“If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion. It is not the Republicans.”
– Newt Gingrich, during the Arizona Republican Primary Debate, February 22, 2012
Gingrich is right, and one way or another, the Republican Party is going to have a de facto nominee after the votes are tallied on Super Tuesday. It is at that point that the gloves need to come off with regards to a number of issues on which most of America is diametrically opposed to our current President.
It is my intention to examine these issues in detail in order to inform the reader as to which of our remaining Republican candidates might be best suited to lead that dialogue against Obama in the general election.
In this column, I intend to shed a little more light on exactly how diabolical Barack Obama’s support of abortion truly is, and to illustrate who happens to be the candidate who was fighting for the lives of children while Obama stood for euthanasia.
Over the course of three years, starting in 2001, the State of Illinois introduced bills intended to protect the lives of children who survived induced labor abortions. As a member of the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama voted five times against these bills. (Human Events columnist Terence P. Jeffrey wrote an article in 2008 explaining the timeline of these votes in detail here: http://bit.ly/LAK1z )
Obama has generally dodged the question, or justified his lack of support for an obviously humane bill under the pretense of protecting abortion rights guaranteed under Roe v. Wade, but that excuse doesn’t hold water, as later versions of the bill included language identical to a Federal bill that guaranteed protection for Roe. In fact, Obama’s objections, (as illustrated in this transcript: http://1.usa.gov/xt1YzM ), had nothing to do with Roe, and more to do with not wanting to “burden the original decision of the woman” or “burden … the attending physician.”
Essentially, Obama wanted to make sure the mother wouldn’t change her mind upon seeing her live baby, out of the womb, and he wanted to protect abortion doctors. Doctors like Kermit Gosnell, who is alleged to have routinely killed babies who were born live by severing their spinal cords with scissors immediately after birth.
Now, credit is certainly due to Newt Gingrich, who has brought the issue back to light, and has made the salient point – the extremist here is Barack Obama. Gingrich has never lacked in intelligence or preparation, and has a respectable record as a pro-life legislator.
But credit must also be given to those who were on the forefront of this issue at the time the legislation was being debated. It just so happens that the Federal bill that coincided with the Illinois bill in 2001 was sponsored in the United States Senate by none other than Rick Santorum. (http://1.usa.gov/wYFGq6 )
Gingrich’s stance on the issue is clear, but Santorum walked the walk in 2001. He has the unique advantage of being a champion on the side of life at the same time Obama stood on the side of euthanasia. He not only spoke out and voted on the issue, but sponsored the legislation successfully.
This is, of course, a point that Ron Paul can never claim, as he has only successfully sponsored one bill in his twenty years in congress (and a meaningless one at that: http://wapo.st/yHxGBC ). Paul, who desperately enjoys wailing about how he never votes for federal spending, fails to mention that he gets absolutely nothing at all done in Congress; a point I desperately wish one of the other candidates would call him to task on.
As for Romney, well, he authored RomneyCare, which was not only the template for ObamaCare, but in this regard is worse, as it openly funds abortion.
Contrast matters, and the contrast needs to be clear. On this issue, Rick Santorum offers the clearest contrast against Barack Obama. He stood against him in 2001, and he has stood against him since.