This morning Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune posted a response from the Obama campaign to this week’s revelation that Obama actually did vote against an identical version of the federal Born Alive while state senator, contrary to his repeated statements over the years otherwise.
Here’s what Zorn said the Obama campaign sent him:
slide 1 obama response.JPGslide 2 obama response.JPGfailed.jpg
Well, if that doesn’t beat all. They’re continuing to lie despite documentation. I expected many responses, but not that one.
Below is the vote tally, from the IL General Assembly archives. Anyone can get this vote tally by contacting the ILGA. Click to enlarge….

“DP#1” means “Do Pass Amendment #1.” “DPA” means “Do Pass as Amended”
final vote.jpg
Obama first voted to accept Amendment #1 (i.e., paragraph c) and then voted against the amended bill, which was identical to the federal Born Alive bill.
Here’s more documentation, the IL Senate Republican Staff Analysis from that day:
committe report.jpg
I’m really surprised by the Obama campaign’s audacity. Oh, maybe I shouldn’t be, since audacity is his forte.
Read the response to Zorn’s post by Doug Johnson of National Right to Life below.
From Eric Zorn blog:
It is rather astonishing that, in light of the new documents that came to light this week, the Obama campaign here continues to brazenly misrepresent the content of the state Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) legislation that Obama killed in 2003. The Obama campaign’s purported side-by-side comparison of the state and federal bills shown above is flatly false. Here’s the documented truth: On March 13, 2003, Obama — as chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee — actually presided over a committee meeting at which an amendment was adopted that added to S. 1082 EXACTLY the “neutrality clause” that had been copied from the federal bill (falsely described by the Obama campaign as a “failed amendment not included in final legislation”). (The adopted amendment also removed the phrase “(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law,” thereby making the state bill and the federal law virtually identical.) You can read these official documents yourself by going to the NRLC home page at NRLC-dot-org and clicking on 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 the bill that Obama killed (as opposed to the fictional version shown above), side-by-side with the federal law that he claims to support. There is virtually no difference between the two. The claimed differences cited above simply did not exist at the time that Obama and his colleagues voted down the bill on March 13, 2003.
By way, in 2000, even BEFORE the “neutrality clause” was added to the federal bill, it passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 380-15. In other words, nearly all of the “pro-choice” members of the U.S. House rejected the notion (embraced by Obama) that the original bill — even without a “neutrality” clause — somehow conflicted with Roe v. Wade. That’s because the bill, on its face, dealt only with infants who had been born alive. After the “neutrality clause” was added, the federal bill passed the Senate and House without a dissenting vote — yet, as now documented, Obama subsequently killed the cloned state bill.
In an apparent attempt to generate a smokescreen around its core of disinformation, the Obama “response” also contains a great deal of diversionary, irrelevant information. The discussion here, and the focus of the Obama disinformation campaign, is the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) and its 2003 counterpart, S.B. 1082 as amended. The “Induced Birth Infant Liability Act” is an entirely different piece of legislation that is not even at issue in this discussion. Also, the old Illinois law concerning late abortions was virtually worthless in that it gave complete discretion to an abortionist to decide if the baby was “viable” enough to require the assistance of a second physician.
Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director
Susan Muskett, Legislative Counsel
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
Posted by: Douglas Johnson | Aug 14, 2008 10:42:32 AM