The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide"

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide" stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 08- 4-08 07:29 PM   |   Updated: 08-12-08 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
New Seth Top

Catholic voters should steel themselves to hear Barack Obama accused of "infanticide" this fall. Support for that heinous crime is the latest charge being cooked up against a Democratic nominee by the man who helped to paint John Kerry as unworthy of the communion wafer back in 2004.

Deal Hudson, who was compelled to resign from his role with the Republican National Committee after sordid details from his personal life were brought to light four years ago, now sits on John McCain's 80-person advisory board for Catholic issues. From that perch, he's begun launching the "infanticide" smear against Obama in niche media outlets like his own "Inside Catholic" website and talk radio host Al Kresta's program. ("Infanticide is becoming a touchy subject for Barack Obama," Hudson wrote matter-of-factly on his website in early July.)

But while some Catholic activists have expressed dismay at Hudson's place at the table among McCain advisers, their objections have mostly centered around the dishonor in his personal life -- specifically, an allegation that he had sex with an 18-year old Fordham University freshman who was his student in the 1990s. The current focus on those exploits suggests, at the very least, the troubling reality that few Catholic leaders outside of those associated with progressive organizations are willing to publicly fault Hudson for suggesting that the execution of live children is an active policy dispute in this election.

***

The justification for Hudson's misleading "infanticide" charge stems from a proposed state version of the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act, debated in Illinois when Obama was a state senator in 2001. The most well-publicized portion of that bill would have required that any "viable" fetus surviving a late-term abortion receive sustaining medical care (something which opponents of that bill said was already required by a 1975 bill in the state). But because Obama voted "no" in committee and "present" on the Senate floor, Hudson reasons, Obama must have been in favor of killing viable, born babies -- especially since the U.S. Congress also passed a "born alive" measure in 2002 in near unanimous fashion.

"Unlike Obama in Illinois, Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to support the [2002 federal] bill," Hudson wrote earlier this year. "In fact, the bill passed the Senate 98 to 0 with pro-abortion senators like Boxer (D-CA) and Reid (D-NV) supporting it. In 2003, the bill was introduced in the Illinois legislature for the third time and directed to a committee chaired by Obama, Health and Human Services. They refused to bring the bill to a vote. Only when Obama left for Washington in 2005 did the Born Alive Infant Protection Act pass the Illinois legislature. It's for good reason Barack Obama has been called 'the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.'"

One significant problem with Hudson's logic is that it requires comparing apples to oranges. The Illinois and federal bills differed not only in language, but regulatory impact. Critically, the Illinois version of the bill that Obama opposed was also bundled with other proposals that would have put doctors at risk of prosecution, which led the Illinois State Medical Society to oppose the measure along with Obama. The state bill also carried greater influence in terms of enforcement, since states had been granted greater leeway in regulating abortion practices ever since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Illinois State Representative Rosemary Mulligan sighed when the Huffington Post told her about the "infanticide" claim currently being leveled at Obama. As a pro-choice Republican who is supporting John McCain for president but also worked with Obama back in 2001, she described the first Illinois version of the Born Alive legislation as "a very onerous bill," adding that "I think that the hardcore, hard right conservative Catholics overreach on this one."

Story continues below
advertisement

Something else Deal Hudson fails to note in his critique of Obama is the fact that the 2005 version of the state bill, which passed, was a compromise bill free of any other measures Obama had previously opposed. Had he been there to vote for it, he may well have done so. Specifically addressing his onetime concern over the impact of a re-definition of what "born alive" could be interpreted to mean, the 2005 measure that passed after Obama left Springfield included three new clauses that read:

(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section.

(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion.

(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.

In sum, comparing the federal bill passed by Congress in 2002 with the various Illinois measures proposed during Obama's tenure in the state legislature is a bogus enterprise meant to confuse people who lack the time and resources required to tease out the differences between them.

A similar reporting foul was committed in a 2006 article on the conservative Human Events website that carries the headline "Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL," and in which NARAL's support for the federal Born Alive Act is contrasted with Obama's opposition to the Illinois measure before the addition of the three compromise clauses.

By deliberately or inadvertently confusing the controversy that surrounded a local measure with the near-unanimous reception of a less-impactful federal bill with a similar name, Obama's enemies have concocted a narrative that misleadingly makes him appear a unique and horrifying monster in American politics.

***

But who will stop Hudson and his cohorts from spreading convincing-sounding falsehoods?

For their part, the Obama campaign is clearly not eager to give Hudson's claims a greater profile, as the "infanticide" claim is not even listed on their "Fight The Smears" website. But quietly, the campaign's Catholic outreach director has collated some of Hudson's writings, added point-by-point refutations, and then sent them out to sympathizers in the Catholic community. Obama has also granted an interview to Relevant Magazine in order to clear up his position on late-trimester and partial-birth abortions.

Meanwhile, the progressive group Catholics United has led the effort to encourage McCain to dump Hudson from his list of advisers. "Deal Hudson has been one of the leading proponents of this language that's very corrosive," said James Salt, the group's organizing director. "His rhetoric has been corrosive for Catholic values, with these broadside attacks that are disingenuous and unethical. The parallel would be to say McCain wants children to die of infectious diseases because he voted against [S-CHIP]."

Still, after the media firestorm that followed McCain's purge of Pastor John Hagee, his campaign appears to be in no mood to conduct further scrutiny regarding the company it keeps. "He's a name on a list, a volunteer. When are we going to start talking about gas prices, jobs and the issues facing Americans? The McCain campaign is all done with the 'gotcha' games," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds told the Arizona Republic last week.

But of course another possible explanation is that McCain's campaign is perfectly happy to let Hudson go on about slashing at Obama's character without having their fingerprints too close to the weapon. (Hudson says he is an unpaid volunteer for the campaign, and not an official of any kind.)

Given that possibility, some worry that Hudson's efforts could prove a small but crucial difference in swing states like Florida, New Mexico and Ohio -- each of which boast significant Catholic populations. Even Salt admits that Hudson has a track record "of being very successful at dividing people," adding: "He was Karl Rove's chief political operative for Catholics. And it's very effective when you're able to manipulate the Catholic media that covers this into defining Barack Obama as a supporter of infanticide."

Catholic voters should steel themselves to hear Barack Obama accused of "infanticide" this fall. Support for that heinous crime is the latest charge being cooked up against a Democratic nominee by the...
Catholic voters should steel themselves to hear Barack Obama accused of "infanticide" this fall. Support for that heinous crime is the latest charge being cooked up against a Democratic nominee by the...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
1089
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (20 pages total)
- MoeJava I'm a Fan of MoeJava 30 fans permalink
photo

Tell me again - why should my rights and choices hinge on someone else's religious views?
Pro-Lifers need only be concerned that they themselves, dont have abortions, or use birth control, or whatever they choose for themselves. The rest of us still have choices to make and lives to live without consulting some oracle.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:27 PM on 08/10/2008
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 48 fans permalink

Sorry, I should have checked my writing better, but got distracted. I meant abortion, not divorce.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:39 PM on 08/08/2008
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 48 fans permalink

Okay, I am trying to make this so clear that even possibly a pro-lifer might understand. Horrible, desperately overwhelmed life with little hope = a good chance that a woman won't want to carry the baby to term. It is not just the mother's life. She may have lost hope in life in general and would not want to bring a child into what is perceived to be a cruel and hopeless existence. --- Yes, I know one size does not fit all. There are many circumstances which lead to divorce, but many of them could be addressed if we had universal healthcare and accesible birth control, better paying jobs and affordable childcare. Providing this kind of a baseline for human existence is not socialism. It is just making the garden fit for growing produce and flowers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 08/08/2008

What exactly is Obama's reply. Is he for or against life support for accidently living aborted babies?

The devaluing of life in this country is becoming scary. Except for rape, incest, or profound danger to the mother... there should be profound difficulty involved in getting an abortion. I hesitate being for eliminating it all together... but... children are not inconveniences they are gifts. In regards to economy or public welfare... more abortions do nothing positive.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 PM on 08/08/2008
- gevan I'm a Fan of gevan 18 fans permalink

Carol Shepp McCain or Cindy Lou Hensley McCain? Who will make the better First Lady? Navy wife ("They also serve who only...") or Congressional socialite?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:36 PM on 08/07/2008
- genseric13 I'm a Fan of genseric13 6 fans permalink

The bottom line is abortion will continue to be legal for many decades to come. Overturning Roe v Wade is mostly symbolic. Abortion will still be legal in at least 20 states and partially legal in other states. It would be inconvenient for a woman to travel a few states over to have an abortion, but abortion probably should be inconvenient. Gives the woman at least a few more hours to think it over.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 08/07/2008
photo

Tell it to a victim of incest.

Tell it to a rape victim.

As men, we've no damn business telling women what to do with their bodies.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:56 PM on 08/07/2008
- genseric13 I'm a Fan of genseric13 6 fans permalink

Ok, then, keep bringing in immigrants and the country disappears. The women have to make the babies. There's no one else to do it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 PM on 08/07/2008

Back in the 1980s, when I was living in Georgia, a huge controversy erupted when a local hospital denied service to a severely premature baby. The chief of pediatrics called the child “a living abortion” and said it would be a waste of medical resources to try to save her.

The desperate family found a hospital in Atlanta that would take her in, and she survived. Nobody in the community ever knew how the child turned out, at least till the time I left the area, because the mother rejected media requests as a result of all the fuss.

The thing is, while our loony abortion debate has been trapped in amber since the 1970s – with the anti-sex crowd demanding that you must pay the price for the sin you have committed, and the feminists claiming that a woman’s right to choose is some kind of immutable privilege – medical science has been marching forward. It is now possible to save babies who would have died. “Fetal viability,” the pivotal issue in Rowe v. Wade, comes at a far earlier stage than it did 35 years ago. At some point, somebody is going to have to take a fresh look at the whole legal and social issue, and the answers are going to be different, because the facts have changed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:01 PM on 08/08/2008
- gcalknet I'm a Fan of gcalknet 2 fans permalink

If you support abortion in any form, you support infanticide. Case closed. Just as Algore says there is no debate on AGW, there is no debate on this issue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 08/07/2008
photo

Really? So engaging in birth control (since it's now being labeled abortion by pro-lifers) is supporting infanticide?

There is MUCH to be debated on this issue whether you like it or not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 PM on 08/07/2008
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 48 fans permalink

Killing infants and young children after birth is infanticide. Look it up. As far as when consciousness becomes a factor with a fetus, the answer to that is not clear. It is awhile before the brain is formed. That would possibly be a time when consciousness would begin, but even that isn't clear. It is safe to say that birth control and even the morning after pill would prevent fetusicide. Some cultures have believed that some sense of individual consciousness would not occur until the baby was breathing on its own which usually happens directly after birth. As far as when the soul, if that is the true measure of actual life, enters the body, again that is a mystery. I think it is more important to focus on how to make life more hopeful and desirable. That is likely to help this situation make progress, rather than focusing on how bad something is, because if that worked, the problem would have been solved long ago.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:05 PM on 08/08/2008
photo

Let's face it: the muck raking GOP is desparate to remain in office this election. They are going to throw everything in the book at Obama. If they should lose this time, it could mean a possible trial for Bush and Cheney. B & C are criminals and O just might push this one through a congress that could turn mostly Democratic.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 PM on 08/07/2008

People like Deal Hudson are the least kind whose words I would ever think relevant.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 AM on 08/07/2008
- Tags I'm a Fan of Tags 11 fans permalink

McCain doesn't want abortion to become an issue because if it does, pro-life voters will abandon him in droves for Bob Barr, who is much compatible with their views.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:10 PM on 08/06/2008
- prog I'm a Fan of prog 13 fans permalink
photo

One more thing about the abortion debate, and I'm done.

Abortion has always been available -- to those with money. All that legalizing abortion did was make it so the poor have the same choice as the wealthy.

Daughter of rich man in trouble = (somewhat safe to very safe) abortion (or unwed mother home/spa, and adoption)

Daughter of poor man in trouble = another mouth to feed or unsafe abortion, possible death

Any questions?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:26 PM on 08/06/2008
photo

I agree with every word, In my life time I may see a woman"s right to choose go away because Of Ideology It is sickening,No matter how one feels it should stay safe & healthy, no one should stand in judgement.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:38 AM on 08/07/2008
photo

Kudos to you, Prog. You are exactly right and nailed it down precisely and in laymen's terms.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 PM on 08/07/2008
- prog I'm a Fan of prog 13 fans permalink
photo

Obama (and Kerry, for that matter) needs to say:
"Let those of you who are without sin cast the first stone"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:21 PM on 08/06/2008
photo

You're ducking, right? ;)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:05 PM on 08/06/2008
- mckinley I'm a Fan of mckinley 4 fans permalink

Since when have those words of Jesus EVER stopped a Christian, or even given them second thoughts?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 PM on 08/07/2008
photo

A *real* Christian would be stopped in their tracks -assuming that the wisdom of Christ didn't completely derail such judgmentally arrogant hypocrisy in the first place.

Christian is as Christian does.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 PM on 08/07/2008

Obama celebrity- another McCain code. ...for black minstrel- Obama the dancing monkey. McCain is truly pathetic!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:20 PM on 08/06/2008
- Big0725 I'm a Fan of Big0725 22 fans permalink
photo

Brought to you by the same people that brought you the Crusades, the Inquisition and greatest book on how to identify and kill witches, the Malleus Malificarum, it's......­..........­.....

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:04 PM on 08/06/2008

I think you have pretty much identified the contesting parties: Catholics on one side, Obama '08-ers on the other. And never the twain shall meet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 PM on 08/07/2008

Well, here we go again! Not SwiftBoat, but "Right-to LifeBoat". I hope that the people are not distracted again. But after the last two charades, posing as elections, they just might. God, please help Americans think instead of reacting. Please!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 PM on 08/06/2008
- marysandra I'm a Fan of marysandra 4 fans permalink

thank you for having it exactly right....why is sending young men and women to die, in a trumped up war ok? Doesn't sound like too much respect for life to me....lots of Iraqui babies have been killed, too.
These are the gruesome facts..but people who don't want to connect the dots, just jump over that. Of course abortion is, one would hope, the last option, but allowing for choice, does not make anyone guilty of infanticide..If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one..or adopt a child, but please stop kidding yourselves about who has '""the right to life"...as long as you are supporting a fake war, ignoring Darfur, and complaining about undocumented aliens having too many children. Take a good look in the mirror, and consider the word"hypocrisy."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:33 PM on 08/06/2008
- genseric13 I'm a Fan of genseric13 6 fans permalink

Mary, comparing 4200 dead in Iraq to millions of abortions is beyond preposterous.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:50 PM on 08/07/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (20 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect