Obama's Abortion Controversy

READ before you react... not a typical "abortion" topic...

http://online.wsj.com/art...lenews_wsj

Barack Obama's carefully sculpted image as a moderate may be showing some cracks.

It turns out that while in the Illinois legislature, he voted against a bill that would have defined a fully born baby who survived an abortion as a "person." The concept isn't that controversial even among liberal Democrats. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the Senate's leading pro-choice champion, urged her fellow Democrats to vote for a federal version of the same concept back in 2001, saying such a provision did not impinge on the rights enshrined in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. The Born Alive Infants bill eventually passed the U.S. Senate by 98 to 0.
[Barbara Boxer]

But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it.

Mr. Obama has consistently denied the two bills were identical. During his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, he responded to a question about the Born Alive Infants bill, saying: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

But documents recovered from the Illinois Senate archives contradict his statement. "In essence, Obama voted to successfully amend the bill in a way Obama has said would have enabled him to support it, before he voted against it," says columnist Amanda Carpenter of TownHall.com. The National Right to Life Committee's Legislative Counsel Susan Muskett calls the documents a "smoking gun" that finally resolve the Obama abortion vote controversy.

The Obama campaign has strenuously attacked critics who bring up the "Born Alive" bill. Last June 30, Team Obama issued a statement accusing talk show host Bill Bennett of "outright false statements" for contending that Mr. Obama wouldn't support a bill that even leading pro-choice groups declined to oppose. Here's hoping journalists try to pin Mr. Obama down on just why he appears to be to the left of his own party on abortion.

There is one orger who is a COMPLETE RACIST who should be banned from this board but will never be.

http://uk.youtube.com/wat...jo85WhbYqM

it's sort of hard to exactly pin mr. obama down on some of these issues.

i felt more rapport with hilary on this particular issue

Pretty simple.

Here is the US Bill HR2175 as passed. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi...070jZtII::

thanks, Mars.

i do have to wonder - why does the WSJ of all papers even print an op ed piece about abortion? is Murdoch not even TRYING to pretend to have an unbiased publication here?

IrresistibleB1tch said:

SUPRMAN said:

Thanks for posting this. An interesting read and I'm not sure where I stand.

IrresistibleB1tch said:

SUPRMAN said:

Mars23 said:

Mars23 said:

Mars23 said:

Obama's Cover Up

HiinEnkelte said:

Mars23 said:

Well, wait. There are new documents on the site now. I'm reading them now...

Mars23 said:

I apologize. It seems Obama is lying on this.

The Senate Action Report, rather than show a consideration of the bill, then the vote, shows an adoption of the amendment, then the vote killing the amended bill.

When Obama says he would have voted "Yes" on a bill with the neutrality clause, he is not telling the truth, as it seems by these documents, he in fact voted "no" on a bill identical to the US bill except for being drafted with language for a state law rather than a federal law.

When the journal posted the op-ed I didn't believe it and the evidence wasn't there. The evidence does seem to be in order now and my confusion at the fact-check on Obama's website seems founded. I didn't understand it because they were spinning it.

Even if the vote occurred on the 12th, the amendment seems to have passed before Obama voted no on the bill.

This is a perfect opportunity for Obama to just come out and give a straight story on the issue.

There is something (one would hope) that caused every Democrat on committee to vote no on this bill, but with the available evidence, it certainly seems Obama is lying about his reasons at best.

Mars23 said:

Mars23 said:

Mars23 said:

http://newsbusters.org/node/23393/print

Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)
Campaign Admits Obama Lied About Abortion Vote, Media Asleep

By Warner Todd Huston
Created 2008-08-18 18:45
**Video Below the Fold**

Question: Isn't it big news when a leading candidate for president of the U.S. admits that since 2003 he has been lying about a vote he once made? Even more to the point, isn't it big news when the candidate himself was on TV not long before that admission saying that everyone else is the liar? So, why is the media silent on the 180 degree about face that the Obama campaign has just made concerning Obama's BAIP vote?

As NewsBusters reported on August 13 [1], the media pretty much ignored the great work by Jill Stanek in uncovering the truth that contradicted nearly 6 years of claims that Obama made concerning his vote on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act when he was in the Illinois State Senate. Obama claimed that the Federal "neutrality clause" wasn't in the Illinois bill and that if it were he would have voted for the bill instead of against it. Stanek proved that the exact same clause Obama said wasn't in the bill was actually placed in the bill by the very committee Obama chaired. Yet he still voted against it.

Since the August 13 report, Obama was a guest with CBN's David Brody File where he told the world that anyone who doubts his word on his Illinois BAIP vote is a "liar."

Here in part is what Obama told David Brody in Saturday's August 16 interview:

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.



The same day the interview aired, the Obama campaign did a 180 on the issue admitting that Obama did vote against the very bill with the very language in it that Obama has claimed for 6 years did not exist. This from the New York Sun [2]:

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.

So, even with the same "neutrality clause" in the bill, placed there by the very committee of which he chaired, Obama still voted against the bill. Even though for 6 years he has claimed he would have voted for the bill if the "neutrality clause" was there -- that he has been saying this whole time that the lack of that clause made him vote against the bill -- even with that claim being proven a lie, the media stays silent.

The fact is, Obama's abortion record is far more extreme than he and his willing Old Media accomplices are allowing for. Obama is in favor of allowing babies to die from neglect even if born completely healthy, but unwanted by the Mother. This is an extreme view.

So, where is the media reporting this admission of an outright lie? Why have they not pounced on Obama with sharpened talons exposing his lie?

You tell me.




Source URL:
http://newsbusters.org/bl...dia-asleep
Links:
[1] http://newsbusters.org/bl...-media-mum
[2] http://www.nysun.com/nati...ion/84059/
[Edited 8/18/08 19:22pm]

Pardon me for not reading closely -- my question might be answered in the info already posted.

But...

were there any riders attached to this bill?

One big reason senators catch so much heat as presidential candidates is the ease with which their voting records can be distorted. A legislator can vote for or against a bill for a number of reasons that have nothing to with the main piece. Could be fiscal issues, could be a rider, could be anything but their philosophical feelings about the main legislation.

But those discussions are usually too nuanced to deal with a soundbite that deals only with the legislator's vote.

Not saying any of this applies to Obama and this specific vote. Just an observation.

"...and, if it was good in the past, it's still good." -- Sly Stone, Woodstock

and more, with other relevant links:

http://www.redstate.com/d...he-called/

http://www.redstate.com/d...omething-/

wow.

ThreadBare said:

Mars23 said:

the "who cares"-let's-cover-for-him,-and-do-more-vetting-of-Corsi-in-two-days than-we'll-ever-do-of-obama approach to journalism by the lamestream media continues...

http://newsbusters.org/bl...tion-votes

but bleh, who cares? pelosi said the other day that God has blessed us with a leader in obama at this time. and that's all the reassurance i needed.

HiinEnkelte said:

Mars23 said: