Posted by
Andrews on Monday, July 14, 2008 1:26:28 PM
I am glad to see
Carol Platt Liebau bringing up Obama's unbelievably firm opposition to the Illinois BAIPA, a bill which even NARAL did not oppose. Of course, some of us have been
mentioning this for quite some time, but I am always happy to see it being returned tot he public eye, as I think the press and the Obama campaign have worked hard to keep this from public notice. (When even the liberal Illinois press mocked Obama over his stubborn opposition, it should have been a clue that eh was way out on a limb.)
However, having said all that, I have to question the premise of Ms. Liebau's article. Doubtless Obama wishes that people would forget his opposition to the BAIPA, but I somehow doubt his sponsorship of a bill to help prevent stillbirths and SIDS deaths has anything to do with it. I doubt that even entered his mind. More likely, worried that some Hillary Clinton supporters had accused him of sexism, he was trying to polish his pro-woman credentials a bit. Or, even more likely, he was just trying to add yet one more sponsorship to his resume to get around charges of being a do-nothing newcomer with no experience.
I wish Ms. Liebau and others who had an issue to address would just do so directly. It is obvious she wanted to discuss Obama's stand on the BIAPA, but, afraid it would not seem current enough, she waited for an act which could be somehow connected to his fight against that act. It is dioshonest and reflects badly on the writer to do so. Better to simply admit we are bringing up old topics and make our point, rather than try to tie old issues to any vaguely related matter.
To try to make the leap form a bill protecting infants to his opposition to the BAIPA makes the write appear delusional, and that does not help at all.