New Ad Campaign Exposes Obama's Abortion Views

By Jennifer Riley|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

A series of TV and radio ads began to hit airwaves this week in key battleground states to counter recent claims by a pro-Obama Christian group that the Illinois senator is the most pro-life candidate out of the two major presidential contenders.

View Full Image
(Photo: AP/Jae C. Hong)
Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks at the Seagate Convention Centre in Toledo, Ohio, Monday, Oct. 13, 2008.
View Full Image
(Photo: AP Images / Hector Mata)
Waiters work under a television screen showing Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama speaking during the first presidential debate, at a restaurant in Los Angeles, Friday, Sept 26, 2008.

Family Research Council Action PAC announced Tuesday that it was launching an initial $100,000 TV and radio ad campaign to “educate voters” on Sen. Barack Obama’s promise to make the “radical” Freedom of Choice Act his top priority as president.

“The ‘Freedom of Choice Act’ will overturn virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion,” the conservative public policy and advocacy group warned.

FOCA would make partial-birth abortion legal again, repeal all parental notice laws on abortion, and provide unlimited tax funding of abortion, said FRC Action PAC president Tony Perkins.

"Senator Barack Obama has done his best to hide his radical views from voters. Four times as an Illinois legislator, he voted against laws that would have ensured equal medical care for babies that survive an abortion attempt,” he added.

“Last year, when he addressed Planned Parenthood he declared that his 'first act' as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into law. This ad campaign will spotlight Senator Obama's radical pledge to Planned Parenthood.”

The FRC ad campaign is in response to the recent Matthew 25 website called www.prolifeproobama.com that claims Obama, who has a 100 percent pro-choice Senate voting record, is more pro-life than McCain, who has a 100 percent pro-life Senate voting record.

Matthew 25, a group of pastors and Christians who endorse Obama, argues that the Illinois senator’s economic and health care plans as well as his proposed programs would do more to reduce abortions in America than the policies supported by his Republican rival.

“After 35 years, a new approach is needed,” writes Douglas W. Kmiec, the site’s spokesman. “Too many unborn lives are being lost as we wait for judges to get it right."

“Barack Obama's strengthening of support for prenatal care, health care, maternity leave, and adoption will make the difference," maintains the former professor and dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America.

But in stark contrast, the opposing FRC ads state, "Barack Obama: dangerous values."

"What would you do as president? Fix the economy, end the war, restore our schools?" the ad says in the beginning. The ad then shows Obama stating that the first thing he'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

"Really? Obama's top priority as president will be a law to reinstate partial-birth abortion?" the ad continues.

It further quotes Obama as saying, "On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."

Initial ads will run this week in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Michigan, with additional television commercials airing in the Washington, D.C. area.

Radio ads will target Christian radio stations that earlier this year carried the Matthew 25 campaign.

Obama and McCain face off for the third and final presidential debate Wednesday night. McCain currently trails Obama by 8 percent in national polls.

Next Story : Becoming Like Jesus

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

anewdayisrising »

Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:51 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Im against abortion because God is; why?

No child is a mistake before birth or inside the womb. We as followers of Christ need to back our opinions with facts. These facts are in the Bible. Abortion is against Gods will! Read Jeremiah 1:5, psalms 139.

It is evident that even before we are born, we are sawn together in our mothers womb. We are perfectly made to do our calling as Christians which is better explained in Jeremiah 1.

The main thing is the most powerful gift given when we are born. Love. Its not the mother of a new-born that makes her child attracted to her, its love between them two. "God is Love". Its the shortest scripture in the Bible but the most powerful.

Taking this gift from a "prophet" is by far the most cruel thing you can do and anyone who supports this act of selfishness, is just as cruel. This is not a judgement but a stated fact. Also. anyone who supports this cruelty is clearly not following Christ and following His walk.

Its clear that it is Gods will that a child be born. When Adam and Eve ate the apple they opened our ability of choice here on earth. Anyone would have done it. Following this act, we as believers or non-believers have the ability to choice between good and evil. Abortion is evil and this cruelty will for sure be judged on Jesus return.

You can call yourself a christian all the days of your life but a true Christian is a believer in faith not ignorance. Christians have God as their footstool not morality or common understanding. God tells Christians that our believe in Him will shine so that all will see so that no label should have to be placed.

Are you shining or following your understandings? God tells us not to "lean on our own understandings"
seedplanter »

Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:34 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

So, is that it ifeelfine? You simply attempt to shrug off my second argument without justifiable reason, without even touching the other ones?

1. You made formed the Genesis Fallacy.
2. You made a categorical error.
3. You have not made the case that somebody who does in fact commit such horrific crimes as molesting, dismembering, cannibalizing and all to a mother of three - should not justifiably be served with capital punishment.
4. The above being said, how that Catholics being one of the front-runners in the pro-life movement who are also against capital punishment are simply irrelevant.
5. Do you believe that God has rightful claims to distribute justice, including the ultimate capital punishment?

Once you answer each of these responses and in addition satisfy everyone's curiosity as to how you personally have the authority to hold "pro-lifers" accountable to your standards, then and only then can you rightfully continue your accusations.
stanjz »

Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:40 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

I respect people who fight to show that all life is precious. The biggest problem is that the Republican Party is in no way shape or form a reflection of Christian values. The leaders of the party have done nothing on abortion, they never do. It's about money with them. It's always about money. That's idol worship and it causes more separation from God than killing does.
believer »

Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:55 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine, a man like you who will stand for nothing will fall for anything as you're view on this issue clearly shows. You are unwilling to take a stand on issues that are clearly spelled out in the Bible so in turn you ridicule those of us who do. If you choose to define pro-life that way knock yourself out and we'll continue to define pro-life our way and we'll continue to stand for that view as well.
ifeelfine72 »

Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:43 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

seedplanter: you couldn't be more wrong. There is no categorical error. You're placing your value on human life. Are people on death row alive or not? Obviously they are. Well, what is their value then?
believer »

Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:55 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine, so what is your point since no where in the Bible are we called to be called pro-lifers? But please do explain how my response to your challenge could be used to support abortion?
seedplanter »

Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:49 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine, you are implementing what is traditionally called the Genesis Fallacy. For example: If a paranoid schizophrenic said that there is a secret society that is infiltrating the American government - if it is true it makes no difference who said it, why he said it or how crazy he is.

The difference is whether or not it is true.

You are also making a categorical error. You are confusing the sanctity of life, which specifically targets innocent little helpless babies and the ethical ramifications of utilizing capitol punishment for criminals of humanity (i.e. someone who kidnaps, mutilates and murders an innocent child).

There really is no ambiguity here, try all you like. This is a classic postmodern tactic to discredit the opposition. Logic is not one of their strong points.

Furthermore, Catholics who have been a leader in the charge against abortion do not support the death penalty anyway. They are the ones who are refusing to give Biden and Gore communion.

But then again that wouldn't faze you...

...you probably don't even think that God has a right to execute justice since it is within him that we discover life is sacred.

Postmodern spirituality has more in common with atheism than New Testament Christianity.
ifeelfine72 »

Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:43 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

believer: Obviously you are not pro-life. If you were, you wouldn't be for the death penalty . . . I know those people are alive when they're killed.

Your arguement could be made for abortion too you know and its equally ridiculous there.
believer »

Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:30 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine, we are pro-life that's why many of us support the death penalty in order to hopefully keep others from blatantly taking the lives of innocent people.
wbmoore »

Mon Oct 20, 2008 9:45 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

ifeelfine72, do you follow the word of God in any area of your life?
ifeelfine72 »

Mon Oct 20, 2008 9:31 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 7

Many of you are not pro-life as you claim but just anti-abortion. Many of you support the death penalty. So if you do, stop claiming to be "pro-life" when in reality you're "pro-death."
seedplanter »

Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:16 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

If human life is intrisicly valuable, then it makes no difference whether that life is three months old or a hundred and three - it is worth protecting.

Obama wants to rewrite the US Constitution to overthrow all the state rights and laws which were implimented by tax paying citizens - forcing them into the slaughter of the innocent.

That's Obama!
That's the change that we can believe in!

Obama has already promised Planned Parenthood that this would be the first assignment accomplished on his desk. Forget about "we the people" it doesn't matter if the majority want to limit abortions - this is Obama city!
GMG »

Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:26 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

agent,

I think you might be mixing up ru-486 (which was the drug JC was refering to) and the plan B birth control product.

They do not contain the same ingredients. ru-486 is in fact an abortion "pill". plan B is called a birth control substance, but both plan B and birth contol pills can in fact abort a fertilized egg, through the hormone progesterone

>>>Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.<<<
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm

Hope this helps clear up any confusion.
wbmoore »

Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:17 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

huh. So are you saying that if our lifestyle might be adversely affected, its OK to kill? I'm not speaking of our lives themselves, but lifestyle.
agentorangex »

Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:59 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

JC,

"You have said that these eggs need to be protected, but not human fetesus, just because there are less of them?"

I am not advocating desctroing human fetuses here, I would draw a distinction between a small featus and a cluster of blastocyst cells. Again, the turtles are protected b/c they are endagered, which is directly linked to our lifestyle and how its affected them to be nearly extinct.

"Life should be preserved, at all cost."

Tell that to those who are openly pro-death penalty then. If all life is sacred, or at least important, then explain why people like Palin think it's ok to murder wolves from a helicopter.
agentorangex »

Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:53 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

JC,

"Keeping one from mixing with the other is not a sin."

And yet, this is basically what birth control efforts do, if they the regular birth control pill, condoms, or plan b, and yet, the catholic church and the majority of christians consider it wrong, if not a sin.
agentorangex »

Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:51 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

JC,

"Agent, this sure sounds like an abortion to me."

Um yeah, it is an aborition by the way it sounds, but unforntunatly for you the birh control pill and 'plan B' prevent the egg and sperm from ever meeting in the first place, thus there is nothing to abort in the first place.

If sperm and egg mix, a child is produced."

Generally, so long as it develops all the way.Though, 'Plan B' prevents the whole momment of conception as it prevents the 2 from meeting and joining to the wall of the uterus so at no point is it an embyro and thus can't be defined as being aborted.
believer »

Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:50 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

feet, so you want homosexuals to have the right to marry and your also in favor of forced abortions in China. So is your real reason for allowing homosexual marriages so we wouldn't have to worry about an over population problem, since left on their own without outside involvement homosexuals can not reproduce?
JC »

Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:52 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

To AgentOrangeX:

You said: "The distinction is obvious, the turtles eggs are being protected b/c, get this....they're ENDANGERED. Humans, not so much."

Beloved, listen to what you are saying. You have said that these eggs need to be protected, but not human fetesus, just because there are less of them?

That's absurd. Look, I have no problems with a law against species being allowed to become extinct, none at all. As Mr. Spock from Star Trek once said, "To hunt a species to extinction is not logical". I agree with that.

But when it becomes a federal crime to kill a Sea Turtle egg, and not a human fetus, this goes way beyond any normal form of sane rationale into the insane. It is self defeating and only death follows.

Beloved think about it for a second. As a proponent of abortion, you agree with their ideology that life begins at birth, not conception. If there is no life before birth, why is it a federal crime to kill an egg, since by that same logic, there is no life there?

Life should be preserved, at all cost. If this were not so, why did God put the maternal instincts into the child bearers? Those same child bearers who sometimes are dying on the hospital bed, but yet make the doctor swear that the child's life comes before her's. That maternal instinct. If we were just allowed to throw away children as we throw away garbage, why would these be placed into women, and indeed many, many species. Try to take bear cub from it's mother lately? Not very wise.
JC »

Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:24 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

To AgentOrangeX:

Linda Dean, executive director of the pro-life Women's Resource Center of Southern Nevada, said: "...women can actually pass a part of a fetus at home, when they're not in a clinic or directly under a doctor's care at that time. And psychologically, that can be very disturbing for women."

Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the pro-choice National Abortion Federation, said that women who take RU-486 receive counseling and know what to expect. "When they are prepared for it, most of them say it's like having a heavy period."

-----------

Agent, this sure sounds like an abortion to me.

If sperm and egg mix, a child is produced.

Keeping one from mixing with the other is not a sin. The Bible tells us to do this very thing, but through abstinence not drugs. But just because a sin was committed, or a pregnancy was not wanted, or whatever, killing the child is not the answer. That child has just as much right to life as anybody else. Life is a gift from God and how dare humans decide who gets to enjoy this gift and who does not.

To think that one can slaughter children and get away with it is just as dillusional as king Herod killing all the children to rid himself of Christ. These who do not repent shall share the same outcome.
agentorangex »

Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:07 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

JC,

I've yet to hear any logical reasoning on peoples opposition of the 'morning after pill'? Why should it be illegal, it doesn't result in abortion?

"Isn't it ironic that baby sea-turtles get afforded more protection than human fetuses?"

The distinction is obvious, the turtles eggs are being protected b/c, get this....they're ENDANGERED. Humans, not so much.
feetxxxl »

Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:37 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

im still trying to wrap my mind around the abortion issue.

china has invoked a one child policy which is regulated by abortion. the likelihood is that there are many women who have had multiple abortions. does this mean china would be better off with 500 million more people?

does the abortion issue include the morning after pill?

so pro life includes protecting something that is in the form of a parasite that can only be seen with a microscope without the consent of the host.

in actuality, is the whole abortion issue about having to deal with an imperfect contraceptive. if there was a perfect one would the issue be about the use of contracetives?
steveh20 »

Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:10 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

nohypocrites makes good points...
steveh20 »

Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:02 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul

A politicain (Republican, Democrat, Labour, Conservative)makes a statement and then later never claims to have said it.....I'm shocked!

Steve
nohypocrites »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:39 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

No hypocrites

Yes McCain does believe in marriage and life but, apparently not marriage for life to just one woman. And he sure is pro-life, except when it came time to confirm Justice Breyer who was openly pro-abortion and was the swing vote on Roe , then he was pro-choice and pro-reelection. Also neither candidate seems to be pro-life when it comes to the 100 million poor people around the world who will die of poverty this year while we have an obesity problem (where is their Bailout Package?) and, when Jesus was asked what it actually means to ââ‚¬Å“love you neighbor as yourselfââ‚¬Â he told the story of the Good Samaritan, a man who paid the medical bills of a stranger, but none of them seems very pro-life when it comes to health care, in fact they seem downright pro-choice (after all itââ‚¬â„¢s not the governmentââ‚¬â„¢s job) when it comes to the wounded strangers (right down to rape kits). Iââ‚¬â„¢m sure that matters to all of you because surely none of you are the sort of hypocrites that Jesus decried, who make long prayers in the marketplace and then throw widowââ‚¬â„¢s and orphans out in the street. Iââ‚¬â„¢m sure you are really pro-life like me and not REALLY just pro-Republican, (you tell half the truth to help a candidate and you answer for it on Judgment Day, according to Jesus)
believer »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:36 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

dp, I agree but at the same time I believe that people who are truly pro-life have already seen through his inconsistencies.
JC »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:50 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

The article: "Last year, when he addressed Planned Parenthood he declard taht his 'first act' as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into law."

Beloved, God gave us all freedom of choice, we don't need Government for this. However, with this freedom of choice came responsibilities that God outlined for us in His word. One of those responsibilities He gave to us was to make sane and rational decisions concerning life, not to expend it as one would unwanted garbage.

Isn't it ironic that a woman can choose to kill the child insider of her, but at the same time it is illegal for her to commit suicide? (Yes, she can harm "her body", but she can't harm her body).

Isn't it ironic that baby sea-turtles get afforded more protection than human fetuses? By the abortionist's logic, shouldn't the turtles in these eggs not be life yet? But yet, it's a federal crime to harm any of these eggs, and the newborn turtles.

The human infant is worth less than that of a sea turtle in their minds. How twisted is that.

I'm sure there are more species on the list of endangered species other than Sea Turtles. Too bad the human infant was never added, more of them have died than Sea Turtles.
believer »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:41 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

steveh20, I totally agree for people for whom abortion is an issue one way or the other I like you totally believe they have decided already who they will be voting for.
steveh20 »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

B I completly see where you are coming from, but we need to come back to the main thrust of this article which I believe is wrong, for the undecieded,abortion is not an issue.

With kind regards

Steve
Blacksho89 »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:03 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

steve: You are correct, but I told you where I make my stand: at the death of an innocent child, in the name of "choice". I am not alone in this stand, either.
steveh20 »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:55 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Problem is B thats your imaginary world and not whats on offer at the table. Everybodies vote is at best a compromise of principles at some point, be it abortion or economic policy that maybe causes povety at another place in the world. Whichever way you vote you will compromise yourself at some point, the question to ask yourself is my how much will you?
BW
Steve
Blacksho89 »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:21 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

To those of you who speak of "one issue voters", I have a question. What if your Presidential candidate had a plan to end the war in Iraq, improve the economy, provide universal health care, and send every student to college? What if she was for gay marriage and "choice"? What if she could open up the shuttered factories and give good paying jobs back to the American people? You'd elect her in a heartbeat, right?

There's just one tiny problem, though. She thinks that maybe Hitler was right about the Juden. Are you still going to vote for her?

Congratulations. You just became a single issue voter. When that one issue is the death of over a million human beings per year, and a candidate not only agrees with it, but wants to take away restrictions on it, that one issue just became the most important thing you can vote on.

I pray that you will come to understand that on the issue of abortion, there is no compromise. That when your "right to choose" means the death of another, that you have become that which you profess to hate; someone who forces your beliefs on another.

Isaiah 46:3 Listen to me, O house of Jacob,
all you who remain of the house of Israel,
you whom I have upheld since you were conceived,
and have carried since your birth.
igh »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 1:00 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

We need to Pray for our leaders.

I wonder if Obama is elected, who will he appoint into his Administration?
believer »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 12:23 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

God honors the nation whose leaders honor Him, so the question is does it honor God to murder unborn babies? If not, then would it be wise to put people in office who will have the opportunity to deal with this issue who are in favor of murdering unborn babies?
steveh20 »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:20 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Many thanks for the reply artm.
Steve
artm »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:50 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Hi steve, the one topic, such as Abortion and homosexuality, is of the utmost Importance.

God can help us with the Financle situation. he can help us with the war in Iraq.

He can help us deal with anything that comes our way as a Nation.

But how can we ask God to help us with these things, if we are just wantingly killing unbirn Babies.

How can we ask, or expect God's help when as a Nation we are supporting same sex union's.

Yes I am very concerned about one issue, But it is an issue that is Mightly on the mind of God.

Proverbs 6 says, There are six things that God hates, One of those thngs are, " Hands that shed innocent blood."

we ought to be very concerned about Abortion in this Country, and do everything in our power to see that it stops.
artm »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:11 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

hey mike, the Scripture is clear on killing and homosexuality, you don't need to be a Bible scholar to understand that.

how do you interpret Scripture on the killing of babies,? or don't you think that is sin,?

Christians view matters such as abortion and homosexuality as God does, the only other choice is to ignor and reject the Word of God, interpret that anyway you choose.

And mike, if I were you I would be very concerned as to what side of the fence I was on, In matthew 12:30, Jesus said, " He that is not with me is against me."

Are you with Christ mike,? Do you love Jesus,? have you been born again,?.

Many interpret Scripture to suit their own plan and purpose, Please mike, show me in Scripture, prove your point on abortion and homosexuality from the Word of God.

you might find that you are building on sinking sand.
steveh20 »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:00 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I don't think artm it is that some Christians ar blind about abortion and that is why they vote in a particular manner but rather they are not just one topic voters, however they may feel about that issue and a politician(and by that I mean in general), they also see that there are other issues that need adressing in the country and abraod, and that particular politician might be the better choice for dealing with them.

Kind regards

Steve
Mike22685 »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:56 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Because people interpret scripture differently than you they are blind or are not true Christians? I'd say you're building your house on sand my friend.
artm »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:38 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Christians, Who are truly Christian, see things differently than the rest of the World.

We see things based on a different viewpoint, We are required by God to see things as God Himself see's them.

We know how God view's certain thing through His Word, the Bible.

philo777 said, " Not to many people give a darn about abortion, or gay rights."

That is true. But why don't they give a darn about the killing of an unborn Baby,? Why don't they care about the gay agenda.?

The answer to that is really very simple. They do not view these vert Important topic's the way God view's them.

There are some Christians who don't have a problem with abortion, I feel I can say that based on the way they will vote in this, and past Elections.

1-Tim 5:22 saya, " Lay hands suddenly on no man, Neither be Partaker of other men's sins, Keep thyself pure."

Another translation says, " Do not put hands on any man without thought, And have no part in other men's sins, Kepp yourself pure.'

those who do not know Christ as Savour are blind to the truth of how God views abortion or homosexuality,

and those who say they are Christian and vote for those who support abortion and the gay agenda, are blind also.

but they just might be Blind on purpose, But one thing is for sure, they do not view these matters as God views them, and one day they along with the world, will have to give account to God and His view's.
steveh20 »

Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:44 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I see I have got three thumbs down. Maybe one of those who did that would like to explain why. All I have said is what is obvious, abortion for the undecieded is not an election issue, I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of abortion, but the view that seems to think it is still such an election issue, its not.
Regards
Steve
SqueakyWheel »

Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:57 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

It's not over yet!!

God's people are praying!

The truth about one's radical anti-biblical policies will eventually come out no matter how eloquent a speaker might be.

Style does not trump substance.

God looks at the heart of the person not the exterior talents of the person.

Just remember the story of David & Goliath.
SqueakyWheel »

Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:51 pm Agree: 4 Disagree: 0

Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is "Lying"

On August 11, NRLC released recently uncovered documents proving that Obama in 2003 had presided over a committee meeting at which he killed a version of the BAIPA that was virtually identical to the federal BAIPA that Congress had enacted, without a dissenting vote, in 2002. This contradicted four years of statements by Obama on the matter. When Obama was asked about NRLC's charges in a televised interview on August 16, he said that NRLC was "lying." Independent investigations by FactCheck.org and Politifact.org have since concluded that NRLC's claim was accurate and that Obama's denial was not. The ad refused by ABC quotes the FactCheck.org conclusion that "Obama is misrepresenting the contents of" the bill that he killed.

http://www.nrlc.org:80/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm
stanjz »

Wed Oct 15, 2008 9:58 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 4

This is some info on the horrible email going around accusing Barack of supporting later term abortions. There was already a law on the books protecting the children. Republican Bill Sponsor Said ââ‚¬Å“None Of Those Who Voted Against SB-1082 Favored Infanticide.ââ‚¬Â Rick Winkel, a Republican former state senator who sponsored the ââ‚¬Å“Born Aliveââ‚¬Â bill, wrote in a Letter to the Editor, ââ‚¬Å“None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.ââ‚¬Â
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0905vplettersbriefs0sep05,0,3918744.story
philo777 »

Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:49 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 3

That's very astute, Steve, and right on. The "culture war" issues that move the extreme right-wing Republican base are definitely NOT moving the rest of the country in this election.

Nobody, well not too many people anyway, give a darn about abortion, gay rights or any of the other hot buttons. For that reason, most comments on this site are simple irrelevant, at least this year.

McCain did himself in when he chose Palin. Even if the economy had not tanked, she would have sunk the campaign eventually. The distractions of Bill Ayers and the rest have gotten no more traction in this race then they did in the primary. The only issue on people's mind right now is the economy, and who best to fix it. I know it's a "talking point," but McCain HAS been erratic, and it has killed him among the electorate.

This election is over!
FortheKing »

Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:47 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I visit a blog frequently that points on some good biblical point on how to vote as a Christian. http://www.calvinfox.com/blog
steveh20 »

Wed Oct 15, 2008 5:13 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 3

From what I see on this side of the Atlantic, I just don't think abortion is an issue in the election, however anybody feels about it. Those who will vote for Obama will and the same for McCain. It seems to me that for the undecided it is the economy and foreign policy, abortion does not play a part on that their mind is made up.
Steve

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story