About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

What is the most important issue in 2008?

By Scott Tibbs, July 11, 2008

When Barack Obama's opposition to a bill that would ban infanticide was discussed on CNN, an Obama supporter replied that "the American people want to talk about gas prices". Both Republicans and Democrats think they can use high gas prices to their advantage this election season and both will be talking a lot about them in the coming months. Certainly, the high cost of gas (reaching $4.00 a gallon and climbing) drives up the cost of everything else and threatens our economic stability.

But are gas prices the most important issue in this election? Far from it.

The most important issue we face in 2008 is the same as it was in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. The most important issue we face is the fact that fifty million people have been killed by a procedure deemed a "constitutional right" by the Supreme Court and that 1.2 million continue to die annually. To bring it down to the local level, the most important issue we face is that several people were killed yesterday in Bloomington, and it was completely legal to kill them. The most important issue we face, of course, is abortion.

There is no issue in this election more important than the extermination of innocent human life in the womb. There is no issue of greater moral significance than the fact that 1.2 million unborn children are killed ever year right underneath our noses and the vast majority of people do not give it a second thought. Abortion may not resonate politically like high gas prices, but that is more a sign of the moral bankruptcy of the average voter than a sign of what is truly important.

Obama's opposition to a bill that would make it illegal to kill a baby that survives an abortion and is born is the most important window into his overall political philosophy (and his character) that we will see in this campaign. It indicates a radical pro-abortion ideology that shatters the myth of a "moderate" politician. It indicates a moral blindness to serious violations of basic human rights. That Obama opposed and blocked a bill to ban infanticide while he was in the Illinois state legislature is not a side issue: it is an position that we can use to examine the foundations of his political beliefs.

What makes this relevant for voters in the 9th Congressional District is that Baron Hill endorsed Barack Obama just a few days before the Democratic Party primary in May. Obama's opponent, a tireless advocate for "abortion rights" herself, voted for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act at the federal level. Baron Hill decided - perhaps due to the enthusiastic support Democrats in Bloomington have lavished in Obama - to support an extremist who opposed closing a loophole to ban all infanticide.

Hill's endorsement should come under close scrutiny by 9th District voters. Why did Baron Hill endorse a radical who opposed a bill banning infanticide? Why did Baron Hill, who will tell anyone who will listen that he is a moderate "blue dog" Democrat, endorse a candidate who is anything but moderate? Why does Baron Hill support a candidate who supports killing newborns? Baron Hill owes 9th District voters an answer to these questions.

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not He who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not He who guards your life know it? Will He not repay each person according to what he has done? -- Proverbs 24:11-12.