Skip to comments.Barack Obama's Sole Article in Harvard Law Review Promotes Abortion
Posted on 08/22/2008 2:46:49 PM PDT by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- How strongly does Barack Obama believe in unlimited abortions? Strongly enough that the only article he wrote for the Harvard Law Review while he was a law school student talked about how fervently believed in legalized abortion. Obama's name wasn't attached to any other legal scholarship during the time.
In an article unearthed by the Politico web site, Obama, as the president of the Harvard Law Review, wrote an unsigned article touting abortion.
The web site says the article comes in at six pages and is contained in the third volume of the 1990 Harvard Law Review.
In the work, Obama considered a parenthetical abortion issue -- whether unborn children have a legal right to sue their mothers for damage sustained during pregnancy, from such things as alcohol or illegal drugs.
Obama says no and writes supportively of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case and another from the Illinois Supreme Court saying no such right exists.
According to Politico, Obama wrote: "[T]he case raises the broader policy and constitutional considerations that argue against using civil liability to control the behavior of pregnant women."
In a discussion of abortion itself, Obama wrote that government has more important business than "ensuring that any particular fetus is born."
He also decried any limits on abortion, saying the government has an interest in "preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair."
Politico said the Obama campaign confirmed the pro-abortion presidential candidate wrote the piece in question and that it was one of the typical articles law students would write briefing and opining on federal and state court decisions.
In an email to the web site, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt also confirmed that Obama "remains committed to" the sentiments he expressed in the piece.
Obama's article is on page 823 of Volume 103 of the Harvard Law Review and would likely be located in larger public libraries and databases that chronicle legal articles in scholarly publications.
Obama can throw anything under the bus including his own work.
What by killing them????
Oftentimes the handicapped have moments of pain and despair. The mentally ill live lives of pain and despair. The poor sometimes live lives of pain and despair. Should we kill all of them?
This is the most evil, self-serving argument for murder I have ever heard.
Indeed. Anyone this obsessed with abortion has to have a very evil mind.
The full title is:
Tort Law -- Prenatal Injuries -- Supreme Court of Illinois Refuses to Recognize Cause of Action Brought by Fetus Against Its Mother for Unintentional Infliction of Prenatal Injuries. -- Stallman v. Younquist 125 Ill. 2d 267, 531 N.E. 2d 355 (1988)I've printed it out and when I return home I'll scan it and post it if it hasn't been posted already.
What a ghoul. His soul is in peril.
What a ghoul. His soul is in peril.
Any soul he might have is an embodiment of evil.
Let’s see...he formed an opinion on this subject - when - while in law school. Ok...but at the Saddleback Q & A session he said that deciding when life begins was/is “not in his pay-grade.” So what pay-grade was he in while at Harvard law school? What a blithering bafoon this Barack character is.
Without the benefit of a clear constitutional pronouncement on these issues, the Stallman court rightly concluded that, at least in cases arising out of maternal negligence, women's interests in autonomy and privacy outweigh the dubious policy benefits of fetal-maternal tort suits. However, the more difficult cases -- those involving maternal activities that might be considered intentional or reckless infliction of prenatal injuries on the fetus -- remain to be decided. As these cases arise, states should avoid adopting constitutionally dubious laws in pursuit of ill-conceived strategies to promote fetal health. Expanded access to prenatal education and health care facilities will far more likely serve the very real state interest in preventing increasing numbers of children from being born into lives of pain and despair.
I assume this is an euphemism for 'Planned Parenthood' just as "economic justice" is an euphemism for 'income redistribution.
The last sentence before the closing sentence states:
On the other hand, the state may also have a more compelling interest in ensuring that fetuses carried to term do not suffer from debilitating injuries than it does in ensuring that any particular fetus is born.
A single stinking article and he becomes president of law review?? More evidence of what an empty, over-stated, piece of sniveling liberal, clap-trap, this homophilic nobody really is.
Thanks for the ping.
I agree with you but there will be plenty. It’s just like Eve listening to the snake in the Garden of Eden.