=20

Classified=20
- Cars=20
- Jobs=20
- Real=20 estate=20
- = Apartments=20
- Local=20 stores & deals=20
- Dating=20
- Pets=20
- Items=20 for sale=20
- Place=20 an ad
Shopping=20
Traffic=20
Weather=20
News
- Local=20
- Nation/World= =20
- Politics=20
- D.C.=20 bureau=20
- Religion= =20
- Educat= ion=20
- Death=20 notices=20
- News=20 obituaries=20
- Columnists=20
- Special=20 reports=20
- Photos/Multime= dia=20
- Corrections =
- Off = topic=20
Blogs=20
Opinions=20
Business=20
Sports=20
Entertainment=20
Living=20
Travel=20
Resources
- Newsletters/alerts= =20
- Mobile=20
- RSS feeds=20
- MyNews=20
- Send=20 a news tip=20
- Site=20 map
Newspaper services
- T= oday's=20 paper=20
- Subscribe=20 now=20
- Subscriber=20 Advantage=20
- Tribune=20 Store=20
- Vacation=20 hold=20
- Delivery=20 issue=20
- Pay = bill=20
- About=20 us=20
- Contact=20 us=20
- Archives=20
- News = in=20 education

=AB=20 Girl goes whoops-a-daisy -- Oh! The humanity! | Main = |=20 The=20 curse of the inert husband -- rumor or reality? =BB =

Originally posted: August 14, 2008

Obama answers the 'baby killer!' brigade

The Obama campaign has responded=20 to Jill Stanek's "Breaking=20 news: New documents show Obama cover-up on born-alive = survivors=20 bill."

FROM THE OBAMA=20 CAMPAIGN:

I recent days the right wing blogosphere and rumor = mongers have=20 falsely accused Senator Obama of misrepresenting his = position on=20 =93Born Alive=94 legislation. Please see the = Fact Check=20 below which documents that Senator Obama supported such = legislation=20 when it did not threaten the Constitutional rights embodied = in Roe v=20 Wade.

FACT CHECK: =93BORN ALIVE=94 = LEGISLATION

CLAIM: =93Barack Obama opposed = the=20 Born-Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois State = Senator. =20 He spoke against the bill, calling it an =93unnecessary = burden=94 for=20 women and voted against it three times. Despite that=20 opposition, he has since declared support for the federal = version of=20 the same legislation that aims to protect newborn babies who = survive=20 abortions. After NARAL pulled its opposition to the=20 legislation, Obama continued to oppose it. Obama has = publicly=20 stated he opposed the legislation due to its lack of a = =93neutrality=20 clause=94 =96 language expressing that the bill had no = bearing on the=20 legal status of unborn children with regard to abortion.=94 = [Susan B.=20 Anthony List press release, 8/12/08]

Fact: OBAMA=20 OPPOSed State legislation which could have threatened Roe; = Federal=20 Bill Stripped out language that could have been used to = challenge=20 roe

The Major Difference Between State And Federal = BAIPA:=20 =93The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have = Been Used=20 To Challenge=94 Roe V. Wade. =93Perhaps on no = other issue=20 is Keyes' rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. = Keyes=20 repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring =91infanticide=92 = because of=20 Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. = The=20 failed measure would have required doctors to provide = medical=20 attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of = abortion=20 procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed = through=20 Congress. But there was a major difference between the state = and=20 federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language = that=20 could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade = abortion=20 legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to = hammer Obama=20 with the "infanticide" charge virtually daily on the = campaign trial.=20 Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to = care=20 for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he's = "deeply=20 offended" by Keyes' assertion because he knows it's = false. =20 Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on = late-term=20 abortions that Bush signed - but federal judges since have = put on=20 hold - and Keyes would have voted for it.=94 [Chicago = Daily=20 Herald, 9/20/04]

=B7 = State And Federal Born Alive = Infant=20 Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same = Language=97IL=20 Legislation Said =93A Live Child=94 Born Under These = Conditions Would Be=20 =93Fully Recognized as a Human Person.=94 = The Illinois legislation read, = =93A live child=20 born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as = a human=20 person and accorded immediate protection under the law.=94 = The Federal=20 legislation did not [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human = Services,=20 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]

=B7 State And = Federal=20 Definitions Of =93Born Alive=94 Differed. According = to the=20 Illinois Compiled Statutes, =93born alive=94 was defined as = =93when=20 applied to an individual organism of the species homo = sapiens, each=20 mean he or she was completely expelled or extracted from his = or her=20 mother and after such separation breathed or showed evidence = of any=20 of the following: beating of the heart, pulsation of the = umbilical=20 cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, = irrespective of the=20 duration of pregnancy and whether or not the umbilical cord = has been=20 cut or the placenta is attached.=94 According to US Code, = =93As used in=20 this section, the term "born alive", with = respect=20 to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete=20 expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that = member, at=20 any stage of development, who after such expulsion or = extraction=20 breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical = cord, or=20 definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of = whether the=20 umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the = expulsion=20 or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced = labor,=20 cesarean section, or induced abortion.=94 [Illinois Compiled Statutes; US Code]

=B7 Obama Said = He Would=20 Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation Because it = Could Not=20 Be Used to Undermine Roe. The Chicago = Tribune=20 reported, =93Obama said that had he been in the US Senate = two years=20 ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants = Protection Act,=20 even though he voted against a state version of the = proposal. =20 The federal version was approved; the state version was = not. =20 Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion=20 procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers = argued it=20 was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life = after=20 being separated from its mother=85the difference between the = state and=20 federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state = measure lacked=20 the federal language clarifying that the act would not be = used to=20 undermine Roe vs. Wade.=94 [Chicago Tribune, = 10/4/04]

Claim: =93Official legislative = documents released=20 this week show that Obama in fact presided over a committee = hearing=20 where =93neutrality clause=94 language =96 identical to the = federal=20 language =96 was added to the Illinois version of the Born = Alive=20 Infant Protection Act. After voting in support of the = =93neutrality=20 clause,=94 Obama then joined fellow Democrats to oppose the = bill,=20 killing it by a vote of 6-4, even after the addition of the=20 =91neutrality clause.=92 The bill Obama killed is = nearly identical=20 to the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection = Act=20 signed by President Bush in 2002 =96 legislation Obama has = said he=20 supports.=94 [Susan B. Anthony List press = release,=20 8/12/08]

FACT: = There are=20 MAJOR differences in state and federal bills, including the = fact=20 that the federal bill included a=93Neutrality = Clause:=94 =20

=20 =20

2003 Legislation That Obama=20 Opposed

=20 =20

Federal Legislation That Obama = Would Have=20 Supported

=20 =20

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of = any=20 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the = various=20 administrative agencies of this State, the = words=20 "person", "human being", "child", and = "individual"=20 include every infant member of the species homo = sapiens=20 who is born alive at any stage of = development.

=20 =20 =20

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of = Congress, or=20 of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of = the=20 various administrative bureaus and agencies of = the=20 United States, the words "person", "human = being",=20 "child", and "individual", shall include every = infant=20 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive = at =20 any stage of development.

=20 =20

(b) As used in this Section, the term "born = alive",=20 with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, = means=20 the complete expulsion or extraction from = its=20 mother of that member, at any stage of = development, who=20 after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has = a=20 beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or = definite=20 movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of = whether=20 the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless = of=20 whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a = result=20 of natural or induced labor, cesarean = section, or=20 induced abortion.

=20 =20

(b) As used in this section, the term "born = alive",=20 with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, = means=20 the complete expulsion or extraction from his = or her=20 mother of that member, at any stage of = development, who=20 after such expulsion or extraction breathes or = has a=20 beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or = definite=20 movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of = whether=20 the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless = of=20 whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result = of=20 natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or = induced=20 abortion.

=20 =20

(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed = to=20 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal = status or=20 legal right applicable to any member of the = species=20 homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as = =20 defined in this Section.

=20

FAILED AMENDMENT, NOT INCLUDED IN FINAL = LEGISLATION

=20 =20

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to = affirm,=20 deny, expand, or contract any legal status or = legal=20 right applicable to any member of the species = homo=20 sapiens at any point prior to being "born = alive" as=20 defined in this section.

=20 =20

(c) A live child born as a result of an = abortion=20 shall be fully recognized as a human person and = accorded immediate protection under the = law.

=20 =20 =20

FACT: Obama=92s Health And Human Services = Committee Held=20 Hearing on a Change In The Definition To =93Born = Alive.=94 =20 The bill amended the Statute on Statutes to define=20 =91born-alive infant=92 to include every infant member of = the species=20 homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. = Defines=20 =91born alive=92 to mean the complete expulsion or = extraction from the=20 mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after = that=20 expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, = pulsation=20 of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary = muscles,=20 regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and = regardless=20 of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of = natural=20 or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced = abortion. A=20 live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully = recognized=20 as a human person and accorded immediate protection under = the law.=20 [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human = Services,=20 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05]

FACT: Obama=92s Health And Human Services = Committee=20 Postponed Induced Birth Infant Liability Act. = The=20 bill created the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act and = amends the=20 State Finance Act to provide that, if a child is born alive = after an=20 induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent of the = child or=20 the public guardian may maintain an action on the child's = behalf for=20 damages, including costs of care to preserve and protect the = life,=20 health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs = and=20 attorney's fees, against a hospital, health care facility, = or health=20 care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to = provide=20 medical care to the child after the child's birth. The = bill=20 provided that damages shall be used to pay for the cost of=20 preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of = the child.=20 The bill provided that, if the child does not survive, the = balance=20 remaining after the costs of preserving and protecting the = life,=20 health, and safety of the child are paid shall be deposited = into the=20 Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund, a special fund in = the=20 State treasury. The bill provided that the Fund shall be = used by the=20 Department of Public Health to make grants for neonatal care = or=20 perinatal hospice. [SB 1083, Postponed by Health and Human = Services,=20 2/26/03, 3/6/03, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05]

FACT: BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE = WAS ALREADY=20 THE LAW IN ILLINOIS

Illinois Law Already Stated That = In The=20 Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A = Doctor=20 Should =93Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born = Alive As A=20 Result Of The Abortion.=94 The Chicago Tribune reported, = =93=91For more=20 than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when =91there = is a=20 reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus = outside the=20 womb, with or without artificial support,=92 an abortion may = only be=20 performed if a physician believes =91it is necessary to = preserve the=20 life or health of the mother.=92 And in such cases, the law = requires=20 that the doctor use the technique =91most likely to preserve = the life=20 and health of the fetus=92 and perform the abortion in the = presence of=20 =91a physician other than the physician performing or = inducing the=20 abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate = medical=20 care for any child born alive as a result of the = abortion.=92=94=20 [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]

Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve = The Life=20 And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There = Is=20 Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The = Illinois=20 Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who = intentionally=20 performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on = the=20 particular facts of the case before him, there is a = reasonable=20 likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the = womb, with=20 or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of = abortion=20 which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical = judgment=20 most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No = abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is = viable=20 unless there is in attendance a physician other than the = physician=20 performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control = of and=20 provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a = result=20 of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a = child is=20 born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall = exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and = diligence=20 to preserve the life and health of the child as would be = required of=20 a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born = alive=20 in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an = abortion.=20 Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 = felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS = 510/6]

| Permalink =20

Comments

Eric, that is not a response from the Obama campaign that you = promised=20 your readers.

That is an old cut and paste from the Obama website. It doesn't = take=20 into account the new information I sent you proving that Obama = voted=20 against the IDENTICALLY WORDED Born Alive bill on the state level = as was=20 passed on the federal level.

You didn't read the links to documentation I sent you or you're = trying=20 to ignore them. Read the AMENDED version of SB1082. Read the vote = on=20 that.

ZORN REPLY-- Honestly, this week I'm on vacation...I'm just = presenting=20 the two sides and waiting to sort this out for next week. this is = an email=20 sent out by the Obama campaign yesterday.

Posted by: Jill Stanek | Aug 14, 2008 = 9:44:34 AM

It is rather astonishing that, in light of the new documents = that came=20 to light this week, the Obama campaign here continues to brazenly=20 misrepresent the content of the state Born-Alive Infants = Protection Act=20 (BAIPA) legislation that Obama killed in 2003. The Obama = campaign's=20 purported side-by-side comparison of the state and federal bills = shown=20 above is flatly false. Here's the documented truth: On March 13, = 2003,=20 Obama -- as chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee -- = actually presided over a committee meeting at which an amendment = was=20 adopted that added to S. 1082 EXACTLY the "neutrality clause" that = had=20 been copied from the federal bill (falsely described by the Obama = campaign=20 as a "failed amendment not included in final legislation"). (The = adopted=20 amendment also removed the phrase "(c) A live child born as a = result of an=20 abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded=20 immediate protection under the law," thereby making the state bill = and the=20 federal law virtually identical.) You can read these official = documents=20 yourself by going to the NRLC home page at NRLC-dot-org and = clicking on=20 the newly released Obama documents at the top of the NRLC home = page.

The documents posted there contain a side-by-side of the REAL = text of=20 the bill that Obama killed (as opposed to the fictional version = shown=20 above), side-by-side with the federal law that he claims to = support. There=20 is virtually no difference between the two. The claimed = differences cited=20 above simply did not exist at the time that Obama and his = colleagues voted=20 down the bill on March 13, 2003.

By way, in 2000, even BEFORE the "neutrality clause" was added = to the=20 federal bill, it passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a = vote of=20 380-15. In other words, nearly all of the "pro-choice" members of = the U.S.=20 House rejected the notion (embraced by Obama) that the original = bill --=20 even without a "neutrality" clause -- somehow conflicted with Roe = v. Wade.=20 That's because the bill, on its face, dealt only with infants who = had been=20 born alive. After the "neutrality clause" was added, the federal = bill=20 passed the Senate and House without a dissenting vote -- yet, as = now=20 documented, Obama subsequently killed the cloned state bill.

In an apparent attempt to generate a smokescreen around its = core of=20 disinformation, the Obama "response" also contains a great deal of = diversionary, irrelevant information. The discussion here, and the = focus=20 of the Obama disinformation campaign, is the federal Born-Alive = Infants=20 Protection Act (BAIPA) and its 2003 counterpart, S.B. 1082 as = amended. The=20 "Induced Birth Infant Liability Act" is an entirely different = piece of=20 legislation that is not even at issue in this discussion. Also, = the old=20 Illinois law concerning late abortions was virtually worthless in = that it=20 gave complete discretion to an abortionist to decide if the baby = was=20 "viable" enough to require the assistance of a second = physician.

Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director
Susan Muskett, = Legislative=20 Counsel
National Right to Life Committee
Washington,=20 D.C.
202-626-8820
Legfederal@aol.com

Posted by: Douglas = Johnson | Aug=20 14, 2008 10:42:32 AM

This response is depressingly unhelpful. And I say that as = someone who=20 would like Obama to have a good response.

What the opponents of Obama are now claiming is that they have = evidence=20 that the Amendment passed, and that Obama still helped to kill the = bill in=20 committee. To the degree that Obama addresses it, it is with the = note in a=20 box claiming that the Amendment failed. But there is nothing in = the link=20 given that gives any explanation of what the document is that = supports the=20 attack, or why the amendment failed if it had unanimous = support.

Was the amendment killed in a different committee or during a = different=20 vote? It is worrisome that Obama, in answering this charge, gives=20 everything but the evidence needed to evaluate the response.

Maybe I am missing the evidence somewhere in the link. But I = can't find=20 it.

Posted by: Lon | Aug 14, = 2008 10:43:58=20 AM

Wow. I know of columnists who have been accused of simply = writing up=20 press releases for various politicians, but I've never seen it = done so=20 brazenly before.

ZORN REPLY -- I didn't write it up...I didn't have a link to = the=20 response so I reposted it...as I would have done for Jill's piece = if I=20 didn't have a link for that. For this blog entry I'm simply=20 linking/showing readers what both sides are saying.
Now...back = to my=20 vacation.

Posted by: Dan Marsh | = Aug 14,=20 2008 10:47:25 AM

So after maybe a 100 lines of smoke and mirrors I pull out this = conclusion:
under the column titled:

"2003 Legislation That Obama Opposed"
[THAT'S OPPOSED = FOLKS!]
is=20 this little gem:
c) A live child born as a result of an = abortion shall=20 be
fully recognized as a human person and accorded
immediate = protection under the law.

Case closed in my view. He is for killing babies.

Posted by: thoth | Aug = 14, 2008=20 11:04:49 AM

I must be missing something.

Besides not being able to find any actual difference between = the=20 Federal and State proposals, much less "MAJOR DIFFERENCES," I am = entirely=20 unable to ascertain what, exactly, is the additional language in = the State=20 version (the one Obama voted against) which "threatens the = Constitutional=20 rights embodied in Roe v Wade (which by the way, Mr. Zorn, = pertains only=20 to the right to first-trimester abortions)."

As it has been asserted as FACT by Mr. Zorn repeatedly, I would = ask=20 that Mr. Zorn, or someone on his behalf, specify the language he = has=20 determined to be indisputibly present in the State version (the = one Obama=20 voted against) which threatens the very overturning of Roe v. = Wade.

I await the details of these obvious and "Major" = differences.

CLAIM: The assertation that there are said "major difference" = is an=20 intentional fib to try and vaguely explain away a crippling and = now=20 inconsistent Obama position. There are no actual major differences = in the=20 bills, and there is no such Roe-threatening language present in = the bill=20 Obama voted against.

Posted by: = Harold |=20 Aug 14, 2008 11:14:40 AM

Few people will read this. Most people don't let facts get in = the way=20 of what they believe. I cite religion and Rush Limbaugh as = examples, along=20 with the prevalence of chain Email diatribes.

Posted by: Jack O'B | Aug 14, 2008 = 11:20:27 AM

My apologies on my prior note.

It appears to be the Obama campaign, not Mr. Zorn, asserting = such=20 things as "fact."

I still await the details requested.

Posted by: Harold | Aug 14, 2008 11:22:06 = AM

This story is being peddled by a far right wing blogger named = Jill=20 Stanek. She was one of the primary "sources" in Jerome Corsi's = screed=20 against Obama.

It deserves no credible discussion.

Posted by: Frank | Aug 14, 2008 12:17:58 = PM

"It deserves no credible discussion" =3D "I don't know what i'm = talking=20 about, but boy is obama swell!"

this is a nice press release dump by some intern. but = everything here=20 is old news. this is the spin that obama's been trying to put on = this=20 story. the new question revolves around what he did in that = committee. if=20 he voted down the very amendment he said was required to get his = vote for=20 the bill then he's a liar. again.

Posted by: b | Aug 14, = 2008=20 12:53:06 PM

Gee, Frank, that seems like an ad hominem attack. If the story = has=20 merit, it doesn't matter who is peddling the story.

Moreover, the National Right To Life is moving on this as well. = Do they=20 have an agenda? Sure, but they seem to have made a good argument = that=20 Obama's been less than forthcoming in his position on this issue.=20

Posted by: John | Aug 14, 2008 = 1:38:51 PM

People who use terms like "baby killing" are impervious to = reason,=20 logic or facts. Trying to argue with them is a waste of time. All = you can=20 do is counter their misinformation (i.e., lies).

Posted by: Pan | Aug 14, 2008 2:18:18 PM

Let's hear it for single issue voting!

Posted by: Sean | Aug 14, 2008 2:46:40 PM

Obama supports abortion for any reason or no reason through all = nine=20 months of gestation. If a baby survives the abortionist's knife, = Obama=20 endorses letting her or him die unaided in the clinic. Obama = advocates=20 government funding of abortion, including partial birth abortion. = Obama=20 opposes parental notification, meaning he supports spiriting our = 12 year=20 old daughters away for surgical procedures. Obama has received = millions of=20 dollars in campaign contributions from the abortion industry. = Obama is a=20 pro-abortion extremist who would use judicial appointments and = executive=20 fiat to relentlessly advance the Culture of Death. Nothing Zorn = has=20 advanced in the hair splitting attempt to defend Obama changes = this.=20 People who oppose the industrial scale for-profit killing of = innocents=20 will not/can not vote for Obama.

Posted=20 by: john patrick | Aug 14, 2008 2:58:57 PM

I would really like to see the transcripts from the session = that=20 included the amended SB 1082, as I have been able to locate the=20 transcripts from previous deliberations of the bill, but not for = the=20 amendment -- I went to the IL gov website but I was unable to = locate it...=20 does this exist?

Posted by: LP | = Aug 14,=20 2008 4:25:00 PM

Frank said: [[This story is being peddled by a far right wing = blogger=20 named Jill Stanek. She was one of the primary "sources" in Jerome = Corsi's=20 screed against Obama.

It deserves no credible discussion.]]

And I disagree. Just because she's a far right winger, doesn't = mean=20 she's not right. I clicked on this because this is a matter I = truly want=20 to sort out. I was confronted with reams of info -- but as it came = from=20 Obama's campaign I am not at all sure of its veracity, = particularly as it=20 contradicts some other info I have read (the stripping out of the=20 language, etc.)

I am pro choice, but am deeply troubled by late term abortions. = What=20 matters most to me is Obama's position on this matter, and whether = it's=20 changed appreciably, particularly if what he SAYS is not what he = DOES. I=20 admit to being a non-supporter (inexperience and other issues are = stopping=20 points with me), but I think it's still necessary to know if = changes have=20 been made.

I look forward to more info, as I understand Eric is on = vacation. And=20 hey! summer's winding down. He gets to enjoy time with his=20 family.

Posted by: Beth | Aug 14, = 2008=20 4:58:16 PM

It now seems to be well established (see penance.us/?p=3D60 for = a brief=20 chronology of events) that Barack Obama obstructed the Illinois = Born Alive=20 Infant Protection Act and, moreover, lied about his reason for = doing so.=20 It is probable that Obama=92s untruth was neither a misspeak, nor = some=20 careless act of forgetfulness =97he is far too intelligent for = that. Rather,=20 the key to his actions can be gleaned from his statement:

=93What difference do two or three minutes inside or outside = the womb=20 really make? One=92s =91late-term=92 and the other=92s = =91postpartum=92=94. =97 Barack=20 Obama, 2007 Stem Cells R US convention.

A discussion on the considerations motivating of Obama=92s = =93Infanticide=20 Lie=94 can be found at pennance.us?p=3D82

Posted by: Philip Pennance | Aug 14, 2008 = 6:21:21 PM

You are on vacation and yet you find time to post the ENTIRE = TEXT of an=20 Obama campaign piece because you 'couldn't find the link.'/

ZORN REPLY -- Ever cut and pasted something electronically, = "no"? It's=20 as easy to do a whole news release as a single paragraph...took me = almost=20 no time.
I don't think it's posted elsewhere online or I would = have=20 just linked to it. That's slightly easier.
Now, back to my=20 vacation.

Posted by: no | Aug 14, = 2008=20 8:44:52 PM

Why is it I don't recognize the names of these people making = comments?=20 I know the 'usual suspects' for a Zorn column. Were all of you = 'invited'=20 through some right-to-life group or listserv?

Posted by: Tom J | Aug 14, 2008 9:47:30 PM

I guess this is the one aspect of Obama's leadership that = really has me=20 torn. I am a true lefty liberal feminist union worker and = Unitarian=20 Universalist. I have always voted Democrat (except for when I = voted for=20 Peraica) and I am thrilled beyond belief about Obama's candidacy. = But his=20 stance on abortion seems so inflexible and callous that it doesn't = really=20 jibe with my feminist side. He really didn't think children born = alive=20 should be considered human? That's harsh.

Posted by: KM | Aug 14, 2008 9:51:27 PM

Philip Pennance - global warming denier and nasty extremist=20 anti-choicer - don't dignify his cheap attempt to get hits by=20 visiting.

Posted by: phylosopher = | Aug 14,=20 2008 11:02:03 PM

john patrick:

You and others here (Jill Stanek, et al) who have this pro-life = philosophy clearly are passionate about protecting what you have = defined=20 as "killing of innocents".

While you wait for Obama to provide the evidence that you seek = will you=20 be using this same zeal your cohorts are expressing here to pursue = the=20 stopping of other industrial scale for-profit killing of = innocents?

Say for example: the Bush administration's apparent lies and = real=20 motivations to go to war in Iraq in order to grow profits of their = companies like Halliburton, Blackwater, and Big Oil?

There is killing of innocents occuring thru these actions as = well.

So I guess: until I see you and your like applying the same = standards=20 of your philosophy to all conditions, I will not take your charges = seriously because it becomes clear you are only interested in = achieving=20 your goals and not having a real discussion about implementing a = just=20 philosophy.

Posted by: Armi | Aug = 15, 2008=20 6:27:41 AM

I commented above that it is not clear that Obama's response = answers=20 the current charge by the anti-abortion crowd. But it should be = clear that=20 what is not being answered is not something about whether Obama = favors=20 infanticide. Obama's material makes clear that the kind of = infanticide=20 that Obama supposedly supports was illegal without this measure. = And it is=20 his opponents who have not provided any evidence on that = issue.

We have a bill which with the amendment added is purely = symbolic. It=20 was clearly an attempt to make pro-choice supporters vote for = something=20 which at least when squinted at appears anti-choice.

Obama has said that if faced with a bill identical to the = federal one,=20 that is a bill that would have nothing but symbolic effect, he = would have=20 voted for it. That is not to say that he necessarily thought it = would be a=20 good bill, in fact it is hard to see on what basis passing = symbolic bills=20 that do not actually change the law can count as good bills. It = means that=20 he felt he could do more good to causes he believes in (including=20 presumably his political career) to vote for the symbolic measure = than=20 against.

What is at issue in this dispute is whether he killed the = symbolic bill=20 in committee (something that would seem fully justified given that = the=20 bill was a political game rather than serious legislation) and = whether he=20 has been dishonest about doing that.

It certainly seems consistent with what has been presented so = far that=20 Obama has been misleading about his role in stopping this bill. = This is=20 not a moral issue on the level of the despicable accusations of = baby=20 killing that we have seen from his opponents. Being dishonest = about how=20 one killed a political trick designed to falsely portray ones = opponents as=20 favoring infanticide is not a moral failing on the level of = pushing=20 political tricks designed to falsely portray ones opponents as = favoring=20 infanticide.

Posted by: Lon | Aug = 15, 2008=20 8:43:13 AM

And the proceedings form this "convention" can be found, where? = And=20 this convention took place where? Anyone else even a bit = suspicious of=20 this quote/convention?

Eric, know you're on vacation, but any chance one of those = factcheckers=20 back at the Trib can check this out -

Posted by: phylosopher | Aug 15, 2008 = 9:14:03 AM

Jill Stanek is an anti-abortion zealot and my impression is = that she=20 will do or say anything to see Roe vs. Wade overturned. The fact = that she=20 cooperated with Jerome Corsi on his lie-filled book smearing = Barack Obama=20 means that anything that she has to say should be checked, and = double=20 checked before it is accepted as a fact.

Posted by: Quippy | Aug 15, 2008 9:24:43 = AM

Beth wrote:
"And I disagree. Just because she's a far right = winger,=20 doesn't mean she's not right."

However, Stanek has shown is not a journalist, just a blogger = with a=20 personal axe to rind. She has spread rumors (Michelle Obama's = Whitey tape)=20 used hyperbole (a fence to keep anti-choicers from protesting on = private=20 property was compared to Auschwitz) and held medically inaccurate = and=20 illogical positions - not only is abortion to be banned, but=20 contraception, too claiming in addition that BC causes more women = to seek=20 abortion.

By all means, explore the issue; generally the legislature's = record.=20

Remember, Obama was a Constitutional law professor. As such, I = would=20 suggest that if he knows that if a law exists on the books, then = putting=20 another law on top of that only opens the state to costly = lawsuits, should=20 one be challenged because it may have political agenda grounds on = which it=20 can be challenged - remember the "Moment of Prayer/Silence law - = there was=20 already a law in place that would have allowed teachers to have a = moment=20 of secular silence- but the rightwing fundies had to push the = issue -=20 causing nothing more than litigation $ and wasted legislative time = ($) on=20 it.

Posted by: phylosopher | Aug = 15, 2008=20 9:25:05 AM

About one percent of abortions are performed late-term.

Support for a woman's right to abortion at any stage is not = condoning=20 "baby killing." It's supporting the woman's health, and the = physician's=20 ability to determine what's necessary to ensure her well being. = (That's=20 what "abortionists" are, you know. Doctors.)

Some facts:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5103a1.htm#tab6=
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5103a1.htm<= /P>

Excerpts from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib13.html = :
In the=20 years following Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court clarified the = physician's=20 role in determining when a fetus is viable.

In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976), = the Court=20 declared, "The time when viability is achieved may vary with each=20 pregnancy, and the determination of whether a particular fetus is = viable=20 is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the responsible = attending=20 physician." The Court rejected as unconstitutional fixed = gestational=20 limits, saying that "it is not the proper function of the = legislature or=20 the courts to place viability, which is essentially a medical = concept, at=20 a specific point in the gestation period."
...
The Court = [later]=20 upheld the lower court in saying that it is the professional=20 responsibility of the physician to determine whether the fetus has = the=20 capacity for "meaningful life, not merely temporary=20 survival."
...
In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern = Pennsylvania v.=20 Casey (1992), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the essential tenets of = Roe v.=20 Wade, but did allow the states to impose some restrictions in = early=20 pregnancy as long as they are not "unduly burdensome." The Court = also=20 noted that "some of Roe's factual assumptions" had been overtaken = by time,=20 pointing out that "advances in maternal health care allow for = abortions=20 safe to the mother later in pregnancy than was true in 1973...and = advances=20 in neonatal care have advanced viability to a point somewhat = earlier."

But, the Court continued, these advances had "no bearing on the = validity of Roe's central holding" that viability marks the point = when the=20 state's interest in the fetus becomes compelling. And, it added, = "the=20 soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no = sense turns=20 on whether viability occurs at approximately 28 weeks, as was = usual at the=20 time of Roe, at 23 or 24 weeks, as it sometimes does today, or at = some=20 moment even slightly earlier in pregnancy, as it may if fetal = respiratory=20 capacity may be somehow enhanced in the future. Whenever it may = occur, the=20 attainment of viability may continue to serve as the critical = fact."

Thus, the Supreme Court made it clear that the determination of = viability, which depends on a variety of individual factors, must = be left=20 to the professional judgment of the individual physician. = Provisions that=20 establish a specific age=97usually 20 or 24 weeks=97after which = abortion is=20 prohibited (and, presumably, the fetus is considered de facto = viable) are=20 unconstitutional and unenforceable.

As a result of advances in modern medicine, rarely is a woman's = life=20 directly endangered by continuing a pregnancy, although the = possibility=20 does exist. It is more likely, however, that a pregnancy will = present a=20 threat to a woman's health.

In United States v. Vuitch (1971), the Court upheld a District = of=20 Columbia abortion statute that made it a felony for a doctor to = perform an=20 abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life or = health. The=20 law had been challenged by a physician who had been indicted for=20 interpreting the word "health" to include more than the statute = allowed;=20 the physician argued that the word "health" was unconstitutionally = vague.
...
With its decision, the Court rejected the notion = that a=20 legislature (in this case Congress) would authorize doctors to = perform=20 abortions that are necessary to preserve a woman's life or health = and then=20 "demand that a doctor, upon pain of...imprisonment, bear the = burden of=20 proving that an abortion he performed fell within that category. = Placing=20 such a burden of proof on a doctor would be peculiarly = inconsistent with=20 society's notions of the responsibilities of the medical = profession."

The Court added, "Generally, doctors are encouraged by = society's=20 expectations, by the strictures of malpractice law and by their = own=20 professional standards to give their patients such treatment as is = necessary to preserve their health.... "

Two years later, in Doe v. Bolton, the Court struck down a = provision of=20 the Georgia abortion statute that required two independent = physicians to=20 confirm the attending doctor's determination that continuation of = a=20 pregnancy would endanger the woman's life or injure her health. = "The=20 attending physician's 'best clinical judgment that an abortion is=20 necessary'...should be sufficient," the Court said.

"If a physician is licensed by the State," the decision stated, = "he is=20 recognized by the State as capable of exercising acceptable = clinical=20 judgment. If he fails in this, professional censure or deprivation = of his=20 license are available remedies. Required acquiescence by = co-practitioners=20 has no rational connection with a patient's needs and unduly = infringes on=20 the physician's right to practice."

Thirteen years later, in Thornburgh v. American College of=20 Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986), the Supreme Court ruled = that when=20 performing a postviability abortion, a physician must have the = authority=20 to choose the method most likely to preserve his patient's health, = even if=20 it might jeopardize fetal survival. The Court struck down a = provision of a=20 Pennsylvania abortion law that required a physician to exercise = the same=20 degree of care in performing a postviability procedure as he would = be=20 required to exercise "to preserve the life and health of any = unborn child=20 intended to be born and not aborted."

In addition, the law had required the doctor to use the = abortion=20 technique that would give the fetus the best chance of being = aborted=20 alive, unless "in the physician's good-faith judgment, that = technique=20 'would present a significantly greater medical risk to the life or = health=20 of the pregnant woman.'" But the Court upheld an appeals court's = ruling=20 that the law was unconstitutional because it required "a = 'trade-off'=20 between the woman's health and fetal survival and failed to = require that=20 maternal health be the physician's paramount = consideration."

Posted by: chigal | Aug 15, 2008 10:04:20 = AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121875254787242417.html?mo= d=3Dgooglenews_wsj

Posted by: Ralph C. | Aug 15, 2008 = 12:46:24 PM

The language about "A live child born as the result of an = abortion" was=20 the part stricken from the original bill and replaced by the = Federal=20 neutrality language, You state the bill specifically mentions = fetuses born=20 alive after an abortion. The bill that Barack Obama voted to kill = did not=20 because he had just voted to replace that language with the = neutrality=20 language he now says he favors.

Posted by:=20 Pam Siegfried | Aug 15, 2008 1:35:34 PM

If this is the best that the Obama camp can do in terms of a = response=20 to those criticizing his vote on the "Born Alive" legislation, he = would=20 have been better off not responding to the criticism at all. At = worst,=20 Obama's response seems dishonest; at best it seems overly-lawyerly = (almost=20 Clintonesque) and unhelpful. Now he risks hurting himself not only = among=20 voters who are conservative or moderate on the abortion issue, but = also=20 voters who could be turned off by his tactics. As Lon points out = (above),=20 he may do more damage to himself with his response than with the=20 underlying issue.

Regardless of how Obama voted on the "Born Alive" legislation, = McCain=20 would highlight Obama's pro-abortion views to Catholic and = Hispanic voters=20 in swing states. Both campaigns know this and planned for it. It's = a nice=20 wedge issue that has little downside for McCain because everyone = on the=20 pro-abortion side, who bases his vote solely on the issue of = abortion, was=20 against McCain anyway. It's also a good way of increasing = Evangelical=20 turnout. Oh sure, it might turn off some voters here and there but = most of=20 the votes he loses from exploiting the issue would probably come = from blue=20 states that he wasn't going to win anyway (and his swing state = gains from=20 exploiting the issue would exceed his losses).

Obama's vote on "Born Alive" legislation in Illinois, however, = allows=20 McCain to make an appeal to voters who view themselves as = moderates on the=20 abortion issue. I'm not sure how much this issue really affects = the way=20 people vote, but the current margins in the swing states are so = tight that=20 it's definitely worth it for McCain to make a big deal out of = this. McCain=20 needs to pound Obama on this issue to make those moderates and = Catholics=20 who would otherwise support Obama feel guilty enough to change = their vote=20 or at least stay home on election day.

Posted by: Greg J. | Aug 15, 2008 2:42:33 = PM

"Philip Pennance - global warming denier and nasty extremist=20 anti-choicer - don't dignify his cheap attempt to get hits by = visiting.=20 ---Posted by: phylosopher"

I call straw man and ad hominem. Do you have any real arguments = or just=20 vacuous insults?

The real issue here is not global warming but whether or not = Obama lied=20 about his reason for blocking the Born Alive Infant Protection Act = in=20 committee.

Posted by: Philip = Pennance |=20 Aug 15, 2008 3:27:25 PM

Ralph, it isn't surprising that Fund is echoing the sentiments = of other=20 conservatives, as he is one himself. I mean, what do you expect = from=20 someone who is suspected of having ghostwritten for = Limbaugh?

Posted by: phylosopher | Aug 15, 2008 = 3:50:08 PM

A discussion on the considerations motivating of Obama=92s = =93Infanticide=20 Lie=94 can be found at pennance.us?p=3D82
Posted by: Philip = Pennance | Aug=20 14, 2008 6:21:21 PM

Unless "Phillip Pennance" can state where the Stem Cells R US=20 convention was held, who attended, in what role Obama was = speaking, etc...=20 I hereby accuse him of slander and can only hope he gets = prosecuted to the=20 full extent of the law.

He also writes this seemingly false quote on his website. It = really is=20 time to prosecute these liars and "smearers."

Posted by: | Aug 15, 2008 5:33:26 PM

Is Mr. Obama lying? That's the question.

And, yes, practically he is in favour of infanticide, at least = in some=20 cases. The existing legislation to protect new-borns was not good = enough.=20 There were still some cases of infanticide, which is--everyone = should=20 know--a not infrequent practice in Europe, at least in the = Netherlands,=20 where it is deemed "infant euthanasia" under the Groningen = Protocol.

ZORN REPLY -- If you truly spell it "favour," then you don't = have a=20 vote in this discussion, Jon. Thanks for visiting, = though.

Posted by: Jon | Aug 16, 2008 1:55:48 AM

Legislation can only control abortion in a very limited way. =

If it becomes too difficult or too expensive for most people to = legally=20 get an abortion, wealthy people will get it anyway, and lower = income=20 people will turn to unsafe illegal abortion.

Most people who whine about Obama's abortion views do not = really care=20 about abortion, but simply use abortion as an anti - Obama=20 weapon.

Posted by: | Aug 16, 2008 = 12:53:38=20 PM

Obama: Mental Distress Can't Justify Late Abortion| = Christianpost.com=20
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental = distress"=20 should not qualify as a justification for late-term abortions, a = key=20 distinction not embraced ...

christianpost.com/article/20080703/obama-mental-distress-can-t-justify= -late-abortion...=20 -

Posted by: Mr. Unite Us | Aug = 17, 2008=20 4:40:35 AM

I frequent right wing blogs and I have not noticed the epithet = "baby=20 killer" being thrown around very much on them. A Google search of = the=20 terms "Obama baby killer" turns up mostly liberals screaming that = the=20 right is supposedly calling Obama a baby killer.

To me, the term "baby killer" will always be associated with = liberals=20 who used that term to condemn Lyndon Johnson for his use of napalm = in Viet=20 Nam.

Posted by: Jimmy G | Aug 17, = 2008=20 1:32:24 PM

The Freedom of Choice Act espoused by Obama, if passed and = signed, will=20 strike down every current restriction on abortion, about 300 of = them,=20 within all 50 states.
"This Act applies to every federal, state = and=20 local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, = decision,=20 policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented = before,=20 on, or after the date of enactment of this Act."
The Freedom of = Choice=20 Act is completely retroactive. That means that federal bans on=20 partial-birth and live-birth abortions will be trashed, along with = 35=20 years of efforts enacting the meager and inadequate abortion = restrictions=20 we have in place now =96 dumped in the garbage along with 50 = million dead=20 babies.
Chicago=92s Christ Hospital, by the way, caught = committing=20 live-birth abortions and tossing live premature babies into the = dirty=20 linen room to die alone and untouched, was affiliated with = Obama=92s=20 pro-abortion pro-sodomy apostate Chicago =93church.=94
The = Freedom of=20 Choice Act makes it against the law for a medical professional to = deny any=20 woman this "right," even on account of personal moral conscience. = And it=20 makes this "right" to abortion sacrosanct for every woman, = regardless of=20 ability to pay; the state must provide what the woman = cannot.
This=20 would mean enforced participation by medical professionals in any = and all=20 abortions, in spite of any moral, ethical, or religious = objections, in=20 many cases at taxpayer expense.

ZORN REPLY -- Interested readers can click here
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:
= or=20 here
http://www.naral.org/issues/abortion/access-to-abortion/fr= eedom-of-choice-act.html

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 17, 2008 = 2:44:11 PM

Phylosopher: The most effective lie is one which is close to = the truth.=20 Obama's lie a good one because it applies only to the third = amended=20 version of the three Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection = measures. The=20 fictitious "citation" you mention is either sarcasm or a clever = lie. It is=20 perfectly consistent with Obama's obstruction of the amended "Born = Alive"=20 bill and his support for partial birth abortion. Since it had = already been=20 posted on a number of well known websites, I actually believed it = and made=20 the mistake of not researching it more carefully. Sure Obama can = sue me,=20 but in the long term, it might better help his case if he adopted = policies=20 which make such fictitious citations implausible in the first = place.

On the other hand, my policy has always been to remove errors = from my=20 website when they are pointed out. Even though I disagree totally = with=20 Obama, I do not condone spreading false statements about him. = However, I=20 see no reason to remove the claim that Obama has lied about his = reason for=20 blocking the third Born Alive Bill after it had been amended with = a=20 codicil to protect "Roe versus Wade".

As for my opposition to certain current dogmas concerning the = climate,=20 I base this on mathematical considerations (see for example=20 pennance.us/?p=3D32) --no I am not in the pay of the big oil = companies. If=20 you think you can prove I am in error by using scientific = reasoning rather=20 than by labeling me as a "denier" I will happily debate you, but = on a=20 different thread.

Posted by: Philip Pennance | = Aug 17,=20 2008 3:04:38 PM

Jill seems to use the issue to impugn Obama's character, = implying he is=20 an extreme liberal who is inconsistent, dishonest, and = untrustworthy; at=20 best it's an appeal to prejudice, at worst it's character = assassination.=20

Posted by: Shaun Hoffmeyer | Aug = 17, 2008=20 4:44:57 PM

"Jill seems to use the issue to impugn Obama's character, = implying he=20 is an extreme liberal who is inconsistent, dishonest, and = untrustworthy;=20 at best it's an appeal to prejudice, at worst it's character=20 assassination."

Not if she's right. He would be dishonest. And exposing that = dishonesty=20 is not an appeal to prejudice or character assassination. It's = vetting a=20 president. I think she's got a point--it seems he voted against = the bill=20 even with the language he demanded. We'll see how this shakes out. = But get=20 off the high horse--he deserves scrutiny without his lickspittles = charging=20 prejudice and character assassination.

Posted by: John | Aug 17, 2008 10:46:07 PM

By definition there is no such thing as a born alive fetus. = After birth=20 it is no longer a fetus it's a child. This law has nothing to do = with=20 abortion because after the child is born it can't be aborted.

fetus

Main Entry:fe=B7tus =
Pronunciation:\ˈfē-təs\
Function:noun=20
Etymology:Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, = offspring;=20 akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful =97 more at=20 feminine
Date:14th century
: an unborn or unhatched = vertebrate=20 especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind;=20 specifically : a developing human from usually two months after = conception=20 to birth
=97 compare embryo 1b

Posted=20 by: Mike | Aug 17, 2008 11:55:22 PM

You have to check in a couple times a day to keep up with the = Obama=20 campaign's ever-shifting and self-contradicting attempts to = conceal the=20 actions he actually took, and the explanations he actually = offered, on=20 this issue back in 2001-2003. In the posting that started this = thread, the=20 Obama campaign asserted that the bill he voted against LACKED this = clause:=20 "(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, = expand,=20 or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any = member of=20 the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' = as=20 defined in this section." The Obama campaign asserted that this = was a=20 "failed amendment, not included in final legislation." That was = false, as=20 we explained above. The Obama campaign also made the claim, still = visible=20 for all to see above, that the bill he rejected contained the = sentence,=20 "(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully=20 recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection = under the=20 law." That claim also with false -- that sentence had been removed = --=20 although Obama is now reluctant to explain why he found that = sentence=20 unaccepable.

Sen. Obama himself went further in an August 16 interview with = David=20 Brody of CBN News, asserting that National Right to Life was = "lying" in=20 asserting that he had voted against a state born-alive infants = bill that=20 was virtually identical to the federal law that he claimed to = support.

Lying? But wait a minute -- "His campaign yesterday [August 17] = acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the = state=20 Senate . . ." the New York Sun reported on August 18. This is = exactly what=20 NRLC had demonstrated, as explained in the second posting in this = thread.=20 So on Saturday Obama called us liars, on Sunday his spokesman = admitted we=20 were right.

So why these contortions? All of Obama's misrepresentations and = contradictions on this issue have one common goal: to obscure the = position=20 he actually articulated and acted on in 2001 through 2003. Obama = explained=20 in 2001 that he opposed the state bill to protect born-alive = infants=20 because it would apply before the point of long-term survivability = --=20 so-called 'viability.' This is the same objection that NARAL = originally=20 voiced to the federal bill, in 2000. But that was exactly the = point of the=20 bill -- to make it clear that a live-born baby was a legally = protected=20 person for as long as she lived, whether for a day, an hour, or a = minute.=20 Neither the original version of the legislation (which passed the = U.S.=20 House 380-15), nor the final state version that Obama killed in = 2003,=20 contained any language to protect babies before birth. The Obama = of=20 2001-2003 really did object to a bill merely because it defended = the=20 proposition, " A live child born as a result of an abortion shall = be fully=20 recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection = under the=20 law." And it is that reality that he now desparately wants to = conceal from=20 the eyes of the public.

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to = Life=20 Committee (NRLC)
Washington, D.C.=20 20004
Legfederal@aol.com

Posted by:=20 Douglas Johnson | Aug 18, 2008 12:09:57 AM

another week, another obama lie admitted to.

face it - the dems have managed to nominate some sort of evil = blend of=20 bill clinton and john kerry. an elitist super liberal snob who = will lie to=20 your face about anything and everything.

so....who wants some crow?

Posted by: b=20 | Aug 18, 2008 10:14:48 AM

Posted by: Philip Pennance | Aug 17, 2008 3:04:38 PM

Dear Phillip:

I am glad to see you have removed the debunked and false quote = from=20 your website - at least it seemed so upon my brief visit. Please = remember=20 to verify your references before posting in the future. Can you do = a=20 statistical analysis of the how the Internet, now populated by = hack=20 "wannabe journalist" bloggers has been akin to giving the = neighborhood=20 gossip a megaphone to spread rumors? Also, if you actually think = that=20 repeat posts of something on the InterNet make it true, I would = suggest=20 that you stop having contact with the impressionable minds of = students and=20 find another line of work.

No, it wasn't consistent with Obama's position. It insinuated a = number=20 of things - first, that there was some sort of gathering of a = business=20 interest in any abortion stance, second, that he held a position = on=20 infanticide other than "of course it's wrong." Even FOCA = acknowledges=20 limits on abortion after viability.

Suggest you ponder this about lies: there are lies, damn lies = and then=20 there are statistics.

Posted by: = | Aug 18,=20 2008 10:17:57 AM

I don't expect abortion to play a major role in the coming = election.=20 Not even with this great find that Obama killed this measure with = the same=20 language as the federal law (if that proves to hold up to = scrutiny).

Part of the reason is that advocates on both sides of the = abortion=20 issue have largely made themselves so extreme that all but the = people who=20 already vote on this issue and have long ago made up their minds, = tunes=20 them out.

The idea that Obama is lying on this issue is being made by the = people=20 trying to convince the public that Obama supports infanticide. And = I=20 suspect the public is smart enough to dismiss those charges, and = likely=20 with it the charge of liar coming from the same people.

On the other side I have seen the pro-choice advocates trying = to make=20 the case that McCain is anti-contraception which also is not = likely to be=20 found plausible.

Actually the one place this may not be true favors Obama, so = contrary=20 to Greg J's comment above, I do not expect McCain to push this = issue=20 strongly. One recent study suggested that many McCain supporters = believe=20 that the maverick is pro-choice. If so then he gets the best of = both=20 worlds, believed to be pro-life by those who are pro-live and = pro-choice=20 by (some) people who are pro-choice.

If so McCain benefits from avoiding the topic altogether, and = leaving=20 the charge of baby killer (which is plentiful enough over at = Townhall.com)=20 to people writing to fire up the pro-life crowd. But then this = study came=20 from a group trying to paint McCain as opposed to contraception, = so I am=20 not sure I trust the study.

Posted by: Lon=20 | Aug 18, 2008 11:01:28 AM

"The idea that Obama is lying on this issue is being made by = the people=20 trying to convince the public that Obama supports = infanticide."

i'm not trying to convince anyone that obama supports = infanticide. and=20 i don't think that he does. but i do think he lied about this to = try to=20 cover himself. and i do think that's problematic, regardless of = one's=20 position on abortion.

this is a continuing theme with obama. he has a record out = there, and=20 it's pretty hard left. he avoided a lot of votes to not alienate = the far=20 left. and he's come up with a lot of convoluted stories and out = right lies=20 to try to avoid alienating the right.

which leads us back to the original question of obama's = campaign - who=20 is he really? is there anything he really believes? or has his = entire=20 political career been one big exercise in pandering to different = groups in=20 order to gain higher and higher public office? is there anyone he = won't=20 throw under the bus in order to win this race?

(and yes i know this is exactly what most politicians do. but = perhaps=20 it's not a quality we should encourage in a future = president?)

Posted by: b | Aug 18, 2008 12:11:18 PM

Your "convoluted" b, is my "thoughtful answer to a complex = problem."=20 But neither the media nor the opposition wants other than a = soundbyte.

And the current "taking out of context" and incomplete quoting = does=20 seem to be a specialty of the right/Repubs - Corsi anyone???? = though I'm=20 not saying the left is totally innocent.

Posted by: phylosopher | Aug 18, 2008 = 1:39:45 PM

phylosopher -
you misunderstand. i'm not really concerned = with=20 obama's answer/non-answer to the question of abortion.

the "convoluted stories" i'm referring to are these "i would = have voted=20 for it but it didn't have the right clause, even though i voted = down that=20 clause in committee, even though i said i didn't vote down the = clause in=20 committee...they're all liars! vote for me!" stories.

it's fine if you want to vote or not vote for this bill. but = obama=20 wants it both ways. he wants pro-choicers to think he wouldn't = vote for=20 this. and he wants pro-lifers to think he would've voted for this = . the=20 latter position is clearly a lie. and it's representative of his = tactics=20 whenever he's called out. deny, then lie, then deploy "nuance," = then=20 pronounce the issue a distraction and move on.

(see for example the nafta-gate nonsense, his lies about rezko, = his=20 lies about ayers, etc.)

Posted = by: b | Aug=20 18, 2008 2:33:36 PM

John replies: Not if she's right. He would be dishonest. And = exposing=20 that dishonesty is not an appeal to prejudice or character = assassination.=20 It's vetting a president. I think she's got a point--it seems he = voted=20 against the bill even with the language he demanded. We'll see how = this=20 shakes out. But get off the high horse--he deserves scrutiny = without his=20 lickspittles charging prejudice and character assassination.

Shaun's reply: While Jill and Senator Obama provide alternative = interpretations of his voting record, by implication to generalize = and/or=20 demean Obama's character is unwarranted, an ad hominem, a = "personal"=20 attack. In the context of presidential politics, characterizing = Mr. Obama=20 as an ambitious, inconsistent, dishonest, extremely liberal = Democrat--and=20 with respect to this issue an infanticidal misopedist--is = underhanded; at=20 the least it appeals to prejudice and/or at most it is character=20 assassination. Similar tactics undermined John Kerry. Regarding = the=20 complex legal, moral, and ethical issues under discussion, there = are no=20 logical connections between Obama's vote and the implied=20 characterizations; the correct connection is between attacks = embedded with=20 appeals to prejudice that target Senator Obama with character=20 assassination: it reflects cloak-and-dagger tactics aimed at = undermining=20 public confidence in Senator Obama.

Posted=20 by: Shaun Hoffmeyer | Aug 18, 2008 2:52:40 PM

If you are not accusing Obama of infanticide, and I did not = mean to=20 single you out as someone who was, but you can read through the = comments=20 to see that many are, then I am not sure how the deception here is = supposed to hide his hard left nature.

Note that the document that the Right to Life group has shows = that=20 Obama voted with every other democrat on the committee to kill = this bill.=20 While they are artificially trying to paint him as out of step = with the=20 sensible democrats, the evidence shows this is nonsense.

If, as seems to be the case, this was a poison pill bill that = would=20 either do nothing legally or would lay the groundwork for = unspecified=20 anti-abortion actions down the road, then how does it show him to = be hard=20 left that he did not let this political game come to a full = vote?

The serious charge here is that he lied in order to make it = hard for=20 anti-abortion zealots to misrepresent his view on abortion. Maybe=20 candidates should not lie even in such situations, but it is hard = to see=20 how this obscures his position which is hard left on some issues, = and more=20 moderate on others.

Posted by: = Lon | Aug=20 18, 2008 3:26:51 PM

People who use terms like "baby killing" are impervious to = reason,=20 logic or facts. Trying to argue with them is a waste of time. All = you can=20 do is counter their misinformation (i.e., lies).
Posted by: Pan = | Aug=20 14, 2008 2:18:18 PM

What exactly is the lie? That the point of pregnancy is to = produce a=20 baby? Or that, when the baby ceases to live by any measurable, = reasonable=20 and dare I say scientific standard due to actions or inactions = taken by=20 another person, it has been killed? Would it be improper to say = that=20 someone who restrains a child and prevents him or her from eating, = or who=20 places a pillow over the face of a newborn, that such a person is = a "baby=20 killer?" You cannot win this argument, so you resort to the common = tactic=20 of calling your opponent stupid. Try harder, please.

Posted by: JB | Aug 18, 2008 3:27:06 PM

Obama appears to have flipped on the claim that he makes here = that the=20 state bill had major differences to the Federal bill, quoting the = campaign=20 and spokesman Sevugan. http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-al= l-sides-over-abortion/84059/

Hats off the NRLC for finding this document. Obama's vote was = shocking=20 in the first instance, but lying about the reasoning behind the = vote is=20 reprehensible. The Senator should have the courage of his = convictions, or=20 he should not be running for office.

Posted by: RFR | Aug 18, 2008 4:40:14 PM

"If you are not accusing Obama of infanticide... then I am not = sure how=20 the deception here is supposed to hide his hard left nature."

well, i guess i'm not entirely sure what obama's real position = is.=20 because his vote and his lie about his vote both seemed designed = to=20 obscure his position. and he has done nothing to clarify it.

i think he's a political animal who was trying to play the = system so=20 that he could have the support of the hard left and the moderates. = and he=20 got caught in a lie while doing so.

which is something that i think can be said about many of his=20 positions. much like his church problem. he went to a radical = church and=20 gained politically from it, then tried to pretend he didn't really = go=20 there much as soon as it came out. so i say again, he will lie = about=20 ANYTHING.

Posted by: b | Aug = 18, 2008=20 6:52:06 PM

"Can you do a statistical analysis of the how the Internet, now = populated by hack "wannabe journalist" bloggers has been akin to = giving=20 the neighborhood gossip a megaphone to spread rumors?"

Probabilistic methods are neither necessary nor sufficient for=20 determining the truth of the allegation that Obama lied concerning = his=20 reasons for opposing the amended third version of the Illinois = "Born Alive=20 Infant Protection Act". Instead it is sufficient to compare = Obama's=20 official voting record with transcripts of his public declarations = explaining why he opposed the (amended) bill. The NRLC has done = this. If=20 they were incorrect, it would be trivial for the Obama campaign to = refute=20 the allegation and put an end to this debate. =

Posted by: Philip Pennance | Aug 18, 2008 = 8:00:50 PM

To Shaun.

If Jill is right, then Obama's been dishonest about the issue = that she=20 obviously has been most passionate about. He's brought her honesty = into=20 question, and if she is right, she will have every reason to think = that=20 Obama is dishonest and of poor character. I will too because of = how=20 insistent he was about how he would have supported the law if it = had the=20 magic language.

Posted by: John = | Aug 18,=20 2008 9:00:26 PM

Well Phillip, this site doesn't support those cutesy little = smilies, so=20 you missed the sarcasm.
I was referring to the smears the = "Right" has=20 continually lobbed at Obama:

Flag pin/saluting flag/flag on plane - all = debunked
Michelle's=20 "whitey tape" - debunked/nonexistant
Obama's citizenship in = question=20 due to his mother's age - debunked
Obama's birth certificate -=20 debunked
Obama's a Muslim - debunked
Obama's birth = certificate -=20 redux

Just wondering that much of this has been made possible - as = your=20 repetition of slander - based on that very repetition as support = of its=20 facticity- shows - only because of the Internet.

Posted by: phylosopher | Aug 18, 2008 = 10:01:25 PM

Obama answers the 'baby killer!' brigade

Comments

Post a comment