- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Obama's relevant interview: Lies on lies

Posted By Jill Stanek On 07/08/2008 @ 12:00 am In Commentary | Comments Disabled

A CNN reporter interviewing me a couple weeks ago about Barack Obama’s opposition as state senator to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act groaned more than once that this topic was “complicated.”

She was referring to Obama’s various explanations through the years for blocking Born Alive and lately his outright denial that obstructing legislation declaring live aborted babies legal persons had anything to do with endorsing their death.

I finally emailed her, “It is clear: Obama strongly opposed legislation to protect abortion survivors. This is horrible, so of course he will try to make it ‘complicated,’ but it is not.”

Obama has recently been ratcheting up the obfuscations, which I’ll get to momentarily.

Before that, a reader last week recommended I give pro-lifers uncomplicated talking points on Obama and Born Alive. Here they are:

  • The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and overwhelmingly in the U.S. House. Sens. Kennedy and Boxer even spoke in support on the Senate floor. NARAL expressed neutrality.
  • Obama actively opposed nearly identical legislation in Illinois, the sole state senator to speak against Illinois’ Born Alive two years in a row.
  • In 2003, Obama single-handedly stopped identical legislation to the federal Born Alive Act from being introduced in the Illinois Senate as chairman of the committee vetting the bill.
  • That legislation finally passed in 2005 – the year after Obama left the Illinois Senate – refuting his claim it was unnecessary.

Overarching talking point:

  • Barack Obama is so radically pro-abortion he supports infanticide, as evidenced by his active opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This makes him further left than any U.S. senator and even NARAL.

Stick to those points while for sport observing Obama recycle lies.

For instance, Obama may have set a new record in a July 1 Relevant magazine interview, rattling four excuses in one soundbite, all previously outlined in my January 2008 column, “Obama’s 10 reasons for supporting infanticide” – Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 10!

The other e-mail rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that stated you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster

Ever since that time, e-mails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn’t provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.

Even cursory thought on Obama’s statement would raise a fast red flag in an unstarstruck mind: If Born Alive were already codified in Illinois law, why did the Illinois General Assembly pass Born Alive into law the year after Obama left the state Senate?

What pants-on-fire Obama did was purposefully misrepresent Born Alive, using its name to describe the contents of another bill, as well as purposefully misrepresent Illinois abortion law.

Born Alive simply defined when personhood begins for the purpose of Illinois law. The World Health Organization created this definition in 1950, and the United Nations adopted it in 1955. Born Alive “required” nothing and was certainly not designed to overturn Roe, unless the UN and WHO divined 20+ years into the future while calculating for six degrees of separation.

Obama told Relevant it “defies common sense” that a hospital would let potentially viable babies die.

Why? If a hospital is purposefully inducing preterm labor for the express purpose of killing babies before or during delivery, it defies common sense to ignore the hospital’s clear conflict of interest if those babies survive.

A person not getting that is either stupid or on the take. And Obama’s not stupid.



Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2008/07/69084/

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.