• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Libs want to talk about this yet?

Sandhusker

Well-known member
For the first time in this presidential cycle, social issues such as abortion took center stage this past week, courtesy of the candidates' high-profile, back-to-back interviews at a mega-church last weekend.

Yet the mainstream media only days later is starting to address what might be the biggest story in this frame: Barack Obama - whether knowingly or not - provided false information about a controversial abortion vote he made in the Illinois Senate in 2003.

After his nationally televised interview with Pastor Rick Warren on Saturday night in Orange County, Calif., Mr. Obama sat down with Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody and went on the attack against pro-life activists, whom he said were "lying" about his vote to kill a bill protecting babies born alive following botched abortions.

At issue is an Illinois bill in 2003 called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that Mr. Obama voted against, which was modeled on federal legislation enacted the previous year declaring that in failed abortions resulting in a live birth, the baby must be given normal medical treatment. This was in response to a gruesome practice whereby abortions involving induced labor were resulting in unintended live births - and those infants were simply being left to die. It had passed the U.S. Senate without any dissent.

Mr. Obama contended that he "would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported," but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because "that was not the bill that was presented at the state level." Except that it was.

As it turns out - and as even Mr. Obama's campaign admitted Monday to the New York Sun - the National Right to Life Committee wasn't lying; Mr. Obama was. The specific difference cited by Mr. Obama in the CBN interview was that the Illinois bill didn't contain the federal legislation's language explicitly stating that it would not "undermine Roe vs. Wade." (This was not merely off-the-cuff, as the campaign had issued a written statement to CNN in June offering the same rationale.) Not only did the bill contain the exact provision from the federal bill, but Mr. Obama voted in favor of adding it as an amendment. After the state bill was changed to be almost identical to the unanimously passed federal law, Mr. Obama voted against it.

CNN, to its credit, did report on Obama's Illinois actions before the Democrat's accusation that his critics were lying. The New York Times first reported on Mr. Obama's Illinois record two weeks ago - almost 900 words into a 1,400-word piece on page A16. In a page A18 story this Wednesday dedicated solely to the controversy, the Times' Larry Rohter carries Mr. Obama's water, stretching to offer excuses for his vote that even Mr. Obama did not suggest until after misstating his own record last weekend.

The highest-profile mainstream-media piece to date ran this Wednesday in The Washington Post, a page A1 article titled, "Candidates' Abortion Views Not So Simple." In its reporting, however, The Post seemed to dismiss the significance of Mr. Obama's opposition to the 2003 Illinois legislation by referring to it as an "obscure law." The Post further presents as fact the Obama position that the Illinois bill Mr. Obama opposed was solely about "pre-viable" babies. The testimony of former nurse Jill Stanek, who witnessed babies surviving botched abortions at Christ Hospital just outside Chicago, discussed babies past 20 weeks, including into the third trimester - thus not "pre-viable."

Though understanding the legislative process is not a common strength in political journalists, most of the reporters in question are smart enough to sift through the plentiful documentation of Mr. Obama's voting history on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois at the Web site of the National Right to Life Committee. Further, they could even read the simple, yet thorough, narrative of National Review's David Freddoso, who has written two stories spelling out the timeline and Obama's actions along the way. (Some of the reporting is adapted from his new book, "The Case Against Barack Obama.") Mr. Obama's camp has shifted explanations this week, now claiming that the Democrat merely wanted a provision in the bill clarifying that it would not impact existing state laws. Yet as several pro-life activists have noted, Mr. Obama was the chairman of the legislature's health committee when the bill came up again in 2003 and easily could have offered such an amendment. He didn't.

Regardless of the reasons for his vote, Mr. Obama cannot say that his critics are lying. He did oppose a bill virtually identical to the one unanimously passed in the U.S. Senate. And now, five years later, he might end up paying a political price for that decision.
 

fff

Well-known member
Exactly what is it you want to discuss? He's been very clear on his stand for women's rights. I'll post the entire discussion from FactCheck but the bottom line is:

"Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

And that position is one shared by the majority of Americans in this country. :D

Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he's conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they're "lying."

At issue is Obama's opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."


Analysis
Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes attacked Barack Obama over this legislation during their 2004 race for the U.S. Senate, repeatedly accusing him of favoring "infanticide." Because of this, Keyes said, "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." Nevertheless, 70 percent of Illinois voters did vote for Obama, but now the issue has bubbled up again.

The National Right to Life Committee released a statement Aug. 11 saying it had obtained proof that Obama was misrepresenting his 2003 vote by stating that the Illinois "born alive" bill that he voted against in committee lacked a provision, contained in the 2002 federal law, that foreclosed any effect on abortion rights. Obama, in an Aug. 16 interview, then said critics of his "born alive" stance were "not telling the truth" and "lying." On Aug. 18, the NRLC updated its white paper and continued to accuse Obama of dissembling.

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term "born-alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Earlier versions of the bill, in 2001 and 2002, had met with opposition from abortion-rights groups, which contended that they would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion. Obama stated this objection on the Senate floor in discussion of both bills.

However, Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion. On Aug. 16, the candidate repeated that again to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He also prefaced his remarks with an attack on those who said he had misrepresented his position on the state bills, saying they were "lying."

CBN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that's the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it's just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they're trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it's getting a lot of play.

Obama: 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.

Who's "Lying?"

NRLC objects. They point to evidence that SB 1082, the bill Obama voted against in committee, was amended to contain a "neutrality clause" that is identical to one contained in the federal law. (The Illinois government's legislative information Web site shows the proposed amendment, but doesn't give results for votes in committee. NRLC's documents show that the amendment was adopted.) Since he voted against the state bill, NRLC says, his claimed worry about Roe v. Wade is a smokescreen, intended to cover up his unconcern with the protection of infant lives.
In the NRLC white paper, Legislative Director Douglas Johnson writes that Obama "really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, '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.' And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public."
NRLC posted documents – which are so far undisputed – showing that Amendment 001 was adopted in committee and added the following text: "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." That wording matches exactly the comparable provision in the federal law.

The documents NRLC put out are a "Senate Republican's staff analysis" and a handwritten roll call confirming that the amendment was adopted. We contacted Patty Schuh, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Republicans, who stated that both documents are genuine. We also contacted Brock Willeford, who was the staff aide whose name appears on the "staff analysis." He stated that he wrote the document immediately after the committee meeting and that he was in the room at the time of the votes. We asked Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Democrats, about this. She declined to answer our questions but did not dispute Willeford's firsthand account.

A June 30 Obama campaign statement responding to similar claims by conservative commentator William J. Bennett says that SB 1082 did not contain the same language as the federal BAIPA.

Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "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 Born Alive Infant Protections Act 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." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]

The statement was still on Obama's Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of "lying." But Obama's claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.


Same Words, Different Effect?

Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.

And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor says that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time.

But whether or not one accepts those arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition. He told Brody that the federal bill "was not the bill that was presented at the state level." That's technically true; though the "neutrality clause" was identical in the federal and state bills, there were other minor wording differences elsewhere. But the Obama campaign statement says that "Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language." That's true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against. In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, it’s false.


A Matter of Definition

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."


On the Record


While we don't have a record of Obama's 2003 comments on SB 1082, he did express his objection to the 2001 and 2002 bills.

Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
What's there to talk about? How about him claiming that he would of voted for the bill had it the same language as the Federal bill, but in fact he did not vote as he said he would because that very language was included? Lets talk about him LYING, fff.

Maybe we can also talk about Obama calling the NRL people liars when they brought this up, when in fact they have unrefutable documents that prove they are right, and he is lying AGAIN?

Then again, we can just get to the heart of the bill, which is preventing infanticide.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
What's there to talk about? How about him claiming that he would of voted for the bill had it the same language as the Federal bill, but in fact he did not vote as he said he would because that very language was included? Lets talk about him LYING, fff.

Maybe we can also talk about Obama calling the NRL people liars when they brought this up, when in fact they have unrefutable documents that prove they are right, and he is lying AGAIN?

Then again, we can just get to the heart of the bill, which is preventing infanticide.

Or we can stop using inflammatory words and get to the heart of Obama's stand: protecting women's rights.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The TRUTH is inflammatory language? Obama LIED. Then he accused those who pointed it out that they were lying!

Let me ask you a question, ffff; At what point to you believe a fetus becomes a baby?
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
At issue is an Illinois bill in 2003 called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that Mr. Obama voted against, which was modeled on federal legislation enacted the previous year declaring that in failed abortions resulting in a live birth, the baby must be given normal medical treatment. This was in response to a gruesome practice whereby abortions involving induced labor were resulting in unintended live births - and those infants were simply being left to die. It had passed the U.S. Senate without any dissent.

The media won't touch that one. Many of us feel it is morally murder whereas others violently feel the opposite. There has been to much violence on both sides of this issue already. The media's candidate is Obama and they would rather try to dig dirt on Palin than discuss moral issues.

There are still folks "undecided" and that puzzles me. Main stream media will not take a chance on moral discussion that might pursuade them to the other side.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Obama supporters don't like talking about this story. It shows him to be ultra liberal, a liar, and a supporter of what is infanticide. You see a lot about his guy in this issue right here, and they know it makes him look terrible. They've already closed their eyes, but when your bring it up, they close their mouths and ears, too. Pretty sad and pretty telling.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
What's there to talk about? How about him claiming that he would of voted for the bill had it the same language as the Federal bill, but in fact he did not vote as he said he would because that very language was included? Lets talk about him LYING, fff.

Maybe we can also talk about Obama calling the NRL people liars when they brought this up, when in fact they have unrefutable documents that prove they are right, and he is lying AGAIN?

Then again, we can just get to the heart of the bill, which is preventing infanticide.

Or we can stop using inflammatory words and get to the heart of Obama's stand: protecting women's rights.

Women's rights?? My ass !!!!! NOBODY has the right to purposely terminate a pregnancy.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You notice that fff promply ran away when I asked her when a fetus becomes a baby? She KNOWS that Obama is way out of line of this one. Bud does she have the courage to break ranks and admit that the ONE is wrong here? Libs can't do that.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Obama even made statements that he was concerned about the Dr.'s personal liability when a child actually survived an abortion!!!!!!

How's that for having skewed priorities? :???: :???:

You notice that fff promply ran away when I asked her when a fetus becomes a baby?

That question is way above her pay scale, I guess? :lol:
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
The TRUTH is inflammatory language? Obama LIED. Then he accused those who pointed it out that they were lying!

Let me ask you a question, ffff; At what point to you believe a fetus becomes a baby?

When it can survive outside the womb. IMO, until that point it's part of the woman's body and she can do whatever she wants, legally, with her body.

You are the one who's up the creek. Americans support a woman's right to choose. And the Republican Party knows it. The only time Republilican leaders bring abortion up is at election time when they want to get the crazies out to vote. How many times in the years they've held the Congress AND the White House did they actually bring abolishing abortion up for a vote?
 

fff

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
It is a moral issue that the media won't touch.

And the only time the Republican Party wants to talk about it is election time when they use it to fire up their rightwingnuts. I didn't see them bring up banning abortions during the years they held both Congress and the White House. They know it would be the end of the Republican Party to cross that line.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
fff said:
backhoeboogie said:
It is a moral issue that the media won't touch.

And the only time the Republican Party wants to talk about it is election time when they use it to fire up their rightwingnuts. I didn't see them bring up banning abortions during the years they held both Congress and the White House. They know it would be the end of the Republican Party to cross that line.

We can talk about this any time.

fff said:
When it can survive outside the womb. IMO, until that point it's part of the woman's body and she can do whatever she wants, legally, with her body.

Do you disagree with Obama? This is the main point of this link you have been arguing. Have you read this thread?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
The TRUTH is inflammatory language? Obama LIED. Then he accused those who pointed it out that they were lying!

Let me ask you a question, ffff; At what point to you believe a fetus becomes a baby?

When it can survive outside the womb. IMO, until that point it's part of the woman's body and she can do whatever she wants, legally, with her body.

You are the one who's up the creek. Americans support a woman's right to choose. And the Republican Party knows it. The only time Republilican leaders bring abortion up is at election time when they want to get the crazies out to vote. How many times in the years they've held the Congress AND the White House did they actually bring abolishing abortion up for a vote?

Who's right is it to choose to kill a baby?
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
The TRUTH is inflammatory language? Obama LIED. Then he accused those who pointed it out that they were lying!

Let me ask you a question, ffff; At what point to you believe a fetus becomes a baby?

When it can survive outside the womb. IMO, until that point it's part of the woman's body and she can do whatever she wants, legally, with her body.

You are the one who's up the creek. Americans support a woman's right to choose. And the Republican Party knows it. The only time Republilican leaders bring abortion up is at election time when they want to get the crazies out to vote. How many times in the years they've held the Congress AND the White House did they actually bring abolishing abortion up for a vote?

Who's right is it to choose to kill a baby?

I don't think fff read paragraphs 2,3,4 or 5 of the original subject thread. She is arguing for Obama, and against his values of killing botched abortion babies at the same time.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
The TRUTH is inflammatory language? Obama LIED. Then he accused those who pointed it out that they were lying!

Let me ask you a question, ffff; At what point to you believe a fetus becomes a baby?

When it can survive outside the womb. IMO, until that point it's part of the woman's body and she can do whatever she wants, legally, with her body.

You are the one who's up the creek. Americans support a woman's right to choose. And the Republican Party knows it. The only time Republilican leaders bring abortion up is at election time when they want to get the crazies out to vote. How many times in the years they've held the Congress AND the White House did they actually bring abolishing abortion up for a vote?

Who's right is it to choose to kill a baby?

See, you don't want a discussion. You want to thump your chest and tell us how moral and superior you are. An abortion is not killing a baby. It's terminating a pregnancy that might or might not come to term and produce a baby. If you decide you want to actually discuss a woman's right to CHOOSE whether or not to have a child, let me know. Any other stupid comments like this one will simply be ignored. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff, the bill that we're talking about is not about abortion. It's about killing babies that fit the description that YOU gave - surviving outside of the mother's womb. Now, who has the right to kill babies that are laying on the table, living, breathing, moving....
 
Top