion illegal,” before playing an exchange on “Meet the Press” in which McCain told moderator Tim Russert that he favors “a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions.”
“We can’t let John McCain take away our right to choose. We can’t let him take us back,” says the ad.
More.
Comments are closed.
I’m not really sure it’s wise for Barack “Babykilla” Obama to raise this as a core issue of this election cycle… I don’t think he can campaign on this issue, with his record, and benefit from it in any way. Still, I guess the fireworks as his campaign goes down in flames over this issue should be fun to watch (moreso because he brought it up)….
People aren’t nearly as stupid as his campaign — or certain writers around here — seem to think.
Contrast away, Barack. The hero of Doug Kmiec is showing his true priorities. But . . . Kmiec has books to sell! Obama could perform an abortion himself and Kmiec wouldn’t change his mind at this point.
3 possibilities:
1) Obama is lying
2) Obama is telling the truth
3) Obama is incredibly misinformed
Since Obama employs dozens of people whose only job is to know all about McCain’s positions, and has spent millions of dollars airing these ads, #3 seems unlikely.
If Obama is intentionaly lying on this matter, it seems he is morally unqualified for the office of President.
If Obama is telling the truth about this matter, it seems rather obvious that McCain is more qualified than Obama to serve as President. Certain VM posters may feel that they can drink the Obama kool-aid if they claim, “the President has no impact on abortions.”
Apparently the major candidates for President disagree. Obama is pro-infanticide.
Wow. Now Obama’s campaigning to promote Roe. This is going to backfire, I think, because now McCain has to talk about an issue that he is very uncomfortable with. Now is the time for McCain to bring into relief his own position as well as Obama’s extremism.
Tizzidale:
I think the way it works is:
Of course Obama “wants to move us beyond the 35 years of acrimony that have done next to nothing to reduce the unwanted pregnancies that give rise to abortions,” as Kmiec told Peter Steinfels in the NY Times. But his hands are tied as long as McCain stoops to such Rovian tactics as choosing a pro-life running mate.
Barack “Babykilla” Obama
BA – Have we not agreed that these sorts of comments are unacceptable?
I’m inclined to agree with Policraticus that Obama is making a mistake running this ad. Perhaps he thinks that, with the whole Born Alive issue floating out there any chance he has of appearing a moderate on the issue is gone and so he might as well go on the offensive. Or it may just be an example of poor judgment on his part.
Have we not agreed that these sorts of comments are unacceptable?
Did we? I don’t recall.
For the future, let’s all try to refer to candidates by their given names and/or titles.
Okiedokie artachokie…
As only a recent commenter on this blog, I’m not sure why you’d label those sorts of comments unacceptable, but your blog, your arbitrarily authoritarian rules, I ‘spose… *shrug*
This is just strategy – the counter to another comment about why McCain hasn’t been broaching the abortion topic this early in the cycle: it’ll lose steam. Obama raises the issue far out so that the rhetoric becomes blunted by the time November rolls around.
At the same time, Obama seems to be betting that most Americans, while disagreeing personally with abortion, don’t feel it should be limited. Which may have all sorts of commentary about apathy in America, but also may not be a bad bet. He’s also trying to pull “feminists” away from Palin with the choice of a nurse practitioner saying things like, “our right to choose”.
Politics as usual – nothing new here.
-Mike J.
For the future, let’s all try to refer to candidates by their given names and/or titles.
I’m not opposed to calling candidates names. I am against calling them names that are blatant lies. Obama is not a “Babykilla.”
In May, Gallup reported that 28% of Americans think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, 54% think it should be legal under only some circumstances, and 17% think it should be illegal under all circumstances.
It also reported that 13% felt that a candidate must share their views on abortion, 49% see abortion as “just one of many important factors,” and 37% don’t see it as a major issue. Self-identified “pro-choice” come in at 11%, 49%, and 39%, respectively; “pro-life” people come in at 15%, 53%, and 31%.
If the majority of Americans don’t agree with Obama’s position on abortion, and if those who are on his side of the pro-life divide are more likely than those who are not to not see abortion as a major issue, then I’m not sure abortion is a winning issue for him.
Obama is not a “Babykilla.”
Are you proposing a distinction Catholic morality would recognize between favoring late-term abortion and favoring infanticide?
To echo what LCB said, I think the pro-life, pro-Obama have to answer this question:
1.) Is Obama correct, and a McCain presidency would be effective in bringing about changes to aborton policy?
2.) Is Obama incorrect, and McCain would be ineffective in bringing about restrictions on abortion?
I don’t see how either possibility could lead to pro-lifers supporting Obama. He has not explicitly associated his campaign with the current state on abortion.
Obama is not a “Babykilla”.
If there’s a law on the table which would prevent letting newborns intentionally die of exposure (i.e. “killing babies”) and if you’re the one who knowingly and effectively kills that legislation, I think you bear some of the responsibility for those babies being killed.
Stalin didn’t run around the Ukraine slapping food out of the mouths of farmers and their families, but we still hold him accountable for the 10,000,000 deaths in the Ukraine because he set the policy which starved them, knowing what would result.
If the “Babykilla” label fits, we must not acquit.
This post illustrates the fact that abortion really isn’t that big of an issue outside of certain Catholic and evangelical circles. This is illustrated by the fact that being pro-abortion is seen as a rational and sensible position, whereas being pro-life is viewed as being radical and dangerous. If this were not the case, then Obama’s opposition to the “Born Alive Infants Act” would be receiving more attention. For most voters, abortion is not an issue at all, because they are more interested in issues that directly affect them (e.g., the economy, oil prices, health care).
The pro-life movement has always been plagued by the fact that it has a difficulty making adherents who aren’t white theologically conservative Christians. When Roe v. Wade first came down, the only group that complained was the Catholic Church. Accordingly, the media portrayed the nausent pro-life movement as the Catholic Church rallying against a legitimate decision by the Supreme Court. Evangelical Protestants didn’t get involved in the pro-life movement until the mid-1980s. Before then, opposition to abortion was just seen as one of those wacky things that Catholics do, like believing in Marian dogmas or transubstantiation. If you go on the Southern Baptist Convention site and take a look at their resolutions from the 1970s about abortion, you’ll see that they were fully supportive of Roe v. Wade for a very long time.
One of the biggest problems of the pro-life movement is that is has not made many inroads into minority communities, even though these are the very people than Planned Parenthood and their ilk target. More attempts also need to be made to attract Jews and secularists into the movement. I think many people reject the pro-life argument because they associate it with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson – that is, as a “Religious Right” issue. In reality, it is a human rights issue and should be framed as such.
Are you proposing a distinction Catholic morality would recognize between favoring late-term abortion and favoring infanticide?
Tom,
I think according to Catholic teaching, abortion and infanticide would fall into the same moral category. For that matter, so would disposing of unwanted frozen embryos by turning them over for stem-cell research. If that constitutes “baby killing,” then McCain, too, is a baby killer, although perhaps on a different scale.
However, because two actions are morally equivalent, it does not mean they are the same thing. Assassinating a president and lynching a black man are both murder, but you wouldn’t call the lynchers assassins, and you wouldn’t accuse the assassin of lynching.
Almost anybody but a pro-choice fanatic would use “baby killer” to mean the illegal act of killing an infant, requiring that the infant had been born alive and would otherwise live if the act hadn’t taken place. I think the pro-choice movement has a number of reasons for using language like “baby killer” and “infanticide,” and I think one of those reasons is that if you accuse somone like Obama of being pro-abortion, it doesn’t get ordinary citizens riled up. But if you say “baby killer,” you evoke the image of a sweet little baby, perhaps being pushed in a stroller, being hacked to death by a maniac.
It’s basically a lie, dependent on using words in a way people don’t normally use them, and twisting facts to boot.
1.) Is Obama correct, and a McCain presidency would be effective in bringing about changes to aborton policy?
2.) Is Obama incorrect, and McCain would be ineffective in bringing about restrictions on abortion?
I don’t see how either possibility could lead to pro-lifers supporting Obama. He has not explicitly associated his campaign with the current state on abortion.
Full disclosure: I am not an Obama supporter. That said, option 1 or 2 are unknowns. On those grounds, one cannot be sure that McCain will be effective or not on pro-life initiatives. It does not seem that McCain wants us to know, which compounds the difficulty. Thus, I do not think one can base the legitimacy of voting for Obama on whether or not John McCain will be effective. Rather, one either must evaluate Obama as a free-standing candidate (i.e., not in relation to anyone else) or must evaluate Obama in terms of his pro-choice agenda and the hope without certainty that McCain will work hard for the pro-life cause.
I think most people are intelligent enough to understand how referring to someone as “babykilla” would not be conducive to public debate. It is vulgar. By the way, most vulgarities are true. That doesn’t make them acceptable public discource. Having had to explain that, I really have to question the value of allowing you to continue to comment here.
I, for one, appreciate this ad from Obama. He lets us know undeniably what he stands for.
“To the hard of hearing, you shout.” – Flannery O’ Connor (an inarguably vulgar writer, who did, somehow, in spite of all that, manage to add to the public discourse).
Vulgarity has a place in public discourse (Jesus spat). It is, as you say, sometimes the only way to get people to stop and notice the truth in front of them. You can’t ban people you disagree with because you don’t like the particular means with which they choose to express themselves and then profess to hold to some standards of intellectual honesty or fairness. You might as well not allow comments at all at that point… or better yet, allow people to choose from a drop-box of four or five pre-scripted “rah-rah” comments.
How can an ad that says McCain will outlaw abortion (a core part of the Catholic position) be “negative”? Why the need of the McCain camp to respond? This is the same depressing dynamic for Catholic voters we have seen for years now. Democrats seek electoral advantage by warning voters that the GOP will make abortion illegal since their candidates campaign as pro-life. The GOP seeks electoral advantage by responding that this is “misleading,” and that everybody understands that while they may campaign as pro-life they have no intention of actually changing the widespread legal availability of abortion on demand. This availability was, is, and will continue to be left in place by both parties.
DC
If McCain replies by saying the ad is misleading (and btw, I think it is), you are right, it indicates he isn’t for changing the laws on abortion. Perhaps the ad is intended to draw that out of McCain? I don’t know. But as it is, it is misleading (and trying to scare an active, but wrong, group which supports Obama) by the Obama-team. And if someone could bring about a situation where abortion would indeed be stopped, for real — then that would indeed be a good thing. But McCain is not that man, nor does he look to be that man.
David:
Are you proposing a moral distinction Catholic morality would recognize between hacking to death a baby in a stroller and hacking to death a baby in a womb?
I’ll agree that “babykilla” likely obscures more than it illumnates — I think Obama would be quite fine with there being no abortions; he’s just not willing to do anything to prevent them.
And Jesus may have spat, but I don’t recall him reducing people to what He considered the worst aspects of them — indeed, a big part of His message is that we are more than our sin.
JohnMcG
Actually, Obama more than once has said he wants to find ways to make it so there will be less abortion. So he does want to do things to prevent them. Are they the right things? Some, no (contraceptives, for example). Some, yes (helping to provide support and care for families who have such children; amazingly enough, Sarah Palin apparently cut back such funding in Alaska!).
Anything may have been too strong. “Make difficult choices” would have probably been more accurate.
Do you think Obama’s support for such policies is caused by or even depending on them lowering abortion? Or did the campagin tack “reduce the abortion rate” on to the list of reasons for policies they would support anyway?
As for the Palin distraction, reading about it, it appears that Palin cut funding for an umbrealla for a mix of programs, one of which was a home for teenage mothers. I don’t think calling that “cutting such funding” is much more truthful than calling Obama a “babykillah.”
JohnMcG she used a line-item veto which cut aid to troubled youths; that again, is quite speific and cuts the aid from the kind of youth which indeed need the aid more, so they won’t 1) get pregnant or 2) have abortions if do. It really was specific to a particular program which is specifically important in curbing abortion.
http://covenanthouseak.org/passagehouse.htm That is what she cut funds to.
As to Obama, I seem to remember one interview where he does say he would like to make abortion rare, and it is clear, he isn’t someone who thinks it is a good idea just to be used lightly. He does think the legal issues, as they are setup in the US, can’t be ignored, but he also thinks, and rightfully, that the causes for abortion are what need to be addressed. Those causes are exactly the kind of thing which Palin has already helped increase.
Neither are good on this issue. But you know, I think our society specifically divides the issues this way to make sure abortion will never be anything but a political card.
“Palin has already helped increase”
Wha? Because she reduced the funding for a general purpose house from $5MM to $3.9MM ?
It’s probably also worth noting that what Palin cut was a one-time funding request for facility expansion. not cutting their normal operations funds.
And this can be used lumped into a, “neither are good on this issue” moral equivalence with strongly and unquequivocally supporting Roe v. Wade, and believing that Roe v. Wade precludes asserting that babies who survive abortions are persons without some special language? That’s more than not ignoring the legal issues. So is running ads attacking McCain as anti-abortion (the subject of this thread, if you remember).
John
Notice, there is an increase in need. That is why there is the need for a facility expansion. If there is not enough room for all who could come needing shelter, guess what happens? It’s not nice.
Fine.
Could it be in the realm of Gov. Palin’s prudential judgment that $3.9 million is sufficient state aid for this expansion rather than the $5 million requested?
And can you admit that labelling this as cutting funding for pregnant teens obscures more than it illumniates?
Amazingly enough, Sarah Palin apparently cut back such funding in Alaska
What you’re doing here is a political trick. One side asked for a $5 million dollar increase (compared to the usual $1.2 million in funding). But your enemy agreed to a mere $3.9 million dollar increase (which, in itself, more than tripled the previous level of government funding). Because your enemy merely tripled government funding rather than quadrupled it, accuse her of “cutting back funding”! Sheesh.
Ads like the one above are part of what puzzles me about Catholics like Katerina or MM. It is clear that Obama will advance numerous arguments in the public square to the effect that abortion is a right to be protected, and paint individuals such as Catholics that oppose that position as extremists.
Furthermore he will enthusiastically support legislation such as the Freedom of Choice Act, which would likely increase the number of abortions, that he is does not mind lying about his abortion record and smearing the National Right to Life Committee,
To the extent this has any impact on the advancement of Catholic Social Teaching, it seems to me that it would be seriously detrimental. Obama is committed to painting faithful Catholics as dangerous extremists, just as Biden and any number of Democratic senators will be happy to do on the judiciary committee. How does one reconcile the obvious anti-Catholicism of these politicians with support for them? I may not be able to vote for McCain/Palin, but I know with certainty I could never vote for Obama. Much of his party’s leaderssip is firmly dedicated to the idea that the only good Catholic is one that is not faithful to the Church on the matter of abortion (and generally on other matters as well). How does supporting such people advance Catholic Social Teaching?
Note, when referring to Biden, I used the phrase ‘faithful Catholics’. Biden naturally does not have any problem with Catholics that are not narrow-minded enough to insist that the Church’s position on abortion could have any relevance to the public square.
Are you proposing a moral distinction Catholic morality would recognize between hacking to death a baby in a stroller and hacking to death a baby in a womb?
Tom,
No, my point is that two things are not necessarily the same even if there is no moral distinction between them. Let me put it this way. You may not see a moral distinction between hacking to death a baby in the womb (in the course of an abortion) and hacking to death a baby in a stroller. But if the lack of moral distinction means they are the same thing, and you can call killing inside the womb “baby killing,” then what is the argument against hacking a baby to death in a stroller and calling it abortion? If you can honestly make a case for calling it abortion, then you have legalized it, since abortion is legal and infanticide is not.
Abortion and infanticide may be morally equivalent in the eyes of the Church, but the Church does make a factual distinction between them. A woman who aborts a baby is automatically excommunicated. But I have never heard it said that a woman who commits infanticide is excommunicated. She is a murderer, yes, but she has not procured an abortion. Even the Church sees abortion and infanticide as two different acts, no matter how strongly they insist that both are the wrongful taking of innocent life.
Here’s a criticism from Brendan Nyhan, who (as far as I know) is “pro-choice”:
Civics 101 time: The president can’t make abortion illegal. If John McCain appointed new conservative Supreme Court justices (who must be confirmed by the Democratic Senate), it is possible that the Court could decide to overturn Roe v. Wade. In that case, the issue would be returned to the states, who would each create their own abortion policies through the legislative process. The odds of McCain successfully passing a constitutional amendment to create a national ban on abortion are zero — there is simply no way he “will make abortion illegal.”
This is broadly correct. The president is largely powerless on the abortion issue. Sure, there are some decisions that would effect abortion incidence and the margin, but there are also the accompanying social and economic policies that have an impact. Obama here is simply scare-mongering.
MM,
Is this acceptable? Particuarly on this issue?
Is this a new kind of politics? Change we can believe in?
David:
You are not making the proper distinctions.
As a moral category, abortion is the intentional destruction of human life in the womb. Baby killing is the killing of a baby.
A baby doesn’t become a baby at birth. Physically, morally, sociologically, a baby is a baby well before birth (arguably from the moment of biological conception, but that’s beside the point at issue).
It is possible to kill a baby while it is still in its mother’s womb. It is also possible to kill a baby after it is born. Therefore, some (again, arguably all, but not to be argued here) forms of abortion are baby killing, but not all forms of baby killing are abortion.
From the perspective of Catholic morality, it is as much — or, if you prefer, no more — a lie to call Obama a “babykilla” if he supports post-partum infanticide than if he supports late term abortion.
Tom,
Very well argued, except it all rests on the claim that what is in the womb can, under the circumstances, be called a baby. No doubt there are many times when we quite naturally refer to an unborn child as a baby (“she felt the baby kick,” and so on). But I think to the vast majority of English speakers, if you said, “That woman had her baby killed,” or “That woman’s doctor killed her baby,” or “He was arrested for killing babies,” the understanding would be infanticide — killing an infant sometime after it was born — not abortion.
Saying “baby killer” is, I think, an attempt to make someone who may be hearing about a first-trimester abortion think in terms of a cute little newborn.
And while you may be speaking in terms of Catholic morality, the abortion issue as Obama is engaged in it is about American law, not about Catholic morality, and the law makes a major distinction between late-term abortion and post-partum infanticide, including when the born infant is viable and born as the result of an abortion. Obama certainly does defend abortion, including late-term abortion, but he does not defend killing infants that have been born alive in any manner. (I hope we don’t have to go through that argument again, though.) Interestingly, Obama has expressed personal views that if somehow enacted into law would drastically cut the number of late-term abortions, but that is rarely mentioned. One would think the pro-life movement would seize on that position, hold him to it, and try to get him to expand on it.
David,
I tried to do that. I thought that’s what Kmiec and other were doing as well.
As the event that launched this thread indicates, he has chosen to go a different way.
This should finally make up MM’s mind on this election.
BARACK OBAMA SAYS THAT JOHN MCCAIN WILL MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL IN THE U.S.
This alone will drop the number of abortions beyond anything that Obama’s socialist policies could. MM’s argument is shot to heck, by the words of Obama.
David:
Yes, the argument rests on the fact that a baby in the womb is called a baby. Resting an argument on a fact is not controversial.
And yes, I am speaking in terms of Catholic morality. I am Catholic. This is a Catholic blog. My question was initially directed to Michael Iafrate, who is Catholic.
To call an abortionist who performs a late-term abortion a “baby killer” is to name him what he is. I can’t make you call him a baby killer, of course, but that doesn’t change what he is.
Sounds like that ad is marching orders to pro-lifers regarding who to vote for.
This is basically the best description of what abortion is about. Ever.
My question was initially directed to Michael Iafrate, who is Catholic.
I’m not sure what your question has to do with my comments above. Care to rephrase, be a little more direct, etc.
Michael:
I was trying to figure out why you consider it a “blatant lie[]” to nickname someone who formally cooperates with late-term abortion “Babykilla.”
Policratus,
Now Obama’s campaigning to promote Roe. This is going to backfire, I think, because now McCain has to talk about an issue that he is very uncomfortable with.
I wonder if the strategy of the [Senator] Barry Obama camp is to confront this issue now and wear the public out on it, so that, by November, no one wants to hear about abortion any longer. At this point in time, McCain’s *proposed* opposition to abortion is the strong point of his campaign. I could be wrong, but I think it would be better for the McCain camp to let Bloody Barry’s team continue the ads without reply. Then just before the election, bring it up again. Don’t know, just some thoughts.
MM- I am confused. Yes a president cant make abortion illegal outright, but he or she can legally limit abortion. Instances such as no abortions on militarty bases, partial birth abortion ban, the mexico policy, the infancts born alive act, ESCR bans. All of these limit abortion and Obama wants to allow all of them. McCain, although is a fan of ESCR is against teh other outrages against human life. How would allowing partial birth abortion or federally funded abortions limit abortions?