Gov. Sarah Palin’s eloquent statement on life
Posted on October 13, 2008
First recall this (not so eloquent and scared to death to tell the truth):
Now read this:
“In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?
When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.
Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.
As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.
It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.
I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.
Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.
Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.
In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.
Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.
In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”
In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.
But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.
A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.
For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.
He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.”
Not above her pay grade. This is the type of distinction that needs to be drawn between the candidates repeatedly and on the largest stages. For all of Obama’s bilge about “bringing people together,” his position on this crucial issue is the most extreme and rigid of any politician in America. His on-the-record, can’t-be-denied position demanding that children born alive in the course of a “failed” abortion be allowed to DIE without medical intervention is one NARAL couldn’t even countenance.
Polls that indicate most Americans don’t want Roe v Wade overturned are close to worthless. The truth is, Americans don’t know that Roe v. Wade (and its abominable companion, Doe v. Bolton) ushered in an age during which any woman, at any time, for any reason or no reason at all could kill her unborn child. In reality, not only does America not know what Roe/Doe did, when you drill down, most Americans, typically close to 80%, actually oppose Roe when you look at how they answer the questions. The overwhelming majority of Americans, in fact, despite their inexcusably uninformed support of Roe, believe that there should be some limits on abortion. Obama believes in unlimited abortion-on-demand, taxpayer funding for abortion, the barbarous practice of partial-birth abortion and even in allowing babies who’ve survived abortion to die. All of these things are utterly rejected by the American people.
Who, now, is more likely to bring people together on this life and death issue? Whose position is the extreme position?
» Filed Under ACLU, Abortion, Activist Judges, Bill Of Rights, Congress, Culture of Death, Elections, Government ethics/corruption, Infanticide, Liberal Media/Bias, Moral Relativism, News, Obama/Biden, Polls, Sarah Palin, Secular Humanism, Supreme Court, U.S. Constitution
Trackback URL
Comments
5 Responses to “Gov. Sarah Palin’s eloquent statement on life”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
If Republicans have their way, if your pregnant you can’t get an abortion no matter if your poor or single or whatever circumstance you’re in. And then once you have this baby, they don’t want to provide social services to help you out.
Guess what, you need to pick one or the other. Let’s pretend we prohibit abortion and instead fund social services. How much extra in taxes are you willing to pay? 10% more, 25% more? How much is human life worth to you?
You aren’t providing any solutions to the problem, which is teenage pregnancy. Abortion doesn’t matter. Get over it.
“if your pregnant you can’t get an abortion no matter if your poor or single or whatever circumstance you’re in.”
Sorry I don’t think economic circumstances or marital status is a good reason to murder a child. What if a woman has a baby and then, say, 7 months later decides she can’t pay the bills? What if her husband leaves her? Should she be able to kill the baby? By your logic, the answer would be an unavoidable “YES.”
“And then once you have this baby, they don’t want to provide social services to help you out…Let’s pretend we prohibit abortion and instead fund social services. How much extra in taxes are you willing to pay? 10% more, 25% more? How much is human life worth to you?”
Bogus argument. More restrictions on abortion and de-incentivizing out-of-wedlock childbearing would reduce the incidence of both. When people are allowed to take responsibility for their actions (instead of government stepping in and removing all consequences from willful actions), they usually do. For those kids who are born to people in less-than-optimal circumstances, there should be some safety-net mechanism to assist these innocent, genuinely impoverished children, but we cannot perpetuate a system in which the first stop in the mind of poor people is some government office. Such a system has led to higher poverty rates, more fatherless homes (the greatest indicator of poverty) and more abortion.
Fewer poor kids and fewer dead kids is usually seen as a good thing. Not sure how you can diagree.
“You aren’t providing any solutions to the problem, which is teenage pregnancy.”
Wrong. 80% of all abortions in America are carried out on women 20 or older.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/Statistics/age.asp
Anyway, abortion-on-demand is one factor that has led to the explosion in out-of-wedlock pregancy among young girls. Your solution seems to be, “Encourage these young girls to act like hookers in training, then pull them into an abortion clinic. Then start all over again! Gotta keep the abortion industry in the red!” (In more ways than one)
“Abortion doesn’t matter. Get over it.”
OK, now I get to tell you one thing you are not allowed to care about. No, forget it. I do care whether babies are murdered or not. You don’t. My conscience is clear. Can’t imagine that yours is.
How horrible. “Abortion doesn’t matter?” That is even an even more detestable attitude than “it’s above my pay grade.”
Obama claims he believes women are using abortion responsibly; I can vouch for the fact that many do not - after working in an OB/GYN clinic for years, through which terminations were facilitated, I have seen incidents of women returning time and again for abortion as birth control. They’re not isolated incidents, either. I understand there is a segment of the population out there that grieves over their decision to terminate a pregnancy, but it’s not the overwhelming majority, by far.
And thank you for providing some information about Roe and Doe that most people are unaware of.
You are correct Angie. The facts bear that out. The vast, vast majority of abortions are “lifestyle” abortions.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
Contrary to what Obama claimed, the real problem with abortion (aside from the fact that it kills babies) is that women and girls make the decision ALL TOO casually having been tragically brainwashed by Planned Parenthood, NARAL, government education administrators and union hacks and the Democrat Party.
What blows my mind about the inconsistencies of the left, is that it’s morally ok for a woman to abort to finish college or any other reason, but it’s immoral to abort for sex selection - as is done by other cultures.
You can abort if a child has a ‘defect’, but it’s wrong to abort if it’s a girl and you want a boy. What’s the difference, really