O’Reilly compares Obama’s infanticide vote to anti-chimp vote
Last night Bill O’Reilly interviewed UT Congressman Rob Bishop, who opposes legislation to make it illegal to sell or transport a pet chimp across state lines.
O’Reilly compared opposition of this bill to Barack Obama’s infamous opposition to another bill back in the day…
“The law doesn’t solve the problem,” Bishop stated. “The intelligent thing would be to say that no one can have a pet primate, but this law deals with interstate transportation and trade. If you’re trying to stop monkeys from attacking people, then ban the concept of pet monkeys.”…
O’Reilly told the Congressman his opposition reminded him of Obama’s opposition as IL state senator to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which sought to protect abortion survivors from being medically neglected to death or outright killed.
Said O’Reilly, “… Obama voted against the law, using the same rationale you just used; We don’t need it, it costs too much money, it sets up a bureaucracy…. We have to have the law so sharply written that if somebody transports a chimpanzee or botches an abortion, and doesn’t do the right thing, the feds are on ‘em….”
In actuality Obama rationalized at the time that giving young abortion survivors the same rights as full-term babies would lead to the overthrow of Roe v. Wade.
While I appreciated O’Reilly’s reminder to America of Obama’s pro-infanticide vote, O’Reilly’s comparison of that to a bill about chimpanzee regulation disturbed me. It cheapened Obama’s heinous act.
[HT for video: Rantings & Ravings
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Be quiet Bill. You had an interview with Obama and never brought up BAIPA or abortion, nor did you raise it during the campaign.
I wonder if the media will be as outraged at the comparison of the unborn to chimps as they were at last week’s political cartoon? (This is a rhetorical question of course).
Both excellent points!
What an insult. I can’t see Bill O’reilly as a man of true conviction.
The more I think about this, the more ridiculous it is. I just can’t believe he made such an unbelievable comparison. Wow.
Well, I guess I did not see it that way. I was glad he brought it up to remind everyone about BO and the way I took it, BO was rejecting protecting the infants because it was too much bureaucracy, too costly and and not needed. Like those things were just too much trouble to protect the “folks” in this case the babies.
Be quiet Bill. You had an interview with Obama and never brought up BAIPA or abortion, nor did you raise it during the campaign.
Posted by: Jasper at February 27, 2009 1:10 PM
********************************
I agree.
There is a reason Bill-O hasn’t moderated a debate – he has the gravitas of a children’s clown. But I guess he is in vogue right now considering that all the Republicans have left is obstructionism. When you try to shush him it’s ironic considering how much you tout him as a supporter.
It would have made more sense to compare the law against interstate sales of chimps to the laws against minors going interstate to commit abortion.
I am tempted to say these are the most idiotic words ever spoken by Loofah Boy, but he tends to top himself on a daily basis.