Jill Stanek at the Emily’s List gala at the Democratic National Convention is hearing silence about choice. Apparently there’s a little issue called IL BAIPA that they don’t want to deal with – if the American people knew the truth about this issue when it come to Barack – they might make a different choice.
*James Carville – who coined the phrase for Bill Clinton.
Right now Obama’s campaign is in full spin about this issue. Here’s a simple way to understand where he’s coming from:
Jill Stanek addresses Obama’s Born Alive facts.
I think Obama is right – as far as his conclusions are concerned. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act does strike at a woman’s choice because it removes an available abortion technique.
During the Partial Birth Abortion Ban SCOTUS hearings Planned Parenthood’s own attorney argued that later term D&E techniques pose a substantial risk to women, and that delivery of the fetus would mitigate that risk.
What Obama was defending was using birth as an abortion technique. That really was his focus – without a thought about the cruelty inflicted both on the mother, the premature person being born or the role of birth in our society.
He, as well as other pro-choice advocates can play semantic games all they want. They still can’t get away from the fact:
Using birth as a means of abortion is abhorrent.
Has Obama finally admitted he’s been lying about Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act (SB1082)?
If the news is true, then the most obvious question that needs to be posed is the title of this post.
How will protections granted to the born undermine Roe?
Or maybe put another way:
How will killing newborns protect abortion rights?
If the abortion issue is of deep moral concern, then he should show how deeply moral he is now.
All of those subject to be born want to know.