No matter what your position on abortion is, all people should agree that no abortions should be performed after the 24th week of pregnancy for any reason except to actually save the life of the mother. This must mean that a woman would die if the baby is not aborted. That very, very rarely occurs since the advent of C-sections. And if medical science determines that viability is even earlier than the 24th week of pregnancy then the marker should be set there.
Indeed a decent society would prohibit all abortions after the first trimester to keep the marker a safe distance from the point of viability while still allowing for an abortion in the later timeframe to save the mother's life.
SPONSORED BY:
'Born Alive' Baloney
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
SPONSORED BY
Groups like BornAliveTruth.org say laws like the one that applied in Illinois leave discretion to the physician. As the anti-abortion group puts it, they cover fetuses who "are considered viable – by the very doctor aborting them." That's a fact, and reasonable people might agree or disagree on the merits of relying on a physician's discretion. But for Jessen to claim that she "wouldn't be here" without the legislation Obama opposed is false. Jessen's life would have been protected under Illinois law with or without any of the "born alive" bills Obama opposed in 2001, 2002 and 2003.
For the record, Obama says he would have supported "born alive" legislation in Illinois if framed in a way that did not pose a threat to abortion rights granted by the Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision. Abortion-rights groups opposed the two early bills, saying they could be used to challenge a woman's right to an abortion. For more on that, and on claims by anti-abortion activists that Obama supports "infanticide," see our previous article on the subject.
The Pathetic Appeal
The ad makes use of a rhetorical tactic known as a "pathetic appeal," meaning it employs pathos, an appeal to people's emotions. Jessen discusses her own history and calls for Obama to recognize her "right to live," putting an emotional face on a political issue. Other material on the subject, like columns by anti-abortion crusader and BornAliveTruth.org founder Jill Stanek, rely on affecting descriptions of grisly post-abortion scenes.
Calling up strong emotions is often a very effective way of swaying one's audience. But such ads ask the viewer to feel rather than to think. Telling a heart-rending story and telling the whole story aren't always the same thing.
Obama/Biden Response Ad
Obama: I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message.
Announcer:John McCain's attacks? One of the sleaziest ads ever. Truly vile. Now, votes taken out of context. Accusing Obama of letting infants die? It's a despicable lie. Even the bill's Republican sponsors said it's untrue. Obama's always supported medical care to protect infants. McCain? He's running on a platform to ban abortion. Even in cases of rape and incest. Sleazy ads. Anti-choice. That's John McCain.
Obama's False Response
Obama's response, meanwhile, is off base as well. The ad's claim that McCain is "running on a platform to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest" is false.
McCain for years made clear that he would allow abortions in cases of rape or incest and to protect the life of the mother as well. You can see our Ask FactCheck item on the subject for more details. McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, supports banning abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother.
The ad refers to "a platform," but the official Republican Party platform is actually silent on the question of exceptions. It calls for a "human life amendment to the Constitution" but does not specify how such an amendment would be worded. It contains no references at all to exceptions for rape or incest, either to rule them in or to rule them out. And in any case, McCain's own position is clear, and contrary to what the Obama ad claims.
The ad also misrepresents the BornAliveTruth.org ad's sponsorship. Obama's ad quotes newspaper articles that call McCain's attack ads "sleazy" and "vile," and then shows frames from the Jessen ad. But the Jessen ad is not McCain's. It's sponsored by BornAliveTruth.org. The McCain campaign committed a similar misattribution recently; it ran an ad pinning Internet rumors about Sarah Palin on Obama's campaign, without any evidence to back that up.
Discuss