About that argument over who supports abortion more…

…the one between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama...

Here’s an update.

Barack Obama’s campaign took the unusual step of holding a conference call with reporters in upcoming primary battleground states to defend his pro-abortion views.

It’s a pre-emptive strike against the possible criticism from the Clinton camp again over Obama’s voting record on abortion. He wants to make sure his strong support for abortion is understood. At least now he wants clarity, unlike when he was an Illinois state legislator. His strategy was to be a bit more obscure on his votes back then.

Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood, defended Obama as she has several times before during the presidential election.

“We had a very astute and devious Republican leader that we knew was using abortion votes as wedge issues, putting those votes into mailers to help defeat pro-choice Democrats,” she said, according to a CNN report.

Astute, yes. One has to be astute, especially in life battles in state legislatures. But “devious“? Hmmm…. Consider her own followup comment:

“It was our strategy, Planned Parenthood’s, to decide that a ‘present’ vote was the same thing as a ‘no’ vote.”

My dictionary defines “devious” as “not straightforward…circuitous”. That would accurately describe that strategy.

She indicated Obama “was always ready to vote ‘no’ on these bills but he understood how important it was to help his fellow colleagues.”

Sutherland said Obama “was key to the strategy… not only did Democrats follow suit, so did many Republicans. The strategy actually worked… very few of those bills actually made it into law.”

And what were those bills that Obama skillfully defeated? Legislation that would have at least protected babies who survived abortion attempts.

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O’Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby’s rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a “homo sapiens” wholly emerged from his mother with a “beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles” should be treated as a “‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child’ and ‘individual.'”…

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted “present” on each, effectively the same as a “no.”

Which Planned Parenthood is touting now as proof of how pro-abortion Sen. Obama really is.

This is troubling enough to any pro-life person. But what also bothers me is what Sen. Obama said after defeating those bills.

“Number one,” said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, “whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

This is the same argument that was used by proponents of slavery. If slaves were to be accepted and regarded as persons, then they would be entitled to the same protections that were provided to whites. And then legislation would have to forbid slavery, because the Constitution protects the life and liberty of all persons, since we are all created equal.

Sen. Obama’s father, as you know, was a black man born in Kenya. Doesn’t he see the illogic of his position, given U.S. history and the civil rights movement? How can he use this argument against the smallest and most vulnerable persons whose rights have been denied by the unjust law upholding abortion? And how can he not see the logical conclusion of such an argument?

Is anyone asking him these questions? He is an eloquent speaker. I’d love to hear his answers.