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.

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, Planned Parenthood or 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.

From the New York Sun, dated August 18:

Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law....

Bearing in mind the Obama campaign now admits he voted as state senator against the very same legislation passed overwhelmingly on the federal level to stop infanticide, read again what he told CBN's David Brody only last night:

Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying.

I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say - that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.

That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in IL that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.

So for people to suggest that I and the IL Medical Society, so IL doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies common sense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond.

It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.

Little did Obama know his own words would so quickly condemn him. He admitted what he did "defies common sense and it defies imagination." In fact, it was heinous.

While the Obama campaign tonight finally admitted Obama has misrepresented his Born Alive vote all these years, it had the audacity to offer a ludicrous excuse, an excuse Obama himself contradicted only 24 hours ago, as he has for years, that "I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported."

The following statement was just issued by National Right to Life Committee Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, in response to the David Brody interview with Barack Obama last night:

Since 2004, Obama has been betting that the mainstream news media will lack the interest and attention span required to get a clear picture of his actual record regarding infants who are born alive during abortions, and so far that mostly has worked for him....

In his short interview with David Brody, Obama tripled his bet on that proposition by calling us liars. He also relied on diversionary verbal smokescreens, but without directly addressing the newly discovered 2003 documentation that proves the falsity of his account.

We now challenge Obama to either declare the two 2003 legislative documents to be forgeries and call for an official investigation, or else apologize for his four years of misrepresentation on the issue of babies who are born alive during abortions - and for calling us liars.

Douglas Johnson
202-626-8820
Legfederal@aol.com

No Sunday funny today. There's nothing funny about Barack Obama's bold-faced lie to CBN's David Brody last night after the Saddleback Showdown, when he continued to maintain he did not vote against an identical bill as IL state senator to the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act:

Obama was obviously aware of the evidence provided last week by National Right to Life when making the statement. He not only continued to deny his vote in the face of 2 pieces of documentation showing otherwise but called the messenger a liar.

Again, here is Obama's March 13, 2003, vote in the IL State Senate Health & Human Services Committee, which anyone could obtain from the IL General Assembly archive (click to enlarge):

"DP#1" means "Do Pass Amendment #1." "DPA" means "Do Pass as Amended."

Here is the original bill. Here is Amendment #1. Here is the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

Obama first voted in favor of Amendment #1 and then voted against the Born Alive bill as amended. It couldn't be more clear. Furthermore, here is the Republican Senate Staff Analysis from that day, expressing the same understanding of the chain of events:

Senator Obama needs to show his own evidence that none of this is true.

[HT: moderators Jasper and Carder and pro-lifewitness.com]

This afternoon I'll be discussing Barack Obama's opposition to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act on Sean Hannity's radio show at 4:05p EST. You can listen live online.

Last night Hannity announced on the Hannity and Colmes Fox cable news show I would appear on Hannity's America next Sunday night. Be warned, however, that no concrete plans have been set for the interview.

Hannity made the announcement during a panel discussion on Obama's opposition to Born Alive. At least 2 panelists were previously unaware, and their response was interesting. Watch through to the end. The abortion/Born Alive issue keeps popping up.

Here's a good one.

The 1,710 word book-column at FindLaw.com looks impressive on the surface, written by Sherry Colb, "a Professor of Law and Charles Evans Hughes Scholar at Cornell Law School."

Cornell, my.

The only problem with Colb's attempt to clear Obama of his pro-infanticide position is she referenced the wrong bill. I couldn't believe it....

Colb linked to "a 2002 proposed law entitled the "Illinois Induced Birth Infant Liability Act," Senate Bill 1661.

But the correct comparison to the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act would be Senate Bill 1662, "Born-Alive Infant Defined."

No wonder the bills didn't match up.

Couldn't have been purposeful misrepresentation, could it?

Also see Matt Bowman's analysis, of the Alliance Defense Fund.

[HT: Fran at Illinois Review]

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".

Conservative and new media are all over National Right to Life's August 11 revelation that, contrary to multiple statements otherwise, Barack Obama as state senator did indeed vote against identical legislation as the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, putting him to the left of NARAL and every other US senator.

But as Warner Todd Huston writes today on NewsBusters.org, MSM has gone "mum".

I happen to know one of the big 3 network news organizations has been sitting on this since last Thursday, going so far as to pass up the chance to break the story.

Meanwhile, The Weekly Standard has a piece on this today.

And look for something by Wall Street Journal's John Fund tomorrow....

Here's a nice example of a liberal trying to hide the truth about Obama's support of infanticide. John Wilson in yesterday's Huffington Post wrote:

Freddoso is so obsessed with attacking Obama's support of abortion rights that the photo section of the book includes a full-page photo of Gianna Jessen, who "survived a saline abortion in 1977." What does this have to do with Obama? Absolutely nothing.

Well, actually, if Wilson had included David Freddoso's entire quote from his best-selling book, The case against Barack Obama, his readers would have concluded differently, which Wilson didn't want. Here's the page from the book (click to enlarge):

Interestingly, the title of Wilson's piece was, "David Freddoso's hatchet job."

And here's another little tidbit that should chill Obama's peeps. In an anti-Bush, pro-ACLU, pro-terrorist rights op ed in The Morning Call today, Nat Hentoff wrote:

I agree with Obama's reaction to the [Hamdan war crimes] trial; but if I vote for him, it will be with repugnance because he is so extreme a pro-abortionist that he opposed, in the Illinois legislature, a bill to preserve babies born alive after botched abortions.

"If"? Wow, that's coming from Obama's base.

So here's a strong opponent.

UPDATE, 1:30p: Reader Charles wanted to learn how to pronounce the word "infanticide" on the web, and he was surprised to see the word's sponsor (click to enlarge):

UPDATE, 12:10p: Reader HisMan just forwarded this (click to enlarge)...

First, someone sent me the link to a blog with an interesting photo of the preborn Barack Obama, as you can see on the right.

On now, on to the coverage...

Leon Wolf at Redstate.com, "Have I mentioned that Barack Obama is morally depraved?"

I was going to list the conservative blogs covering this but there are too many. They're all over this.

Nothing from the liberal blogs or websites yet, though.

[Photo courtesy of instructionsfortheignorant.com]

posted at 11:38 AM | Comments (122) | TrackBack (0)

August 11, 2008
Breaking news: New documents show Obama cover-up on born-alive survivors bill

UPDATE, 4:30p: Ben Smith of The Politico has linked to this post.

UPDATE, 4p: Concerned Women for America has audio of an interview with me on this here.

UPDATE, 10:22a:Michelle Malkin has linked to this post.

UPDATE, 9:50a: Kathryn Lopez of National Review Online is covering the story.

Last week Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee drew my attention to a previously unnoticed January 2008 article by Terence Jeffrey stating Barack Obama actually did vote against a version of the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was identical to the federal version, contrary to multiple public statements Obama or his surrogates have made to rationalize his opposition to the IL bill for the past 4 years.

Since then we have found 2 separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts.

In fact, Barack Obama is more liberal than any U.S. senator, voting against identical language of a bill that body passed unanimously, 98-0. In fact, Barack Obama condones infanticide if it would otherwise interfere with abortion.

Here is the statement with documentation released by NRLC this morning...

New documents just obtained by NRLC, and linked below, prove that Senator [Barack] Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the IL Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.

Summary and comment by NRLC spokesman Douglas Johnson:

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.

In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was first introduced in Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion. (To view the original 2000 BAIPA, click here.)

In 2002, the bill was enacted, after a "neutrality clause" was added to explicitly state that the bill expressed no judgment, in either direction, about the legal status of a human prior to live birth.

(The "neutrality" clause read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section.")

The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, click here. To view a chronology of events pertaining to the federal BAIPA, click here.)

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, as a member of the IL State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions. His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 - even after NARAL had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002.

When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting "infanticide." Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill.

As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004:

Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not....

The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.

During Obama's 2008 run for President, his campaign and his defenders have asserted repeatedly and forcefully that it is a distortion, or even a smear, to suggest that Obama opposed a state born-alive bill that was the same as the federal bill. See, for example, this June 30, 2008 "factcheck" issued by the Obama campaign, in the form that it still appeared on the Obama website on August 7, 2008.

The Obama "cover story" has often been repeated as fact, or at least without challenge, in major organs of the news media.

(Two recent examples: CNN reported on June 30, 2008, "Senator Obama says if he had been in the U.S. Senate in 2002, he, too, would have voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because unlike the IL bill, it included language protecting Roe v. Wade." The New York Times reported in a story on August 7, 2008, that Obama "said he had opposed the bill because it was poorly drafted and would have threatened the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established abortion as a constitutional right. He said he would have voted for a similar bill that passed the United States Senate because it did not have the same constitutional flaw as the IL bill.")

NRLC and other pro-life observers have always regarded Obama's "defense" as contrived, since the original two-paragraph BAIPA on its face applied only after a live birth; the "neutrality clause" added in 2001 merely made this explicit, and therefore the new clause did not change the substance of the original bill.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of liberal, pro-abortion members of the U.S. House of Representatives did not embrace the initial NARAL position that the original bill was an attack on Roe v. Wade. The Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, then as now, were a solidly liberal group, yet only one of them voted against the original BAIPA without the "neutrality clause," and he cited a different reason.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who supported the bill, and who described himself as "as pro-choice as anybody on Earth," argued that under his understanding of Roe "if an abortion is performed, or a natural birth occurred, at any age, [even] three months, and the product of that was living outside the mother, and somebody came and shot him, I don't think there's any doubt that person would be prosecuted for murder."

When the original bill - with no "neutrality clause" - came up on the House floor on September 26, 2000, it passed 380-15.

These facts should give pause to those who have unskeptically accepted Obama's claim that the IL BAIPA bills that he opposed in 2001 and 2002, which were modeled on the original federal BAIPA, were crafted to attack Roe v. Wade.

For the moment we can set that debate aside, however, for this reason: Documents obtained by NRLC now demonstrate conclusively that Obama's entire defense is based on a brazen factual misrepresentation.

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the IL state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style. To see the language of the two bills side by side, click here.

To see the official "Senate Committee Action Report" on this meeting, click on one of the links below. (The document is dated March 12, 2003, which is the day that the committee convened, but Chairman Obama recessed the meeting until March 13, which is the day that these votes actually occurred.)

Here are links to the official document that records these votes, in three different formats.

Senate Committee Action Report in HTML (web browser) format
Senate Committee Action Report in JPG (photo) format
Senate Committee Action Report in PDF (Adobe document) format

In this report, the left-hand column shows the roll call vote on adoption of "Senate Amendment No. 1," which was verbatim the neutrality clause copied from the federal bill. The right hand column shows the roll call by which Obama and his Democratic colleagues then killed the amended bill - the bill that was virtually identical to the federal law that Obama, starting in 2004, claimed he would have supported if he'd had the opportunity.

To view the text of SB 1082 as it was originally introduced (without the neutrality clause), click here. To view the text of Senate Amendment No. 1 (the neutrality clause copied from the federal law), which Obama and his colleagues added to the bill at the March 13 meeting (before killing the bill), click here.

NRLC has also obtained two additional documents that report information on these events that is fully consistent with the Senate Committee Action Report.

To see the "Senate Republican Staff Analysis: Senate Bill No. 1082," click here. (If this Word document requests a password, simply hit "cancel" and it will be displayed.) The first portion of this analysis was written before the March 12-13, 2003, meeting of the committee that Senator Obama chaired. The committee's actions, amending the bill to exactly track the federal born-alive law, and then defeating the bill, are reported on the bottom half of the second page.)

Finally, to see an Associated Press dispatch dated March 13, 2003, reporting on the 6-4 committee vote that killed the bill, click here.

Less than two years after this meeting, Obama began to publicly claim that he opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the "neutrality" clause, and that he would have supported the federal version (had he been a member of Congress) because it contained the "neutrality" clause.

His claim has been accepted on its face by various media outlets, producing stories that have in turn been quoted by the Obama campaign and Obama defenders in attacking anyone who asserts that Obama opposed born-alive legislation similar to the federal bill. It has also been forcefully repeated by advocacy groups such as NARAL (see, for example, this June 30, 2008 "alert" from NARAL).

It appears that as of August 7, 2008, only one writer - Terence Jeffrey, a contributing editor to HumanEvents.com - had correctly reported the essence of this story, in a column posted on January 16, 2008 (read it here), but his report was ignored by the Obama campaign and overlooked by others at the time.

Now, the uncovering of the Senate Committee Action Report and the contemporary Associated Press report shed new light on Senator Obama's four-year effort to cover up his real record of refusing to protect live-born survivors of abortion.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

"Index of Documents Regarding Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill" (will be updated as new items come in)

Timeline of important events in the history of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

NRLC archive on the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

NARAL press release, July 20, 2000, expressing strong opposition to the original federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 4292).

The official report of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, explaining the intent of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 2175), and explaining why such legislation was necessary (August 2, 2001)

posted at 8:39 AM | Comments (234) | TrackBack (10)

August 8, 2008
Obama's opposition to Born Alive goes International

The Barack Obama/Born Alive issue made the UK's The Guardian today, called "smear." Oh brother on the title.

The Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn also tried in vain to bat the issue away once again today. Oh brother on the title of his piece, too....

A liberal's last resort: mockery and hyperbole. Love it. In this case, they only burn the wrong image of Obama into people's heads.

Meanwhile, recall I previously wrote that David Freddoso, author of the book, The case against Barack Obama, was highlighting Obama's opposition to Born Alive while an IL state senator.

Turns out Freddoso dedicated almost an entire chapter to it. I read it two days ago, and it was excellent. The book is ranked #13 on Amazon's best seller list this afternoon. Congratulations, David!

An August 7 article in Human Events showcased that chapter.

Liberal attempts to ridicule this topic betray a very real fear: The Obama/Born Alive issue is gaining traction.

Stay tuned.

posted at 4:03 PM | Comments (88) | TrackBack (0)

Corsi drives libs nuts outting Obama for supporting infanticide

Democrat strategist Bob Beckel duked it out with The Obama Nation author Dr. Jerome Corsi on Fox & Friends August 5.

The spar is posted on YouTube. Scroll to 5:15 on the video and you'll see the conversation turned to Barack Obama's opposition to Born Alive. And "the nurse who is very famous out in Illinois" would be me....

God bless Dr. Corsi. The left wing Media Matters has tracked at least three times Corsi has stated during interviews exactly how far Obama will go in his radical support of abortion: "even late term, induced abortions where the baby lives. Obama's on record as let's kill the baby if that's what the mother wants."...

The Huffington Post sees this increasingly mainstream exposure of Obama's support of infanticide as "[t]he next smear against Obama."

"Next"? Hello?

Love this title on liberal The Raw Story:

With friends like that....

All these sites are either recycling lies or muddying waters, for instance, by linking to the wrong bill (see Media Matters story that links to Senate Bill 1093 when the Born Alive Bill was Senate Bill 1095.)

[HT: Fran at Illinois Review]

posted at 2:08 PM | Comments (19) | TrackBack (0)