One mark of a true leader is defending moral truths regardless of the personal repercussions. Obama prefers a legalistic and "balance sheet" approach. Two examples display this tendency in stark detail.
Teaching Kindergarten Children About Sexually Transmitted Diseases
It is morally reprehensible to teach five and six year old children about sexually transmitted diseases, yet, in 2005, as an Illinois Senator, Obama supported a comprehensive sex education bill that would provide, among other things, that "each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections..." (2005 Illinois Senate Bill 99, page 1, line 13-16). Senator Obama claims that the reason he supported the bill was to protect children from sexual predators, and that is one of the bill's intentions, but the clear and unambiguous language of the bill shows that it goes far beyond that claim. Even FactCheck.org, in their convoluted evaluation of a McCain ad calling out Obama on this issue, admitted that Obama voted for this bill when they confirm that "the bill passed in the Health and Human Services Committee with Democrats, including Obama, voting along party lines in support of it."
The bill would teach little children about sexually transmitted diseases. Obama supported it because it also did other good things.
Protecting Children Born Alive after Failed Abortions
Witholding lifesaving medical care to infants that survive abortions and are living independently outside the womb is an abject evil, yet Obama voted four times against a bill in Illinois that would have guaranteed this medical care. His explanation? First, that it would lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Yet, the bill he voted against contained an amendment specifically preventing this outcome (Amendment 001 to SB1082).
Next, he claimed that "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 antiabortion statute." Obama's singular focus on defending abortion at all costs blinds him to the fact that the babies protected by this bill are living outside their mothers. This was not a bill that protects babies inside their mothers wombs. This was a bill to protect babies living independently outside their mothers.
The National Right to Life Committee (NLRC) has an excellent summary of Obama's votes on this issue in Illinois.
A Failure of Leadership
A "balance sheet" defense for teaching five year olds about STDs and a legalistic defense for failing to protect living infants. That is not leadership. That is not change. That is Obama.
2 comments: