On September 25, Time magazine’s Michael Scherer wrote in a web article entitled, “Smear Wars: Welcome to negative ad season,” which was included in the October 6 print edition:

BornAliveTruth.org has been advertising in swing states with the misleading claim that Obama supports the death of fetuses born after failed abortions. (Obama opposed an IL senate bill he said could have jeopardized other abortion statutes; at the time, IL law required doctors to save the lives of all viable fetuses after birth.)

He followed it up with a September 29 MSNBC appearance stating:

So the Born Alive Truth ad, it is true that Obama when he was in the State House in IL opposed a bill that would have declared a human person those fetuses who survived an abortion. What’s not true is that it somehow meant he supported infanticide. At the time it was very clear under IL state law that any viable fetus who survived abortion had to be saved by the doctors during the procedure.

I appreciate that Scherer took my call after the first article was posted, and I note he avoided calling abortion survivors fetuses in his third botch. But botch he threepeated….


I explained to Scherer that Obama made no such claim at the time that Born Alive “could have jeopardized other abortion statutes.” (And an objective journalist would question exactly what those were.) I pointed Sherer to Obama’s original claim, made during his 2001 state senate floor speech opposing Born Alive, that:

… [T]his is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny….
[W]henever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term….
[I]t would essentially ban abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

Obama simply argued IL’s Born Alive was unconstitutional. Why? If previable abortion survivors were declared legal persons, they couldn’t be legally killed. He used the word, I simply repeated.
I don’t know how that cannot be considered support of infanticide, which according to the dictionary is “the act of killing an infant,” with no age restriction.
I asked Scherer what would be wrong with stabbing a previable born human to death or drowning one in a bucket of water if they weren’t legal persons? No answer.
I also reminded Scherer that Obama never mentioned IL abortion law at the time, likely because no one had come up with that soundbite but perhaps because he would have had to admit the babies in discussion (previable or potentially viable) weren’t covered by the law, so it is actually a mute point.
That said, I explained the various loopholes in IL abortion law, such as the aborting physician is the one deciding predelivery whether a baby is viable – a loophole Obama voted against closing – and such as the definition of “born alive” was enjoined in 1993.
language%20threatening.jpgI had another long conversation with Scherer, pointing him to the statement on the right currently on Obama’s website.
What can that statement possibly mean except Obama did not want abortion survivors (no age restriction) to be considered human and protected by law? That’s exaxctly what Obama maintains would threaten Roe. Roe allows the killing of preborns. That’s all Roe does. This is the 2nd example showing Obama thinks Roe covers the killing of abortion surviving postborns.
I also pointed Scherer to this audio of Obama arguing against calling a 2nd physician to assess an abortion survivor because it would be a “burden” to the “original decision” of the aborting mother.
What can that statement possibly mean except Obama wanted to ensure a pregnancy termination results in a dead baby, yet a 3rd example?
Given the time spent with and information given to Scherer, I should have been shocked today by his Groundhog Day follow-up article, “How valid is Palin’s abortion attack on Obama?” but by now I’m used to MSM’s willing suspension of belief in the truth about Obama, because the truth is just so incredibly awful, and he seems so nice. Obama couldn’t possibly support infanticide of certain preborns, despite the fact he does. He just couldn’t.
Scherer wrote that Sarah Palin’s recent statements condemning Obama for his Born Alive votes were “quite misleading, as they suggested that Obama supported the death of babies after birth who had a chance of survival.”
What about babies with questionable or no chance of survival? Was Scherer equivocating that Obama supported their death?
Scherer repeated – “as the Obama campaign has pointed out” – that IL law covered viable abortion survivors without mentioning the loopholes, that Obama voted against closing the loopholes, and that Obama opposed potentially viable babies from getting a 2nd opinion beyond their paid killer.
Without ever questioning how Born Alive was unclear, Scherer added this:

“It would have completely eviscerated Roe v. Wade,” says Pam Sutherland, who was president of the state’s Planned Parenthood chapter at the time. “[The] bills were so unclear that it would have been litigated forever.”

Scherer repeated that BornAliveTruth.org’s Gianna ad was misleading due to this statement, “if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn’t be here,” despite Obama’s own words to the contrary.
And what about Obama’s Big Lie, that he would have voted for IL’s Born Alive had it been identical to the federal version, when we now know he indeed voted against an identical version?
Funny, Scherer didn’t bring that up.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...