A Very Anti-Choice Halloween: Scary Robocalls and “Just Stupid” Mailers


The Huffington Post reports this morning on a brand new robocall lambasting Senator Obama for his audacity to question the necessity of having a valid exception to the Partial Birth Abortion ban to ensure protection of American women’s lives and health.

Voters in North Carolina, Florida and Oregon have reported receiving robocalls from the National Pro-Life Alliance, attacking Obama’s stance on the issue. According to the Huffington Post, the call tells voters that Obama will "legalize" the practice if elected President. There is of course many things wrong with that statement, not the least of which is that it would take more than just Barack Obama’s whim to legalize an abortion procedure that has been deemed safe for women for years until the anti-choice movement seized on it as a political tool. 

More than that, however, it’s just false. Here is Senator Obama during the final presidential debate on partial-birth abortion:

With
respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban
on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s
an exception for the mother’s health and life,
and this did not contain
that exception.

And I attempted, as many have in the
past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was
rejected, and that’s why I voted present, because I’m willing to
support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception. 

The National Pro-Life Alliance is an extremist organization that believes laws and amendments targeting parental notification and consent, for example, don’t go nearly far enough. The organization is not satisfied with anything less than a federal law to overturn Roe v. Wade and ensuring the codification of the idea that life begins at conception. In addition, the organization, as Cristina Page has written about numerous times on this site, has no desire to simply stop at the criminalization of abortion. They target birth control as well. 

Rachel Maddow on "The Mailer I Swear I Didn’t Photoshop"

Rachel Maddow reported last night on a mailer being sent to anti-choice voters by the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-choice organization, attacking Senator Obama for. Wait for it. Not being willing to save a child in a baby carriage left on the railroad tracks. 

Maddow says of the ad:

"There are low-down, sleazy, unfair, illegitimate, political smears and then there’s stuff that’s so low-down, so sleazy, so unfair, so illegitimate that it crosses the line into stupid. Like laugh-out-loud ridiculous."

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • http://www.prolifewyoming.com/stevenertelt.html invalid-0

    “a valid exception” for women’s health?

    Why on Earth would you subject a woman to a three-day-long medical procedure in a medical emergency? The way you end a pregnancy to save a woman’s life is to deliver the baby. if you wait three days, the mother may be dead or seriously injured.

    Besdies, we all know the abrotion procedure is never necessary to protect womens’ health.

    Dr. Jane Orient of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons wrote a letter to a Congressional subcommittee, noting that partial-birth abortion “has no medical indications.” Orient went on to say that the doctors in her organization “conceive of no circumstance in which it (partial-birth abortion) would be needed to save the life or preserve the health of a mother.”

    Orient noted that, if a pregnant woman was suffering from a complication such as toxemia, her doctor could either perform a Caesarian section or induce labor. “The only purpose of the partial-birth abortion,” Orient wrote, “is to assure that the end of the pregnancy is accompanied by the end of the life of a child about to be born.

    Orient points out that partial-birth abortion is not a safe practice, since it “carries the risk of maternal injury or death, as by uterine rupture or laceration and hemorrhage.”

    Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop also notes that “Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.”

    Even Colorado-based abortion practitioner Warren Hern has said: “You really can’t defend it…I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use…Turning the fetus to a breech position is potentially dangerous. You have to be concerned about causing amniotic fluid embolism or placental abruption if you do that.”

    “the call tells voters that Obama will “legalize” the practice if elected President….More than that, however, it’s just false.”

    Newman, you’ve already admitted the Obama-backed Freedom of Choice Act will overturn all abortion limits, like the partial-birth abortion ban. Now you said Obama doesn’t want these satte bans overturned. Which is it? One of your claims has to be false as they’re contradictory in nature.

  • emily-douglas

    Steven, on our site we’ve featured many stories by women who’ve had to have late-term abortion procedures to protect their health or life and by physicians who support health exceptions.  That abortion is at times necessary to save a woman’s life or protect her health is an accepted medical fact.  That so-called "partial birth" abortion can sometimes be the safest procedure for a woman undergoing a late-term abortion is also established medical fact.

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/08/obamas-late-term-abortion-comments-ignore-stark-realities

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/09/18/all-that-we-have-chosen

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/10/20/womens-health-exception-south-dakota-ban-not-enough-protect-women