Steven Waldman

Steven Waldman


Obama and the Born Alive Controversy

posted by swaldman

The media and the Obama campaign have been focusing on the hundreds of charges against Obama in Obama Nation. But in terms of evangelicals one vote is doing Obama the most harm: his position on the “born alive” legislation protecting babies accidentally born during an abortion. I
‘ve gotten a no comment from the Obama campaign. There’s no explanation on his website. Obama missed a huge opportunity by not attacking it head on during the Saddleback forum. I was beginning to think the Obama campaign was clueless as to how damaging this single issue is to his hopes of winning evangelicals or centrist Catholics.
In an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody, Obama finally attacked the issue more emphatically. It’s a start but they haven’t come close to defusing this issue.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(7)
post a comment
Ruben

posted August 17, 2008 at 11:54 pm


He can’t attack it head on because his record is clear and well documented.
In his reponse to Brody, he still misrepresented his record while accusing the National Right to Life Committee of lying.
For rock solid evidence of his misrepresentation, see the following:
NRLC throws down gauntlet to Obama: Call your Born Alive votes forgeries:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/nrlc_throws_dow.html
Obama continues to misrepresent Born Alive vote (Posted in response to the Brody interview).
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/obama_continues.html



report abuse
 

The Raving Atheist

posted August 18, 2008 at 10:21 am


As the links provided above by Ruben demonstrate, Obama accused the National Right to Life committee of “lying” after it claimed he voted against a Born Alive bill which had been amended to conform with a federal bill that he previously had stated was acceptable. Obama claimed that he voted against the bill because it didn’t contain the federal language, but that vote was actually against an earlier, non-conforming bill.
Obama’s campaign yesterday confirmed that the bill he voted against was identical to the federal bill:
http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059
There’s no “controversy” here. The facts are very simple. Belief.net owes its readers a simple explanation of the completely uncontested facts. To claim that “Obama finally attacked the issue more emphatically” when all he did was repeat his past, now-acknowledged mistatements and accuse NRTL of “lying” is highly unfair. It is also unfair to dismiss Obama’s “no comment” as merely a “missed opportunity” and act as if you are helpless to clarify to the matter without further assistance from the campaign. The facts are in the hard, cold legislative record.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted August 18, 2008 at 10:39 am


Steven,
What is he going to attack? he called pro-lifers liars, but he is the one that was lying. Please get more informed on the issue.
latest:
Obama now admits he voted against the version of BAIPA (thats was identical to the federal version), which even Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy for.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/breaking_news_o.html#comments



report abuse
 

john

posted August 18, 2008 at 2:53 pm


Yeah Obama votes clearly against the bill that would protect babies born alive from being left to die or thrown in the garbage after a failed abortion. The bill was identical to the federal law that was even supported by the pro choice lobby including all of the democrats in Washington. Obama is misleading and he said that his very first act as president will be to sign the freedom of choice act, legalizing partial birth abortion, and ending regulations such as waiting periods prior to an abortion, pre abortion counseling, parental notification for underage teens seeking abortions etc..



report abuse
 

Robert

posted August 18, 2008 at 5:34 pm


Wait a minute.
If the Born Alive bill passed in the US Senate in July 2002, and Obama wasn’t in the Senate at the time, exactly how did he vote against it?



report abuse
 

The Raving Atheist

posted August 18, 2008 at 9:53 pm


I am truly puzzled by your post, Mr. Waldman.
You must be aware by now that the issue is very simple: Obama falsely claimed that he voted against the Illinois born alive bill because it had a provision granting the fetus personhood rights, when in fact he was fully aware that it had been amended to delete that provision. The amendment made the state bill identical to the federal bill that Obama has earlier said he would have voted for. There is no controversy — NONE WHATSOVER — about that, and it is a documented legislative fact that you should have made clear at the very top of your post.
Instead, you talk about Obama missing an opportunity to “attack” the issue, and then state that he finally attacked it emphatically. The plain implication of your language is that Obama is the victim of some false accusation, and although he has fought back, his response has been inadequate to fully address the smears of his critics. As noted above, however, they are not smears and there is no defense.
Particularly misleading is your failure to explain the nature of his “emphatic” attack, which was nothing more than a reckless, evidence-free accusation that the National Right to Life Committee was “lying.” His campaign today conceded that NTLC was correct regarding the legislative record. You owe your readers an emphatic correction.



report abuse
 

Scott

posted August 19, 2008 at 2:03 pm


So Obama called other people “liars” in the process of lying about his abortion record himself?
I’m a pretty independent voter who tends to agree more with the Democrats on issues like war and economics. But, the more I seem from Sen. Obama, the more impossible I’m finding the possibility of voting for him.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting this page. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Top Religious News Most Recent Inspiration Post Happy Reading!

posted 6:00:22pm Apr. 20, 2012 | read full post »

Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety. But mostly deep, deep gratitude. How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create

posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 | read full post »

"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o

posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 | read full post »

My Big News
Dear Readers, This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999. In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the

posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »

"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009 BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re

posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.