'Narrative' Of Presidential Candidates On Abortion Issues Changing, Washington Post Reports

Main Category: Abortion
Article Date: 21 Aug 2008 - 5:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

The "narrative" of presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) on abortion appeared to have been set with Obama as the abortion-rights supporter and McCain as the abortion-rights opponent, but those impressions have been "altered" since Saturday's forum moderated by influential evangelical minister Rick Warren at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., the Washington Post reports.

Although Obama has been accused by some antiabortion groups of being an "abortion-rights extremist," he also has caused concern among some supporters of abortion rights by saying that defining when life begins is above his "pay grade" (Weisman, Washington Post, 8/20). A Wall Street Journal analysis by Steven Waldman, president and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.com, said that Obama's approach to the abortion debate -- to support abortion rights but call for policies that aim to reduce the need for abortions in part through improved adoption regulations -- is "new, and likely to be viewed with suspicion by both sides." Although Obama "now has an innovative policy approach on abortion," the question is "whether he will have the political courage to really sell it," Waldman writes (Waldman, Wall Street Journal, 8/19).

Similarly, while McCain has reiterated his opposition to abortion rights, his recent comment that he would consider an abortion-rights supporter as a running mate has called into question his commitment to opposing abortion rights, the Post reports (Washington Post, 8/20). In an interview with The Weekly Standard last week, McCain, who opposes abortion rights, said, "I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party," adding, "And I also feel that ... Americans want us to work together. You know, [former Pennsylvania Gov.] Tom Ridge (R) is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out" as a running mate. McCain also said that although opposition to abortion rights is a "fundamental tenet" of the Republican Party, "that does not mean we exclude people from our party who are pro-choice" (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/15).

Radio commentator Rush Limbaugh said that if McCain "picks a pro-choice running mate, it's not going to be pretty," adding that McCain would be "effectively destroy[ing] the Republican Party and push[ing] the conservative movement to the bleachers." However, other conservatives said that McCain has a proven record of supporting the Republican Party platform against abortion rights and likely would not choose such a running mate, the New York Times reports (Bumiller, New York Times, 8/20).

The Journal reports that although McCain has supported some positions that differ from the current Republican Party platform -- including expansion of federally funded human embryonic stem cell research and his statement of support for rape, incest and life-of-the-pregnant-woman exceptions to an abortion ban -- his positions are unlikely to cause a fight over the platform at the party's convention. According to the Journal, McCain has taken a "hands-off" approach to the development of the draft platform to be presented to delegates at the convention next month (Kronholz/Farnam, Wall Street Journal, 8/20).

Antiabortion Groups Criticize Obama for Votes in Illinois Legislature

Obama has come under "intense fire" in recent days from antiabortion groups because of his 2003 position on a bill in the Illinois Legislature called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which called for medical care for infants that survive an abortion, the New York Times reports (Rohter, New York Times, 8/20). Obama, who was at the time a state senator and chair of the Health and Human Services Committee, said he opposed the measure and other similar restrictions because of technical language that might have interfered with abortion rights and because Illinois law already required medical care in such situations.

Nevertheless, abortion-rights opponents have said that Obama's position amounts to "an endorsement of killing babies" and that he has lied about it, the AP/Long Island Newsday reports (Wills, AP/Long Island Newsday, 8/19). During an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network Saturday following the forum at Saddleback Church, Obama said that the controversy surrounding his vote on the Illinois bill is a "situation where folks are lying" (Washington Post, 8/20). Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor said statements insinuating that Obama supports infanticide are "distortions and lies," adding, "The suggestion that Obama -- the proud father of two little girls -- and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting" (AP/Long Island Newsday, 8/19).

Obama repeatedly has said he would have been willing to vote for legislation identical to a federal so-called "born alive" law that was signed by President Bush in 2002. Obama on Saturday said the federal statute "was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade."

According to the Times, both the federal law and the 2003 Illinois bill say that "the words 'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual' shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development," regardless of whether the birth "occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, caesarean section or induced abortion." However, the Times reports that the Illinois proposal always had a companion bill, called the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have allowed legal action "on the child's behalf for damages, including costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney's fees, against a hospital, health care facility or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth."

Some abortion-rights groups say that the bill would have allowed for legal action against physicians who failed to take "extraordinary" measures to save the lives of previable fetuses, and that it is "disingenuous" of antiabortion organizations to claim that Obama "was moving to quash only a narrow and innocuous definitional bill identical to federal law." Pam Sutherland of Planned Parenthood of Illinois said, "I can tell you the sponsors always wanted the entire package of bills, which were introduced together and analyzed together," adding, "They never wanted them separated, because they wanted to make sure that physicians would be chilled into not performing abortions for fear of going to jail" (Rohter, New York Times, 8/20).

According to the Chicago Tribune, the 2003 measure could have affected the way courts interpret a 1975 Illinois law that protects infants who might survive an attempted abortion. When Illinois lawmakers in 2005 inserted an extra provision asserting that the law would not affect "existing federal or state law regarding abortion," the measure passed without objection. Obama was no longer serving in the state Legislature in 2005 (Manier, Chicago Tribune, 8/20).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations