I get that people are so passionate about their pro-life stance that they can actually exclude candidates as viable leaders solely for believing in a woman’s right to choose. I get it. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. They see fetuses as fully living, soul-filled beings who are helpless and are, sometimes, dealt a hasty and premature end with the aid of medical intervention.
What I don’t get is how many people in that camp can lose complete touch with reality in the process.
Mrs. Blue hangs out on some parenting boards online. Recently, she came across a doozy of a post in a thread that was celebrating Obama’s historic presidential win. A devout Catholic woman comes in, pretty much out of the blue, and pissed on everyone’s joy with a comment that went something like “I am sooooo glad that now I can kill a baby in my womb whenever I want to.”
In case you missed the sarcasm, she wasn’t really glad. (I wish I had the original text, because what Mrs. Blue read to me was amazingly dumbfounding, but the whole thread got pulled before she could do a copy-paste for me.)
I’m sorry, did abortions stop happening during eight years of Dubya? He’s pro-life. Do abortions go through the roof when a pro-choice leader is in power? I mean, it’s not like Obama is coming in to say, “Hey, one free abortion for every woman now!” It’s not as if he’s going to have a platform saying “abortion is good.” It’s not like he’s going to be requiring women to get them. And, again, what were the Republicans doing to stem the tide? Oh, yeah, promoting abstinence-only sex education in schools so that fewer teens will learn about birth control options and end up pregnant and maybe wanting abortions.
But I digress.
Because you see, the angry Catholic woman didn’t stop there. When a moderator called her out and mentioned how she was fanning the flames of misinformation like FOX News does so well, and noted that this is the kind of lying, inflammatory talk that can get a black president-elect assassinated before he even takes the oath of office, the woman came back with something like this:
“I can’t believe anyone could support a candidate who is in favor of letting women kill their babies at 40 weeks.”
If you’re paying attention and know anything about pregnancy and math, you can pick your jaws up off the floor now. Yes, she actually said that. She was, clearly, referring to Obama’s opposition to a bill in the Illinois legislature that would have required medical care for babies born alive after a form of late-term abortion called “induced labor abortions” or “partial birth abortions.” (for more on the hubbub, and why it really is just a smear against Obama, go here. The man isn’t for infanticide or suffering babies…Illinois law already requires medical care for those babies.)
But back to crazy woman. You cannot abort a child at 40 weeks. Normally, a woman delivers somewhere between 37 weeks and 40 weeks. If you induce labor at 40 weeks, or anything close to it, you are not carrying out an abortion. You are inducing labor. And as long as there are no complications, a completely live and viable baby will be the result.
But hey, why bother with facts when you can do fearmongering instead, and suggest that our next president wants to slay babies as soon as they come of the womb?
(With luck, assuming that no more idiots come to my attention with reckless Obama-hating, I will now stop yammering about political crap related to the presidential election for at least a week or two.)
Update
Of course, it should be noted that the breakdown in the Fight the Smears link above is biased, as the site is actually a Web site of the Obama campaign. It’s still giving some pretty credible arguments, but in all fairness, here are some other sites that have some things to say about Obama’s stand on that legislation, both pro and con:
Moving at the Speed of Creativity
By the way, in case you don’t want to click through the link in my post or it becomes broken later for some reason, here is what Fight the Smears had to say about the claim that Obama is in favor of infanticide:
—————————————
Reckless accusations of infanticide
Some people just don’t care who they hurt to advance their political agenda.
Accusing a loving father of two beautiful little girls of wanting to kill babies isn’t just wrong on the facts, it’s the most disgusting and manipulative kind of hate politics around. But anti-abortion ideologues with a long history of partisan attacks are still launching unconscionable ads smearing Barack Obama.
The attackers torture and twist logic and history by willfully misinterpreting votes by Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate to come up with their wild accusation.
Here’s the truth about Barack Obama and the bill:
At the time Barack voted against a bill containing language designed to protect infants who were “born alive,” such protection was already on the books as Illinois state law.[1]
The accusations against Barack are so reckless that not even the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill will support them. In fact, he freely admits that “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.”[2]
The bill was opposed by many legislators and groups like the Illinois Medical Society because of the unintended impact it would have had on other laws and legal precedents in Illinois.[3]
Barack is on the record[3] saying that he would have supported a similar bill that came up in Congress — but that didn’t pose a threat to a woman’s right to choose the way the Illinois bill did.[4]
1. FACT
Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]
2. FACT
Republican Bill Sponsor Said “None Of Those Who Voted Against SB-1082 Favored Infanticide.” Rick Winkel, a Republican former state senator who sponsored the “Born Alive” bill, wrote in a Letter to the Editor, “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.” [Chicago Tribune, Winkel LTE, 9/5/08]
3. FACT
The Illinois State Medical Society Opposed The Bill Because It Interfered With The Physician-Patient Relationship And Greatly Expanded Civil Liability For Physicians. “The Illinois State Medical Society, which also fought the legislation and was cited by Mr. Obama on Saturday in his defense of his position, said in a statement that it opposed the package of bills, first introduced in 2001, “because they interfered negatively with the physician-patient relationship, attempted to dictate the practice of medicine for neonatal care and greatly expanded civil liability for physicians.” [New York Times, 8/19/08] Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]
4. FACT
The 2003 Bill Had The Same Wording As The Federal Measure But Would “Have Had A Different Effect At The State Level…By Undermining Illinois’ Legal Precedents On Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “Supporters of abortion rights say Obama was right to oppose the 2003 bill, even though it had the same wording as the federal measure. The wording could have had a different effect at the state level, they say, by undermining Illinois’ legal precedents on abortion. Once more, the key is the 1975 Illinois abortion law, which contains language that’s similar but not identical to the later bill. The 2003 bill could have affected the way courts interpret the 1975 law, which Planned Parenthood and the Illinois State Medical Society contended could have far-reaching implications.” [Chicago Tribune, 8/20/08]