Big Lies: Obama on Ayers, born-alive bill
posted at 8:30 am on October 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
In presidential debates (and campaigns), candidates usually try to put their policies and records in the best possible light. The spin usually focuses on the positive aspects of these points to the point of hedging the entire truth, but flat-out lies are pretty rare. Last night, Barack Obama treated us to two of them, and not surprisingly, on the two most controversial points of his record.
The first was subtle, and unless you paid attention to the split screen, you may have missed it. John McCain, after being asked about William Ayers, noted that Obama had launched his campaign in Ayers’ living room:
MCCAIN: Well, again, while you were on the board of the Woods Foundation, you and Mr. Ayers, together, you sent $230,000 to ACORN. So — and you launched your political campaign in Mr. Ayers’ living room.
OBAMA: That’s absolutely not true.
MCCAIN: And the facts are facts and records are records.
OBAMA: And that’s not the facts.
Unfortunately for Obama, those are the facts, both about Ayers and ACORN. Obama paid ACORN over $800,000 this summer for GOTV efforts, which Obama now denies, although he did finally admit that he represented ACORN as an attorney in a lending-practices case. Obama did launch his career at a party hosted by Ayers, which is such a matter of public record that I’m frankly surprised he bothered to deny it.
The next big lie came during the debate on abortion. McCain pointed out Obama’s radical positions on the issue, including his repeated opposition to the Illinois version of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. Obama responded with a series of lies:
There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.
During that period, the Attorney General reported that the practice of abandoning infants born alive during late-term abortions was not covered by the law. Jill Stanek and others testified to the practice, and the Illinois Senate heard testimony that suggested that as many as 20% of all late-term abortions resulted in a live birth. Obama lied about the circumstances of the bill; the reason it was being proposed was because existing law was ineffective at protecting infants born alive.
And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.
There wasn’t a law on the books, and who would be surprised that the people performing the abortions and leaving the children to die wouldn’t want more oversight to prevent that practice?
You can read my previous posts on the subject:
- Infanticide, revisited
- Yes, we can … elect a guy who votes for infanticide
- There are a lot of things above Obama’s “pay grade”
- Team Obama acknowledges infanticide lie
- Obama camp: He only voted against that born-alive abortion bill because it might actually have an effect
- Obama’s support for infanticide breaks into mainstream media
- Obama: Bill unnecessarily burdened doctors with … babies; Update: AOL Hot Seat poll added
- McCarthy: Obama’s moral failing on infanticide
- Obama’s ad lies about infanticide vote
Obama voted against the bill that would have protected infants born alive even after the “neutrality clause” he demanded was added to protect abortion in Illinois. That is the truth in this case, and Obama lied last night to the American people in an attempt to hide his radical position on abortion.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Of course, he lies! Its Taquia!!
kayo on October 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM
While your post has depressed me further because it’s so true, I’m hoping that enough intelligent independents will be repelled by Obama not only by his radical positions against life, but perhaps just the simple fact the man is bald face lying to the country. Guess Bill Clinton’s political resurrection (thanks to GW by-the-way, one of the worst things he did as Pres teaming Bubba up with Bush41 after 9/11) shows that even lying under oath doesn’t cause the Dems any embarrassment in the slightest so why would this. Get elected any way possible is their mantra.
Renwaa on October 16, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Tom, you have to be naive to think this massive scale fraudulent effort is a lot of isolated incidences of individuals. If you ran the probability for this it would be so small as to be approximating zero.
Michele walked through this.
and in a post here on HA.
Marine_Bio on October 16, 2008 at 10:00 AM
“Tom_Shipley on October 16, 2008 at 9:12 AM”
Axelrod astroturfing troll alert. Why bother to “discuss” anything with someone who is one of Axelrod’s paid, or unpaid trolls? This is just another example of their lies and you should just recognize it for that.
Obama has been a serial liar ever since he started (remember how he said that “running for President is absolutely out of the question”? I think that his great record in law school was that he learned the intricacies of being able to debate “both sides of the story”, and the basic premise that a lawyer can take either side of a story and promote it or defend against it. He has ZERO moral fiber, NONE, NADA.
Webrider on October 16, 2008 at 10:07 AM
CLINTONISM LIE ALERT
I caught this today on the clips…..Obama imitates slick Willie brilliantly
“First, William Ayers is not involved in my campaign”
(He answers a charge that has not been made….and that no-one is making)
“Second, he has NEVER been involved in THIS campaign”
(depends on the meaning of the word is???…….He clearly says “THIS” campaign………)
Follow-up: Has he ever been involved, advised you, or supported you in ANY WAY.
Bill Clinton should be proud.
Dpet on October 16, 2008 at 10:09 AM
His description of his health care plan was bogus, too. With his plan, people will wait forever to see a doctor and then be forced to delay elective surgery.
I have had the best medical care and insurance coverage in the past and no where did it approach what he said his plan would guarantee. It’s a pipe dream.
Blake on October 16, 2008 at 10:15 AM
On the two reddest of red meat issues during the debate, Ayers and abortion, I was disappointed but not necessarily surprised at how reluctant is McCain to speak bluntly and directly. He only got into Ayers after whining about negative ads, which made him look bad, and then assumed that viewers knew all about Ayers. McCain did not tell the audience who Bill Ayers is. Same thing on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, McCain really did not explain it, just assuming people know what he’s talking about.
However, I was very surprised at how weak were Obama’s responses on these two points, despite McCain’s tip-toeing. Obomber lied about Ayers, called him a college professor; and offered no defense at all of his votes against the BAIPA. I think he left it open for people to conclude, once they hear more about these two issues, that Obi really is an extremist.
McCain and Palin should follow up on both points in their coming speeches and ads. These two issues by themselves can’t win it, perhaps; but, in combination with the theme that Obi is a classic tax and spend, big government guy, a theme that I think McCain successfully launched last night, ‘Ayers’ and ‘abortion’ will give undecideds and centrists much to think about over the next two weeks.
james23 on October 16, 2008 at 10:15 AM
In the liberal world of relativism it doesn’t rise to the level of non-electability. Only people with absolute standards of morality, family values and patriotism are worthy not to be elected.
wepeople on October 16, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Let’s adopt a couple of techniques of the Iraqi’s for eliminating fraud at the polls.
1. No matter what the inconvenience, we should have all the votes cast on a single day.
2. Make everyone stick their finger in a bottle of ink when they go into the voting booth, so the Dems cannot continue to vote in more than one location.
Sporty1946 on October 16, 2008 at 10:23 AM
I wish McCain would have taken fuller advantage of . . .
Yesterdays HA thread:
“Obama voted “present” on Fannie/Freddie reform”
when BHO opened the door with:
in reply to McCain’s:
heroyalwhyness on October 16, 2008 at 10:27 AM
You are? My God, Ed, he’s a pathological liar, and has repeatedly lied about easily verifiable facts throughout his short career and especially in this campaign. He does so in the fully vindicated belief, I believe, that the press will never investigate or report on his lies, or generalize about his repeated lying that maybe he’s just a dishonest person.
As I said, this belief is fully vindicated. Someone show me a major newspaper report today that fact-checks his lies last night.
Jaibones on October 16, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Make an ad showing Obama’s debate answers, followed by documentation showing them to be lies. End with: “if he lies about these things, what can you trust him on?”
Vashta.Nerada on October 16, 2008 at 10:31 AM
He really shouldn’t have mentioned the hypocratic oath…
“I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”
Plus the fact that doctors only take this oath on a voluntary basis now. I’m pretty sure abortionists don’t.
jjjen on October 16, 2008 at 10:38 AM
So, where are all the evangelicals? How many times were we told we couldn’t win an election without them there for a candidate must be a social conservative? Abortion should be the biggest issue for them. Where are they? Or, have they also gone over to the shiny new object? If so, I want to know about it.
Blake on October 16, 2008 at 10:41 AM
EXACTLY! If a third world country and newly born democracy can run a CLEAN election, why can’t we? Election Day should be on Election Day, period!
Off topic, I am so sick of Hussein’s ugly smug face, as well as his bitter half’s big ole butt. Let’s stand strong, get out the vote, and get the Obamas the hell off the stage pronto!
ErinF on October 16, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Uh, Ok, I’ll bite. What shiny new object?
Marine_Bio on October 16, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Barry could take a dump on the floor and pee on the debate table, then calmly sit back down and say ‘you know, Johnhas been running distracting ads and now he just peed on the table here.’ Headlines the next day? ERRATIC MCCAIN URINATES AT DEBATE, EATS KITTEN AFTERWARDS.
My fairly nonpolitical wife watched last niht while I was out doing something else. She was telling me about what was said and specifically brought up the Ayers and abortion lies. ‘I’m getting really nervous about him, he just lies and lies!’ she said. I kinda laughed and said welcome to my world, felt that way for about a year. The message is slowly getting out, but perhaps too slowly to make a difference. IMO that abortion issue needs to be hit extremely hard. Once people get over the initial ‘that CANT be true’ reaction and start examining the record for themselves it’ll really turn them off. Ayers would be a great one to hit hard also, through the Annenberg Challenge angle. I just don’t know how much these ads cost to run. It’d be nice to have unlimited resources like Barry, but the reality is that some of BO’s lies/positions just won’t get called out because the campaign can’t afford it.
hump1201 on October 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM
The reason why the best liers are the crazy ones–they can make themselves believe whatever is most convenient for themselves at the time. To them, nothing is their fault, because they always go back and retroactively edit their own recollection so that they were always in the right.
No responsibility. As it was with Clinton, so would it be with Obama.
Count to 10 on October 16, 2008 at 11:11 AM
…and, on the subject of being wrong, back before the primaries I was thinking that, if a Democrat had to win, we were better off with Obama than Clinton.
…
Even if Mrs. Clinton is more Marxist than Mr. Clinton, she at least had some of his pragmatism.
Count to 10 on October 16, 2008 at 11:16 AM
“Jailbones,”
How precise and to the point that statement is!
If any news paper, magazine, or electronic news outlet does fact check Barrack Hussein Obama’s statements and corrects his “Inaccuracies,” I’d like to see it also.
In fact, if this occurs, I might actually buy a Super Lottery ticket, since I might get lucky!
Of course, with politicians like Obama, and his claques in the main stream paleomedia, if found out, they will merely state “Oh, I mispoke,” or “It is fake, but accurate.”
William2006 on October 16, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Busted! FactCheck.org cannot be trusted. They have already claimed false information. You and your buddy Axelhead need to get a better talking point memo out.
Copy and Paste is your only weapon it seems.
Kevin in Washington State on October 16, 2008 at 11:23 AM
FactCheck is an Annenberg site- ring a bell?
NightmareOnKStreet on October 16, 2008 at 11:29 AM
****NEWSFLASH**** MICHAEL FELDMAN, a spokesman for Obama was just on Fox & used the word “DISQUALIFY” as in “McCain’s campaign is doing everything they can to DISQUALIFY Barack Obama…”
VERY INTERESTING! LOOK FOR THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE /CITIZENSHIP ISSUE TO COME TO THE FOREGROUND NOW. THEY ARE LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR THEIR “DEFENSE”. EXPECT THIS TO INCLUDE THE RACE CARD OF COURSE. AND DON’T TELL ME THIS IS A DEAD ISSUE. OBAMA’S EITHER A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OR NOT. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
NightmareOnKStreet on October 16, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Senator Government is nothing but a bald-faced liar who has been given a “lie free” card by the MSM. I guess they wanted to emulate the Indonesian environment of Senator Government’s childhood, to make the foreigner feel more at home in the US, until he turns it into a third world socialist sh*thole, like the countries he so admires.
progressoverpeace on October 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM
>Marxist, proud redistributionist and radical president.
>Super majority Democratic Congress with Pelosi and Reid at the head.
>Lying liberal thugs like Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, John Murtha, etc. wielding much power.
>Media enablers such as tingly leg Chrissy Matthews, Olbermann, Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, Schuster, David Gregory, Gergen, (and the list goes on) trumpeting every move Obamessiah makes as history in the making.
Why as white, conservative, heterosexual male should I NOT move to the Canadian wilderness for the next four years?
Hey, they just elected a conservative government recently and I already have experience working the oil sands in Alberta.
Goodeye_Closed on October 16, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I’m an ex airline cargo worker with a highly focused sense of urgency and attention to detail. Hire as many as you can. If Canada starts exploiting shale hard she’ll be the lttle engine that could to Carter II.
sven10077 on October 16, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Here look at this.
Not that it will do any good, facts always confuse you.
right2bright on October 16, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Ed, I again challenge you and Doug to give us any links proving that “During that period, the Attorney General reported that the practice of abandoning infants born alive during late-term abortions was not covered by the law.” I can’t find any and suspect that you are just making this up.
And your statement that “There wasn’t a law on the books” is just wrong. According to Douglas Johnson, the existing law was ineffective in psome circumstances in protecting some of the children born alive. Finally, the Illinois State Medical Society did oppose the bill (not law), as you can find from a simple Google search.
One final point: The federal Born-Alive law passed in 2002 is just a definition of “born alive” (and a statement that it doesn’t interfere with abortion rights). It does nothing by itself and must work in coordination with other laws. Douglas Johnson suggested that there were no other federal laws and regulations in effect, meaning that the federal bill could never have had any substantive effect. If that was the case, then why was the federal bill ever presented to the Congress?
jim m on October 16, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I would add to that the complete and utterly irresponsible blind eye everyone is turning to the fact that Obama hasn’t met the most fundamental requirement: he has yet to prove he is a natural born citizen. The Certificate of Live Birth COLB that he has posted on his website as “proof” is a LESSER “SHORT” FORM and NOT ACCEPTABLE even for applying for a NEW SOCIAL SECURITY CARD (I know, I tried using my COLB and had to get my official BIRTH CERTIFICATE not COLB. Fifty + years and it was still on file. Why is Obama not providing it? He’s trying to get the lawsuit filed against him dismissed, has filed several motions, racking up his big gun lawyers’ bills when ALL HE HAS TO DO IS WHAT McCAIN DID: SHOW US THE RIGHT DOCUMENT.
NightmareOnKStreet on October 16, 2008 at 12:06 PM
I’m not sure that Americans fear the tax-and-spend boogieman the way you think they do with the economy in the shape it is in and after eight years of don’t-tax-and-spend, massive deficits, and now a massive bailout (with Bush, Obama, and McCain all supporting). Just saying.
okonkolo on October 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Justin, I think even Douglas Johhnson, the legislative head of the National Right to Life, would disagree with you on this:
The 1993 agreement prohibited enforcement of the provision of the law requiring doctors to describe the details of the emergency situation under which a doctor didn’t need to have a second doctor in the room. It also rendered unenforceble the definition of ‘born alive’ and some other terms, but the operative provision still required medical care for viable infants. Another provision still required physicians to utilize the method of abortion most likely to cause the fetus to surive when there was a reasonable possibility of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.
jim m on October 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Obama’s capital gains increase seems a less immediate problem when people have capital losses that can last them several years.
dedalus on October 16, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Wow. I’m listening to Obama in New Hampshire. He’s using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. He’s just throwing out rhetoric, whining about negative ads which are the only way people are ever going to know anything about him at all since the media and local newspapers across the country are censoring the information.
Obama supporters are like little kids who put their hands over their ears and yell “I can’t hear you!”
Connie on October 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Obama. No substance. Just shine. And judging by the non response to my question, it does appear that the evangelicals are voting democrat. That is what I have read by a few evangelicals who haven’t.
Blake on October 16, 2008 at 12:55 PM
The left has finally rid themselves of the oppressive shackles of logic and good taste. There’s no stopping the retards. They won’t be happy until America is a smoldering heap and they see their chance to do that, now.
Obama will be able to turn the US into the world of his childhood … Indonesia.
progressoverpeace on October 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM
“LALALALALALALALALAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!”
I’m gonna borrow this :)
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 16, 2008 at 1:01 PM
To quote the article from yesterday (and Rush reading it 5 mins ago) – the Stars are Right, the Seventh Seal is broken, it’s time for eight years of pure unadulterated crazy!
That is, if Obama-sama has his way.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 16, 2008 at 1:03 PM
With the financial situation as it is and Senator Government’s plans to slow the economy down as much as possible … think Weimar Republic and dictatorship. That’s how things are headed. It is going to be very ugly, if the American people have really lost their minds and vote the kid from Indonesia in as President.
progressoverpeace on October 16, 2008 at 1:09 PM
When are those GREAT commercials going to run from NeverFindOut / LET FREEDOM RING? If you want to see them straight from YouTube (to save the link), here they are separately:
1.EARMARKS
2. CHICKEN BUTTON (VOTING PRESENT)
3. PART OF THE PROBLEM (FANNIE MAE)
4. NICE TRY SENATOR (WRIGHT, AYERS, ETC)
5. TRUST (AYERS)
6. NOT THAT TIME (BLACK AM. WON’T ‘VOTE COLOR’)
7. ENERGY
8. ONE
9. PUNISHED (WITH A BABY-NO REGARD FOR LIFE)
10. BALLOON (I’M AFRAID OF YOUR EMPTY WORDS)
11. INCOME TAXES
12. MIDDLE CLASS (LIES)
13. LEFT (MOST LIBERAL SENATOR)
NightmareOnKStreet on October 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Obama lies with such conviction that many people will just assume he’s telling the truth and not pursue the matter any further. The MSM certainly won’t go into it. It’s surprising how many people really don’t care about politics, and just pick their candidate, if they even bother to vote, by what the guy looks like, or something equally irrelevant.
Mulligan on October 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM
jim m on October 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM
If the doctor considered the abortion an emergency, no second doctor was required to be there, thus leaving nobody there who was legally required to give care to the infant born alive. And none of the doctors had to give their reasons for saying the abortion was an emergency. And even if they did, nobody in IL could investigate or prosecute.
How would an abortionist who refused care to a fully-viable abortion survivor ever be prosecuted, given those loopholes?
justincase on October 16, 2008 at 1:28 PM
okonkolo on October 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Americans is far to broad a term but works nicely for your leap of logic. Those of us that actually pay taxes are terrified!
Healing we will feel
dmann on October 16, 2008 at 1:30 PM
I liked how McCain stopped and “flagged” Obama’s words then translated them. For example when O said something like “We’ll certainly look at nuclear energy…” McCain pointed out what many “untrained” ears don’t pick up: that means “no” to nuclear… McCain did that very skillfully a few times and I thought it was highly effective. Some of O’s words like that slipped right past me until Mc “restated” them.
NightmareOnKStreet on October 16, 2008 at 1:37 PM
jim m, Wow! That is the first time I’ve heard of that provision. Would you know if that is part of the law in m/any states?
NightmareOnKStreet on October 16, 2008 at 1:42 PM
NightmareOnKStreet on October 16, 2008 at 1:42 PM
The law will always have an emergency clause, saying that in an emergency all the requirements are voided. When the doctor gets to define “emergency”, doesn’t have to document what made it an emergency, and/or can never have his reasons investigated… the net effect is that an abortionist can call every abortion an emergency and avoid all requirements of the law.
A law that can’t be enforced is no law at all.
justincase on October 16, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Justin, here’s the law. You still had to have a second doctor present unless there was a medical emergency. The only thing the first doctor didn’t need to do under the consent decree is describe why (s)he thought there was an emergency. If there was not one, (s)he could still be prosecuted for a felony (and, among other things, lose the license to practice medicine).
And wouldn’t testimony of nurses, spouses, others still be good evidence if there wasn’t an emergency?
(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.
——————————–
jim m on October 16, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Nightmare, no idea on whether other states have this sort of provision. I would suspect so, since many of them have passed “born alive” laws.
The question I’d still like an answer to is why the need for the federal law if there are (apparently) no other laws or regulations requiring medical care for viable aborted fetuses at the federal level? A definition by itself does nothing.
jim m on October 16, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Did I just hear Pelosi cry “Palomino!” as she watches Oslime-a finally get vetted and thereby watching her power grab go down the drain?
Stop! Please stop!
Bwahahahahahahah!!!!!
csdeven on October 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM
There’s something really odd about the Illinois abortion law situation.
Here’s the “born alive” definition added in 2006.
Sec. 1.36. Born alive infant.
(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section.
(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion.
(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.
(Source: P.A. 94‑559, eff. 1‑1‑06.)
The Illinois born alive definition, though, only works to the extent other Illinois laws use the term. Illinois has adopted an parent notification/consent measure and a partial abortion measure, but does not seem to have adopted a new overall abortion law to replace the 1975 law.
Why does this matter? Because, as I understand it, the section of the 1975 Illinois abortion law that was criticized for applying only to viable fetuses still is the Illinois law.
(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.
Douglas Johnson, is that correct?
jim m on October 16, 2008 at 3:49 PM
BHO doesn’t lie. The Q’ran says it’s ok to lie to infidels (that would be the great majority of Americans.) Oh, no wait he’s not a muslim, he’s a Jeramiah Wright Christain.
Hmmm, now I’m confused, just what is he? I guess I’ll just put it this way. He’s a modern Democrat, so if his lips are moving, he’s lying. There, that’s really what it’s about anyway.
Webrider on October 16, 2008 at 4:00 PM
jim m on October 16, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Why couldn’t an abortionist say every abortion is an emergency? Who would be able to investigate whether that was or wasn’t true – if the enforcement of those very requirements was forbidden, and the doctor was no required to even say why it was an emergency?
And the Herbst-O’Malley Agreement applied to the 1975 law and any amendments to it, so the only way there could be any enforcement of born-alive protections is if there was another law passed that replaced the 1975 law or spoke directly to the issue independently from abortion law.
That’s my understanding. Do you see it the same way?
justincase on October 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Obama has a new ad. The rumor is that the Obama people are tying to get this one pulled from YouTube because he is basically saying he wants to Protect America by Disarming it.
Maxx on October 16, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I’m gonna go out on a limb and predict that Obama’s debate lies will get the same level of MSM scrutiny that Joe Biden’s debate lies (Lebanon, Hezbollah, clean coal, Katie’s Restaurant, etc.) received: None.
AZCoyote on October 16, 2008 at 5:08 PM
The way I see it, the consent decree applied to the various definitions and, with respect to this particular paragraph, the requirement that the abortionist describe what the emergency was. It doesn’t otherwise make this provision unenforeable.
What I don’t understand, though, is how a new definition of “born alive” by itself helps the situation. The 1975 law still seems to apply only to viable or survivable fetuses because those terms are still part of the law. I’m mystified.
jim m on October 16, 2008 at 5:19 PM
But who could enforce it, if law enforcement can’t? It’s all up to the abortionist’s discretion. Even determining the fetal age is up to the abortionist’s discretion – which is why George Tiller (in Kansas) can say he’ll abort even past the due date, but has never aborted a “viable” fetus. O
I wonder if BAIPA would hold the mother accountable for whether the child received care. As I understand it, the ACLU had promised to sabotage any abortion law that abortionists didn’t like. Only a new abortion law would make the law enforceable for the ABORTIONIST, but if the child is defined as a person, the mother would be responsible for providing care regardless of whether she “wanted” the child, wouldn’t she?
justincase on October 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM
So, like Ed, so what? We all know that Obama is a liar. We also know that McCain and the RNC don’t have the horses to go against the Obama ad machine to get the truth to undecided voters about Obama’s little cover-up. Don’t count on the media fact finders to do anything about this. This guy is coated with teflon and not even the hard truth will stick. But, thanks for bringing it up anyway.
joeyb1955 on October 16, 2008 at 5:49 PM
At least if Silky had won the nomination, the aborted fetuses would have the right to hire a trial lawyer so they could try to sue the doctor.
/sarc
Under Obama’s administration, they wouldn’t have the right to an attorney, but an ACORN worker will be waiting in the linen closet to register them to vote.
Y-not on October 16, 2008 at 6:15 PM
CHANGE CHICAGO STYLE
Body count: In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago,
221 killed in Iraq.
the leadership in Illinois…..all Democrats.
Sens. Barack Obama & Dick Durbin,
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.,
Gov. Rod Blogojevich,
House leader Mike Madigan,
Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike),
Mayor
Richard M. Daley (son of former Mayor Richard J. Daley)…..
Chicago is a combat zone. Of course they’re all blaming each other.
Can’t blame Republicans, they’re aren’t any!
State pension fund $44 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County
(Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. (Look’em up if you
want). Chicago school system one of the worst in country.
This is the political culture that Obama comes from!
He’s gonna ‘fix’ Washington politics?
LtE126 on October 16, 2008 at 6:18 PM
McCain did not go far enough. He didn’t explain it enough about this horrendous practice
Mark
http://mark24609.blogspot.com
mark24609 on October 16, 2008 at 6:33 PM
I understand that this law is for the protection of children born alive. And not being a lawyer I am not commenting on that aspect. But my God, how can someone read this, let alone write this law, without being horrified. It makes the mental contortions our society has to go through to accept this horror so terribly clear.
Forgetting the legal aspect for a minute, it basically acknowledges that the fetus is a child but he/she does not have the right to be treated as human unless it is out of the womb. That simple, biologically near insignificant fact can rob a child from it right to life and allow his/her barbaric destruction. May God have mercy on us.
neuquenguy on October 16, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Bull. Are you willfully blind or what?
techno_barbarian on October 16, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Seems like a normal fella’.
tx2654 on October 16, 2008 at 6:45 PM
You just continually amaze me, justincase. Well done.
techno_barbarian on October 16, 2008 at 6:49 PM
The problem is that if someone sees the ‘lie’ but they never see the ‘fact check’ then the ‘lie’ is their reality.
CommentGuy on October 16, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Clinton lied too but the Dhimmicrats just LOVED the way he lied. They just love Barry “baby-killer” Obama. Of course I only mean “baby-killer” in an abstract sense.
Mojave Mark on October 16, 2008 at 8:25 PM
I had a dream/fantasy thing going on that McCain said the following to Obama when asked how they each felt about their VP,,,”Yes, of course Sarah is qualified. I wouldn’t have picked her had I not thought she was qualified. She is as qualified as Bill Clinton was when he first ran. In fact, she is more qualified then Senator Obama. I will say this,,, I have to commend you Senator on one thing,, just one thing,, you have certainly come a long way fast. It was only a few short years ago you were back on the streets of Chicago working with ACORN as a community organizer. Then someone discovered you and the next thing you know you’re launching your political career out of Bill Ayers living room. You won a position in the legislature of your state, after your opponent was forced to drop out. It was only a short time after that you set your sights on the US Senate. You won there as well, after your opponent was forced to drop out. Then, after about 140 days as a Senator, you made the decision to run for President and you won. Even beating Hillary Clinton. Yes, you have come a long way very fast Senator, and you deserve to be commended for that. It must be very exhilarating, very intoxicating. You even have some people calling you the “one true one” and the messiah. like Louis Farrakhan, one of your supporters, called you just this week, the messiah, chosen from god.
Yes Senator, you give a good speech and you’ve gathered a lot of followers and supporters. But, the world is a dangerous place, Senator Obama. It takes a great deal more to be President than just giving speeches and standing before cheering crowds. I respect how quickly you’ve arrived here, Senator,, but I do not believe you have what it takes.
I respect where you’ve come from, but it’s your judgment and ideology I disagree with. And yes, your associations. You can be friends with whoever you want. This is America, but when you are running for President, our friends are everyones business. Bill Ayers is a Marxist and an unrepentant terrorist. A communist. And he is just one of the questionable friends you have.
Yes Senator, again, I commend you. But when you strip all the celebrity away, you are really just a liberal. And I don’t think you have what it takes. I would be very concerned for the future of America should you actually win.
JellyToast on October 16, 2008 at 8:40 PM
Obama Costanza?
“Remember, Jerry, it’s not a lie if you believe it’s true.”
profitsbeard on October 16, 2008 at 8:47 PM
In my mind as I read that, I actually heard it in McC’s voice. Great job. I would’ve loved for it to have gone down like that last night.
Would still make a great campaign ad. Just have McC look straight into the camera and deliver it with gusto.
Game over, Obambi.
techno_barbarian on October 16, 2008 at 9:06 PM
They certainly were the facts, which the media had started reporting since Palin started talking about the ObamAcorn/Ayers Alliance. Much the media reported in a vague manner, but they did report his launching his thug politics in his living room.
ObamAcorn blatantly and unhesitatingly LIED.
Typical Democrat.
91Veteran on October 16, 2008 at 11:15 PM
MORE of interest on the world of Obama-Ayers:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/evidence_mounts_ayers_cowrote.html
EXCERPT:
“What Ayers could never do, however, was run for office on his own.”
“My suspicion is that Ayers saw the potential in Obama, and chose to mold it. The calculation in Dreams is palpable. Nothing about the book would deny a black Democrat the White House. If it were revealed that the ghostwriter is Ayers, it would suggest that Ayers has played a major role all along in the shaping of Barack Obama. It is unlikely that the McCain camp would have invested so much energy in establishing the Ayers-Obama link if they did not think this was the case.”
“At the end of the day, the observer is left with only two conclusions: either Barack Obama experienced a quantum surge in his writing skills almost overnight; or someone made a major contribution to the rewriting of his book.”
“The dispassionate observer has to choose the latter — the former has no precedent. If he can endure the consequences, he concedes that that contributor had to be Bill Ayers.”
Lockstein13 on October 17, 2008 at 9:00 AM
The Video that could cost Obama the election:
http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/NextGenBlog/?p=68
Poll finds American reject redistribution of wealth as suggested by Barack Hussein Obama.
PRINCETON, NJ — When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today’s consumer, Americans overwhelmingly — by 84% to 13% — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.
Read: http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Americans-Oppose-Income-Redistribution-Fix-Economy.aspx
Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy
[Note: Elect John McCain for a free America and economic growth.]
AdrianS on October 17, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »