« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Alan Colmes needs some help clearing up his misunderstanding on Barack Obama’s support of infanticide

There is a reason we call Obama "Pinocchiobama"

Barack Obama supports infanticide. This is not subject to debate and is an accurate reflection of Obama’s voting record in the Illinois legislature.

Consequently, the left has has to obfuscate the issue.

On several occasions, Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois legislature. Doing damage control for him, last night Alan Colmes attempted to spin the issue into confusing.

Interviewing Jerry Corsi, Colmes made this point:

COLMES: I know you’ve been challenged on some of the things in the book, I’d like to cover some new ground here. But one of the things you’ve talked about in the book, the born alive infant protection act. You’ve gone after Obama claiming he would infants — children after they were born, basically, and he was very clear that he was against the state law.**He would have supported the national law because they were written very differently**, and that this — in **Illinois they already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions.**CORSI: Well, Alan, that’s not precisely what I argued. If you take a look at the exact argument said that this was a baby who was late term, induced labor, and the baby was going through an abortion and survived the abortion. Jill Stannic held the baby for — a nurse — for 45 minutes until it died.What Obama argued on the state legislature was he did not want to extend 14th amendment protection to that child, defining it as a human being, otherwise it would have to have full protection not be able.COLMES: Actually what he argued was the state already had a law protecting that, and, in fact, he would have signed the national law, and **there weren’t protectors in the state law that would have protected Roe versus Wade**. That’s what he argued.

Alan might not want to parrot the Obama talking points on this issue, because those talking points are dead wrong.

Colmes has two basic points, both of which are wrong.

Point 1: Doctors were already required to care for infants born alive after botched abortions.

This is patently not true. Read David Freddosso here. From his article:

Jim Ryan, who issued a finding several months later that Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois. **Doctors had no ethical or legal obligation to treat these premature babies.**

Point 2: The national law was written very differently. “There weren’t protectors in the state law that would have protected Roe vs. Wade

National Right to Life has done the research. Alan’s statement is totally false.

According to the Chicago Tribune on October 4, 2004, as cited by NRLC, “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.”

Here is the truth.

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 Illinois 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.

Don’t believe me? You can see a side by side comparison of the federal and state legislation here.

The key language, which protects Roe, is here:

Federal version:‘‘(c) 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.’’

State Version:‘‘(c) Nothing in this 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.’’

Obama is lying and Alan Colmes should not believe the spin. Again from the Tribune “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.

And yet you can clearly see that in March 2003, the state law Obama voted against and the federal law had the same language protecting Roe.

That’s why we call him Pinocchiobama.

Get Alerts