SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Best Laid Traps

POLITICS AUGUST 21, 2008

The Best Laid Traps

BY DAMON LINKER

As recently as six weeks ago, Barack Obama hoped to use his moderation and facility with religiously informed rhetoric to inspire a portion of the evangelical vote to defect to the Democratic Party in 2008--a move that might usher in a broader electoral realignment. But events during the past week may very well have derailed this plan for good. On right-wing websites, cable news programs, and near-mainstream newspapers, conservatives are doing their indignant best to spread the word that, as an Illinois state legislator, Obama refused to vote for a bill that protects a child “born alive” in a botched abortion. That makes the senator’s record on abortion, in the words of Commentary’s Peter Wehner, “as extreme as one can possibly be.” As evidence that Obama’s position is (in Wehner’s words again) “extreme, inhumane, and outright brutal,” conservatives are pointing out that only 15 members of the U.S. House voted against the federal version of the bill--the Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002--and that it passed the Senate by voice vote with no dissent.

The campaign's response to the controversy shows that it recognizes the damage it could do to Obama's ambitions: Instead of defending the vote, Obama and his surrogates have sought to excuse it. First they insisted he would have supported the Illinois bill had its language resembled the federal version. Then, when it came to light that the language of the two bills was virtually identical, they claimed that the candidate opposed the bill because it had no "neutrality clause"--a statement ensuring that it wouldn't curtail existing abortion rights. And yet it appears that the final version of the bill contained precisely such language--a fact that apparently did nothing to change Obama’s mind about its merits. If conservatives get their way, these crumbling excuses, along with Obama's refusal to answer a question about when a baby acquires human rights at Rick Warren's recent Saddleback church event, will transform Obama in the eyes of evangelicals from an electoral temptation into a morally and politically radioactive "Senator Infanticide." (That’s what the National Review called him on its website’s homepage yesterday.)

Democrats have every reason to lament this turn of events, but they should not consider it a matter of simple bad luck. On the contrary, Obama, in failing to “support” children “born alive,” has fallen into a trap meticulously constructed and laid by the theoconservative intellectuals who have exercised so much influence over the religious right these past several decades.The Born Alive Infant Protection Act is the brain-child of theocon Hadley Arkes, the Edward N. Ney Professor of American Institutions at Amherst College and a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington. The roots of the bill go back 20 years, to President George H. W. Bush's general election contest with Michael Dukakis. In a debating kit he was asked to prepare for the Republican candidate, Arkes made an extraordinary series of assertions. Abortion, he argued, could be considered a constitutional right only by denying the personhood of the baby prior to birth. But once this premise was implanted in the law, there was no principled way to outlaw any abortion at any time during pregnancy, right up to--and perhaps even beyond--birth. After all, biological science and sonogram technology both showed that the fetus in utero is substantially similar to a baby outside the womb. The “right to choose” therefore implied a right to infanticide--or as Arkes shockingly put it, a “right to a dead baby.” As a rationalist, Arkes was convinced that such an implication at the level of principle would inevitably become a reality, as the culture slid down the slippery slope on which it had been precariously placed by the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.

Faced with the prospect of legalized infanticide in the United States, Arkes urged the first President Bush to make what sounded like an extremely modest proposal. Congress should pass a law declaring that a child born alive after a botched late-term abortion--a child no longer present within his or her mother and thus no longer dependent upon her “choice”--is subject to the full protection of the laws, as is any other person. Not only would such a law prevent explicit acts of infanticide, but, far more importantly, it would also “plant a premise” in the law that would eventually lead in the opposite direction of Roe, emphatically affirming the personhood of the newborn child and thus raising the morally troubling question of whether that personhood could really be denied to the same entity just seconds earlier, when it resided in the mother’s womb. Arkes was convinced that just as the logic of Roe led inexorably toward a right to infanticide, so a declaration of the personhood of the infant “born alive” would have the effect of persuading large numbers of Americans--and perhaps also a decisive number of Supreme Court Justices--to reject abortion-on-demand and, ultimately, to favor outlawing it altogether.

Unsurprisingly, the first President Bush decided against taking Arkes’ advice to turn the presidential debates into multipart seminars on abortion ethics, and over the next twelve years the “born alive” proposal received little attention from politicians. Things began to change, however, by the end of the 1990s. Frustrated at their inability to make even the slightest legislative headway against abortion during Bill Clinton's presidency, a group of pro-life House Republicans began to consider pushing Arkes’ bill in Congress. For one thing, they thought it would be certain to withstand judicial scrutiny. (The law would, in fact, merely restate what was already apparent at several places in the federal code--namely, that newborns, like all persons, are protected by federal law.) The bill would also "teach" citizens about the personhood of the infant "born alive" and supposedly undermine support for legal abortion. But perhaps most significantly, it would have the politically salutary effect of putting Democrats on the spot by making the defense of pro-choice principle synonymous with championing a right to infanticide.

The Born Alive Infants Protection Act was introduced in the House by Representative Charles Canady of Florida in 2000. Arkes led the House testimony in July and was followed by theocon Robert P. George of Princeton, who proclaimed that “if weak and vulnerable members of the human family ... can be defined out of the community of [those] whose fundamental rights must be respected and protected by law, [then] the constitutional principle of equal protection becomes a sham.” Although the National Abortion Rights Action League and other pro-choice groups recognized the threat posed by the bill and opposed its passage, most Democrats viewed it with a mix of perplexity and indifference.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York was an exception. Understanding perfectly well the intent behind the bill, he nonetheless realized that there was no way to mount an effective opposition to it. The next best thing would be to deprive the Republicans of an opportunity to “educate” the public on the issue, and so Nadler advised his fellow Democrats to allow the bill to pass with overwhelming support and thus also with a minimum of publicity. (Obama is now paying the political price for handling the issue much less deftly.)

With the 2000 presidential race entering its final months and the campaign of George W. Bush nervous about raising any controversial issues, the Senate chose not to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. Plans to revive the bill in the next Congress were then delayed by the September 11 attacks, which forced all non-essential legislative business to the back burner for several months. But by March 2002, Congressional Republicans were ready to try again. The bill quickly passed the House by a wide margin and then made its way to the Senate, where Republican Senator Rick Santorum took on the task of ensuring the bill’s passage.

In a private conversation at the bill-signing ceremony, George W. Bush thanked Arkes for his tireless work and described the bill as “a first step in changing the culture” of the United States. Echoing the sentiment in his public remarks, the president spoke prospectively about future battles on behalf of a “culture of life": "The Born Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. It is a step toward the day when the promises of the Declaration of Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend their rights. This law is a step toward the day when America fully becomes, in the words of Pope John Paul II, 'a hospitable, a welcoming culture.'"

How could a law that adds nothing substantive to the federal code accomplish so much? Regardless of whether it ultimately has the pedagogical effect Arkes thought it would, there can be no denying that his bill has now made a noteworthy contribution--damaging the campaign of a pro-choice candidate for president. We don't yet know how significant that damage will prove to be. But if Obama loses the election by a narrow margin, Arkes and his theoconservative allies will have reason to congratulate themselves on their contribution to the outcome.

Damon Linker is a senior writing fellow in the Center for Critical Writing at the University of Pennsylvania. Much of this piece was adapted from his book The Theocons (Anchor Books).

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 47 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

47 comments

I'll start by thanking Damon Linker for bringing this to light in a venue different from that of, say, First Things, a world he knows well. The unhappy fact is that Arkes' strategem, if you want to call it that, really does catch the pro-choice position in its most vulnerable point: explaining exactly why infanticide is wrong if abortion at any point prior to delivery is beyond the pale of the law. This is why pro-life Democrats like myself, many of whom recognize that the criminalization of first-trimester abortions is politically unacceptable to the large majority of Americans and would constitute bad -- because unenforceable -- law, are bitter that the party's dogmas makes no concession whatsoever to acknowledging the humanity -- and human rights -- of the unborn child. We are politically captive to a radical minority every bit as intransigent as the minority on the other end of the spectrum. I'll vote for Obama anyway, but this news is unwelcome to say the least. I was hoping that the Democratic Party was wising up and acknowledging that there might be more than one point of view on the politics of abortion. Think they'll let Casey's son speak in Denver?

- mjhollerich

August 21, 2008 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay, this is a really helpful article, but it leaves a huge question dangling. So when DOES a person qualify for constitutional protection? At conception? At birth? At the point it is wanted by one or more of its parents?

- Addam Jayne

August 22, 2008 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First, I'm trying to think of a word that would describe any human being who is against this law. I can't. However, "Chickenhawk" is used to perjoritively describe someone who is for the war but has never served--someone who sends someone else's children to die. What would you call someone who, in effect, asks someone else, say a nurse or a doctor, to stash an innocent, defenseless human being in a utility closet or a dumpster until it dies? It's easy to sit in Washington and organize votes; maybe Jerrold Nadler needs to be the man who leaves the child to die. Maybe he, like chickenhawks, need to look the truth of these matters in their (literal) eyes. Sometimes good policy is good politics. This is just a bad issue for the Dems.........Can a mother file suit against a hospital if they botch an abortion and a child is born? Might this be a contributing factor as to why Obama and others have been against these bills? I couldn't care less if it is, but at least it would be an "excuse"--not the gibberish we're hearing now.

- malwords

August 22, 2008 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm very confused. This bill was passed in 2002, yet Obama wasn't senator until 2004.

- Marceline

August 22, 2008 at 10:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And Damon: it's not a "trap" for HA to advance policy that might lead to better policies (from his point of view). Obama made decisions based on the facts or on his emotions or on his experience. He needs to live with that, and he cannot blame conservatives........ And as to his campaign's exuses that the bill if passed might in some way affect Illinois abortion law, I have one question: why didn't he modify the law to include not only the neutrality clause that the federal government included in their bill, but also a neutrality clause with respect to Illinois law? Harvard law review, constitutional scholar, etc. Modifying this law was certainly within his skillset.

- malwords

August 22, 2008 at 10:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clarifying article: which for me raises the argument that Obama was principled and courageous in voting no to the Illinois legislation. Jerrold Nadler's advice to assent to the bill was tactical and strategic and arguably wise in some tactical and strategic senses. But Linker's piece makes clear there were laws on the books giving full legal protection to any child born, whether of a botched abortion or otherwise. So long as that proposition holds water, the bill was clearly unsubstantial; it was posturing; it was meant to force abortion's hand by working its legislative, educative and cultural impact from after birth to before birth. Obama could have been, like Nadler, *wiser* to have been more "deft" and approve the state bill. And I don't know what motivated Obama to vote against it: principle; his own cost benefit calculus; some of both. But the argument from principle is there to be made: why approve a bill the legislative impact of which is redundant and the real purpose of which is to eventually swamp Roe? As well commenter mjhollerich is incorrect in my view to see infanticide as the homicidal logical consequence/homicidal weak spot corollary of the pro choice position. Anyone committed to Roe and its successor Casey recognizes and agrees that the state's interest in protecting the fetus grows as pregnancy progresses and that by the third trimester only something like the the mother's health can justify a late term abortion. Here too Obama has made welcome comments--to the disgust of certain pro choice zealots--that the exception for the danger to the mother must be a real physiological, life threatening or other sever physical danger--and not emotional fluff. Such a real health danger raises a tragic but legitimate limit on the total abolition of third trimester abortions. When life starts (and all that) is certainly above my pay grade and I don't want to get into it. The functional line of viability outside the womb makes workable sense to me. But the demagoguing of this issue against Obama has been some shameful shit, and I have yet to see a robust, spirited and principled defence made of his opposition to the Illinois bill. Even Linker, who piece is so clarifying and helpful here, falls into the trap set by the "theocons" by his criticising Obama for himself not being more deft by being more "tactical" when he was arguably being principled and steadfast in voting against the bill.

- itzik basman

August 22, 2008 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the Republicans are so worried about botched abortions why do they want to outlaw safe ones?

- Leslie

August 22, 2008 at 1:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marceline, the bill was voted on in the ILLINOIS Senate, in 2002, when Obama was a sitting member (in his 3rd term, I believe).

- Jay

August 22, 2008 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Come on Mr. Linker. At what point do socialists take responsibility for their opinions and stop claiming they are being trapped by conservatives?

- Jim O'Brien

August 22, 2008 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Being against this law is a disgrace. Just listen to the testimony of the Jill Stanek, the nurse who held one of these babies for 45 minutes until it finally died. Obama is not pro-choice, he is pro-abortion and, in these cases, pro-infanticide. His judgment is so poor that dogcatcher is above his pay grade, in my opinion. Disgusting. This man is a charlatan.

- Jude

August 22, 2008 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't believe this was a trap..this is the REAL Obama....the more you see him...the less you like him...but, even worse are the fools who know the truth, but, will vote for Obama anyway...

- jerryR

August 22, 2008 at 3:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marceline, He voted against state legislation in the early 2000s, more than once. He chaired the state legislature committee responsible for the bill. He voted in committee to add language to the state bill identical to the federal bill, then voted in committee against the bill he had helped modify. For years he lied about the state bill being different from the federal bill--that had it been identical, he would have voted for it. When smoking gun documentary proof was published the week before the Saddleback "debate" and when he was confronted with that evidence in an interview following the "debated," he baldly claimed his opponents were lying when they said he voted against identical legislation. A day or two later, his campaign finally admitted the legislation was identical, but made up a new (false) excuse. The man is a serial liar about his past, apparently assuming he'll not get caught. At least Bill Clinton was careful to ensure he didn't get caught (which was easier since most of his lies were about private acts rather than public debates in the state legislature) by intimidating witnesses or worse.

- Houghton Grandmal

August 22, 2008 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems to me that the implication of this law is that protection for the child/fetus begins at the point of viability, i.e. when it is able to survive after being removed from the womb. This point of feasibility is not an absolute, I think, being dependent on medical technology. We are now seeing more and more prematurely born infants surviving after a mere 22 weeks of gestation. I believe that the cutoff for legal abortion should be periodically set at this point of "probable viability".

- Abe

August 22, 2008 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To answer Marceline's question- Obama was an Illinois State Senator during this controversy. His vote was in the state house, not the U.S. Senate. I was personally pro-choice as a young man. All the "sophisticated" arguments made perfect sense to me then. Later, when my own daughter was born 2 months pre-mature, (at 3-1/2 pounds), I spent many nights at her side in the ICU ward, watching her tiny breaths as she held my pinky finger in her grip. There were other babies there who weighed even less, and were born weeks earlier, struggling to live. I dare any abortion advocate or apologist to spend one single night in the ICU of any premie ward in any hospital anywhere. It will change your mind and your heart. The left and most Democrats see sinister dealings and nefarious schemes in any effort to stop abortion. The truth is that abortion is sinister. You can not tell me that my daughter was not a "person" the hour before the doctors induced birth. You cant tell me that it would have been "o.k" to "terminate" her at 7 months-a day before she came into the world. I don't need a constitutional amendment, or Roe v. Wade, or some stupid preacher to tell me whether or not she was a 'person'- I saw it in her eyes from the other side of the incubator.

- Jamie

August 22, 2008 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Damon Linker is only telling half the story, which is why Marceline is confused. Obama voted no against a bill in the Illinois Legislature, not the US Senate, that was an almost exact replica of the national bill. Hence Damon's opening comments about how Obama accused people of lying and then having to back track because, in fact, they were telling the truth. The bill in the Illinois Legislature could never be construed as a 'trap' by theoconservatives because it was created in response to real cases at Christ Hospital of babies being 'born-alive' after attempted abortions and then being left to die. Sometimes it would take up to two hours before they died and while the hospital reports putting the infants in a 'comfort room', some nurses said they were put in a utility closet. This isn't an abstract threat to abortion rights, it's real 'non-viable' infants being left to die. On top of that, Damon is misleading again by suggesting that the current law already covered the issue. In fact, the Justice Department of Illinois decided that it couldn't press charges upon conclusion of its invesitgation because the infants were 'non-viable', or slated for abortion. They had cases, admitted cases and testimonies, of infanticide and they couldn't press charges. The law was needed then to stop the practice. Obama could have come out and said he was wrong to vote no then, but he's incapable of saying such. If he really doesn't think he was wrong then he needs to say that and own up to his beliefs instead of ducking the issue. It's a character flaw and it's not helping him in the least.

- Dexember

August 22, 2008 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Peggy Noonan said it perfectly in her Wall Street Journal column today: "As to the question when human life begins, the answer to which is above Mr. Obama's pay grade, oh, let's go on a little tear. You know why they call it birth control? Because it's meant to stop a birth from happening nine months later. We know when life begins. Everyone who ever bought a pack of condoms knows when life begins. "To put it another way, with conception something begins. What do you think it is? A car? A 1948 Buick?"

- Robert Graves

August 22, 2008 at 4:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Remember that this pro-abortion candidate also wants to bring about state operated health care. I fear that if elected, Obama's puppet masters could bring about something like the Groningen Protocol here in the U.S. Don't think it could happen? Think again; the US Pediatric Nursing Journal is already considering the merits of this evil "protocol".

- Terence

August 22, 2008 at 4:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't see how any civilized person can support "Senator Infanticide". What can be more important that a child's right to life? How is supporting the Democratic party any different than supporting the Nazis in 1930's Germany? "Except for that thing about the Jews, they really weren't all that bad... " When one innocent human has its most basic rights denied, all are put at risk.

- KSM

August 22, 2008 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Linker sees traps, snares, and cons everywhere because these are what make up HIS professional pedigree. He spent years as an undercover con-man at First Things and made a cowardly exit. If Obama were "trapped," then that fact of poor judgment and lack of serious consideration of a significant issue would cast doubt on his fitness for office.

- David Melrose

August 22, 2008 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What happened to the old criterion everyone used to talk about: "viability"? That is, as long as a fetus requires the mother's body to live, then it's up to her to make the call. For some that is morally repugnant, but to others (many others) it is fair. A fetus is, literally, parasitic on the mother. And that is literally how many women feel about being not just pregnant, but being coerced into the life-changing responsibilities of motherhood. I'm astounded that Obama is not able to formulate an effective presentation of that view. It's the view that huge numbers of Americans hold, and it's the view that drove Roe v. Wade. And it is expressible in highly pallatable ways, ways that most women (and many men) understand. Why can't Obama do that?

- Heather

August 22, 2008 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice to have some history of the legislation, but why do you keep saying it's a trap? You effectively acknowledge that 1) It doesn't really add anything to the law, since infanticide isn't legal anyway, and 2) It nonetheless puts pressure on Democrats and on their support for Roe. If merely restating the law, and the obvious moral truth that killing newborns is murder, serves to undermine the Roe position, than isn't there something wrong with that position, rather than the people who point this out?! Another point: it's disingenuous or misinformed to fault Arkes or make him seem like a kook for drawing the connection between abortion and infanticide. There's no bright line between a baby inside the womb and one that's just come out - that's not a 'trap' laid by "theoconservatives". See the well-known article, "Abortion and Infanticide" (Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1972!) by Michael Tooley, a liberal philosopher, which makes exactly this point in arguing that early infanticide is morally acceptable too if there's some reason for it. (It doesn't take much of a reason, acc. to him.) Peter Singer holds the same view, and is perhaps more infamous for it. The argument is there to be made either way: If a fetus just before birth has no legal protection of its life, then why does one shortly after birth merit such protection? If a newborn has its life legally protected, then why was that not the case shortly before birth?

- Joe

August 22, 2008 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Credit technoloy, not Arkes. As medical technology allows a fetus to be viable outside the womb at earlier and earlier stages of life, it forces the question of the moral status of those early stages. What was abstract thirty years ago now becomes a question of what care should be delivered.

- Bill Baar

August 22, 2008 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Messiah's arrogance is overwhelming. The very idea that such a person, who refuses to help poor abandoned babies, should be "courting" anyone who believes in God, let alone evangelicals, is beyond arrogant. Obama needs to stick with degenerate Democrats, the people who believe his empty words about changing people's hearts. God won't help us if we change into something like him, because we'll be damned forever like he is.

- doctorfixit

August 22, 2008 at 4:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What an eerie article. It is morally arid, offering no exposition of a pro-abortion rights argument that might have informed Obama's ghastly decision on the bill. Is this because there is no such argument? And because Obama was acting the mere stooge for a pro-abort mentality bereft of any, ah, nuance? The article turns to the originators of the bill, and again fails to discern moral aspects in the question of abortion policy, which is nothing except moral decisions. And the article again avoids ethics, by robotically framing years of policy development as a low plot to undermine Roe. This law does undermine Roe, as do partical birth abortion bans. The latter points to the continuity of the infant's life before and after the womb, inviting NARAL to make a moral answer that eludes it. The former points to the starkly apparent humanity of people who were the objects of an effort to end their lives. I hazard that legal tactics weren't Arkes' motivational wellspring. I suggest the obvious, that he sought to protect human beings from being left to suffocate in dirty linen rooms, and in hospitals where their lives could be saved.

- urbanicus

August 22, 2008 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So is Obama a baby-killer? The smart money says yes! Can a baby-killer become POTUS? The smart money says yes? The American people, however, should send this Obama boy back to his crib!

- elixelx

August 22, 2008 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"they said" and "we said" It is a war of Ideals that will live forever.

- Gregory Linker

August 22, 2008 at 5:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama and his supporters said the opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is not infanticide. But the consequence of his opposition is definitely a baby left to die. If he didn't kill the baby, who did ? What a murderer.

- Haha

August 22, 2008 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Linker, You failed to convince me of the con man. Maybe one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Maybe you weren't aware, but in the past it has been commonplace to murder newborns who survived attempts to murder them in utero. I think the law in Illinois was championed by a nurse who was instructed to throw a helpless baby boy in the medical waste receptacle to be cooked with biohazardous waste. 50 million unborn murders a year dwarfs all other other atrocities. That's a billion unborn babies murdered worldwide since 1988. The systematic dehumanization of unborn babies in our culture, makes us just as responsible as Nazi supporters in Germany dehumanizing the jews. But in the case of pre-infanticide, the scale absolutely drawfs other atrocities. The spanish inquisition produced 5,000 murders over 500 years. The third reich produced 10 million murders over 20 years. Police state communism has murdered 100 million over a century. But the practice of pre-infanticide has killed a BILLION people in just the last 20 years, and the count keeps growing, and these are unarguably the most defenseless among us. And from a policy perspective, legal abortions do not produce results. Having the option of abortion has made people careless, often getting pregnant thinking that abortion is an option, but then opting to keep the baby. Roe v. Wade has increased the number of born unwanted babies as well as the number of murdered babies. It is as if the PRO-DEATH camp is secretly controlled by the evil sorceress Malificent who sustains her youth on the blood of the helpless. Are you so backwards and reprobate in your thinking that you think supporting the murder of unwanted infants who survive their attempted murders is a NOBLE CAUSE? What would you think if someone was raping the baby that survived an abortion? Would that even upset you? Or is that child so dehumanized in your mind that you wouldn't even care? I am not a republican and I am disgusted with the corruption in both parties, but you couldn't torture me into voting for Senator Infanticide.

- Genocide Is Wrong

August 22, 2008 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Our Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the citizens. (That would be you and me). It is a shame that the first African-American presidential candidate does not understand the meaning of life or personal liberty. However, it is the individual liberty matter that concerns me most. I can't vote for a person who believes that a Socialist welfare state is a pathway upon which individual liberty can travel. McCain, I guess.

- Jim Baker

August 22, 2008 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You Fucking College Junkies Are A Piece Of Work!Obama Don't Give One Good Shit About An Abortion Bill,Neither Does McCain Or Chaney Or Bush For That Matter Now Maybe Hillary Would Be A Fighter Against,Or For Said Bill,And If I'm Not Mistaking The Abortion Issue Is Regulated By The Jurisdiction Of The State In Question.You Stepped-In-Obama S--T Synthesizers Run From Blog To Blog Defending This Snake-oil Salesman's BS And Then Try,& Justify It When People With Enough Common Sense Realize A Cockroach From A Pretense Self-Indulging Orator Of Which He Is Not,More Like A Defined Teleprompter Manipulator And Nothing More As This August,Or In Some Cases This November Will Finally Put To Rest................BTW Did You People Here In This Blog Know That About 17 Months Ago Mr Obama Suggested That Sex Education Classes Be Taught In Kindergarten,Do You Agree With That Too.

- Jack-The-Ripper

August 22, 2008 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To answer Marceline's question- Obama was an Illinois State Senator during this controversy. His vote was in the state house, not the U.S. Senate. I was personally pro-choice as a young man. All the "sophisticated" arguments made perfect sense to me then. Later, when my own daughter was born 2 months pre-mature, (at 3-1/2 pounds), I spent many nights at her side in the ICU ward, watching her tiny breaths as she held my pinky finger in her grip. There were other babies there who weighed even less, and were born weeks earlier, struggling to live. I dare any abortion advocate or apologist to spend one single night in the ICU of any premie ward in any hospital anywhere. It will change your mind and your heart. The left and most Democrats see sinister dealings and nefarious schemes in any effort to stop abortion. The truth is that abortion is sinister. You can not tell me that my daughter was not a "person" the hour before the doctors induced birth. You cant tell me that it would have been "o.k" to "terminate" her at 7 months-a day before she came into the world. I don't need a constitutional amendment, or Roe v. Wade, or some stupid preacher to tell me whether or not she was a 'person'- I saw it in her eyes from the other side of the incubator.

- Jamie

August 22, 2008 at 6:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While personally frowing on abortion, I've been a dutifully pro-choice Democrat since well before Roe vs. Wade. However, this election is prompting me to rethink that position, along with others. Obama's sputtering answer to Warren's simple question very neatly summarizes the dilemma of the Democrats on this issue. When does life begin? When should it end? Conservatives take this question out of human hands and give it to someone whose pay grade really is above Obama's. Life begins at conception. It ends when God, not man, chooses. It's disingenious of the Left to dismiss this as a pathetic attempt to impose certitude upon a complex ethical issue. To enthusiastically embrace abortion at one end and voluntary euthenasia at the other end, as many on the Left do, is to go against nearly two millenia of Judeo-Christian inspired consensus in the Western mind. We are still in the earliest stages of these innovations and it is impossible for us to predict what their ultimate consequences may be. Essentially, we've decided that life begins when we say it does. Right now that's three months after conception. Can we be perfectly confident that it won't some day be three years? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating overturning Roe vs. Wade - at least not yet. But the issue of abortion remains troubling to anyone who bothers to reflect seriously upon it.

- fred gill

August 22, 2008 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The irony in all this is that Senator Obama gave one of the most powerful pro-life speeches on Father's Day when he said that responsibility "doesn't just end at conception." In fact responsibility begins at that point. The senator contradicts this with his voting record, however, when he denies that a woman bears responsibility at conception and can therefore have the unborn child killed. That is the inherent contradiction that Arkes' efforts highlight. That contradiction is what makes Roe v Wade a poorly written law from a legal standpoint - it contradicts our laws which hold deadbeat dads accountable.

- chucka

August 22, 2008 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The man is refered to as cool. A better word is reptilian.

- XDem

August 22, 2008 at 7:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, TNR is getting raided by pro-lifers! Come on, can't at least one of you try to troll and say that you're actually pro-choice, but you believe Obama's very wrong on this particular issue. Face it, you're not going to win any converts from the pro-choice side to your anti-abortion views by highlighting an Obama Illinois State Senate Committee vote. And generally speaking, anyone on the fence is not going to vote on the basis of abortion, anyway. I commend the McCain camp on attempting to unite their base by bringing the abortion issue to the forefront, though. I hope undecided pro-choice women are paying attention and know who is on whose side.

- Seth

August 24, 2008 at 12:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jay, thanks for helping with the reading comprehension.

- Marceline

August 24, 2008 at 8:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Achilles heal, finally. No distractions here.

- Bekky

August 24, 2008 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a stupidly one-sided discussion. The judgement of "infanticide" rests on the misuse of simple English. 1.) The induced expulsion of the fetus in an abortion isn't childbirth, the process which introduces the newborn into human society, it is abortion, the destruction of the fetus. Birth is the presentation and transfer of the newborn from the mother and her medical assistants to the social sphere. 2.) The product of abortion isn't a baby, it's still a fetus, and it's a dead duck. I held my daughter moments after birth and welcomed her into my heart and family. She was a beautiful bundle of human potential, but I honestly can't say when she acquired the five or seven other dimensions of personhood besides presence in society. Months, probably. Our pet dog had more intelligence, emotion, and behavioral repertoire than this newborn, despite her DNA. The newborn was a part of nature, but time and I and others made her one of us. In fact, her wonderful personhood totally depended upon her arrival without personhood, the immaturity of her development at birth. It's good that we treat newborns as if they are persons and feel as Jamie does at #31. But that only means he himself shouldn't participate in abortion -- not that we should give him the keys to the jailhouse to imprison abortionists and those who contract for abortions.

- Scroop Moth

August 24, 2008 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First, Heather should hold out for top money as an Obama campaign adviser. Describing fetuses as "parasites" -- terrific strategy! Second, those of you who just assume that this kind of stuff was already covered in the Illinois criminal code may be simplifying a bit too much. As stated above, the AG didn't think so -- and it's hard to make a substantive criminal law argument that a person is guilty of murder when their intent (mere abortion) was not unlawful at all. It's just that the damn fetus had to ruin things by popping out all alive and everything. Of course Scroop (who's gotta be a troll for Christ's sake) apparently thinks abortion should be legal up until, oh, five months out of the womb, or some such thing. I guess that's cool; maybe we can legalize abortion for forty-year-old fetuses so I can get rid of that doosh at work who keeps humming Depeche Mode tunes.

- Jimbeaux

August 26, 2008 at 1:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The question was not when does life begin. The question was "When does a baby acquire human rights?" Obama answered as if it was a scientific or religious question, and so above his pay grade. But it was a LEGAL question. And he's a lawyer and constitutional law lecturer. I'm amazed that everyone misunderstands the question, even Tom Brokaw and Peggy Noonan.

- kargay

August 26, 2008 at 2:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Heather, There are two issues with your post. The first is an ontological issue and deals with viability itself. The personhood or non-personhood of the fetus is a trait of the fetus. That is, in crude ontological terms, a fetus “is” or “is not” a person based on the characteristics of that fetus, not of the surrounding world. Viability can change based on medical technology and location. A fetus may be viable given the medical technology in Chicago, but the same fetus may not be viable given the medical technology in Najef. It makes no sense to say that the same child is a human person in one city but not the other, as the fetus’ humanity is a trait of the fetus, not its location. Viability makes little sense as a bright line because there is not consistent case for when viability occurs, and even if there was, it is a trait that lies outside the being in consideration. Your second issue lies in your jurisprudence. Roe actually allows abortions through the third trimester, well past viability. Both of those may explain why Obama couldn’t give viability as his answer on the abortion question. Also, in response to the article, Arkes is not the first or only academic to see the justification for abortion providing grounds for a justification for infanticide. Philosopher Peter Singer, one of the most respected ethicists living, and much more a friend of the left than the right, fully accepts the infanticide conclusion, endorses it, and supports infanticide in certain cases. Re vera, M. Aurelius

- MAurelius

August 26, 2008 at 2:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey Scroop Moth. I think Obama should come out and make the exact same agruement. That is a really popular position you have there. I think that about 75% of the American populace would be throughly disgusted by your "That crying shivering creature in the trash can is a fetus" theory. It's ok. At least the crying "fetus" isn't as smart as your dog which is apparently the litmus test on these things. Do you people have any clue how insane you sound?

- Mike

August 26, 2008 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good stuff. Makes alot of sense. Roe V Wade ignored the rights of the child, this on the other hand look out for the least of us.

- A Stoner

August 26, 2008 at 10:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

scroop: A few quick thoughts. So what you're saying is that it's all about 1) the mother's intent: abortion = no legal rights for the product, and childbirth = legal rights for the product, and additionally, 2) newborns are not "persons" anyway because they do not possess the characteristics that create "personhood." ....1) If the mother says it's a baby, we give it rights. But if she wanted to have an abortion, it's a fetus that should have been destroyed and it's ok to leave in a dumpster. A crackhead mother, a spoiled rich socialite, a confused child, whoever, is now in the business of deciding what is human, what is of value, and what can be tossed in the trashcan. Taken to it's logical conclusion: if five minutes before your daughter was delivered, at six months, your wife said, "I cannot go through with this. I don't want this child. I'm not going to welcome it into the social sphere. I don't want to welcome her into my heart. I don't care if she is a beautiful bundle of human potential. I don't want to give her any time to develop the dimensions of personhood. I don't care that she can be nursed into a healthy child. I dont' care what my husband says. I want an abortion. Give me the drug that will induce abortion." And the abortion is then "botched." Has your wife said all that she needs to say? The "baby" who was due now becomes a "fetus" that is expendable? Tough tiddy, Dad; throw it in the dumster. It's not a human being because I said so. Hmmm........ Just change the word. And who says we cannot be like gods? Now we not only decide if someone should live or die (abortion), but we decide if they were human beings deserving of legal protection and medical care in the first place (personhood). ......And 2) What if children don't develop into personhood? What if they are born with a disease that prohibits them from entering your "social sphere?" From developing the five or seven other dimensions of personhood? What if she only develops three, or, gasp, one? What is the child then? Expendable? Is she a person? Does she have legal rights? If she is no more, for lack of a better term, sentient than a newborn, did she ever have rights? It is you who are intent on defining the truly undefinable: personhood. Or do the parents decide if she is a person?..... To me, regardless of intent, that child is a child. It is a fact of nature. It is the product of two human beings; furthermore, it is outside the mother and of no physical threat to her. We in the prolife movement seek only to defend these defenseless babies, and infants who might not reach your standard of "personhood." There might be some folks out there who think they are wise enough to decide which life is worth something and which is not. We do not presume to know that. In both cases (BAIPA & Personhood), you are on a very slippery slope.

- malwords

August 26, 2008 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Two quick questions . . . First: <> Assertion: A fetus is either a person, entitled to the same rights as any other person, or it isn't. Assertion: If it isn't, then there is no principled way to outlaw the termination of that fetus. Assertion: Technology tends to support the belief that the fetus IS a person - while its method of sustaining life may be different, the fact that it is ALIVE is not disputed. Assertion: Therefore, asserting a "Right" to terminate the life of the fetus is equivalent to a "right" to commit infanticide. How, exactly, are these assertions particularly extraordinary?? Second: <> How is this any more sinsiter, or insidious, or "shocking" than the longstanding "Pro-Choice" stance that asserts those of us who want to protect the life of an unborn child have no respect for "personal choice." I am an outspoken proponent of personal choice - I just don't happen to believe that taking human life without provocation is ever a legitimate expression of that choice - whether the life in question is inside or outside the womb.

- michael

August 26, 2008 at 1:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ninth Circle, Linker. Pack a sweater.

- Boko's New House

August 26, 2008 at 9:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting how even the most skillfully delivered pro-choice twist by Linker makes this story still look bad for Obama. I'll only comment on one thing, quickly: the bill was about much more than "botched abortions", although they fell under its scope as well. But a key target in this bill (as Jill Stanek testified to) was delivery and exposure as the *chosen* technique of "abortion" (really no longer an abortion, just an early completion, comparable to a C-section followed by exposure). In these cases there is nothing botched, the infanticide is what was intended all along. And despite this practice being apparently against laws already existing at the time, DAs who reviewed cases found no problems, hence the need for a clarifying law.

- Kristo Miettinen

August 27, 2008 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close