Obama’s support for infanticide breaks into mainstream media

posted at 7:22 am on August 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The Washington Post became the first major media outlet to finally acknowledge what David Freddoso and National Review have reported for weeks — that Barack Obama had not told the truth about his vote for the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.  Jonathan Weisman gets the chronology correct and notes that Obama’s committee had added the neutrality clause that Obama claims was not part of the bill before Obama killed the legislation in his committee.  This come halfway through a balanced look at the abortion issue in general for both candidates:

Abortion foes are now accusing Obama of being an abortion-rights extremist. In recent days, the National Right to Life Committee has charged that Obama is misrepresenting his record to broaden his appeal. At issue is a measure in both Illinois and Congress called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which defines as a protected human any life expelled from a mother. Abortion foes championed the cause when an Illinois nurse and antiabortion activist said some pre-viable fetuses were being aborted by inducing labor and then being allowed to die.

Obama, then a state senator, opposed the measure in 2001, saying it crossed the line of constitutionality and “essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus.”

As a committee chairman in the state Senate in 2003, Obama supported GOP efforts to add language to the act, copied from federal legislation, clarifying that it would have no legal impact on the availability of abortions. Obama then opposed the bill’s final passage. Since then, he has said he would have backed the bill as it was written and approved almost unanimously the year before.

What Weisman mostly avoids is Obama’s attempts to mischaracterize his vote on S.1082, although the last sentence hints at it.  When this topic first arose, Obama claimed that his vote against S.1082 in 2003 resulted from a failure of the legislature to include the clause in the federal bill that would have explicitly made this neutral toward the normal practice of abortion.  The NRLC’s research proved that he lied about his vote and the status of the bill.  When confronted by CBN’s David Brody, he called his critics liars instead, but within 24 hours his campaign had to go into full retreat.

As Allahpundit noted last night, Team Obama has shifted to an arcane explanation of the difference between the application of the same bill at the federal and state levels, which Weisman also reports:

Obama aides acknowledged yesterday that the wording of the state and federal bills was virtually identical. But, they added, the impact of a state law is different, because detailed abortion procedures and regulations are governed by states. Johnson and others are oversimplifying the situation, aides said.

Obama’s campaign still lies.  The bill very clearly stated, even without the neutrality clause, that it only applied to infants born alive, regardless of the circumstances of their births.  Once born alive, the medical provider had a duty to provide normal, life-supporting care to the infant.  It had nothing to do with abortion procedures (unfortunately), and as Obama himself claimed at first, the neutrality clause removed all ambiguity about this by explicitly stating that it had no impact on abortion procedures.

But more to the point, Obama flat-out lied about his record.  He opposed a bill that would have stopped the ongoing practice of infanticide in Illinois facilities such as Christ Hospitals.  When first asked about this bill, Obama tried to hide his record by intentionally mischaracterizing the legislation and his reasons for opposing it.  He didn’t talk at the time about the nuances of legal language at the state level — he said that the bill didn’t contain the neutrality clause that would have protected abortion on demand.

Obama cannot hide his radical nature for very much longer.  With the Washington Post reporting this story, the truth about Obama’s protection of infanticide and Obama’s dishonesty on the topic will soon reach wide distribution.


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

We’ll see, I doubt the MSM will run with this…

twiggman on August 20, 2008 at 7:31 AM

Just explain me this: why hell the leftists think they have the moral authority to cry about the poor Iraqi terrorists “slaughtered” by the US military, while they support throwing living, breathing, American babies to the trash cans to rot there?

How can they even open their filthy mouths over “civil rights” and “torture”, when they support slowly and painfully murdering disabled persons such as Terry Shiabo, and slowly and painfully killing unwanted babies.

The leftists, including Al Burack, are classic sociopathic mass murderers, whining about how they are, in fact, the real victims. For me, they are worse than any Communist, Nazi or Muslim mass murderer – because the forthmentioned at least have an ideology, while the liberals are simply nutcases and hypocrites.

Aristotle on August 20, 2008 at 7:35 AM

Obama cannot hide his radical nature for very much longer. With the Washington Post reporting this story, the truth about Obama’s protection of infanticide and Obama’s dishonesty on the topic will soon reach wide distribution.

Please let that happen. A grateful thanks to all that are helping to make that happen, the people at HA especially.

JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 7:37 AM

I wonder whether they’re shallow and stupid or still running cover for Obama.

drjohn on August 20, 2008 at 7:39 AM

Aristotle on August 20, 2008 at 7:35 AM

I think you’re seeing the difference btwn. the puppet masters and the useful idiots. Most of our American leftists (students, aging 60′s people, Hollywood) are of the useful idiot type. They don’t have the slightest idea that they’re being used by those who understand fully the leftist ideology.
Slublog called Barry a tool (useful idiot) and not someone guilty of having a true ideology. I’m not sure about that–I think he’s both, a hybrid. He’s the vehicle for sure, but he’s also smart enough to have a sense of what part he’s playing. For that reason, he’s even more despicable than say, Cindy Sheehan, who hasn’t a clue.

I’d like the puppet masters better identified and exposed.

JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 7:45 AM

Clearly the Washington Post is a right-wing, racist newspaper that hates Obama.

Mr. Wednesday Night on August 20, 2008 at 7:53 AM

SURPRIZE,SURPRIZE,SURPRIZE – Gomer Pyle

CynicalOptimist on August 20, 2008 at 7:57 AM

I’m not sure about that–I think he’s both, a hybrid.
JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 7:45 AM

I think he thinks he is a player but in reality he is just a tool of his wife and terrorist buddies. He has spent most of his life deep within the leftist world. Islamic training, aide to terrorist or collage teacher all of which could be argued are far left in their ideologies. What I would find interesting is who pushed him into politics? I really doubt it was his idea because why go into politics when you have a nice collage teaching job?

jmarcure on August 20, 2008 at 8:00 AM

But more to the point, Obama flat-out lied about his record. He opposed a bill that would have stopped the ongoing practice of infanticide in Illinois facilities such as Christ Hospitals.

The Obama camp (including the oh so outraged Bob Beckel) keep saying that Illinois law already forbade this practice so the bill was redundant and unecessary.

If that’s the case, how is it that Christ Hospital routinely left babies to die in a utility closet and were never prosecuted for these acts?

Indeed, there’s nothing more redundant than “hate crime” legislation, yet Obama is in favor of expanding these statutes, so how to explain this contradiction?

Buy Danish on August 20, 2008 at 8:04 AM

Some day these people will face a God that gave them life, multiple blessings and responsibilities. They will give an account for those lives they could have saved but didn’t. There will be hell to pay.

wepeople on August 20, 2008 at 8:05 AM

JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 7:45 AM

Dunno, i believe in personal responsibility for everyone. Yes, including dumb hippies. There are no “puppet masters”. There are people who actually believe that personal comfort justifies brutal murder of babies and cripples. And in fact, i could relate more to the autoritarian Chinese who killed babies because of populance overgrowth, than to people who kill for “freedom”.

Liberalism is a phenomenon so sick and twisted, so unprecedented in Human History – it sometimes makes me wonder whether the entire Western Civilization which led the world in this direction is a mistake.

Aristotle on August 20, 2008 at 8:09 AM

Anita I just came here to post that and when I saw it I couldn’t believe it was the NYT!!

ArmyAunt on August 20, 2008 at 8:17 AM

God bless David Freddoso. He is not a right-wing crackpot and his book and articles were meticulously researched. The media simply cannot ignore his findings. When you have a nominee with such a thin resume, EVERYTHING in his record becomes fair game. Even my Obama-supporting husband agrees with this.

Of course, the liberal media probably think focusing on abortion as an issue will ultimately help Obama because McCain has such an “extreme” pro-life voting record and a majority of Americans still say they are pro-choice. As Obama sinks in the polls because it’s obvious he is on the wrong side of every issue, perhaps they think that at least he’s on the right side of this one.

What helps McCain is that many evangelical and other hardcore prolife voters may not know Obama’s extreme record and will be horrified by it, enough to get off the fence and support McCain.

rockmom on August 20, 2008 at 8:17 AM

They will give an account for those lives they could have saved but didn’t. There will be hell to pay.

If belief in God helps humans sanctify life, it would be sufficient reason to believe. Belief in God may in and of itself be civilizing, regardless of whether there is a actual God.

JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 8:18 AM

Anytime Barry goes on TV, he loses 5 points.

LOL

benrand on August 20, 2008 at 8:20 AM

What helps McCain is that many evangelical and other hardcore prolife voters may not know Obama’s extreme record and will be horrified by it, enough to get off the fence and support McCain.

rockmom on August 20, 2008 at 8:17 AM

As well as working class white Dems, who do tend to be more religious than the lefty/upper class Dems, and maybe even the PUMAs.

The Hillary supporters might be pro-choice, but a lot of them also may have had children. They have seen an infant born alive, and it’s not an issue of “choice” at that point.

Wethal on August 20, 2008 at 8:21 AM

If belief in God helps humans sanctify life, it would be sufficient reason to believe. Belief in God may in and of itself be civilizing, regardless of whether there is a actual God.

JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 8:18 AM

Tochna. Wonderfully said.

While I believe Obama is a tool, at the same time, do we really think this issue is going to sink him? I mean, it’s not like there’s only one reason to not vote for Obama… and while his support is slipping, it’s not tanking. I just don’t have enough faith that the MSM is going to do it’s full and proper job exposing the facts, and that voters are going to care. A lot of them might be suffering from election burn-out (I know I am, with months to go), and they might not be paying attention anymore.

Anna on August 20, 2008 at 8:25 AM

Liberalism is a phenomenon so sick and twisted, so unprecedented in Human History – it sometimes makes me wonder whether the entire Western Civilization which led the world in this direction is a mistake.

Aristotle on August 20, 2008 at 8:09 AM

Boy, I know what you mean. It is so disheartening to think that the end-product of the impulses that drive societies to be just and fair and open and free invariably leads to their destruction.

I don’t have enough philosophy to fall back on to help me. But I wonder if there is something analagous to Jesus’ comment about the poor being always among us. Is there always to be some elements of society who will tear down the fragile blocks that support the very freedom they abuse? What should be done with them? We don’t have the stomach to march backwards towards greater authoritarianism. There must be an answer to this riddle. I have read many studies of the fall of different civilizations– it’s an interest of mine. They are always all the same.

JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 8:25 AM

I just don’t have enough faith that the MSM is going to do it’s full and proper job exposing the facts, and that voters are going to care. A lot of them might be suffering from election burn-out (I know I am, with months to go), and they might not be paying attention anymore.

Anna on August 20, 2008 at 8:25 AM

Any one of Obama’s faults should have been enough to disqualify him. Any one should have been enough to deny him the nomination. Any one should have been enough to deny him a seat in the US Senate.

It’s a frustration that one is not enough for our neighbors. It makes you question where you live. Lets hope 20 or so is.

JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 8:35 AM

Obama does not lie. Falsities metamorphize into truth when he utters them.

Is Obama able not to sin, or is he not able to sin?

The Washington Post will be the first to be ‘nationalized’.

Grafted on August 20, 2008 at 8:38 AM

Obama lied—–infants died

Rumors circulating that Obama leaning towards choosing Jack Kevorkian for his Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Newly appointed VP Clooney and presumptive Secretary of State Michael Moore approved of the appointment.

John McCain surges to a twenty point lead in the polls.

Rovin on August 20, 2008 at 8:42 AM

Does this help Kaine’s VP chances? Would Obama pick an abortion moderate to show that he’s not an extremist?

Mr. Wednesday Night on August 20, 2008 at 8:46 AM

Do you guys really think he supported Killing babies

tomas on August 20, 2008 at 8:48 AM

I believe anonymous posters that are dumber than a box of rocks shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves, ‘Aristotle’.

The liberal idiots who are killing children are not doing it for so-called ‘freedom’, which is a just a risible pretext. Like the Red Chinese, they are doing it almost entirely for utilitarian purposes–it gets rid of humans whose continued existence would be inconvenient. It would be too crass, selfish, impolite and, moreover, true for them to express it like that. (‘Hey, I wanna kill the kid because I’m more important than anything else!’)

Obama has also promised the Left that he will endorse the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which will take all the individual states’ restraints off abortion–including making partial-birth abortion legal.

He is a monster.

ahem on August 20, 2008 at 8:50 AM

It’s a frustration that one is not enough for our neighbors. It makes you question where you live. Lets hope 20 or so is.

JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 8:35 AM

Every. Single. One. of my immediate neighbors supports Obama, and will no matter what. The only way my wall-mates will not vote for him is if he starts identifying with his white ancestry (I was stupid enough to ask why they supported him, their answer was ‘he’s one of us.’). I know not every Obama supporter is the same, but it’s a scary thought – supporting a man not for his positions on the issues (where Obama would surely lose), but for such superficial reasons.

I don’t support McCain on a lot of issues, but at least they’re not as egregious as Obama’s faults.

Anna on August 20, 2008 at 8:55 AM

Not “lies”…T…A…Q….I….Y….A….H!

Dale in Atlanta on August 20, 2008 at 9:00 AM

Obama lied, babies died.

Virus-X on August 20, 2008 at 9:02 AM

With the Washington Post reporting this story, the truth about Obama’s protection of infanticide and Obama’s dishonesty on the topic will soon reach wide distribution.

How best to run with this? I don’t think it makes sense to have McCain running abortion ads. He’s trying to appeal to squishy centrist voters, a great many of whom are going to be pro-choice. So maybe we need to have National Right to Life or another group run ads depicting a late-term fetus being born and then immediately tossed in a hamper, then a cutaway to a smiling Obama and a voiceover/text: “Barack Obama was the Illinois senator to vote against a bill to stop the murder of infants born alive after attempted abortions. Obama is not just pro choice; he’s a radical. Do you want this kind of man in the White House?”

Outlander on August 20, 2008 at 9:08 AM

Liberalism is a phenomenon so sick and twisted, so unprecedented in Human History – it sometimes makes me wonder whether the entire Western Civilization which led the world in this direction is a mistake.
Aristotle on August 20, 2008 at 8:09 AM

Boy, I know what you mean. It is so disheartening to think that the end-product of the impulses that drive societies to be just and fair and open and free invariably leads to their destruction. JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 8:25 AM

Liberty without morality is license. Western civilization is based upon Judaism and Christianity, which require liberty as part of the Biblical compact of free will.

Western civilization defends liberty for all. As long as a majority have the internal governance that comes with obedience to the morality of the Western faiths, the civilization holds steady.

If the majority rejects these faiths, they will either find other faiths, or no faith. In such cases, the drift begins. Items of certainty, like the immorality of pedophilia, or infanticide, are re-examined by people who do not respect the old list of taboos.

I am shocked to see how fast people slide into decadence. Many moral codes are reasonable but reason is trumped by rationalization of selfish impulses.

I am also surprised how quickly people find something to worship. God is replaced by the State, which becomes the security blanket. To protect the security blanket, controls must be tightened and heretics must be purged. Believers in God of Abraham, with their ‘free will’ tempered by moral codes become heretics in the religion of the State.

The Founders were right. This nation, without the moral foundation will fall. The moral foundation without belief that God is real cannot stand.

One by one the rules will be erased until you end up with – Obama, supporter of infanticide, who can say with total ignorance, that “America is no longer a Christian nation – if it ever was”

entagor on August 20, 2008 at 9:12 AM

So maybe we need to have National Right to Life or another group run ads depicting a late-term fetus being born and then immediately tossed in a hamper, then a cutaway to a smiling Obama and a voiceover/text: “Barack Obama was the Illinois senator to vote against a bill to stop the murder of infants born alive after attempted abortions. Obama is not just pro choice; he’s a radical. Do you want this kind of man in the White House?”

Outlander on August 20, 2008 at 9:08 AM

Followed by the Obama camp’s cries of “RAAAAACIST!” and the MSM’s hand wringing at “negative ads.”

Oh, the fun!

fossten on August 20, 2008 at 9:13 AM

Thank you Ed and Allah. How much did the Clinton’s have to do with uncovering and pushing this, as they are going to be the beneficiaries? I think within 48 Hours every super delegate will receive some contact that will continue, about how unelectable O now is, and that convention wil be WWF-like.

kflynn on August 20, 2008 at 9:15 AM

Anyone see Bob Beckel(sp?) blow up on H&C last night over this? He kept asking if Hannity was saying that Obama wanted to kill babies. Hannity did not have the stones to say yes.

RobD on August 20, 2008 at 9:21 AM

Libs say “yea but when Obama lied no one died”

AAAANT! Wrong answer.

GatewayMac on August 20, 2008 at 9:25 AM

the bill “essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus.”–Obama

Pre-viable child?
Bite your tongue, BO!
It’s a blob of tissue, not a child!

jgapinoy on August 20, 2008 at 9:27 AM

How cynical does a guy have to be to help craft legistlation that he then OPPOSES? Was this so he could keep the Planned Barrenhood campaign donations and support rolling in?

Talk about not having the courage of one’s convictions!

Lurking Vet on August 20, 2008 at 9:30 AM

Aristotle on August 20, 2008 at 7:35 AM

I saw a vehicle yesterday proudly displaying their Obama ’08 sticker and their other sticker said

Fund education, not mass murder

My first thought was of the millions of innocent humans lives ended…I’m sure that driver has no problem with the loss of all those American lives.

Then I saw another bumper sticker
Planned Parenthood…wiping out a generation of Americans one baby at a time

That gave me some hope. Maybe I’m not totally surrounded by the looney left here in Metro Detroit.

ConMom on August 20, 2008 at 9:35 AM

How much did the Clinton’s have to do with uncovering and pushing this, as they are going to be the beneficiaries? I think within 48 Hours every super delegate will receive some contact that will continue, about how unelectable O now is, and that convention wil be WWF-like.

kflynn on August 20, 2008 at 9:15 AM

Thank you for feeding my paranoia about Obama, that he is a tool to rehabilitate Hillary.

The choice of a black nationalist, muslim raised child of polygamy, infanticidal, Rev. Wright mentored, Farradkan apologist, buddy to unrepentant anti American bomb planning terorist, arugula eating, flag despising, Pledge of Allegiance embarrassed, Ashamed of English speaking, inexperienced non performing Senator who leaves his middle name off his Senate site, absent of birth certificate, planner of military strategies on the podium, Citizen of the World candidate who does his largest campaign sweep in Europe by apologizing to Germany for America’s failings

just doesn’t smell right.

However, Obammie does make Hillary look moderate. Obammie has taken criticism of Hillary off the radar. That is rehabilitation no one could have dreamed possible two years ago

entagor on August 20, 2008 at 9:36 AM

Voters should punish him with a baby – - issue.

marklmail on August 20, 2008 at 9:47 AM

A friend of mine sent me this quote by the best President:

“The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being”

simon on August 20, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Will this come up in the debates?

ctmom on August 20, 2008 at 9:50 AM

It was BRIEFLY on the Star Tribune’s website last night but gone again this morning….

LL

Lady Logician on August 20, 2008 at 10:20 AM

Ed–Illinois already had a law in effect that covered this issue (from the Illinois Abortion Act of 1975).

(2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; in such a case, the physician shall describe the basis of this judgment on the form prescribed by Section 10 of this Act. Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.
(3) The law of this State shall not be construed to imply that any living individual organism of the species homo sapiens who has been born alive is not an individual under the “Criminal Code of 1961,” approved July 28, 1961, as amended.
(4) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable possibility of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.
(b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act, the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing the method employed.
(c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(4)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(5) Nothing in Section 6 requires a physician to employ a method of abortion which, in the medical judgment of the physician performing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, would increase medical risk to the mother.
(6) When the fetus is viable and when there exists reasonable medical certainty (a) that the particular method of abortion to be employed will cause organic pain to the fetus, and (b) that use of an anesthetic or analgesic would abolish or alleviate organic pain to the fetus caused by the particular method of abortion to be employed, then the physician who is to perform the abortion or his agent or the referring physician or his agent shall inform the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed that such an anesthetic or analgesic is available, if he knows it to be available, for use to abolish or alleviate organic pain caused to the fetus by the particular method of abortion to be employed. Any person who performs an abortion with knowledge that any such reasonable medical certainty exists and that such an anesthetic or analgesic is available, and intentionally fails to so inform the woman or to ascertain that the woman has been so informed commits a Class B misdemeanor. The foregoing requirements of subsection (6) of Section 6 shall not apply (a) when in the medical judgment of the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician based upon the particular facts of the case before him: (i) there exists a medical emergency, or (ii) the administration of such an anesthetic or analgesic would decrease a possibility of sustained survival of the fetus apart from the body of the mother, with or without artificial support, or (b) when the physician who is to perform the abortion administers an anesthetic or an analgesic to the woman or the fetus and he knows there exists reasonable medical certainty that such use will abolish organic pain caused to the fetus during the course of the abortion.

jim m on August 20, 2008 at 10:23 AM

the ongoing practice of infanticide in Illinois facilities such as Christ Hospitals.

Oh, talk about “Orwellian!”

irishspy on August 20, 2008 at 10:49 AM

If belief in God helps humans sanctify life, it would be sufficient reason to believe. Belief in God may in and of itself be civilizing, regardless of whether there is a actual God.

JiangxiDad on August 20, 2008 at 8:18 AM

The Christian belief that each individual person is made in the image of God is one of the foundational principles that drives a belief in the sanctify life. There are also many words in the Bible about caring for those in all different kinds of weaknesses and need.

INC on August 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM

From Jill Stanek today (her emphasis):

Stick to the Obama/Born Alive talking points

I spent a great deal of time on the phone with 3 reporters from major news organizations the last 2 days, and each one become frustrated with me because I wouldn’t allow them to take me down rabbit trails when discussing Barack Obama’s opposition to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

All 3 times I was the call they made after the call they made to the Obama campaign, Planned Parenthood or the ACLU, so I was handed their talking points to rebut.

The other side is trying to obfuscate Obama’s opposition to Born Alive by saying: 1) it was part of a package of 3 bills with intolerable ramifications to abortion; and 2) although the verbiage of the federal and state bills was identical, the consequences to state law was not.

But I refused to deviate from these 2 points:

1. We now know Barack Obama as state senator voted against identical Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation that was passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and accepted by even NARAL.

2. For 4 years Barack Obama has misrepresented his vote and must answer for that.

The exasperated New York Times reporter finally complained, “They’re trying to broaden the discussion but you’re trying to narrow it,” as if I were the one to blame for that. I said of course they’re trying to move eyes off the ball, and of course I’m trying to stay focused.

Anyway, it wasn’t we who narrowed the discussion. It was Barack Obama himself, who has repeatedly stated he would have voted for Born Alive in IL had it been the same as the federal bill. He focused on one point – one bill – and so are we.

INC on August 20, 2008 at 10:57 AM

At NRO Ramesh Ponnuru writes:

Only yesterday has the Obama campaign finally, in desperation, gotten close to telling the truth about Obama’s position. In its latest apologia, the campaign isolates the language it found so objectionable in the Illinois bill. “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” The campaign calls this “Language Clearly Threatening Roe.”

Jill Stanek has another column up titled Obama’s “fact sheet” changes in which she discusses this point: (her emphasis)

One added point. Note the heading, “Language Clearly Threatening Roe.”

“Clearly threatening Roe”? Then explain this, Senator Obama. Even before the hyped “neutrality clause” was added, the U.S. House voted 380-15 in September 2000 for this version, you know, the one “clearly threatening Roe.” Leading pro-abort Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) stated at the time, according to World magazine:

The purpose of this bill is only to get the pro-choice members to vote against it so they can slander us and say we are for infanticide. That’s why I voted for it in committee, and that’s why we will vote for it on the floor.

Obama just wasn’t so smart.

INC on August 20, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Do you guys really think he supported Killing babies

tomas on August 20, 2008 at 8:48 AM

What other possible explanation could there be? Even after hearing the Jill Stanek’s heart-wrenching testimony about how she cradled the baby in her arms for its last 45 minutes of breath–he STILL had no problem whatsoever stuffing it in a utility closed to die.

Jungliszt on August 20, 2008 at 12:19 PM

The activities at Christ Hospital should have already been covered by the existing “born alive” law.

We know that the Illinois Medical Association also opposed the new law, so there must have been something in it (probably the fact that it applied at all times through pregnancy) that made doctors think it was overreaching.

jim m on August 20, 2008 at 12:20 PM

jim m,

David Freddoso wrote this at NRO. The article Life with Obama: Abortion champion.was linked to here the last few days. He writes of Jill Stanek’s encounter with the aborted baby born alive at Christ Church Hospital:

Hospital officials dismissed Stanek’s concerns. She then approached the Republican attorney general of Illinois, Jim Ryan, who issued a finding several months later that Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois. Doctors had no ethical or legal obligation to treat these premature babies. They had passed the bright line of birth that had effectively limited the right to life since the Roe v. Wade decision, but under the law they were non-persons.

INC on August 20, 2008 at 12:30 PM

I really doubt it was his idea because why go into politics when you have a nice collage teaching job?

jmarcure on August 20, 2008 at 8:00 AM

J, if you are going to mention teaching in “collage,” first learn how to spell it. Your point will not be taken seriously otherwise.

leftnomore on August 20, 2008 at 1:10 PM

How surprising?!?! I wonder if the left-leaning or dinosaur media is worried that they had better actually “report the news” instead of “cheer lead” for the candidate of their choice.

Wildcatter1980 on August 20, 2008 at 1:20 PM

The leftists, including Al Burack, are classic sociopathic mass murderers, whining about how they are, in fact, the real victims. For me, they are worse than any Communist, Nazi or Muslim mass murderer. . . .

Aristotle on August 20, 2008 at 7:35 AM

Check the stats. You’ll find the pro-choice movement has actually killed more people than Hitler did.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 20, 2008 at 1:50 PM

I really doubt it was his idea because why go into politics when you have a nice collage teaching job?

jmarcure on August 20, 2008 at 8:00 AM

Obama was an art teacher!?

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 20, 2008 at 1:54 PM

look at what Obama said and its all you need to know..

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

baby = STD

get that? Abortion/Murderer is an acceptable cure to to get rid of babies babies/STD’s.

kinda sick to equate human babies to STD’s, also Obama wanted to treat “born alive babies” as “medical waste” and left to die.

Obama total POS.

Chakra Hammer on August 20, 2008 at 2:59 PM

When I read the transcript of Barry O’s argument’s on the Illinois bill, one thing struck me right between the eyes. There were no UHs or UMs. Did they just not put all of his stammering speech into the record or was he so certain and committed to his position that he was actually able to string words together into coherent sentences?

darwin-t on August 20, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Notice that the reporter has put Obama’s declaration “they are lyingafter instead of before his campaign’s acknowledgement that the wording was identical. It hides the timing of events by giving the impression his reaction was made afterwards

“Obama aides acknowledged yesterday that the wording of the state and federal bills was virtually identical. But, they added, the impact of a state law is different, because detailed abortion procedures and regulations are governed by states. Johnson and others are oversimplifying the situation, aides said.

“They have not been telling the truth,” Obama told the Christian Broadcasting Network in response to a question on the matter. “And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”

Ragnell on August 20, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Once this gets some legs in the MSM, then McCain can freely use it in ads. The Washington ComPost is a good start. A few more stories in other outlets should do it.

Mallard T. Drake on August 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM

INC and others–the problem was not with the existing law (which would have covered this situation). It was that Stanek’s story could not be substantiated:

“In his book The Case Against Barack Obama, author David Freddoso misrepresents findings by the Illinois state government to claim that a statement by Sen. Barack Obama explaining his opposition to a bill that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 was “not true.” Claiming that Obama’s assertion — that “measures mandat[ing] lifesaving measures for premature babies” were “already the law” in Illinois — was false, Freddoso falsely asserts that the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and a July 2000 letter from Illinois’ then-Attorney General Jim Ryan’s office refute Obama’s statement. They do not; indeed, a reported statement by IDPH supports it.

The July 2000 letter was a response from Ryan’s office to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. In a letter on Ryan’s letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote in part:

On December 6, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH’s internal review did not indicate [emphasis added] a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act.

No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.

[...]

While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.

From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that “[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois.” But the state’s conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims — IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law. (The word “indicate” is in italics above because in his quotation of the letter, Freddoso substitutes the word “include” for the word “indicate.”)

In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: “[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. … We took (the allegations) very seriously.” Zorn wrote further: “Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, ‘The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.’ “

jim m on August 20, 2008 at 6:41 PM

And see this entry from Stanek’s blog in 2002: She admits that the problem was with Ryan, and not the existing law. And note that the Federal law was in place in 2002, which was before the Illinois vote in 2003 in which Obama is alleged to have blessed “infanticide”.

Why I’m going to a Jim Ryan fundraiser tonight

Monday, September 16, 2002

By Jill Stanek (Jill@illinoisleader.com )

I thought after the primary I would just ignore the governor’s race this year. My guy, Patrick O’Malley, didn’t win and I had a big problem with the guy the Republicans of Illinois picked, Jim Ryan.

I also had a big problem with conservative leaders and groups that I thought should have supported O’Malley during the primary but either didn’t or put their feet in both camps to hedge their bets. I blamed them for O’Malley’s loss.

I thought to myself, “I can’t support Ryan. To do so would be to compromise. To do so would be to say that everything I said about him during the primary was a lie.”

And as the scandal of corruption within the Republican Party was exposed, I felt somewhat vindicated and also thought, “I’ll just let the Party and those groups suffer the consequences of their actions.”

The problem I had with Jim Ryan was the way he handled live birth abortion at Christ Hospital. Rather, how he didn’t handle it. He didn’t do anything. He punted the politically volatile football to the Illinois Department of Public Health.

This can now be confirmed as true due to information just received this past Friday from Attorney General Jim Ryan’s office via the Freedom of Information Act, which makes this piece even harder to write.

The AG’s office admits it never opened an investigation of Christ Hospital. There is no investigation number. There is no paperwork.

And strangely, the AG refuses to hand over any opinion he may have rendered on the two-part constitutional question, “Is a live aborted baby a legal person, and if so, is it legal for Christ Hospital to leave live aborted babies to die?” The AG’s opinion is ever more important now that the federal Born Alive bill is law, because we need to know the AG’s thinking so as to begin enforcing this law in Illinois.

I think the reason the AG refuses to hand over its opinion is because there is no opinion. Contrary to FOIA law, a law that the AG himself helped write, the FOIA response took two months, three certified letters, and several phone calls to obtain from the AG’s office.

So, I think it will be awhile, or maybe never, before we find out what the highest legal official in the State of Illinois was thinking when his office said on July 19, 2000, “We have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.”

jim m on August 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM