Sorry, unknown artist. Posted by PatrickMoberg.com...

[HT: Troy Newman of Operation Rescue]

Still trying to spotlight all the major news articles published today on the new revelation that Barack Obama voted against identical Born Alive legislation as IL state senator that passed on the federal level overwhelmingly.

Washington Post, today, front page:

The narrative of the presidential campaign appeared to be set on the issue of abortion: Sen. Barack Obama was the abortion-rights candidate who was reaching out to foes, seeking common ground and making inroads. Sen. John McCain was the abortion opponent....

But both those impressions have been altered since the Rev. Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum in CA ....

Obama's hesitant statement at the forum that defining the beginning of life is "above my pay grade" took even some supporters by surprise. Since then, the National Right to Life Committee has challenged him on an obscure law that protects babies born alive after failed abortions, saying that his opposition to the measure in the IL state legislature proves he is an extremist....

"Since Saturday night, I've seen a lot of confusion in the younger Christian voting bloc because they thought they had figured this thing out," said Cameron Strang, editor of Relevant magazine....

Abortion foes are now accusing Obama of being an abortion-rights extremist. In recent days, the NRLC has charged that Obama is misrepresenting his record to broaden his appeal. At issue is a measure in both IL and Congress called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which defines as a protected human any life expelled from a mother. Abortion foes championed the cause when an IL nurse and antiabortion activist said some pre-viable fetuses were being aborted by inducing labor and then being allowed to die.

Obama, then a state senator, opposed the measure in 2001, saying it crossed the line of constitutionality and "essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus."

As a committee chairman in the state Senate in 2003, Obama supported GOP efforts to add language to the act, copied from federal legislation, clarifying that it would have no legal impact on the availability of abortions. Obama then opposed the bill's final passage. Since then, he has said he would have backed the bill as it was written and approved almost unanimously the year before.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the NRLC, charged that Obama is trying to have it both ways because the IL bill he opposed was virtually identical to the federal law he said he would support.

Obama aides acknowledged yesterday that the wording of the state and federal bills was virtually identical. But, they added, the impact of a state law is different, because detailed abortion procedures and regulations are governed by states. Johnson and others are oversimplifying the situation, aides said.

"They have not been telling the truth," Obama told the Christian Broadcasting Network in response to a question on the matter. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."...

Read the entire article below.

Washington Post
Candidates' abortion views not so simple
by Jonathan Weisman
August 20, 2008; A01

The narrative of the presidential campaign appeared to be set on the issue of abortion: Sen. Barack Obama was the abortion-rights candidate who was reaching out to foes, seeking common ground and making inroads. Sen. John McCain was the abortion opponent whose reticence about faith and whose battles on campaign finance laws drew suspect glances from would-be supporters.

But both those impressions have been altered since the Rev. Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum in California on Saturday.

Obama's hesitant statement at the forum that defining the beginning of life is "above my pay grade" took even some supporters by surprise. Since then, the National Right to Life Committee has challenged him on an obscure law that protects babies born alive after failed abortions, saying that his opposition to the measure in the Illinois state legislature proves he is an extremist.

McCain's performance at the forum seemed to hearten many conservatives, not only because of his firm, uncompromising stand against abortion but his broader appeals on global warming, genocide and the embrace of causes greater than self. But the clarity that McCain exhibited at Saddleback has been somewhat diminished with his suggestion that his running mate might favor abortion rights.

"Since Saturday night, I've seen a lot of confusion in the younger Christian voting bloc because they thought they had figured this thing out," said Cameron Strang, editor of Relevant magazine, which is aimed at a new generation of evangelicals. "There's no absolutely right candidate for an evangelical, and there's no absolutely wrong candidate. They're both right, and they're both wrong."

On paper, this campaign looks fairly standard. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, is staunchly in favor of abortion rights, while McCain, an Arizona Republican, has compiled a solid record over four Senate terms of opposing abortion.

But McCain has repeatedly been at odds with the National Right to Life Committee and other antiabortion groups over his efforts to limit their ability to run pointed "issue advocacy" advertisements in the closing weeks of campaigns. Although his voting record is strictly antiabortion, he has never made religiosity or social issues centerpieces of his political persona. And his 2000 labeling of evangelists Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance" deepened evangelical suspicions.

"To be perceived as authentic on this issue, you need to have some grounding in it, and usually that grounding is faith," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a Pepperdine University professor of constitutional law who opposes abortion but supports Obama.

As McCain moves toward naming a running mate, he has not backed off a suggestion to the conservative Weekly Standard that his pick could favor abortion rights. Speculation on whom that could be has centered on former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge and independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut.

Similarly, Obama has made a show of reaching out to abortion opponents to find common ground on pregnancy prevention and adoption. He has urged evangelicals and Catholics to expand the definition of "pro-life" to include opposing torture, poverty and unnecessary war. In the Democratic primary, Obama was criticized by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign and others for being insufficiently committed to abortion rights because he did not cast some votes on the issue in the Illinois legislature.

Abortion foes are now accusing Obama of being an abortion-rights extremist. In recent days, the National Right to Life Committee has charged that Obama is misrepresenting his record to broaden his appeal. At issue is a measure in both Illinois and Congress called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which defines as a protected human any life expelled from a mother. Abortion foes championed the cause when an Illinois nurse and antiabortion activist said some pre-viable fetuses were being aborted by inducing labor and then being allowed to die.

Obama, then a state senator, opposed the measure in 2001, saying it crossed the line of constitutionality and "essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus."

As a committee chairman in the state Senate in 2003, Obama supported GOP efforts to add language to the act, copied from federal legislation, clarifying that it would have no legal impact on the availability of abortions. Obama then opposed the bill's final passage. Since then, he has said he would have backed the bill as it was written and approved almost unanimously the year before.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, charged that Obama is trying to have it both ways because the Illinois bill he opposed was virtually identical to the federal law he said he would support.

Obama aides acknowledged yesterday that the wording of the state and federal bills was virtually identical. But, they added, the impact of a state law is different, because detailed abortion procedures and regulations are governed by states. Johnson and others are oversimplifying the situation, aides said.

"They have not been telling the truth," Obama told the Christian Broadcasting Network in response to a question on the matter. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

At Saddleback, McCain won plaudits from conservatives when he said that life begins "at the moment of conception," especially after Obama deflected the question.

But the inroads McCain made are now threatened by his flirtation with a running mate who supports abortion rights.

"I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party. And I also feel that -- and I'm not trying to equivocate here -- that Americans want us to work together," McCain told the Weekly Standard.

Conservative commentator David Limbaugh slammed the idea yesterday, warning that McCain "would make a fatal mistake to assume that social issues, especially abortion, are ever off an equally blazing front burner for an inestimable number of social conservatives."

Abortion remains an important issue to a large portion of the electorate, but it is not the biggest. An early August poll for Time magazine found that one in five likely voters would not consider voting for a candidate who did not share their views on abortion. Twenty-six percent of Republicans saw the issue as decisive, compared with 18 percent of Democrats.

On August 19, Hannity, Colmes, and Beckel got into a shouting match over Barack Obama's opposition as IL state senator to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

At issue was whether it was worded identically as the federal bill, which Obama has denied for 4 years.

It was. Obama was lying.

Beckel did not like that Obama was standing accused of supporting infanticide.

Which he does.

Colmes, sarcastically: "Barack Obama wants to kill Jill Stanek's baby."

David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network helped launch a firestorm of controversy on August 16 when asking Barack Obama in an interview after the Saddleback Showdown about the accusation he had misrepresented his opposition to IL's Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

National Right to Life had just announced the discovery of documentation that Obama opposed identical verbiage as the federal Born Alive bill, contrary to multiple statements otherwise.

This interview provides a great synopsis and update of the controversy so far.

Barack Obama has painted himself into a corner by his vote against the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

He made this evident at Pastor Rick Warren's Aug. 17 Saddleback Showdown.

Warren asked both presidential candidates the same questions separately. Here was his best one: "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

Very simple. But Obama wouldn't answer it. His now infamous response: "Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

The most adamant pro-abort will at least agree babies acquire human rights when they have completely delivered.

But Barack Obama couldn't bring himself to say, "At birth." He wouldn't confer human rights to newborns....

Continue reading, "Why Obama couldn't answer Warren's baby question," on WorldNetDaily.com.

Last night I taped a segment for Hannity's America that is going to air TONIGHT during Hannity and Colmes.

The spot was originally scheduled to run this coming Sunday, but the Democrat National Convention got in the way.

I'm glad. More viewers during the week than on weekends.

I'm told The O'Reilly Factor is going to cover the Obama/Born Alive scandal tonight as well.

Also, fyi, I'll be on Michael Reagan's radio show tonight at 7:30p EST.

Finally, a little scoop. An insider tells me Obama's camp is going "ape sh**" over all this.

Read entire article on page 2. Note again, as I noted on the Associated Press article and in my talking points post, Obama surrogates are attempting to mash reasons - particularly Born Alive's companion bills - into his new excuse for not voting for Born Alive. But these were always separate bills with separate bill numbers and separate votes. One did not hinge upon the other's passage.

New York Times, today:

Abortion, a familiar issue in elections past, has again emerged in recent days as a focus of controversy. Senator Barack Obama is coming under intense fire from anti-abortion groups because of the position he took as an IL state senator on legislation regarding the status of fetuses that survive abortion procedures....

Both Mr. Obama and his critics agree that, as chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in the state legislature in 2003, he led efforts to defeat a bill called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. But they disagree about virtually every other aspect of the legislation, from its meaning and purpose to the breadth of its application.

The recent controversy erupted after an interview Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, gave to the Christian Broadcasting Network on Saturday night, immediately following his televised question-and-answer session with the Rev. Rick Warren at Saddleback Church in CA. Asked about the legislation, Mr. Obama said, "here's a situation where folks are lying" when they say he has misrepresented his position.

In 2002, President Bush signed a federal "born alive" law. The measure passed by sweeping majorities in Congress, with the support of many legislators who usually vote against legislation favored by groups seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade.... Even organizations like [NARAL] did not oppose the bill.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly said that he would have been willing to vote for such a measure in IL had it been identical to the federal statute. But "that was not the bill that was presented at the state level," he said Saturday. "What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade."

The statute Congress passed in 2002 and the one the IL committee rejected a year later are virtually identical.... or induced labor, cesarean section or induced abortion."

That has led Mr. Obama's critics to accuse him of playing fast and loose with the truth when he says he "would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported" if it had been offered at the state level.

"I don't know whether he is lying or whether he forgot, but with his words, he is condemning himself, " said Jill Stanek, a nurse in the Chicago area who was a main proponent of the federal measure and writes an anti-abortion blog. "He voted one way and then covered it up, and he has to explain that, not just to me, but to the American people."

But the Illinois proposal always had a companion bill....

In his remarks Saturday, Mr. Obama took a lawyerly approach, appearing to refer to the entire package of abortion-related bills regularly submitted to the IL legislature, not only to the 2003 definitional bill. His critics, however, said that was a smoke screen.

"Obama confuses these bills, which were entirely separate," Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said. "They had sequential numbers, but they were not in any way linked. To call them a package is a tactic to try to reach out and grab issues in an attempt to divert attention from this one."

New York Times
Obama's 2003 Stand on Abortion Draws New Criticism in 2008
By Larry Rochter
August 19, 2008

Abortion, a familiar issue in elections past, has again emerged in recent days as a focus of controversy. Senator Barack Obama is coming under intense fire from anti-abortion groups because of the position he took as an Illinois state senator on legislation regarding the status of fetuses that survive abortion procedures.

Both Mr. Obama and his critics agree that, as chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in the state legislature in 2003, he led efforts to defeat a bill called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. But they disagree about virtually every other aspect of the legislation, from its meaning and purpose to the breadth of its application.

The recent controversy erupted after an interview Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, gave to the Christian Broadcasting Network on Saturday night, immediately following his televised question-and-answer session with the Rev. Rick Warren at Saddleback Church in California. Asked about the legislation, Mr. Obama said, "here's a situation where folks are lying" when they say he has misrepresented his position.

In 2002, President Bush signed a federal "born alive" law. The measure passed by sweeping majorities in Congress, with the support of many legislators who usually vote against legislation favored by groups seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Even organizations like the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, now known as Naral Pro-Choice America, did not oppose the bill.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly said that he would have been willing to vote for such a measure in Illinois had it been identical to the federal statute. But "that was not the bill that was presented at the state level," he said Saturday. "What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade."

The statute Congress passed in 2002 and the one the Illinois committee rejected a year later are virtually identical. Both say, for example, that "the words 'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual' shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development," regardless of whether that birth "occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section or induced abortion."

That has led Mr. Obama's critics to accuse him of playing fast and loose with the truth when he says he "would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported" if it had been offered at the state level.

"I don't know whether he is lying or whether he forgot, but with his words, he is condemning himself, " said Jill Stanek, a nurse in the Chicago area who was a main proponent of the federal measure and writes an anti-abortion blog. "He voted one way and then covered it up, and he has to explain that, not just to me, but to the American people."

But the Illinois proposal always had a companion bill. The accompanying legislation, called the Induced Infant Liability Act, would have allowed legal action "on the child's behalf for damages, including costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney's fees, against a hospital, health care facility or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth."

Groups that favor abortion rights say that bill would have introduced the possibility that doctors could be sued for failing to take extraordinary measures to save the lives of pre-viable infants, those born so prematurely that they could not possibly survive. As a result, they argue, it is disingenuous of anti-abortion organizations to claim that Mr. Obama was moving to quash only a narrow and innocuous definitional bill identical to federal law.

"I can tell you the sponsors always wanted the entire package of bills, which were introduced together and analyzed together," said Pam Sutherland, who was president of the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood at the time and is now the group's lobbyist. "They never wanted them separated, because they wanted to make sure that physicians would be chilled into not performing abortions for fear of going to jail."

Another concern mentioned by opponents of the bill, including Mr. Obama when he was in the State Senate, was that the state legislation amounted to an illegal end run around Roe v. Wade.

"We do not object to a solely definitional bill," like the one approved at the federal level, said Mary Dixon, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. "But when you take a definition comparable to the federal one and combine it with other provisions that attempt to give full personhood to a fetus that is pre-viable and try to put fear of criminal and civil liability in the minds of physicians, you have created a much different scenario."

The Illinois State Medical Society, which also fought the legislation and was cited by Mr. Obama on Saturday in his defense of his position, said in a statement that it opposed the package of bills, first introduced in 2001, "because they interfered negatively with the physician-patient relationship, attempted to dictate the practice of medicine for neonatal care and greatly expanded civil liability for physicians."

In his remarks Saturday, Mr. Obama took a lawyerly approach, appearing to refer to the entire package of abortion-related bills regularly submitted to the Illinois legislature, not only to the 2003 definitional bill. His critics, however, said that was a smoke screen.

"Obama confuses these bills, which were entirely separate," Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said. "They had sequential numbers, but they were not in any way linked. To call them a package is a tactic to try to reach out and grab issues in an attempt to divert attention from this one."

The accusations against Mr. Obama reprise those leveled against him in his 2004 campaign for the United States Senate. His opponent in that race, Alan Keyes, accused him of "infanticide," citing Mr. Obama's vote on the "born alive" bill, earlier versions of which had been rejected even when Republicans controlled the state legislature.

A year later, after Mr. Obama had moved on to Washington, the Illinois legislature approved a "born alive" law. But that statute, as the result of a compromise meant to avoid the standoff that led Mr. Obama to oppose the 2003 version, added language specifically stating that it should not be construed "to affect existing federal or state law regarding abortion" or "to alter generally accepted medical standards."

From the Associated Press, today:

... "For people to suggest that I and the IL Medical Society, so IL's doctors, were somehow in favor of withholding lifesaving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous," he recently told the Christian Broadcasting Network. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination."

But as a state senator, Obama repeatedly voted against that requirement and other restrictions on what opponents label "born alive" abortions. Obama says he opposed it only because of technical language that might have interfered with a woman's right to choose....

Abortion opponents say Obama's position amounts to an endorsement of killing babies, and that he has lied about it....

"Barack Obama is so radically pro-abortion he supports infanticide," Jill Stanek, an IL nurse and anti-abortion activist, wrote on her Web site.

"Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling," former Sen. Rick Santorum wrote in a column early this year.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor called such statements "distortions and lies."...

The dispute revolves around what happens in rare circumstances when a fetus survives an abortion....

Abortion rights supporters, led by Obama, opposed the IL legislation, arguing that it was designed to interfere with abortion.

Over the years, Obama repeatedly has said the IL measure was different from the federal version in a key way - it lacked language spelling out that it would not interfere with abortion rights. If the IL legislation had that provision, he said, he would have backed it.

Now, however, abortion opponents have pointed out that Obama opposed a version of the bill that included a "neutrality clause." The bill was killed in 2003 by a state Senate committee Obama chaired.

"He needs to explain misleading people. He needs to explain why he apparently covered that up," Stanek said.

The Obama campaign's explanation is that even if the federal and state versions had identical language, they would have very different consequences.

Read the entire article below.

The reporter, Chris Wills, attempted to spin this story into one portraying Obama as an abortion moderate by juxtaposing earlier Clinton campaign complaints that he wasn't pro-abortion enough with our documented accusations he is so pro-abortion he supports infanticide.

Also note Wills drew in the obfuscations I told you by which the other side is attempting to muddy matters.

Finally, the last paragraph I quoted is bunk. Obama said on the Senate floor he opposed Born Alive because he thought it was "unconstitutional."

Associated Press
Obama faces new criticism on abortion
By Christopher Wills
August 20, 2008

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- Painted during the Democratic primary as weak on abortion rights, Barack Obama is now being portrayed as an extremist who literally supports killing babies.

Both portraits are based on his handling of a related issue in the Illinois Senate, and Obama insists they distort his position.

The Democratic presidential candidate says he firmly supports a woman's right to choose but can accept some restrictions -- including a requirement that medical care be provided for any fetus that survives an abortion.

"For people to suggest that I and the Illinois Medical Society, so Illinois' doctors, were somehow in favor of withholding lifesaving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous," he recently told the Christian Broadcasting Network. "It defies commonsense and it defies imagination."

But as a state senator, Obama repeatedly voted against that requirement and other restrictions on what opponents label "born alive" abortions. Obama says he opposed it only because of technical language that might have interfered with a woman's right to choose.

Hillary Rodham Clinton argued during the primary that Obama hadn't been vocal enough in his opposition to this and other abortion legislation, and questioned his commitment to protecting women's access to abortion.

Abortion opponents say Obama's position amounts to an endorsement of killing babies, and that he has lied about it.

"Barack Obama is so radically pro-abortion he supports infanticide," Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse and anti-abortion activist, wrote on her Web site.

"Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling," former Sen. Rick Santorum wrote in a column early this year.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor called such statements "distortions and lies."

"The suggestion that Obama -- the proud father of two little girls -- and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting," Vietor said in a statement Tuesday.

The dispute revolves around what happens in rare circumstances when a fetus survives an abortion.

Illinois abortion opponents repeatedly tried to pass laws defining any fetus that survives an abortion as a person with full rights, requiring a second doctor be present to provide medical care and creating a right to sue on behalf of the infant.

They argued the U.S. Senate had voted 98-0 for a federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act that defined such a fetus as a person, so Illinois lawmakers should have no trouble doing the same thing. President Bush signed the legislation in 2002.

Abortion rights supporters, led by Obama, opposed the Illinois legislation, arguing that it was designed to interfere with abortion.

Over the years, Obama repeatedly has said the Illinois measure was different from the federal version in a key way -- it lacked language spelling out that it would not interfere with abortion rights. If the Illinois legislation had that provision, he said, he would have backed it.

Now, however, abortion opponents have pointed out that Obama opposed a version of the bill that included a "neutrality clause." The bill was killed in 2003 by a state Senate committee Obama chaired.

"He needs to explain misleading people. He needs to explain why he apparently covered that up," Stanek said.

The Obama campaign's explanation is that even if the federal and state versions had identical language, they would have very different consequences.

The federal government doesn't have a law regulating abortion, so Congress could pass a "born alive" measure without actually affecting anything. But Illinois has an abortion law that would be muddled by changing the definition of a person with full rights, the campaign says.

Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, backs Obama's position. The federal law essentially does nothing, she said, but the same language in Illinois would complicate state abortion laws.

Sutherland noted that Illinois eventually adopted a version of the "born alive" law but only after including a section that specifically states abortion rules would not be affected.

"They're being very dishonest about their depiction of what happened with that bill -- or just clueless," she said of abortion opponents.

Sutherland also scoffed at the idea that opposing the legislation is the equivalent of supporting infanticide. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous," she said.

Now focused on the general election, Obama wants to show that he may disagree with abortion opponents, but understands and respects their views.

The Democratic Party platform is being revised to bolster the section on reducing the need for abortion. The version awaiting approval at the Democratic convention in Denver says the party supports efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies and understands the need to help women who choose to have children.

Democratic officials also gave a convention speaking slot to Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Pa., who opposes abortion rights.

I spent a great deal of time on the phone with 3 reporters from major news organizations the last 2 days, and each one became frustrated with me because I wouldn't allow them to take me down rabbit trails when discussing Barack Obama's opposition to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

All 3 times, I was the call they made...after the call they made to the Obama campaign, to Planned Parenthood or to the ACLU, so I was handed their talking points to rebut.

The other side is trying to obfuscate Obama's opposition to Born Alive by saying: 1) it was part of a package of 3 bills with intolerable ramifications to abortion; and 2) although the verbiage of the federal and state bills was identical, the consequences to state law was not.

But I refused to deviate from these 2 points:

1. We now know Barack Obama as state senator voted against identical Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation that was passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and accepted by even NARAL.

2. For 4 years Barack Obama has misrepresented his vote and must answer for that.

The exasperated New York Times reporter finally complained, "They're trying to broaden the discussion but you're trying to narrow it," as if I were the one to blame for that. I said of course they're trying to move eyes off the ball, and of course I'm trying to stay focused.

Anyway, it wasn't we who narrowed the discussion. It was Barack Obama himself, who has repeatedly stated he would have voted for Born Alive in IL had it been the same as the federal bill. He focused on one point - one bill - and so are we.

On August 14 the Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn published a refutation from the Obama campaign to the charge he did indeed oppose identical legislation as state senator to legislation passed overwhelmingly on the national level and deemed unobstrusive on abortion by NARAL.

The Obama team's protest including a chart it stated showed the "FACT: There are MAJOR differences in state and federal bills, including the fact that the federal bill included a 'Neutrality Clause'":

Yesterday the Obama campaign released a new "fact sheet" with a critical change in the chart, and an admission Obama opposed the amended Born Alive bill, which was now identical to the federal version.

One added point. Note the heading, "Language Clearly Threatening Roe."

"Clearly threatening Roe"? Then explain this, Senator Obama. Even before the hyped "neutrality clause" was added, the U.S. House voted 380-15 in September 2000 for this version, you know, the one "clearly threatening Roe." Leading pro-abort Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) stated at the time, according to World magazine:

The purpose of this bill is only to get the pro-choice members to vote against it so they can slander us and say we are for infanticide. That's why I voted for it in committee, and that's why we will vote for it on the floor.

Obama just wasn't so smart.

On August 18, the exchange between sides became heated on Hannity and Colmes on the topic of Barack Obama's opposition as state senator to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

The argument centered on whether Obama opposed the identical language that 98 of his U.S. Senate colleagues supported and that even NARAL went neutral on.

Colmes continued to assert the answer was no, even though there is proof the answer is yes. I had it confirmed last night that Colmes' people have been given the documentation. Let's see what he does with it.

Ann Coulter was fabulous...

This one can't wait until Sunday, by my favorite political cartoonist Glenn McCoy:

[HT: Troy Newman of Operation Rescue]

From National Review Online, August 20:

Bereft of an argument, the Obama campaign is pounding the table.

The recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama - the proud father of two little girls - and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting.* There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign.

Note, first, that Obama's comment about lies over the weekend referred to the National Right to Life Committee. Yet the campaign has not made a single specific allegation that any of the NRLC's statements are inaccurate, let alone dishonest. The campaign claims only that the NRLC has left out some context that exonerates Obama....

The main supposed omission: "What Senator Obama's attackers don't tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions."

The reason the NRLC didn't include that information is that it is incorrect. Illinois law has rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant.

Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital "abortions" were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That's why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.

Obama did not want the gap filled. He did not want pre-viable fetuses/infants to have any legal protection. In the Illinois legislature, he argued that providing them with legal protection would both be unconstitutional in itself - a violation of the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence - and undermine the right to abortion.

Obama was wrong about these points. The Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence treats the location of the young human organism, not its stage of development, as the key factor in whether it can be legally protected. But that's the ground on which he stood, at the time. In recent years, however, he has had very little to say about the importance of denying legal protection to this class of human beings. He knows that's a losing argument politically. So he has instead been emitting a thick cloud of smoke.

Only yesterday has the Obama campaign finally, in desperation, gotten close to telling the truth about Obama's position. In its latest apologia, the campaign isolates the language it found so objectionable in the Illinois bill. "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." The campaign calls this "Language Clearly Threatening Roe."

So far, only the conservative blogosphere has been calling Obama on his misrepresentations of his record on the Born-Alive Bill, and on his reckless accusations against his critics. Reporters should stop carrying his water. As for his defenders in the liberal blogosphere, if they want to take up for him again I would advise them to wait a while. The campaign doesn't yet have its story straight, and it has no room for the truth.

*Incidentally, as a logical matter it makes no sense to say that because Obama is a "proud father" of former infants he therefore could not have supported a legal right to commit infanticide. Those daughters are also, after all, former fetuses.