Obama's "Born Alive" lies- and the campaign to defend them
A reader of this post named Michael has added a comment, a large segment of which seems to be appearing pretty much word-for-word wherever on the web Barack Obama's lies about the circumstances surrounding his opposition to the 2003 Illinois Born Alive Act- requiring medical assistance for babies who survive attempted abortions- are being pointed out.
Obama and his supporters claim that the bill was unnecessary, since a law supposedly was "already in place" protecting survivors of abortions. In fact, the law in question had been rendered unenforcable by a consent decree signed by Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris a full decade before the bill in question was even introduced! The 1975 law thereafter protected only infants the abortionist himself believed to be "viable." No matter what the objective medical facts, if the abortionist decided that an infant wasn't "viable" the law offered it no protection whatsoever.
Hence, it became impossible to prosecute anyone for violating that law.
On the floor of the Illinois Senate, Obama argued against the 2003 law on the ground that requiring the abortionist to get a second opinion placed an "undue burden" on the abortionist, as well as on the woman's original decision to procure an abortion. In other words, Obama told the Senate- contrary to what he would say later- that the reason why he was opposed to the bill was that it did not contain the very same provision which rendered the existing law as a practical matter unenforcable!
Obama's supporters concede that he became confused as to his movitations for opposing the bill. But his motivations are not the issue; the facts are the issue. Despite their better knowledge, Obama and his campaign continue to repeat the cynically misleading statement that "there was already a law on the books" that made the 2003 law unnecessary.
But the law in question had been gutted a full decade earlier!
And if the law was unnecessary, why does Obama go on to say that he would have voted for it if it had contained the same language as a Federal law on the subject specifically stating that it was not meant as a challenge to Roe v. Wade?
But wait a moment.
It did.
While it completely muffs the point about the protections of the 1975 Illinois abortion law having been declared unenforceable, when it comes to the events of March 12, 2003 in the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services committee, chaired by Sen. Obama, FactCheck.org tells a different tale than Obama does. In fact, the committee had adopted an amendment to the 2003 Born Alive Bill to include language identical to the Federal statue before deciding to kill it.
The tally on the left is the vote on the amendment; the tally on the right, the final vote on the bill. Admittedly, the handwritten roll call linked to above was made by a Republican member of the committee. But if it's Sen. Obama's position that it's fraudulent, he needs to confront his former colleague with that charge.
And if not, Obama needs to answer a perfectly reasonable question: If he "would have" voted for a bill with the same language as the Federal bill, why didn't he when he had the chance?
Obama and his supporters claim that the bill was unnecessary, since a law supposedly was "already in place" protecting survivors of abortions. In fact, the law in question had been rendered unenforcable by a consent decree signed by Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris a full decade before the bill in question was even introduced! The 1975 law thereafter protected only infants the abortionist himself believed to be "viable." No matter what the objective medical facts, if the abortionist decided that an infant wasn't "viable" the law offered it no protection whatsoever.
Hence, it became impossible to prosecute anyone for violating that law.
On the floor of the Illinois Senate, Obama argued against the 2003 law on the ground that requiring the abortionist to get a second opinion placed an "undue burden" on the abortionist, as well as on the woman's original decision to procure an abortion. In other words, Obama told the Senate- contrary to what he would say later- that the reason why he was opposed to the bill was that it did not contain the very same provision which rendered the existing law as a practical matter unenforcable!
Obama's supporters concede that he became confused as to his movitations for opposing the bill. But his motivations are not the issue; the facts are the issue. Despite their better knowledge, Obama and his campaign continue to repeat the cynically misleading statement that "there was already a law on the books" that made the 2003 law unnecessary.
But the law in question had been gutted a full decade earlier!
And if the law was unnecessary, why does Obama go on to say that he would have voted for it if it had contained the same language as a Federal law on the subject specifically stating that it was not meant as a challenge to Roe v. Wade?
But wait a moment.
It did.
While it completely muffs the point about the protections of the 1975 Illinois abortion law having been declared unenforceable, when it comes to the events of March 12, 2003 in the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services committee, chaired by Sen. Obama, FactCheck.org tells a different tale than Obama does. In fact, the committee had adopted an amendment to the 2003 Born Alive Bill to include language identical to the Federal statue before deciding to kill it.
The tally on the left is the vote on the amendment; the tally on the right, the final vote on the bill. Admittedly, the handwritten roll call linked to above was made by a Republican member of the committee. But if it's Sen. Obama's position that it's fraudulent, he needs to confront his former colleague with that charge.
And if not, Obama needs to answer a perfectly reasonable question: If he "would have" voted for a bill with the same language as the Federal bill, why didn't he when he had the chance?
Comments