Obama camp: He only voted against that born-alive abortion bill because it might actually have an effect

posted at 10:25 pm on August 19, 2008 by Allahpundit

David Freddoso says he can’t see how Obama can spin his way out of this now that his own team’s admitted he lied about it to David Brody. I can think of a way: Drag the issue so deep into the weeds of Illinois’s state legislative history that no one but the most dogged Obama critic will pursue the matter once his eyes have glazed over from trying to keep track of the various pemutations of the bill. To recap, Obama initially said he voted against the 2003 bill protecting born-alive aborted fetuses only because it would have threatened abortion rights due to its lack of a “neutrality” clause vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade. Minor problem: The bill did include that clause and State Sen. Obama was one of the committee members who made sure that it did — before he voted against it anyway. Meanwhile, the bill he voted against was identical to a bill that passed 98-0 in Congress which he claims he would have voted for if he had been a U.S. Senator at the time. How to reconcile the two positions? Simple: Since there are no federal abortion laws, the federal bill was essentially a symbolic gesture, whereas there are of course state abortion laws in Illinois that could have been affected by the state bill. Which is to say, he was prepared to take a stand on the issue if he knew that his stand would have … no practical consequences whatsoever.

As for what terrible effect, precisely, the state bill would have had on those state abortion laws, it’s not clear. Here’s the money passage from Obama’s own fact sheet:

2003 BORN ALIVE LEGISLATION OBAMA OPPOSED IN COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE SAME IMPACT AS FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Planned Parenthood: “Although The Definition Is Similar To The Proposed Federal Legislation, Its Application Would Have A Different Impact On State Abortion Law.” Planned Parenthood wrote in a fact sheet, “SB 1082 & SB 1083 are NOT the same as the socalled “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” which was recently passed in the U.S. House. The federal legislation is considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. It does not amend or change current Illinois law. Federal law does not regulate abortion practice. That is left to the states. Therefore, it is state legislation that would affect abortion practice in Illinois. The package of SB 1082 & SB 1083 creates new provisions in Illinois law. Although the definition is similar to the proposed federal legislation, its application would have a different impact on state abortion law.” [Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet, 2/28/03]

Illinois State Medical Society Opposed SB 1082. Robert Kane, legal counsel to the Illinois State Medical Society, filed a committee witness slip stating the Medical Society opposition to Senate Bill 1082. [Committee Witness Slip, SB 1082]

So the 2003 bill would have done something “new” and “different” to existing law — notwithstanding the neutrality clause that would have prevented any erosion of constitutional abortion rights — but this doesn’t say what, specifically. Read the fact sheet and you’ll see that the 2005 bill that eventually did pass (after Obama left the legislature) apparently included an extra clause specifying that it wouldn’t affect any other state abortion statutes. Is that why Obama voted against the 2003 version, because it lacked a second “neutrality” clause with respect to state laws? If so, then (a) how come he didn’t push to add it when he added the first neutrality clause in his committee meeting, and (b) how come he didn’t mention that to David Brody, opting instead to claim — incorrectly — that the bill was “trying to undermine Roe v. Wade”? Adding to the nuance here is the campaign’s alternative argument, that the 2003 bill actually wasn’t important because it was already the law in Illinois for doctors to try to save born-alive fetuses. (See the end of the fact sheet.) How are we supposed to square that with the point about radically “new” and “different” provisions? Either the bill would have done something or it would have done nothing; Team Barry appears to be arguing that it would have done both. And incidentally, according to Freddoso, it’s not true that Illinois law already clearly governed born-alive situations. If it did, why did the AG conclude in 2000 that there was “no basis for legal action” against a hospital where fetuses were being left to die? As Freddoso says, it’s precisely because Illinois law was insufficient at the time that the legislature was debating a new bill to begin with.

Eyes glazed over yet? Then it’s on to the new new spin: It’s “deeply offensive and insulting” to smear the father of two young children with lies about infanticide, even though the only person who we’re sure has lied thus far in all of this is Obama himself. The media, shockngly, appears to have no interest in this story, so unless FactCheck jumps in it looks like it’ll remain a partisan he said/he said that the public can safely tune out as background noise. Ah well.

Update: Actually, it’s not fair to say that they’re arguing the bill would have done something and would have done nothing. They’re arguing that it would have done something bad and, as such, it was okay to vote against it secure in the knowledge that Illinois law already provided guidance for doctors on this subject. Except that, per Freddoso’s post about the AG, it didn’t really provide guidance, and they’re being awfully coy about the particulars of what that something bad might be.

Update: Ramesh Ponnuru is all over this, too:

Illinois law has rules — loophole-ridden rules, but rules — requiring treatment of babies who have “sustainable survivability.” If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant. Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital “abortions” were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That’s why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.

Obama did not want the gap filled. He did not want pre-viable fetuses/infants to have any legal protection. In the Illinois legislature, he argued that providing them with legal protection would both be unconstitutional in itself — a violation of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence — and undermine the right to abortion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

They can not cover ot all they want.

This thing has legs where it matters.

At some point they’ll notice that.

drjohn on August 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM

What is truly offensive is that Barack Obama thinks Michelle Obama had the right to have those two children killed when they were at their most vulnerable.

EJDolbow on August 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Hasn’t Obama also claimed that he wants to reduce the number of abortions? Do any of the multiple positions he’s taken on this particular issue indicate that that is his interest at all? Hardly.

CP on August 19, 2008 at 10:33 PM

Everything he lies about is “deeply offensive and insulting”…

d1carter on August 19, 2008 at 10:34 PM

Yeah yeah, its deeply insulting that you caught me lying about my own record over an issue that could really hurt me in the general election.

Does this lightweight EVER take responsibility for anything? And he wants to be POTUS? The comedic part is starting to wear thin, now its entering the “why the f**k can’t you ever tell the truth” stage.

Bishop on August 19, 2008 at 10:39 PM

The two core principles of the democratic party:

Raising taxes and Killing babies.

JayHaw Phrenzie on August 19, 2008 at 10:46 PM

Great post Allah,

This story has legs, but the MSM will do everything they can to make sure it doesn’t (a nice mix of Obamania and militant pro-baby killing).

Keep up the pressure!

Weasel Zipper on August 19, 2008 at 10:46 PM

I thought Bob Beckel was going to pop a vein on Hannity/Colmes tonight. He was getting downright mad that anyone DARED question Ubama! Beckel was playing this as a Republican dirty trick, but most Americans don’t see killing babies as a dirty trick…except as a dirty trick on the baby. Pre-natal care and technology have outlapped the old notion that unborn babies are just a mass of unviable tissue.

SouthernGent on August 19, 2008 at 10:47 PM

Does this lightweight EVER take responsibility for anything?

Unfortunately, no, he doesn’t. This is a deeply, deeply arrogant man.

Slublog on August 19, 2008 at 10:47 PM

Drag the issue so deep into the weeds of Illinois’s state legislative history that no one but the most dogged Obama critic will pursue the matter once his eyes have glazed over from trying to keep track of the various pemutations of the bill.

Well, Obama has just met his nemesis in the most dogged Obama critics–no one has more tenacity than pro-life advocates.

Here’s a link to a National Right to Life article from yesterday: Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is “Lying”

I’ll tell you, Obama is the one who’s “deeply offensive and insulting”.

INC on August 19, 2008 at 10:48 PM

The two core principles of the democratic party:
Raising taxes and Killing babies.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 19, 2008 at 10:46 PM

Well, yeah. But they want them both to be safe and “rare.”

wise_man on August 19, 2008 at 10:50 PM

There’s a good article on pajama’s media put up recently that kindof deals with this issue…

The Doctor Is In: Infant Mortality Comparisons a Statistical Miscarriage

Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.

The parents of these children may view socialized medicine somewhat differently than its proponents.

ninjapirate on August 19, 2008 at 10:50 PM

What is truly offensive is that Barack Obama thinks Michelle Obama had the right to have those two children killed when they were at their most vulnerable.

EJDolbow on August 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Indeed.

Weight of Glory on August 19, 2008 at 10:51 PM

I just saw that today Laura Ingraham had Jill Stanek on her show–”former nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, on the gruesome discovery she made there, and Obama’s position on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.”

Anyone hear her?

INC on August 19, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Obama, the infanticide candidate.

Frankly, I don’t know why the Dems are running from this. You’d think that after 40 million or so abortions, they’d be proud or something. Any party that devoted to that magnitude of evil should at least take pride in it.

Sydney Carton on August 19, 2008 at 10:52 PM

Which is to say, he was prepared to take a stand on the issue if he knew that his stand would have … no practical consequences whatsoever.

Excellent, AP.

Weight of Glory on August 19, 2008 at 10:52 PM

And what, pray tell, will be Obama’s next evolved position? It’s okay to kill Republicans because they are not fully developed fetuses?

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 19, 2008 at 10:54 PM

This Born-Alive abortion bill will eventually be the talk among the MSM when it bites the Obamination in the butt by the polls.
But expect Andrea Mitchell to concoct some other story of how we were misled.

jencab on August 19, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Obama – When you stand for everything, you stand for nothing.

coldwarrior on August 19, 2008 at 10:57 PM

Unfortunately, no, he doesn’t. This is a deeply, deeply arrogant man.
Slublog on August 19, 2008 at 10:47 PM

You nailed that one. It’s late where I’m at and I don’t know if that makes a difference, but I’ll tell you, seeing this outrageous spin after Obama got cold busted on a lie is just infuriating to me.

He won’t own up to his own frickin’ words and the stupid jackasses in the MSM just lollygag along as if its no big deal. If we had a real NEWS media, Obama would be back in Chicago by now, wondering how he would pay all the bills for his now defunct campaign.

Bishop on August 19, 2008 at 10:57 PM

(Sarc.)

From the Obama camp,We’ll ya know,its unfortunate that
Obama is so misunderstood,ya know,the right always seems
to get Obama so wrong,in so many ways!

Obviously,the right are reading what they want to see,or
makeup,you know,maybe the voters are taking Obama out of
context,or reading an entirely different op-ed,or putting
words in Obama’s mouth.(Snark)

Absolutely priceless,

Use the Liberals very own words against them,it’ll work
every time!

canopfor on August 19, 2008 at 10:59 PM

If you want to criticize Obama, please check off in advance which you intend to apply:

[ ] Distracting
[ ] Racist
[ ] Offensive/Insulting
[ ] Old politics

Hollowpoint on August 19, 2008 at 11:00 PM

McCain’s team has to find a way to work this into the debates, you’ll get a belligerent respond from Obama laced with more mis truths. The the MSM well almost be forced to mention it. Maybe.

lowandslow on August 19, 2008 at 11:00 PM

The two core principles of the democratic party:

Raising taxes and Killing babies.

JayHaw Phrenzie on August 19, 2008 at 10:46 PM

Indeed.

The two core principles of the republican party:

Raising babies and Killing taxes.

carbon_footprint on August 19, 2008 at 11:00 PM

It’s “deeply offensive and insulting” to smear the father of two young children with lies about infanticide,

If you can, argue the facts. If you can’t argue the facts, argue the law. If you can’t argue the law, pound on the table.

CK MacLeod on August 19, 2008 at 11:03 PM

carbon_footprint on August 19, 2008 at 11:00 PM

You just won.

Bishop on August 19, 2008 at 11:04 PM

carbon_footprint on August 19, 2008 at 11:00 PM

Go to Cafe Press and get your Bumper Stickers and T-Shirts made NOW.

I will buy one.

EJDolbow on August 19, 2008 at 11:05 PM

No matter how he tries to spin it, Obama’s vote shows he is either a total stooge of the pro-abortion lobby or just plain evil. Personally, I think he’s just a tool.

The fact that his tool-ishness is actually the better option here doesn’t speak all that well of him.

Slublog on August 19, 2008 at 11:06 PM

I agree that Obama is a deeply arrogant man. After reading his latest threat (“McCain doesn’t know what he’s up against,” included among that threat is Obama again lying about others, to the extent that he’s making threats because he says he’s been questioned), I now see more proof as to my first impression of this man: he uses charm in that artifical way that dictators do, to mislead the people they also harm without much notice or provocation, but especially when they think their reputation or popularity is at stake.

Castro’s like this. Hugo Chavez is like this. More than a few Islam Imams have been like this. A number of crime figures have been and are like this. Stalin was, Lenin was, Mao was, etc.

There are legs to the issue as to Obama’s “messianic” following and his unstable ego (his ongoing lies about himself and nearly everything else, obsession with himself, drug use…sincerely, I do believe Obama is mentally not well). I do feel he poses an ill wind for our nation.

And he’s been received well by certain politicians in Europe not because they see who he is but because they do not. Behind the charm lies a treacherous person, and treacherous politics.

S on August 19, 2008 at 11:06 PM

I must say folks. Excellent comments on this thread.

This is one of Obama’s thousand cuts that he will get this summer.

Mojave Mark on August 19, 2008 at 11:11 PM

No matter how he tries to spin it, Obama’s vote shows he is either a total stooge of the pro-abortion lobby or just plain evil. Personally, I think he’s just a tool.

Yes, I agree completely. This issue, like no others, points out the ineptitude OR terrible ethical character of Obama (or both). Either he IS that “Constitutional scholar” and knows what’s what with his own contradictions and errors on this issue and his statements about himself related to it, or he is NOT that scholar, not actually, and he’s not bright/aware enough to know the rest.

OR, he’s bright enough to see the full scope of himself and this issue, his record, his contradictions and dishonest statements, and he’s intentionally grabbing at statement after statement after statement for purposes of saying whatever is politically expedient (in other words, he’s intentionally deceiving — lying, in other words).

S on August 19, 2008 at 11:11 PM

The fact that his tool-ishness is actually the better option here doesn’t speak all that well of him.

Slublog on August 19, 2008 at 11:06 PM

I have to believe that people who think this way just haven’t really thought about it.

I was pro-choice when I was young and I never really thought about it. When I did give it some measure of thought I was instantly and seriously anti-abortion.

The zeal of a convert is evident in people like me. And I know lots of people with a similar process.

The fact that Obama is so pro-abortion means he is thoughtless or evil. It is evil to let yourself be used as a “tool” for the abortion lobby is you know abortion is wrong.

EJDolbow on August 19, 2008 at 11:11 PM

Which is to say, he was prepared to take a stand on the issue if he knew that his stand would have … no practical consequences whatsoever.

A real profile in courage, isn’t he?

BTW, AP, that was a very good analysis of the Obama camp’s latest attempt to blow smoke up everybody’s a$$ on this issue. I can’t wait to hear what the next excuse du jour for Obama’s vote is going to be. I bet he’s wishing now that he’d voted “present” on this one too.

AZCoyote on August 19, 2008 at 11:13 PM

McCain’s team has to find a way to work this into the debates

…after they hopefully choose a pro-life VP.

CP on August 19, 2008 at 11:13 PM

words just words

custer on August 19, 2008 at 11:13 PM

carbon_footprint on August 19, 2008 at 11:00 PM

Go to Cafe Press and get your Bumper Stickers and T-Shirts made NOW.

I will buy one.

EJDolbow on August 19, 2008 at 11:05 PM

Yes!

INC on August 19, 2008 at 11:18 PM

The fact that Obama is so pro-abortion means he is thoughtless or evil. It is evil to let yourself be used as a “tool” for the abortion lobby is you know abortion is wrong.

Good point. Thoughtless seems a good explanation – the man is as intellectually incurious as the left ever accused Bush of being.

I simply cannot comprehend how a father who likely saw his children in the womb during the 20-week sonogram can be so pro-abortion. The minute I saw a picture of my now two-year-old daughter sucking her thumb on that computer screen, I was smitten and struck by the humanity of the fetus.

If Obama saw that, and remains a tool, then he’s an idiot or worse.

Slublog on August 19, 2008 at 11:18 PM

Slublog on August 19, 2008 at 11:18 PM

Lends itself well to the earlier comment that Baracky is a world-class tool, ready and willing to consign other people’s babies to the dirty utility closet if it means he gets elected to the next step in his ego-building political fantasy.

Bishop on August 19, 2008 at 11:21 PM

I was pro-choice when I was young and I never really thought about it. When I did give it some measure of thought I was instantly and seriously anti-abortion.

The zeal of a convert is evident in people like me. And I know lots of people with a similar process.

The fact that Obama is so pro-abortion means he is thoughtless or evil. It is evil to let yourself be used as a “tool” for the abortion lobby is you know abortion is wrong.

EJDolbow

Excellent comments, just excellent, and wise, too.

I share in your experience. From my youth forward to early adult years, the issue of “pro-choice” is assumed, taken for granted like some sort of heroic crusade now won and worn on one’s sleeve, almost, as a contemporary youth in America. Females especially, like it’s a comraderie of an issue most “modern women” wear with pride, without regard for the human life that is actually affected so horribly by just what “pro-choice” means.

You gain insights and wake up religiously, and everything changes — sometimes it takes a few years for that to fully be realized, sometimes it is all a big crush of emotionaly awakening, but, the point is, that the issue of ABORTION and exactly what that involves is “disinfected” from the “pro-choice” bravado, individuals support the sanitized, desensitized position until they start to get in touch with the specifics. “Gain a heart,” so to speak, those gifts you only receive by becoming aware of how precious life is.

This issue DOES reveal a “dead” area in certain politicians who present themselves as religious persons yet retain this arrogant dedication to the barbaric process of abortion. They’re the political equivalent of persons suffering Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome: they’ve stepped aside from the actual experience and can’t connect the emotions (or knowledge) to the moment.

S on August 19, 2008 at 11:21 PM

SouthernGent on August 19, 2008 at 10:47 PM

If Beckel is about to pop a vein then we must be on to something…

d1carter on August 19, 2008 at 11:24 PM

Did Obama have pets in his youth? Dogs? Domestic animals otherwise? Because Obama is detached (and evasive) from the actual issue, in some sort of delinquent callousness about life and sensitivity to the value of life.

S on August 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM

McCain’s team has to find a way to work this into the debates

CP on August 19, 2008 at 11:13 PM

I’d like to see a debate moderator ask Obama a follow-up question (or 2) to the answer he gave the other night. He said something like he’s convinced that there is a moral and ethical component to abortion. So okay, let’s hear from Obama just exactly what he believes those moral and ethical components are, at what point in the pregnancy they come into play, and how he has resolved those moral and ethical questions in his own mind. I’d be particularly interested in hearing his answer to the last part, especially since his voting record indicates that he’s unwilling to put any type of restriction whatsoever on a woman’s right to abort.

AZCoyote on August 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM

d2carter, I thought the same thing when I earlier today watched Beckel’s veins a-poppin’. I also note that the “Democratic spokesperson”/s on network news are growing more shrill with the passing days, so that means, they’re losing.

S on August 19, 2008 at 11:27 PM

especially since his voting record indicates that he’s unwilling to put any type of restriction whatsoever on a woman’s right to abort.

I think the blunt reality is that Obama does not want to lose votes and can’t consider losing the Presidency accordingly, so, he’s subjugating any “moral and ethical” opinions to pandering for votes.

Disgusting, to put it mildly.

S on August 19, 2008 at 11:29 PM

Did Obama have pets in his youth? Dogs? Domestic animals otherwise?

S on August 19, 2008 at 11:26 PM

He may have had some when he lived in Indonesia, but around age 8 or 10 he moved back to Hawaii, where he initially lived in an apartment with his mother and half-sister, and then lived in a high-rise condo with his mother’s parents until he went off to college.

AZCoyote on August 19, 2008 at 11:33 PM

Obama camp: He only voted against that born-alive abortion bill because it might actually have an effect

LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

byteshredder on August 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM

Obama has spoken out about old, tired politics ever since he began his Hope and Change candidacy.

Seems like Obama saying anything to get elected is pretty much the definition of old, tired poltiics.

coldwarrior on August 19, 2008 at 11:35 PM

how come he didn’t push to add it when he added the first neutrality clause in his committee meeting

I made a similar point in my blog post on the matter.

That the media is ignoring this is shameful but nothing compared to Obama’s dance on this issue and what it says about him.

aikidoka on August 19, 2008 at 11:38 PM

The fact that Obama is so pro-abortion means he is thoughtless or evil.

I vote for evil, myself.

INC on August 19, 2008 at 11:39 PM

It doesn’t matter if they drag it into the weeds. He went on the Christian Broadcasting Network and said the NRLC LIED about his votes. He didn’t say they misunderstood his votes, or must have made a mistake in their reporting.

He said that they LIED. That was a huge mistake. You just don’t go on the CBN and call the NRLC liars. They may be leery of McCain (of course based on his voting record, they souldn’t be) but that won’t matter any more.

funky chicken on August 19, 2008 at 11:44 PM

Eyes glazed over yet? THIS is why the Infant Born Alive Act was written. This is Congressional testimony from Christ Hospital (Oak Lawn, IL) Labor & Deliver RN, Jill Stanek.

“It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital (Oak Lawn, IL) one of these babies lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Allison Baker described walking into the Soiled Utility Room on two separate occasions to find live aborted babies left naked on a scale and the metal counter. I testified about a staff worker who accidentally threw a live aborted baby in the garbage. The baby had been left on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. When my coworker realized what she had done, she started going through the trash to find the baby, and the baby fell out of the towel and onto the floor.”

dm60462 on August 19, 2008 at 11:56 PM

The Netherlands at one time considered Infanticide as law– I don’t know if it became policy. NRO story about it here.

So it isn’t like it is so unthinkable among polite society that someone might support such a thing. Why scream and act as if it is so heinous that nobody has ever considered it?

MayBee on August 20, 2008 at 12:00 AM

Worst presidential candidate ever.

Dusty on August 20, 2008 at 12:44 AM

Mr & Mrs Obama, several years ago–

Barack (puts hand on Michelle’s stomach): “Wow–the baby’s kicking!”
Michelle: “That’s no baby! It is a part of my body for nine months. I’m kicking myself.”

jgapinoy on August 20, 2008 at 12:48 AM

Eyes glazed over yet? THIS is why the Infant Born Alive Act was written. This is Congressional testimony from Christ Hospital (Oak Lawn, IL) Labor & Deliver RN, Jill Stanek.

dm60462 on August 19, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Can you link that please?
Nobody will listen when I tell them this. Not a word in the Arizona Republic, the Phoenix Newspaper.

redshirt on August 20, 2008 at 12:54 AM

I still can’t quite bring myself to accept that this is even a societal debate.

50 million dead people, and counting.

God help us.

Hawkins1701 on August 20, 2008 at 1:20 AM

“Born-alive fetus” is a contradiction in terms since “fetus” refers specifically to the young one in utero.

Don’t be so prissy with your words, just come right out and say it: Obama refused to support a bill that would have outlawed the practice of killing unwanted newborn babies in abortion clinics.

Gaunilon on August 20, 2008 at 2:41 AM

Just picture Obama chasing an aborted baby who survived the late term abortion procedure crawling down the halls of a Chicago clinic, looking for the comfort arms of it’s Mother or Father, frantically taking it’s first, and maybe it’s last breath of it’s new life, with Obama and the hack Doctor chasing after it………….. yelling “Kill it, KILL IT!!!:

………. I will leave the dark lighting, blood stains, and primal screams of a human being being cut into pieces in it’s most vulnerable state to the rest of you…..

Yeah………. go ahead, trust him with National Health Care, or anything else outside the corrupt politics of Chicago.

Seven Percent Solution on August 20, 2008 at 3:19 AM

If abortion is not an evil, why do pro-choice Democrats want it to be “rare”? That’s a follow up I’d like to hear asked.

mikeyboss on August 20, 2008 at 3:46 AM

Obama, Ayers, and Daley

http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/05/obamaayers-update-didnt-mayor-daley.html

funky chicken on August 20, 2008 at 3:54 AM

Well, yeah. But they want them both to be safe and “rare.”

wise_man on August 19, 2008 at 10:50 PM

You mean that they want children to be safe and rare…very rare.

Tim Burton on August 20, 2008 at 4:06 AM

If we had a real NEWS media, Obama would be back in Chicago by now, wondering how he would pay all the bills for his now defunct campaign.

Yep… the watchdog has turned into a lapdog; America is the loser.

electric-rascal on August 20, 2008 at 4:45 AM

RUSH–PLEASE HAMMER THIS HOME EVERY DAY ‘TIL ELECTION DAY. DECENT PEOPLE CANNOT STOMACH THIS LEVEL OF ATROCITY.

JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 6:25 AM

The fools who vote for Obama will make us all lie in th ebed they make. I just hope enough people survive to make some real change after his four years.

Grafted on August 20, 2008 at 6:41 AM

From NRO:

This is Senator Joseph Lieberman on Larry King Live on August 8, 2000 on why he voted FOR partial birth abortions:

J. LIEBERMAN: Yes, I have — I did not vote to prohibit that procedure, because as horrific as the description of it is, the law of the land clearly is that you cannot ban any procedure at all stages of a pregnancy. In other words, the Supreme Court has said and I think the moral consensus in our society is that up until the point of viability the decision about terminating a pregnancy, no matter what we think personally, has to be between a woman, her doctor, and her own moral standards and God.

KING: No matter what?

J. LIEBERMAN: Yes, no matter what. So the problem with the partial birth abortion was that it banned that one procedure at every stage of pregnancy. Some of us put in an alternative amendment that said, OK, let’s not only ban it, let’s ban every other form of abortion post-viability unless the life or the serious health damage to the mother was in danger.

KING: That got turned down?

J. LIEBERMAN: And that got turned down. And it’s too bad, because I think that’s the kind of common ground approach that could actually pass the Senate. KING: Wouldn’t most Orthodox Jews be pro-life?

J. LIEBERMAN: It’s much more varied. A lot of times people say that, but Jewish law generally on this says that what begins at conception is potential life. And frankly, depending on which rabbi you talk to, some say that the fetus at viability, when it can at least theoretically sustain itself on its own, outside the body of the mother, that’s when life begins. Many other rabbis say that it begins at birth. So it’s a matter of personal judgment.

And like everything else in Judaism, ultimately, it’s up to each of us to decide what we think is right.

I had to read it 3x to know what the hell he was saying. It sounds like he’s arguing that since he couldn’t pass laws outlawing all types of abortions that threaten a viable fetus, he wouldn’t vote for a law that banned one type. If this is what he’s saying, it sounds like a stinking pile of shit to me. Is this McCain’s best bud and future VP?

JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 6:44 AM

As a concerned voter, no, my eyes are not glazing over. This is one of the few solid paper trails we have of this guy, and it’s very telling. I predict by the end of the week all this scrutiny will be construed as… you guessed it… racist.

pookysgirl on August 20, 2008 at 7:34 AM

INC on August 19, 2008 at 10:48 PM

Thanks for the link. The facts outlined in the NRLC article should be turned into a 60 second McCain ad. I think this has tipping point potential–lies and infanticide–think at a minimum Willie Horton or tank commander Dukakis. Obama simply cannot hide from this. All the documentation refutes his contentions and those of his surrogates. I hope McCain presses him on this critical issue.

horatio on August 20, 2008 at 7:43 AM

There is no understanding of right and wrong in this country anymore. Just because something is legal doesnt make it right. Because there is no law against something doesnt make that something right either. This is just one of the very major problems I have with the socilist democrat party.

abcurtis on August 20, 2008 at 8:30 AM

“I was for it before I voted against it”?

Beo on August 20, 2008 at 10:03 AM

Well, yeah. But they want them both to be safe and “rare.”
wise_man on August 19, 2008 at 10:50 PM

You mean that they want children to be safe and rare…very rare.
Tim Burton on August 20, 2008 at 4:06 AM

Well ……. medium rare.

wise_man on August 20, 2008 at 10:57 AM

I had to read it 3x to know what the hell he was saying. It sounds like he’s arguing that since he couldn’t pass laws outlawing all types of abortions that threaten a viable fetus, he wouldn’t vote for a law that banned one type. If this is what he’s saying, it sounds like a stinking pile of shit to me. Is this McCain’s best bud and future VP?
JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 6:44 AM

Lieberman’s the guy who was regarded as pro-life before he got the VP nomination in 2000. Then he conveniently reversed himself.

Note also that partial birth abortion is not horrific to Joe, just the “description” of it.

I think Lieberman has more in common with Obama on this issue — certainly PBA would come in handy in Illinois, where a near-term viable fetus would have to be kept alive, unless you murder it as it emerges from the birth canal. Which is why Obama voted against banning it there.

Nichevo on August 20, 2008 at 11:35 AM

I am officially tired of this story. What is more important to me now is how the left-leaning or dinosaur media–can’t use “news” anymore to describe them–is or more precisely is not covering this story.

Wildcatter1980 on August 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM