Obama did not vote to legalize infanticide, and the media did not ignore the issue.In answering a CNN debate question about birth control, Newt Gingrich lashed out at the media for giving President Obama a free pass during his 2008 bid.
“Not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich was presumably referencing Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ proposed version of a “born alive” law, intended to require doctors to administer immediate medical care to any infant that survived an intended abortion.
According to Politifact [Ed: Politifact, far from the unbiased arbiter it pretends to be, is a provably left-wing outfit] ... Obama voiced his opposition to the new legislation as a state senator because it would have given legal status to fetuses and would thus have been struck down by the courts, and because Illinois already had laws to ensure infants who survived abortions would be given medical attention.
This is, to put it in terms progressives can understand, horsecrap.
Physical evidence (the actual IL General Assembly vote tally [below]) shows that on March 13, 2003, Barack Obama voted for an amendment making the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act identical to the federal Born Alive bill.Obama then voted against the amended bill, making him more pro-abortion that any other U.S. senator, who all voted unanimously for Born Alive. It makes Obama more pro-abortion than [even] NARAL... which went neutral on the federal Bill.
Yet after the Saddleback Showdown on August 16, 2008, Obama stood by his lie when asked about it by CBN's David Brody, as shown on CNN.
David Freddoso at the National Review puts it in stark terms.
Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.
Want to see the actual differences between the federal and state laws? Non-existent other than the stylistic changes for Illinois wording. The identical neutrality clause as added by Obama is present.
On March 12-13, 2003, the Illinois state senate committee chaired by Senator Barack Obama amended the proposed state Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082) to exactly track the language of the already-enacted federal BAIPA, by adopting Senate Amendment No. 1, 10-0. The committee then voted to kill the amended bill, 6-4, with Obama and the other Democrats on the committee voting against it. The bill that Obama and his colleges voted to kill, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law. The entirely non-substantive points at which the state bill language still differed from the federal law are shown in brackets below (except we have ignored differences in capitalizing).
---------------------------------------------------------Public Law 107–207 [Illinois SB 1082]
107th Congress
An Act
To protect [Illinois: concerning] infants who are
born alive.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, [Illinois: Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows:]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection
Act of 2002’’. [Illinois: no formal title]
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT. [Illinois: Section 1.36. Born-alive infant.]
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘§ 8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as
including born-alive infant [Illinois: lacks this section heading]
‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, [Illinois: statute] or
of any ruling [Illinois: rule], regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States [Illinois: this State], the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include
[Illinois: 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 [Illinois: its] mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such
[Illinois: that] 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,, Illinois: no comma] 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’ [Illinois: no quotes] as defined in this section.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning
of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant.’’. [Illinois: Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.]
Obama's bald-faced fabrication is shocking. Perhaps that's the "Audacity of Hope": he hopes no one will call him on this audacious lie.
Barack Obama opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. The law was pushed after State Senator Patrick O'Malley heard the horrific story about an infant born alive after an abortion from Jill Stanek, a nurse... David Brody can play it as straight as he wants to play it. But, Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He said it was because the state statute lacked federal protections for abortion. Once the National Right to Life Committee proved that excuse a lie, Obama called NRLC liars until the campaign admitted that, regardless of the facts, abortion laws would have still been hindered by the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
And during the 2008 debate over Obama's votes, the media was in full spin mode to protect their beloved candidate:
All the spin will make you dizzy... After the media ignored the Obama campaign admitting that he lied about a vote he made in 2003... now Obama is accusing others of “attacking” him with “outrageous lies”! ....Don’t count on the media to do any fact checking. If they were interested in doing that, the documents and facts are easily available. I can see why Obama thinks he can get away with this. The media ignored his lies once, they’ll most likely continue to eat them up. Meanwhile, Obama’s arrogance and audacity will continue to reach uncharted levels.
In summary: the National Journal's "FACT CHECK" (capitalized to make it extra believable!) is just as legitimate as Politifact. Which is to say, it's just a skosh to the left of Sean Penn.
alpos fsheraWell, see - if National Journal had only checked Politifact's fact check Of Santorum's "pants on fire" lie (hyperbole), “Any child born prematurely, according to the president, in his own words, can be killed” they would have found the truth. Politifact actually buried it in that post at the end: Back in 2008, we requested documentation from the Illinois State Archives about the 2003 bill and found that it did have a neutrality clause, as the National Right to Life Committee said. (The clause was added at the committee level, and those records are not available online. But we have posted the documents we received via fax from the State Archives here).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/10/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-said-obama-said-any-child-born-prema/