Obama's shame

Matthew Hoy
By Matthew Hoy on August 15, 2008

My first instinct was to add the category "abortion" to this post, but that wouldn't have accurate. What we're talking about here isn't abortion. It's infanticide -- and Sen. Barack Obama, it turns out, is not that bothered by it.

I mentioned several months ago that Obama had voted against a bill as an Illinois state senator that would've ensured that babies who survived botched abortions were human beings and wouldn't be left to die. Obama has countered that the bill in question didn't have language in it that explicitly acknowledged that the bill in no way sought or pretended to confer any rights in violation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

It turns out that this is a lie. But you won't hear about it in the mainstream media, because they're not really concerned about vetting Obama.

As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, "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."

During Obama's 2008 run for President, he has repeated those claims.

Now, documents obtained by the National Right to Life Committee show Obama's claim that he would have voted for the bill had it been Roe-neutral is a false argument.

According to the documents from the Illinois legislature, Obama, as the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting concerning neutrality language that was an exact duplicate of the clause in the federal bill.

During the March 2003 committee, Obama voted in support of adding the neutrality clause, but then led his colleagues on the panel in voting down the anti-infanticide bill on a 6-4 vote.

You can see the differences between the Illinois bill that Obama voted against and the federal bill that Obama claims he would have voted for here. There is no substantive difference between the two -- and both contain the Roe wording. The National Right to Life Committee's entire article is here along with supporting documentation.

This makes Obama to the left of NARAL (which did not oppose the legislation) and every other member of Congress. The federal version, which passed in 2002, passed the House by voice vote and the Senate by unanimous consent. Not a single member of the Congress wanted their name out there as being OK with infanticide.

Obama has responded by doubling-down on his lies.

Don't expect the mainstream media or even factcheck.org to report on this.

I'll be surprised if Rick Warren raises this issue in tomorrow's kumbaya moment up in Orange County. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm beginning to think that maybe Warren is more interested in becoming the next Billy Graham than speaking truth to power.

2 comments on “Obama's shame”

  1. "It’s infanticide — and Sen. Barack Obama, it turns out, is not that bothered by it."

    Spot on, Matthew. This is something that I don't think has been properly highlighted in the (nominally) Catholic blogs, much less the MSM. You've done a great service just by bringing it up.

    Perhaps the better news is that the Russian-Georgian conflict has been like a two-by-four upside the head of the voting public. At least, it has in regards to Sen. Obama's extreme lack of foreign policy experience. Add to that the Senator's propensity to put NARAL on his political right, and his candidacy is in a real battle. That's reflected in the polls already, even before the masses have started to pay attention to the details of the candidates' positions.

    That's me - ever optimistic.


[custom-twitter-feeds headertext="Hoystory On Twitter"]


August 2008



linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram