#1 Media Matters.org: On three Hannity programs, Corsi offered another falsehood:08-02-2008, 06:10 PMkevinmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-02-08 04:56 PM
Media Matters.org: On three Hannity programs, Corsi offered another falsehood:
On three Hannity programs, Corsi offered another falsehood: Obama supports abortion "after a child's born"
.As an Illinois state senator, Barack Hussein Obama refused to support legislation to protect babies that survived late-term abortions, claiming “I did not want to concede.”
To what was Obama referring? His statement was in reference to babies that were fully outside their mothers’ wombs. Thus, Obama did not want to concede the fact that babies who survived a late term abortion were in fact “persons.” He was the only senator of the Democrat Party to speak against baby protection legislation. He was the only legislator from either side of the political isle that took his position.
The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.
Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.
Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."
How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.
Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term.
Obama's supporters say his rhetoric makes them believe again.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|