Ciccina at The Lurking Canary gives a blow-by-blow comparison of Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's approaches to abortion legislation. She says:
"if you are looking for a smoking gun that shows Obama is a risky bet when it comes to choice, go directly to #8: Does (the candidate) support any restrictions on abortion, or does s/he believe it should be entirely up to women?"
She also wonders why certain pro-choice leaders back Senator Obama, he of the shaky views on pro-choice legislation.
Here's my response:
Senator Clinton has *specifically* (you gotta love her for that, no?) pointed out that she supported an alternative to the partial birth abortion bill that prohibited non-endangering post-viability abortions, and was consistent with Roe v. Wade.
Senator Obama supports restrictions on abortion that are consistent with Roe v. Wade.
How are the two responses different, except that Clinton gives an example and Obama does not? Senators Clinton and Obama could vote the same way on each such piece of legislation and be completely consistent with these answers.
You could believe that Senator Obama wants to be able to compete in conservative states, and so wants some wiggle room. OK. But that also means that Senator Clinton has given up on those same states. And look where that approach got John "we don't need to win the south/conservative states" Kerry.
That pragmatism could well be why the pro-choice leaders you mention back Senator Obama - better to have someone who could help us, than end up with someone who most definitely will not.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment