We’ve written about Barack Hussein Obama and his “positions” concerning abortion coming to the final conclusion that he doesn’t get it.

In Obama Attempts to Flip on Abortion but Flops! and Obama Supports Murdering the Unborn – It’s His Promise!! we demonstrated that Obama has gone so far to vote, as an Illinois legislator, for partial-birth abortion no less than three times.

Speaking at the Rick Warren carnival Mr. Obama doesn’t even know when a human life is formed and replied that from both a theological and scientific point of view, this question was “above my pay grade.”

In further sidestepping the abortion question Obama added that he supports abortion rights but emphasized his interest in reducing the number of abortions, a point he pushed in his party’s platform now under development.

“For me the goal right now should be and this is where we can find common ground,” he said.

“How do we reduce abortions?”

The facts are already in for Obama, he’s for abortion, period! Barack Hussein Obama thinks contraception is the cure all for abortion and murder is just fine when an “unwanted” pregnancy exists.

Ok for state to restrict late-term partial birth abortion. (Apr 2008)

“On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.

Part of the reason they didn’t have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don’t think that’s any Republican out there who I’ve worked with who would say that I don’t listen to them, I don’t respect their ideas, I don’t understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we’re always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.”

We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)

Q: The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?

A: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

1. There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that’s a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.
2. People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what’s right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

“And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.”

Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)

Q: Do you personally believe that life begins at conception?

A: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.

Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)

“We’ve actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.

But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we’re also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.

We’re not going to completely resolve it. At some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.”

GovWatch: Obama’s “present” votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)

“In the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted ‘present” instead of “no’ on five horrendous anti-choice bills.”
–E-mail from NOW attacking Sen. Obama’s record on abortion issues.

The National Organization for Women had strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. A chain e-mail denounced Obama’s record on abortion, citing his “present” votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.

The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a ‘present’ vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote 'present' as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planned Parenthood strategy of voting ‘present,’ saying “They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes.” Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.

Obama refuses to take on difficult issues so he will remain on the fence when campaigning for President. This doesn’t really demonstrate a strategy but lack of leadership skills.

• Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
• Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)

Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)

Obama’s record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting “present” is the equivalent of voting “no” because a majority of “yes” votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the “present” vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting “no.” During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama’s “present” vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, “He ducked!”.

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn’t include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)

Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court’s holding?

A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don’t make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that’s where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.

Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)

[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. “Mr. Obama, I know you’re a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?”

“I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.”

“I will pray for you,” the protester said. “I pray that you have a change of heart.”

“Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own-that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me.”

Moral accusations from pro-lifers are counterproductive. (Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004)

Q: [to Keyes]: Doesn’t your pro-life stance conflict with your support of the death penalty?

KEYES: It doesn’t conflict at all. Abortion and capital punishment are at different level of moral concern. Abortion is intrinsically, objectively wrong and sinful whereas capital punishment is a matter of judgment, which is not in and of itself a violation of moral right. The question of whether or not you should apply capital punishment depends on circumstances and it’s an area where Catholics have a right to debate and disagree.

OBAMA: Now I agree with Mr. Keyes that the death penalty and abortion are separate cases. It’s unfortunate that with the death penalty Mr. Keyes respects that people may have a different point of view but with the issue of abortion he has labeled people everything as terrorists to slaveholders to being consistent with Nazism for holding an opposing point of view. That kind of rhetoric is not helpful in resolving a deeply emotional subject.

• Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
• Protect a woman’s right to choose. (May 2004)
• Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To require that legislation to reauthorize SCHIP include provisions codifying the unborn child regulation. Amends the definition of the term “targeted low-income child” to provide that such term includes the period from conception to birth, for eligibility for child health assistance.

SUPPORTER’S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES: Sen. ALLARD: This amendment will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term “child” includes the period from conception to birth. This is a pro-life vote.

OPPONENT’S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. FEINSTEIN: We already clarified SCHIP law that a pregnant woman’s coverage under SCHIP law is optional. We made it obligatory so every pregnant woman has the advantage of medical insurance. This amendment undoes that. It takes it away from the woman and gives it to the fetus. Now, if a pregnant woman is in an accident, loses the child, she does not get coverage, the child gets coverage. We already solved the problem. If you cover the pregnant woman, you cover her fetus. What Senator Allard does is remove the coverage from the pregnant woman and cover the fetus. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME: Amendment rejected, 46-52.

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection Act.

SUPPORTER’S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES: Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical abortion–we are going to make sure those people are protected.

OPPONENT’S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Sen. Ensign’s bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME: Amendment rejected, 49-49

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.

Proponents recommend voting YES because: This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature’s rules. It is subverting and defeating valid, constitutionally approved rights parents have.

Opponents recommend voting NO because: Some States have parental consent laws, some don’t. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, “Do they want their kids to come to their parents?”, absolutely. But if you ask them, “Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?”, they say no.

This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.

Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

• Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
• Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
• Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

Obama uses typical phrases to dance around the abortion issue, to spin his pathetic voting record and the truth about his abortion voting record easily comes out when thoroughly examined. Mr. Obama uses typical buzzwords to avoid tough questions on abortion.

• Health issue or as a women’s rights issue .
• The rights of the mother.
• Right to privacy.

Obama’s abortion record is abysmal if you believe in right to life, parental rights, and unborn child’s rights. Women have a choice in most cases and can use a host of methods to not become pregnant but once that person is pregnant we don’t believe ending a life is the answer.

Certainly Mr. Obama should figure out when conception and life meet. It really isn’t that difficult if your honest and Obama is an dishonest as anyone. Indeed!

See: Obama on Abortion at On The Issues.org for source materials.