Still think that all of network television and many newspapers and magazines aren't in the sack for Obama? After all, they've made his agenda their agenda. Last night Mort Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of US News and World Report and publisher of The New York Daily News, admitted during an interviews at Fox News that he helped write one of Obama's campaign speeches.
So which is worse that an "independent journalist" (I use quotes there because Zuckerman can no longer be viewed as a legitimate journalist) is writing speeches for a presidential candidate or that a presidential candidate is recruiting the assistance of the press (which is supposed to be biased) to help him campaign?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is why Obama has even gotten as far as he has. The man has people in every segment of business, politics and religion that have pushed and manipulated others to support the guy.
ReplyDeletePersonally, his stance on partial birth abortion and also euthanizing the children who survive the procedure is all I need to know about the man.
Considering that one stance, I am shocked that any "Christian" voted for him.
This is off-topic and I'd like to not get into the abortion discussion right now. I know there are some who might read this who are very sensitive to this topic. So don't read on if you'd like to not hear details about Obama's votes in the Illinois state legislature.
ReplyDeleteNow, now Ammon let's get the facts straight. Obama didn't vote FOR euthanizing infants who survive abortion procedures. He voted AGAINST the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (which would have granted the right of an infant to emergency medical care if born alive following an attempted abortion) while a state senator in Illinois. Actually he voted against that legislation in Illinois THREE different times.
In 2001 he was the ONLY state senator to stand in the Statehouse and voice opposition to the bill! His reason for voting against the bill was essentially that you can't recognize a "pre-viable" fetus as a human being who deserves equal protection under the law because then you would have to consider making abortion illegal. So basically he's going so far in his support of keeping abortion legal that he's willing to prevent medical care for those babies "accidentally" born alive. Shocking.
A federal Born Alive bill WAS passed by the US congress and signed by Pres. Bush in 2002. I should mention that the federal law was supported unanimously by the Senate. Obama says he would have voted for the federal law too (easy to say since you weren't there) and that he would have voted for the state law if the wording would have matched that of the federal law. How inconvenient for his case that it actually DID match the federal law.
I never said that he "voted" for euthanizing. I infered that he was in favor of letting infants die in a garbage can in the abortion clinic, rather than treating the child (who is ALIVE) as a human being. A SHOCKING and HEINOUS and barbaric practice.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as far as I am concerned, a vote against a Born Alive bill (in ANY form), is a vote for euthanizing children (or just letting them bleed to death).
I will NEVER vote for anyone who believes in any such practice!
Now, I'm about as disgusted as anyone with the pro-abortion stance Obama has. However, with that said, there are still good reasons for a "Christian" to have voted for Obama, Ammon.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the option "McCain" wasn't much better. McCain is a big gambler, and supporter of gamble, has left his wife for a young(er) (and richer) chick, and took pride in that fact!!! And his now-wife is a big beer industry lady. Ya know...I don't know that this is the dramatically better choice for Christian. On top of that, just voting for a candidate on one single issue that probably won't change no matter how people vote (unfortunately) seems very unwise to me!
I also cringe a little when I hear people talk about how a Christian can vote for so-and-so as if your Christianity is wrapped up entirely in one issue. I (foolishly) used to be a one-issue voter and abortion was the one issue. I've come past that phase of my life and now rarely look at abortion anymore only because I know that 95% of democrats are pro-abortion while 95% of republicans are pro-life. So I go into the voting booth with an understanding that if I vote democrat I'll be voting for a guy who most likely supports abortion rights. What you end up getting is a bunch of republicans who (although crappy in many other areas) get elected solely on their pro-life stance. This kind of mind-set brought us the progressive George Bush. He manipulated the Christian voting bloc very well by emphasizing his pro-life and anti-gay marriage opinions. All the while this guy acted like a modern liberal in his out-of-control spending and expansion of federal government.
ReplyDeleteSo I don't think it's fair to say that a true Christian should have voted for McCain rather than Obama. In fact, I'm far, far, far, far more concerned about Obama's progressive (again, that's the early 1900s term for an American fascist) tendencies than I am his record on abortion.
It's ironic that big-government types like progressives fight so hard for the individual right to abortion. I think the progressive position on abortion has little to do with supporting INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (although that's what they claim). I think it has more to do with the progressive (ie - fascist) view of human life, that it can and ought to be manipulated by the government to reach a utopian end. And that only the government can manufacture the ideal social system. It's messed-up thinking in my mind and it is in stark contrast to revealed truth.
All good Christians should stop supporting the two-party system. There are two parties, each playing their own role in pursuit of a single goal. Real Christians would build boats and take to the seas in search of a promised land. But there is no promised land anymore. There is no where else to go. This is probably what the Native Americans felt like.
ReplyDeleteHey, I agree with you Troy AND your brother. Wow. I didn't see that coming. :)
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that it's problematic to vote for someone based on a single issue. While I really wished that simply voting for someone who is against abortion will change the abortion situation at hand, it doesn't seem to be the case. So, I personally think it's best to vote for a candidate you agree with on most issues, or a candidate whose views on issues that can be changed/influenced you agree with. I think in the end it matters more what real damage someone can do than the views they have on a certain things that probably won't change, no matter what.
I also agree with John that the two-party system seems to be kind of failing (if that's what he meant). I actually just thought about that today, and thought how unfortunate it is that we seem to be trapped in kind of an 'either/or' situation, when lots of people really probably are somewhere in the middle (or neither in the middle nor left or right). It really feels like we need a third party (that has actually a chance).
I'm not sure a third party solves anything. You would still be electing PEOPLE to office even if under the name of a middle-of-the-road party. And we're learning that when PEOPLE go to Washington, DC they end up going to bat for almost everybody EXCEPT the citizens of the country. What needs to happen is a change in the character of the people that run for office. Money and lobbyists need to become less important in the legislating process. A third party doesn't solve that issue. Term-limits. Term-limits, I'm telling you would go a long way I think in solving that problem. That and a good old fashioned return honor by the politicians in this country. Calling yourself a member of the "moderate" party doesn't make you moderate just like George Bush taught us that calling yourself a Republican doesn't make you a conservative. Nope, third party doesn't do anything.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, here is something, though not 100 percent related to your topic, that may be interesting to you.
ReplyDeletehttp://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
Very interesting. Thanks Fran. It's nice to have a well-designed scientific study to justify my general belief that most media outlets lean to the left (although not as dramatically in certain cases like NPR as conservative voices would like to claim). But the news that the LA times and New York times are very left-leaning does not surprise me in the least. It's also nice to hear that Drudge Report (which I check everday) is one of the most centrist media outlets out there.
ReplyDeleteI used to check in on a Yahoo group called LDS-Left. They were a strange mix of leftist Mormons. One day, they decided to design an official logo. The logo was an image of the Salt Lake Temple leaning to the left. The problem was, though, that the temple was, although leaning to the viewer's left, was actually leaning to its own right, thus totally contradicting the intended meaning of the logo. I, and others, pointed this out to them, with great relish, but they were convinced that although, yes, the temple was actually leaning right, rather than left, they were going to go ahead with it anyway. Probably because they were so excited just to get a real logo, that they didn't want to waste anymore time to fix it. Kind of like the way I was when I was a kid and was planning on going to the store to buy a cool Star Wars action figure and when I got there, all that was left on the shelves were the figurines of the minor, boring, secondary characters. But being so excited just to get a Star Wars figure, I wasted my measly allowance on one anyway. Do you know that feeling?
ReplyDeleteI do know that feeling. Oh, that's one of childhood's worst feelings. The feeling of being so anxious and determined to get something that you'll take whatever is available. I think that's what is wrong with Pelosi and Reid; they are so doggone giddy about passing legislation that they don't give a rip what it's about or what it actually does. They just want to throw a 2000 page bill in front of the public and say 'look what we did!!!'
ReplyDeleteHere is my response to all your wonderful ideas surrounding compromises in a candidate is the following question.
ReplyDelete"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"
The Church doesn't teach about health-care or national defense or unemployment. But they DO teach against abortion. That is my rational. Because I have to be able to answer that question honestly every other year.
Ammon, I think this is a pretty weak argument (or logic). I've actually talked with bishops about this very question. And I don't think you're interpreting it correctly, or you wouldn't be able to talk with anyone who isn't keeping or totally supporting the commandments of God. I wouldn't be able to go to the temple, because I affiliate with and support (with my love and prayers) a family member who's homosexual, etc.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think that's what it means though! I think it rather speaks to actively and willingly supporting something we know to be wrong. Like saying we're against abortion, but then being actively involved in a pro-choice group or something. If it refers to not having anything at all to do with someone who doesn't see eye to eye on everything pertaining to the gospel...well, I don't think any member could vote for anyone then.
Sorry, I totally disagree with you, and I also disagree with the suggestion that someone who doesn't apply that rationale (and therefore maybe votes for a person supporting abortion) is answering that temple interview question dishonestly. I mean...who did you vote for? McCain, who supports drinking, and gambling? I feel pretty sure the Church has taught against those things. And if you didn't vote for McCain, I'm sure I could find something about the candidate you voted for that's against our beliefs.
Fran
I understand your rationale, but I think you're dead wrong on this.
I do not understand your comment about "not being able to 'talk' with anyone." That has NOTHING to do with the temple question at all.
ReplyDeleteTalking with people is COMPLETELY different than supporting them in something that is contradicting to the gospel. How would missionary work be done if we could not talk with people.
There is no problem in supporting people in general. EVERYONE has issues and sin.
But I believe that when we are voting for a potential candidate, who has the POTENTIAL TO CHANGE LAWS and push through agendas for ideas that are contrary to the Gospel we must look at the support of that individual differently. A pro gay or pro abortion politician is certainly going to pursue the repeal-ment of law that limits the rights or usage of citizens in that regard. And we have seen that happen. In fact, by supporting such a politician we are making what he does possible. Without support he can do NOTHING.
Now, about your family member who is homosexual. I too have had that challenge. I had an aunt who decided that she was homosexual after 16 years of marriage. She tore our whole family apart when she divorced my uncle and dragged their two young daughters through several homes with different women. Did I still love her? You bet. But she did know that I didn't approve of her actions. I believe that is the difference.
Basically, I believe the distinction is that when we support a candidate for office (NOT JUST ANY REGULAR PERSON) who we can arguably assume will push through legislation that will fundamentally change the laws in this country contrary to the gospel then we have supported an "individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
The wording of the question leaves little to no squirming room. It is concise. And, each individual must choose for themselves how they will follow it. What other people choose has nothing to do with me. They will have to answer for their choices in the next life.
But I will not compromise my beliefs even if it is not popular, or will not "make a difference." Not even to get something that I think is “more valuable” in a candidate.
Sorry, I stand by my comment that with your reasoning, no member could in good conscience vote for anyone, not to mention members who live outside the US, possibly in less religious countries, where certain 'non-gospel' views are a given.
ReplyDeleteNow, don't get me wrong. I DO think it's important to vote for people who resemble our personal values and beliefs as closely as possible. But, you can make a case for that in almost any direction. Obama may support homosexuality and abortion. Ok. We don't believe in that. I'm sure tons of members therefore voted for McCain. McCain supports gambling and alcohol consumption. We don't believe in that either. So, who made the right choice? Those who voted for McCain? Those who voted for Obama? Those who simply chose to not vote at all (despite the Church counseling us to go vote!). Those who found some candidate who can't make a difference?
In a world of evil, sometimes, in terms of politics, you have to vote for the person you think will do the best and will do the best in the areas where he/she CAN do something.
So, I think to sit down and suggest that anyone who potentially votes for a candidate who supports something that isn't in accordance with gospel principles, cannot answer that one temple interview question honestly. Well, I just really disagree with that. Maybe I'm still not understanding what you're really trying to say here, but it just sounds to me like you think that a member cannot vote for someone who supports abortion and honestly still be temple worthy. And that's just a bunch of crock to me. I could only agree with such a concept if someone voted for a candidate BECAUSE he supports abortion (or gambling, or prostitution, or drinking, or gay marriage, or...).
I could also keep running with your idea and suggest then that any time you buy a product or use services from a company that also produce or are involved in practices in opposition to the church you're actively supporting someone who's in opposition to gospel principles.
Ok. Enough. I could go on and on. I think you get my point. I hope.
Sometimes we must vote for the lesser of two evils. That is a given.
ReplyDeleteBut, your comparison of Homosexuality and Abortion vs. Gambling and Drinking is a terribly weak one.
Can a person really compare those things and rationalize that they are the same? Abortion and Homosexuality are both condemned in the Bible. However, gambling and drinking are not.
Gambling and Drinking are two commandments that apply only to members of our church. WE DO NOT, as a church, hold nonmembers to our standards. So as far as I am concerned, my neighbors can drink and play poker and not thereby sinned. We are judged by our knowledge. They have not been given that standard.
When they learn the Gospel and commit to it then those commandments take root and become a new standard for them.
Basically, your comparison of drinking and gambling to legal Murder and homosexuality is SILLY!
You stated that you think voting for someone who supports abortion is wrong because of a temple interview question that demands that you not support/affiliate with anyone who is in opposition to gospel principles.
ReplyDeleteSuddenly you're switching the whole thing around, and saying that others are not held accountable for stuff they don't believe in (like Mormon scripture). So...I agree. But what does that have to do with anything when a MEMBER of the church is voting? Because we should expect any Christian politician to be opposed to homosexuality and abortion (since it's in the bible?) Is that what you're after? You know there are basically zero scriptures on abortion in the bible, right? And, there are plenty of Christian churches who don't believe in gambling...
Also, I don't think comparing abortions, homosexuality, drinking and gambling is silly at all. All of these things destroy lives. All of these things can keep you out of the kingdom. Heavenly Father said he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, and I don't recall anything anywhere in any scripture that says one sin is better than another. But, apparently to you there is...And maybe that's what the issue really is...Maybe this has nothing to do with temple interview questions after all.
Anyone who has read President Spencer W. Kimball's book the Miracle of Forgiveness knows that there are varying Degrees of sin. Most talks in Conference by our leaders use terms like sin and grievous sin to emphasize the difference.
ReplyDeleteOne sin IS NOT like another. The Lord himself hinted at this when he taught that there is an unforgivable sin. The fact that some sins require confession to God, while others require confession to appropriate authority, and sometimes a period of dis-fellowship, imply that there are varying degrees of sin and repentance.
The fact that there are three degrees of glory that have degrees within themselves imply that there are varying degrees of righteousness and sin.
I believe that your quote about not looking upon sin with any degree of allowance was out of context.
That scripture is illustrating the point that ANY sin creates spiritual death (separation from God). Even one. Thus we need a savior after our first foible. However, we know that some sins can permanently stop our progression in the Kingdom. And some require more intensity of repentance.
Based on your analysis it would be the same if I told a white lie, or killed a man, or robbed people. It would never work.
Oh, and a scripture in the Bible about Abortion: this isn't exactly abortion although this method has been used in history by people to abort babies they didn’t want, so it applies--Exodus 21:22-25
"There are said to be more shades of green than of any other color, so also we are of the opinion there are more grades or degrees of sin..."
ReplyDelete-President Joseph F. Smith
Ok, let's simplify this discussion (for me) since I have no interest in debating gospel doctrines.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that a Church member who votes for a political candidate who supports things such as abortion or homosexuality, or whatever else you deem a grievious sin (worse than other sins) should not be able to honestly say 'no' to the temple question that asks whether you support any or affiliate with any groups, individuals etc. whose teachings or practices are in contradiction with the teachings of the Church?
This is a yes or no question. Really. It's that simple. If you feel they can't, then that's your right to think, and I then would think that you're wrong and that you can't defend that position (and you haven't done so up to this point. Instead you've switched the discussion from one thing to the next).
If your answer is no, then I apologize for having misunderstood you all along.
Wow, I go off to Montana for a week and things really heat up around here. I can see both sides. I understand Ammon's train of thought but I tend to agree with Fran's interpretation of that temple recommend question. I just don't think that Ammon's interpretation is how LDS bishop's look at that question. Here is the church's official position on abortion:
ReplyDeleteAny church member who submits to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for elective abortions may lose their membership in the Church.
I don't think voting for Obama or 99% of Democrats classifies you as someone who encourages, or pays for abortions.
As a side note Fran, you are fond of saying that McCain "supports gambling and alcohol consumption." What does that mean? I guess for the gambling part it means that he has supported gambling in the past. But what do you mean specifically when you say that McCain supports alcohol consumption? Obama drinks so doesn't he also support that? Please clarify. Obama also smokes so you could say that he supports tobacco smoking. I just don't understand what your meaning is.
Oh, and just so you don't feel too bad Ammon. I agree completely. There are varying degrees of sin. That's absolutely correct.
Yup, you can't step away from the computer, Troy.
ReplyDeleteAlright, so let me clarify a few things:
1. McCain and 'his support of drinking'. I do not mean him drinking beer, but what I am referring to is definitely a bit of a stretch. His wife has inherited tons of money from her father, who's a big guy in the beer industry (producing, selling). Even though the McCains keep their finances separate overall, some of these moneys have gone into his campaigns etc. So, there...a stretch, really. I know. But I just used it as something to make my case that you can probably find something about any candidate that isn't quite in accordance with gospel principles.
2. I do think as well that sins have varying degrees of seriousness. Simply because some sins have far more serious and far reaching impacts and consequences and ability to limit our agency. Clearly, a white lie causes relatively little damage and loss of agency, while abortion causes huge damage as well as loss of agency. BUT! And here is my big but, whether a sin is 'small' or 'big' doesn't change ANYTHING at all about the fact that unless we repent and come unto God...we're equally unworthy of the celestial kingdom. I think on judgement day it doesn't matter who 'only told white lies' and 'who had abortions' but who has made and kept covenants and repented. I don't think my scripture that "God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance" is out of place at all. God CANNOT look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. He's said about a gazillion times that 'no unclean things can live in the presence of God' and that we've all fallen short of the glory of God. I think the scriptures are pretty clear that anything, small or big, has made us unworthy to live with Heavenly Father, and therefore we ALL need the Savior (no matter how big or small our sins). And the path to exaltation is the same for anyone. When we've truly repented (regardless of how hard the process was), the end result is the same. And, for those who choose not to repent and come unto Christ, I don't think it'll matter in regards to exaltation whether their sins were 'little' ones. It's an in-or-out kind of thing. We can't 'basically' or 'technically' make it to the celestial kingdom. And I don't think it matters if we 'almost made it'. And, I think in that sense all sins are equal. They all make us equally unworthy to live with God. They all can keep us out of his presence unless we repent. But luckily, the atonement is available to all who so choose, and anyone can choose to repent. Someone who had an abortion as well as someone with a white lie. The process may be different to become clean again, but either one can.
3. The other thing that bothers me about the 'small' and 'big' sin separation is that we think we have it figured out. But do we??? I mean, abortion seems like one of the worst sins, but what about pride? It's often mentioned as one of the worst sins of people. Not forgiving others has clearly been stated by Heavenly Father as being worse than whatever the person we didn't forgive did. But you never hear members list those things. Instead we sit in church, all smug, talking about the 'evil world' because we're so much better because we don't drink, or smoke, or have abortions. Not that I want to minimize that...but ya know, to whom much is given, much is asked of (or however that goes in English). I think there is a reason that God will judge the salvational status of people. I don't think we need or ought to try. Of course, in politics our hands are forced a little and we have to try and assess the goodness and character of a person in order to cast the best possible vote, but...because we can't properly judge, I think we just do the best we can. And no one needs to assess how those efforts will affect someone's worthiness except for those who are authorized to assess worthiness.
ReplyDelete4. The Miracle of Forgiveness, though excellent and full of truth, is not Church doctrine. Just wanted to say that.
Ok. I really don't want to discuss gospel principles or anything. I just wanted to be clear on what I meant in saying that one sin isn't better than another. And really, I still think no sin is better than another. They're all bad in my book. Just some have far more serious consequences than others. ;)
Fran, why so hostile? This is supposed to be a friendly political blog. We are all friends here...
ReplyDeleteOK, you want a simple answer? I think that you have oversimplified the whole issue with the way you stated your question to me, but here you go.
It is an individual's decision how they interpret that question. I for one would never condemn a person for taking your view on it (although you seem to publicly condemn my view).
I choose to interpret it the way that you have no doubt been able to gather. But that is my personal view for myself. I do not expect anyone to agree with my personal views because in this life we have been granted agency. I wouldn't even try to encourage my wife to vote based on my political beliefs. I think that is wrong.
However, I do think that it is sad that such a HUGE issue is rationalized away under the pretext of "the greater good." Partial Birth abortion is HORRIFIC. I for one will never vote for a candidate that supports it unless they all support it. Then I would choose the lesser of the two evils.
I think its a tragedy that we have come to a time when fiscal policy and other issues seem to be more important than the ethical ones. But once again, that is just my feeling on the matter.
No hostility Ammon...just frustration. However, even though you didn't quite answer my question, you did answer what I was wondering about. I have zero problems with you voting based on how you interpret that single temple interview question. I think that's perfectly fine, and if you think that's what you ought to do, then go for it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I took issue with was your indirect suggestions that OTHERS, who don't do as you do, are in violation of that temple interview questions (as in, they should not in good conscience be able to say 'no' to that question).
And that's where I take major, major issue. But, from your last post, I'd assume that's not what you really tried to communicate, so we're all good. As long as you don't try to take it upon yourself to decide who's temple worthy based on how they vote,...it's all good. But, to me it smelled of that. And that would really bother me!
So, to be clear - there are some things worse than others, but I just seriously dislike it when people sit down and suggest that maybe they are better than someone else because they did/didn't do a certain thing (or voted/not voted for a certain person). It just seems very self-righteous to me, and that's also what I seemed to gather from your posts. That's not say that that's what you meant, but just how it came across. And that also really frustrated me.
That is all. I apologize for any misunderstandings. That's the down-side of written communication.
Fran, if you knew me better, you would know that I am the last person to point blame on others. I absolutely believe in the laws of agency. People must be able to choose for themselves.
ReplyDeleteWho am I to tell anyone what to do?
I do however feel very strongly about my views. I am not ashamed of them and will willingly share them regardless of what others think.
Sometimes other people's views just tend to shock me. Particularly when it is on hot issues. I think that we all react like that sometimes.
The thing that bothers me the most about the abortion issue is how popularity has dramatically changed the way people perceive it as an ethical or moral decision. Most people that I know today do not see it as a moral issue at all (outside the church).
If you look at Abortion and how it was viewed fifty years ago we see a HUGE gap in how it was perceived politically compared to today. GREAT MARKETING has sold this sinful crap to the masses.
"It's not murder, it is choice"
It's disgusting!
OK. Chew on this one. The LDS churches official stance on when the spirit enters the body, "life" by LDS doctrine is?..... we don't know exactly. One of the major reasons that the LDS church allows, in some cases, abortion on grounds of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother is because there is not a revealed answer as to exactly when life begins before actual birth.
ReplyDeleteNow, during the campaign, Obama and McCain went to that pastor guy of whatever megachurch for interviews, in which he asked each man his belief on when life began. McCain- at conception. Obama- that answer is above my paygrade. Which answer more closely resembles official LDS doctrine? I know what you are going to say, that Obama is all for abortion, but I want you to think about their statements.
Obama directly addressed his voting record, and repeatedly argued that he voted against any bill limiting abortion that he understood to not include provisions for the health of the mother.
By the way, I do think abortion is too prevalent in our society.
Actually, most of his time in the state legislature, Obama did NOT vote against bills limiting abortion. He voted present. An important difference. In Audacity of Hope he discusses why he couldn't support these bills but he doesn't mention that he didn't vote "no". Apparently he wasn't passionate enough in his opposition to be counted as a "no" vote. He wanted to provide political cover for himself which I understand these guys do from time to time but in Obama's case I'm not sure it was necessary quite as often as he did it. He could have voted "no" and explained his reasoning. It's not unusual for America to elect a pro-choice president so I don't know in the end if he would have lost a whole lot of votes by voting "no" instead of "present." But he knows more about it than I do and he apparently thought it was politically expedient to not have a very deep voting record on certain issues.
ReplyDeleteOh, and at least one of the bills that he failed to support actually did provide for abortions in the case of protecting the health of the mother. So that exception does not always work as a way to explain his voting record. It was HB0382 in case you feel the need to read the language of the bill yourself. It was a partial birth abortion ban. He voted present. I've never understood why a partial birth abortion would be required to protect a mom's health. Couldn't less barbaric methods be used? I mean, is there ever a medical NECESSITY for performing a partial birth abortion? What is the real opposition to banning this procedure?
I find the whole "present" thing unimportant personally. I wish I could vote "uncertain" sometimes on laws that I was not comfortable supporting, but wasn't opposed to, so I end up voting, "no." Maybe that way they would have to clean it up and send it back to voters...if only.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Obama could be categorized as anything else but at least mildly pro-choice. He certainly leans more that way than pro-life in my opinion. I don't know the details on particular votes on particular bills. I did follow the subject during the election, and listened to both men's opinions and justifications.
I would not be surprised if Obama assumed there weren't protections, or they were insufficient, even if they were. One of the problems with current bills is the constant changing an ridiculous size of bills (both federal and state level). Hence, I don't think most are completely read, and certainly not every iteration of them. I expect no politician to have read every bill he votes on due to the current state of our legislative process. It is broken and needs fixed, but is the natural end game of trying to rule by law instead of men. To try and make sure that judges do not have too much wiggle room to subvert the intent of laws, they are cumbered down by language that tries to cover every eventuality...and allow some sneaky loopholes for the interest groups that helped write them. We would have to trust our judiciary more, but most upper level judges are appointees, and given the frustration with conservatives over the ruling in the Prop 8 case, and the frustration of the liberals with the current Roberts SCOTUS I don't see that happening either.