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:

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"

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:

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.
202-626-8820
Legfederal@aol.com

Posted by: Douglas Johnson | Aug 14, 2008 10:42:32 AM

Jerome Corsi, author of the book, The Obama Nation, was a guest on Hannity and Colmes August 12.

Both Hannity and Colmes spent time with Corsi discussing Obama's opposition to IL's Born Alive Infants Protection Act while state senator, legislation that would give newborn babies equal protection under the law even if aborted.

Frustratingly, none of the 3 were aware of the latest development, revealed by National Right to Life August 11: While Obama has repeatedly said he would have voted for the state Born Alive had it been an exact duplicate of the federally passed bill, the fact is he did vote AGAINST an identical version on March 13, 2003.

Note Colmes called aborted alive babies "fetuses born alive after botched abortions." These are not fetuses.

Also note the name of a nurse you know popping up a couple times.

Erick Erickson at RedState.com has subsequently challenged Colmes to stop "parrot[ing] the Obama talking points on this issue, because those talking points are dead wrong".

The John Edwards affair with Rielle Hunter grows ever more sordid.

On Hannity and Colmes last week a National Enquirer spokesperson said his understanding is Hunter still loves Edwards and is waiting in the background for Elizabeth, who has terminal cancer, to die.

This shocked me. But it grows worse. There is Elizabeth's perspective as the one with the terminal cancer. From this week's issue of People...

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards stunned the nation with his televised confession Aug. 8 that he had an extramarital affair. Battling cancer that her doctors call incurable, his wife, Elizabeth, issued a statement in support of her husband - but how is she really doing?

"There was anguish - excruciating anguish - for her in dealing with this," Elizabeth's best friend Hargrave McElroy tells People....

Behind the public show of strength, the Edwards' household has been a scene of turmoil and tension since John, 55, first began revealing the truth about his affair with former campaign aide, Rielle Hunter, 44, after the formal launch of his campaign in the final days of 2006. "He told the truth slowly," according to one source close to the couple.

Elizabeth, 59, faced an agonizing choice: "Do I kick him out, or do we have a 30-year marriage that can be rebuilt?" says McElroy. The fact that she suffers from a terminal disease, one that could rob her children - Jack, 8, Emma Claire, 10 and Cate, 26, a student at Harvard Law School - of their mother, weighed heavily in her decision.

"She couldn't say, 'Well, maybe we'll work through this for years, or maybe we should separate for two years,'" adds Elizabeth's best friend. "[The cancer] forced her to choose whether to move forward."...

This whole matter is simply tragic. But there's more. The National Enquirer, which has gotten the story exactly right so far, maintains the lies go on, as published August 13:

The Enquirer has uncovered that Edwards' political operatives are still paying his mistress Rielle Hunter - and she was whisked away on a private jet two days before he confessed their extramarital affair on national TV!

The Enquirer has also confirmed that Edwards secretly visited Rielle and their love child 3 separate times at the Beverly Hilton hotel in LA this year - a fact that proves he is still lying to America and his wife....

Now, The Enquirer has uncovered more blockbuster information, including:

After Edwards confessed the affair to his wife, he restarted it, and was sexually involved with Rielle when she became pregnant.

Despite his denials, Edwards WAS aware that his former finance committee chairman, Fred Baron, was funneling money to Rielle.

Experts are now calling for a federal investigation into Edwards' use of campaign funds.

And that's why all this matters to us. This affair entered into the political realm with potential illegal use of campaign funds for starters. This man ran for president. He may have changed the course of political history by siphoning votes from Hillary. And even as recently as a couple weeks ago Edwards' name was being floated as a potential Obama VP or cabinet appointee.

See my previous posts here, here, and here.

[HT: proofreader Laura Loo]

I've read of similar study results before. This is not new news, just more corroboration.

These studies indicate the birth control pill interferes with a woman's pheromonal sense of scent, attracting her to the wrong guy, in terms of both long-term compatibility as well as the stock of children they'll produce.

From The Times, August 13:

A study by British scientists suggests that taking the Pill can change a woman's taste in men - to those who are genetically less compatible.

The research found that the Pill can alter the type of male scent that women find most attractive, which may in turn affect the kind of men they choose as partners. It suggests that the popular form of contraception... could have implications for fertility and relationship breakdowns....

The Pill is thought to disrupt an instinctive mechanism that brings together people with complementary genes and immune systems. Such a couple, by passing on a wide-ranging set of immune system genes, increase their chances of having a healthy child that is not vulnerable to infection....

Couples with different genes are also less likely to experience fertility problems or miscarriages....

[T]he researchers said... this might not only impact on fertility and miscarriage risk, but could even contribute to the end of relationships as women who stop or start taking the Pill no longer find their boyfriend or husband so attractive.

There is a logical explanation, according to LiveScience:

The pill puts a woman's body into a hormonally pregnant state (the reason she doesn't ovulate), and during that time there would be no reason to seek out a mate.

"When women are pregnant there's no selection pressure, evolutionarily speaking, for having a preference for genetically dissimilar odors," Roberts said. "And if there is any pressure at all it would be towards relatives, who would be more genetically similar, because the relatives would help those individuals rear the baby."

So the pill puts a woman's body into a post-mating state, even though she might be still in the game.

"The pill is in effect mirroring a natural shift but at an inappropriate time," Roberts told LiveScience.

[HT: moderator Chris, readers Janet, Phil M. and budpacmac, Matthew Balan from Newsbusters.org, proofreader Laura Loo]