Reports have surfaced today by Deal Hudson and Jill Stanek that Sen. Barack Obama is dodging the issue of his support for selective infanticide. They refer to an interview that Obama granted last week to Cameron Strang of Relevant magazine.
In that exchange, Obama admitted that when he was in the Illinois senate he voted against a bill that would require health care for a baby who survived an abortion. “The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.”
Catholic League president Bill Donohue weighed in on this issue today:
“Is there a single bill forbidding racial discrimination that Obama would refuse to endorse on the grounds that we already have enough such laws in place? This begs the question: If protecting innocent human life is of paramount importance, then by what reasoning can it logically or morally be said that we already have enough legislation? When in doubt, wouldn’t it make sense to vote in favor of stronger laws?
“Obama’s position that the bill he voted against would overturn Roe is not a grey area. It explicitly said just the opposite.
“Finally, if the best Obama can do when faced with accusations of supporting selective infanticide—and that is exactly what the Catholic League is charging—is to say that this is not a ‘fair characterization,’ then something really smells. Given the seriousness of the accusation, if it were totally bogus, any other candidate for the presidency would immediately hold a press conference and demand an apology and a retraction. That Obama did not do so speaks volumes.”