Response to the TimesOnline article linked above.
This is why it's so tricky to maneuver through this political landscape.
I had read this article today and this distortion made me wince:
Politician Obama's support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions. No one in the Senate - not the arch feminist Hillary Clinton nor the superliberal Edward Kennedy - opposed this same humane measure.
The problem here is that Obama's position as "extreme" is based on faulty evidence.
Factcheck (non-partisan) notes this:
In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "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." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.
(In this current climate, factcheck and politifact are my enclaves, there's very few others I will trust)
Anyway, in the article, Baker was referring to Obama's turn around in speaking of a common ground in his speech vs. his votes on the bills as inhumane "extremism."
Factcheck notes that Obama could have covered up/lied/misrepresented his position (it's all very complicated in the legalese), which is a totally legitimate criticism (although everyone misrepresents, it's a matter of if this is a big deal to one, I rush to add); we can speculate forever on his reasons, it makes no logical sense. Also, if a person's belief is strongly pro-life, well, that's what it is. These are deadenders.
However, the accusation of "extreme," which the article solidly puts forth as evidence of the disjunction between Obama the politician and Obama the speech-giver is distorted. It is another matter and one that can be looked at with respect to evidence. Going by factcheck (whose legitimacy I trust more than Baker's), Obama's position does not seem to be any more extreme than any mainstream pro-choice (that is Clinton herself was more entrenched in the pro-choice camp actually and called Obama on it). In fact,
this article (also incorrect in the bill according to Factcheck and published before its analysis) notes:
First, Senator Clinton accused him of lacking political backbone in voting "present" on a bill that, according to abortion rights advocates, undermined the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.
Now, what gets me is how easily faulty perceptions of character spread (what kind of person votes for infanticide?!). Because, in this case, one thing is to call anyone's views as "pro-choice" and another to call them "extreme," without solid evidence (unless all pro-choice are extreme, which is another deadender). In any case, I do not think it's a fair accusation based on the facts present.
alcyone (therapy, therapy, therapy)
