January 7, 2008
2008 Presidential Candidates on Abortion
My plan is to add a series of posts on the 2008 Presidential candidates that explores their stands on social issues that are important to Christians. I’ll start with what I believe is the most important social issue: abortion.
There’s a lot of screaming and yelling – particularly from liberal-leaning Christians – when the issue of abortion comes up in political contexts. “It’s not the only issue” or “we can’t be one-issue voters” is often cited as a reason to simply ignore (or at least overshadow) where a particular candidate stands on abortion. However, I think this is a critical mistake. More than being a single issue, where a candidate stands on abortion shows a lot about his/her character and where their priorities lie. If a candidate isn’t willing to protect the most vulnerable of America’s citizens will he protect anyone else?
To illustrate, I’ll use Barak Obama. Senator Obama actually voted no on a bill that would require health care professionals to provide medical attention to babies born during a botched abortion. In other words, if a child miraculously survives an abortion, doctors (according to Senator Obama) should simply watch as the child dies. How can we trust a man like this to protect any right that isn’t politically expedient? And how will he vote on other moral issues with a clear right and wrong?
So yes, other issues are important. But there is no issue that is more illuminating about a presidential candidate than his stance on a pure moral issue that popular opinion would suggest only affects those who can’t vote. So don’t understate the importance of abortion just because you agree with a candidate on some other issue. This is especially important in 2008, because the next president will likely be able to choose at least one Supreme Court Justice.
And, before you comment, I know that you can’t legislate a pro-life culture. In other words, judges can’t simply make the US pro-life, but they can limit abortion. By making partial-birth abortion illegal, for example. Making the US pro-life is a matter of changing the culture, something no judge or president can do. But they can positively influence it and sometimes that is enough.
I took the major candidates and found their stances:
DEMOCRATS: Still kneeling before the altar of abortion.
Hillary Clinton: Supports Roe vs. Wade. Opposes ban on partial-birth abortions.
"I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches."
— Statement on the Nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice, September 22, 2005
John Edwards: Supports Roe vs. Wade. Opposes ban on partial-birth abortions.
On the decision to ban partial-birth abortion: "The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election."
— Statement, April 18, 2007
Barak Obama: Supports Roe vs. Wade. Opposes ban on partial-birth abortions. As we noted, Senator Obama actually voted against a bill requiring health care professionals to provide medical attention to babies born alive during a botched abortion.
"I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."
— Statement, April 18, 2007
REPUBLICANS: Not much better this year.
Rudi Giuliani: Currently, supports Roe vs. Wade. Supports ban on partial-birth abortion (not a clear history against).
I ultimately do believe in a woman's right of choice, but I think that there are ways in which we can reduce abortions.
— Republican debate, May 15, 2007
Mike Huckabee: Pro-life. Against Roe vs. Wade. Supports ban on partial-birth abortions. Opposes Federal funding of abortion.
I'm pro-life because I believe life begins at conception, and I believe that we should do everything possible to protect that life because it is the centerpiece of what makes us unique as an American people. We value the life of one as if it's the life of all.
— Republican debate, May 15, 2007
John McCain: Has changed his stance recently. Now against Roe vs. Wade and supports ban on partial-birth abortion.
"Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children...as we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."
— Statement, April 18, 2007
Mitt Romney: Has also changed his stance. Currently against Roe vs. Wade and supports ban on partial-birth abortion.
"I've always been personally pro-life, but for me there was a great question about whether or not government should intrude in that decision. And when I ran for office, I said I'd protect the law as it was, which is effectively a pro-choice position. About two years ago when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far; it's a brave new world mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us; and I change my mind...I won't apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life."
— Republican debate, May 3, 2007
I think these are the major candidates at this point (please comment if you think someone else should be included). As I add additional posts on this topic (candidates on their social stances), I’ll link to them from the bottom of this post.
Hope you enjoy – and I hope you all really consider the person you vote for in the 2008 presidential election.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
You forgot Ron Paul!
As a pro-life doctor who has brought over 4,000 children into the world AND would ban any federal marriage amendments and opposes Roe for the same reasons AND opposes the war in Iraq as unjust--
Ron Paul shines as the candidate most closely aligned with the sum of the expectations listed in the Bishops' document, Faithful Citizenship.
Visit here for more:
http://catholicsforronpaul.blogspot.com/
Jay, this is a valuable tool! Please consider adding Thompson (second in Iowa) and Ron Paul (who seems to be gaining support, and who, especially as a Pro Life OB/Gyn, deserves the support of Pro Lifers at least for that issue).
I'm working on an election unit with my girls, and they want to see how politicians stand on abortion, among other things.
God bless!
Posted by: Christine the Soccer Mom at January 8, 2008 5:40 PMPlease, please, please, please do not interpret my remarks as support for Senator Obama. I do not support him.
However, it is unfair to judge a legislator's attitude towards a certain act by his vote on legislation concerning that act.
For instance, if I myself were in the Congress, I would vote no on any bill to criminalize abortion. Why? Because the Congress has no constitutional authority do that. Were I a state legislator, I would sponsor legislation to criminalize abortion: that is the level at which, under our constitutional framework, such things should be done.
Please, please, please, please do not interpret my remarks as support for Senator Obama. I do not support him.
Posted by: ELC at January 8, 2008 11:18 PMThompson 2nd in Iowa????
Posted by: skelly at January 8, 2008 11:24 PMOops! My bad! Thompson was third. I wasn't looking at my chart when I wrote that.
I'm keeping track of the top three candidates of each primary with my girls, and I just remembered that Thompson was on the list.
Posted by: Christine the Soccer Mom at January 9, 2008 10:22 AMELC, I think that those "present" votes were in the state legislature. (I went and read an article that quoted the mailing.)
However, I think he was being shrewd. If it was clear that something would pass, he could vote "present" and be able to "honestly" say that he did not vote for a pro-abortion law, thereby pulling the wool over some not-so-informed Pro Lifers' eyes. If it needed his vote, he could vote "yes" and honestly say that he was keeping up his pro-abort creds.
He's slimy. He's creepy. He voted against medical care for babies who survive abortion. How many people can honestly think that is a good thing???
Ick.
Posted by: Christine the Soccer Mom at January 9, 2008 10:26 AMCTSM
I thought Obama blocked abortion survivor care... I thought Thompson just wouldn't for the longest time back the prolife stance of the GOP. I would be interested if you have a source?
In Love
wwwo
Posted by: when we were one at January 10, 2008 9:47 AMAs a teen just registering to vote, I'm not as up to speed about the candidates and topics such as these, but I was under the impression that you can't survive an abortion. Can anyone clue me in?
I also think that abortion should be legal, up to a certain point. After a few months, when the baby is starting to develop, you may as well just have the baby. There are lots of people out there who are just dying to have a baby and can't, and you'd be doing a good thing by having the baby. Though I would never have an abortion myself, I also believe in a woman's right to make her own decisions based on what she needs and wants in life. In this, I am most supportive of Giuliani.
Posted by: Young Population Voter at January 15, 2008 5:13 PMYoung Population Voter,
Congratulations in taking the first step to becoming more informed, and involved, in the political landscape. I have a question for you though...are you Catholic? I am just curious.
In Christ,
Matthew
Young Pop
I just googled abortion survivor and got this on top... check out some of the personal stories.
In Love
when we were one
Posted by: when we were one at January 16, 2008 9:46 AMThanks to your website, I have been very undecided on whom to vote for. It seems that John McCain is the most logical choice, though I don't support his stance on the Iraq War, it's better than having "wannabe" Catholics, and definitely not a Mormon or ex-Muslim.
Posted by: Bob Dobson at January 30, 2008 1:53 PMBob
Catholics are not bigots. I'm disturbed by the last sentence in your comment.
Catholics vote on issues not on the color of one's faith. Personally I think Romney's view on fetal stem cell research are more consistent with "Life" than those of McCain.
In Love
when we were one
Posted by: when we were one at January 31, 2008 10:31 AMRon Paul, recognized by Catholics or not is a great candidate.Too many people focus votes on party relation and religious standing. Vote for the person who will give us our freedom back, protect our unborn children, and save us from our tax hungry government. That person is Ron Paul.
Posted by: joe at February 2, 2008 10:32 PMI am on this site because I am trying to decide who to Vote for tomorrow on Super Tuesdsay.
I know who to vote for, just not his name.
You see, the person I know to vote for is God's man. Even if he does not have a chance according to the wisdom of man. My vote will count as a vote for God. Some may say if you vote like that you will be wasting your vote and maybe even hurt your party's chance to win.
I thought of that. It would make sense if I were only conserned with the here and now.
But I am not. I have an eternal perspective that allows me to look past this life. At best, man will live an average 70 years, then the only thing that will really matter is Gods plan. Why not support what God supports now. "Hinder the children from coming to me not" Matt 19:14
Bob, Obama isn't an ex-Muslim in any meaningful sense. He may have had the tag as a small child, but he's never embraced either the theology or the culture.
And a Mormon would be one of the best possible choices for a Catholic to vote for. I don't know how familiar you are with their culture (as opposed to doctrines), but I've found that they are much more likely to be supportive of pro-life and religious freedom, two areas where Catholic politicians don't tend to measure up to their Church. I live in a heavily LDS area, and I've found that they tend to hold most of the same things sacred that an orthodox Catholic does. I don't care how they worship; only how they vote.
Posted by: Joel at February 5, 2008 1:54 PMThank you Jay for this very helpful article.
I wonder...do democrats/liberals who vote for pro-choice (pro-abortion) candidates realize that they are just as guilty of murdering helpless babies as the abortion doctors themselves?
One day we will all have to face our Creator. I'm glad that I won't have the blood of millions of innocent babies on my hands.
Can they (pro-abortioners) claim ignorance? I don't think so. That may have been the case back when Roe vs. Wade first came to be, but with technology/ultrasounds today, there is no mistaking that these are tiny human beings that are being slaughtered.
Pray that we get a pro-life president in office. There will probably be at least one, maybe two Supreme Court positions to fill this next term.
God Bless,
Mary
Posted by: Mary at February 15, 2008 12:48 AM
I'm glad I found this site. I have been looking for legitimate candidate stances on abortion. It saddens me in a way. Being a family advocate and seeing for years how the system does not seem to be working for the underpriviliged; I was relieved to see someone like Obam running. Unfortunately, due to his stance on abortion, I cannot in good concience vote for him because I too believe it shows a person's character. I guess I'd rather be a sheep than a wolf after all. Jesus Mercy.
Posted by: Susan at February 18, 2008 7:59 PM
