Obama’s born-alive problem might become his kryptonite
Abortion is back with, dare we say it, biblical vengeance.
Republicans recently have been focused on Barack Obama’s opposition several years ago to “born alive” legislation in Illinois that mirrored similar federal legislation aimed at granting personhood to a fetus/baby that was alive after removal from its mother’s body, either by abortion or premature birth.
In the past few weeks, Obama has been accused of everything from favoring infanticide to lying about his vote, to inventing a cover-up, to being a baby-killing extremist.
Politics is no place for the squeamish.
What is more likely true is that Obama is studiously cautious, too smart by half, and ambivalent to a fault. Suddenly, the man whose campaign seemed helium-propelled is being pulled back down to Earth by the force of his own vagueness. Abortion, of all things, has become his kryptonite.
The long history of the Illinois born-alive bill is, well, long. Sixteen versions of the legislation came and went during the period under scrutiny and finally passed after Obama left for Washington. That history is also complicated and not as straightforward as is being advanced by Obama’s and abortion’s common foes.
It is probably fair to say that Obama does not favor infanticide, though his position on the Illinois bill was extreme even by pro-choice standards. But Obama’s current problem isn’t really about his position on abortion. It is about his central weakness as a presidential candidate: He overthinks and ends up seeming not to know what he thinks.
He can’t seem to give a straight answer.
To briefly recap: Obama’s initial opposition to the born-alive legislation was a concern that such a law would undermine Roe v. Wade. Based on his comments at the time, he apparently reasoned that granting personhood to an aborted fetus, albeit one with a heartbeat, was a subterfuge tactic aimed at granting personhood to a fetus.
Not without cause did he reach that conclusion. Most observers of the abortion debate understand that the legislation was fueled in part by hopes that personhood eventually might find its way back inside the birth canal. This might have been a tactic, but so it goes.
It has always seemed to me perfectly appropriate that we find terminating human life troublesome. Although settled as the law of the land, abortion at any point should be an unsettling proposition. The fact that abortion refuses to recuse itself from present politics merely confirms that many Americans are not ready to be gods.
Obama, perhaps, excluded. When asked to explain his position as a state legislator, Obama said he would have voted for the law had it included a neutrality clause—similar to one added to the federal law—affirming that the bill would not impact Roe v. Wade.
But the Illinois legislation in final form did include such a neutrality clause, prompting charges that Obama deliberately lied. Or did he merely misremember, as often happens in politics?
What did Obama mean and when did he mean it?
Alas, the more he tries to explain his position, the more muddled the picture becomes and the more confused voters are. The most revealing answer might have come when pastor Rick Warren asked the Illinois senator when a baby gets human rights.
“Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.”
Well, uh, not really.
Yes, Warren’s question was complicated, especially if you’re a politician afraid of saying the wrong thing. But the answer is really pretty simple. It’s whatever one thinks. It is not above anyone’s pay grade to be honest.
Instead, Obama punted.
Americans are accustomed to differing views on abortion and will tolerate a flip-flop now and then. But a politician who finesses or fudges out of an instinct to please will be viewed as either spineless or insecure or both—none of which inspires confidence.
The result of such exquisite ambivalence isn’t a higher level of discourse, but a lower level of trust, as recent surveys reflect. A new Reuters/Zogby poll shows McCain running five points ahead of Obama nationwide. Other polls show McCain pulling even.
Obama’s born-alive problem ultimately could prove fatal to the man who thought too hard and lost his sense.
Kathleen Parker is a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Her e-mail address is kparker@kparker.com.
Aug 29, 2008 at 9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Macain isn't President Bush not even close. It's a noble effort by the liberals to attach Macain to President Bush but that doesn't seem to be working since the polls I have seen are even. Obama should be up by double digits with all the media attention he demands.
Aug 27, 2008 at 7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why do people who "try" to defend Obama always use Bush's name...very weak.
Aug 25, 2008 at 8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obama couldn't answer when a baby has rights. Sick very very sick
Aug 23, 2008 at 4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
hatch: Not QUITE true...McCain overall voted 95% of the time with the Bush administration since they took (elections certainly questionable at best) the White House BUT according to the most recent stats, in the past year that increased as he voted with the Bush agenda 99% of the time...
Aug 23, 2008 at 3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
pablo writes..."at least we know who McCain is". McCain is to busy swift boating Obama to put out anything about himself or his issues. Must be nice to make over $250k per year pablo......because I can not see any reason why ANY rash minded middle income person would vote for a republican who supported Bush and his crime family 95% of the time and a republican who is surrounded himself with far right wing neo-cons who want nothing more then to see the total destruction of such said middle class. A reprblican who supports tax cuts for big oil and tax cuts for buisnesses who have shipped 3 million American jobs overseas. Besides this....I know verry little else about Grampee McSame
Aug 23, 2008 at 3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
firefighter2000:
It is becoming more obvious every day that being president is above obimbos pay grade.
Aug 23, 2008 at 3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
"above my pay grade." Is he serious? Is this going to be his excuse when he can't handle something as president?!
Aug 23, 2008 at 2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
that's just sick to even think about. Obama has low morals
Aug 22, 2008 at 8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just how does one define moral ambiguity? Moral ambiguity is just another name for rationalization. Isn’t it true that those who find ambiguity in morality usually have an incentive to look for it? I am certain that those who are willing to accept the destruction of an innocent unborn life as a moral ambiguity would deny any such ambiguity exists if someone were considering the destruction of their life. They would heartily accept the proposition of moral absolutism if it were the value of their lives in question. That’s the trouble with moral ambiguity, those who accept it demand the right to invoke it at their discretion, but they, like everyone else, do not favor it being imposed on them. They invariably seek to appeal to an independent moral authority. How and to who do the unborn appeal when the only one who has legal authority to decide its fate may have an interest in its destruction?
Aug 22, 2008 at 6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Better a candidate/politican with "exquisite ambivalence" than someone so absolutly sure, so confident that ONLY he has a lock-hold on "truth", and someone who can't understand there are a myriad moral ambiguities in every individuals life. Abortion is an issue that is NEVER black-and-white. It does NOT belong amid the domain of politicians nor legislators. It belongs solely between a woman, her health providers, and her OWN faith. There is nothing in life - or faith - that is absolute no matter how badly so many would like it to be. Those same self-rightous people have no right, no proprietary ownership of "truth" and morality, nor the ability to judge anyone else's life circumstances. As the mother of 3 who remembers when contraceptives and abortion were illegal in the U.S., I have lobbied, worked, and organized to keep the reproductive choices of ALL women safe and legal. I hope others with common sense - including Democratic candidates - will do likewise.
Aug 22, 2008 at 5:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
HE 'WORKED' AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN CHICAGO.
HE HAS NEVER HELD A PRODUCTIVE JOB OR RECEIVED A PAY CHECK
THAT WAS NOT GOVERNMENT-FUNDED AND/OR TAXPAYER SUPPORTED.
THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS POSITION, NOR IS IT
SUBJECT TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SET ASIDES; ON-THE-JOB TRAINING WON'T CUT IT.
HE ENTERED POLITICS AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THEN THE
NATIONAL LEVEL WHERE HE HAS MINIMAL EXPERIENCE (143 days in the senate).
HE IS PROUD OF HIS 'AFRICAN HERITAGE' (A FATHER
WHO GOT A WHITE GIRL PREGNANT AND DESERTED HER).
Aug 22, 2008 at 5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
As more and more comes out about Obama, people will start reconsidering him with their vote. I know I did when I started examining what he really is about. At least we know who McCain is and what he stands for. Obama changes his story based on which audience he's talking too at the time.
Aug 22, 2008 at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
dkush21...everyone is entitled to their opinion....right? My opinion is that most women who chose to have an abortion do not do it with a light heart. MOST WOMEN. It is in their opinion to have an abortion. I would hope people do not choose our next or any future president by how fascist or RELIGIOUS they are. But I guess it is their opinion to vote for the RICH WHITE B-TARDS WHO DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HOMES THEY OWN OR THAT PEOPLE MAKING UNDER 5 MILLION ARE MIDDLE INCOME. Funny that the Gazette hasn't reported on McSames gaffes.
Aug 22, 2008 at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
The problem with this issue, is that if your Democrat, you have to be liberal on the subject. I think that this kind of mentality is totally wrong. Why can't you be a Democrat and express your true feelings on the subject of abortion. I am a Democrat, but I am against the issue of abortion rights. No one has the right to kill another human being. And don't try to make it right by saying that the fetus does not have human characteristics yet.
That BS does not fly with me. It's just another tactic to make something that is totally wrong ok to do.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.