Thursday, August 21, 2008

O-bortions, Dishonesty & A Very Tangled Web

Obama is giving truth to the old saying, "what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to decive." At issue is how deceptive Obama is being in attempting to hide and neutralize his prior radical stance on abortion. Obama is being caught in lie after lie about his prior adoption of a position that crosses the line from abortion to infanticide. The evidence that he is being dishonest is so clear and the position he took so radical that this could and should turn out to be a major issue in the campaign.

When a child is born alive from a botched abortion, should it be treated legally as a human entitled to care and life saving medical treatment? Or should it be be killed outside the womb, either by direct act of the physician or by the physician's inaction - i.e., simply abandoning the live child to perish with no care? That is infanticide and those who say yes to the latter occupy the very radical fringe of abortion rights activists.

The question is whether Obama supported that radical position. The answer is unarguably yes. Over the past days, we've been treated to an ever changing series of statements from Obama in an effort to disown his prior position or, at a minimimum, to neutralize it. But that just became impossible with the release of Obama's statements on tape and the publication of the minutes of the Illinois Senate in which Obama argued against a bill that would have required treating children born alive from botched abortions as human.

To appreciate both how radical Obama's position was on abortion and how unarguably deceptive and dishonest he has now become about his prior position, let me give a short history of what is occurring. On the eve of the Saddleback interview last week, Obama said that people who were claiming he had supported the radical position of infanticide were lying. Here is the interview:

The background to his started in about 2000 when Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ Hospital in Chicago, discovered that some of the abortions being conducted there resulted in the birth of live infants. The doctors who performed the abortions were simply discarding the infants, allowing them to perish from neglect and exposure. She publicized her observations and turned this into a cause celebre.

Congress acted. With the full and bipartisan support of abortion opponents and staunch supporters of abortion alike, Congress passed a law directly aimed at this practice by providing that such children born alive from botched abortions were to be considered human. As such, these children were entitled to care and treatment. The law was crafted very narrowly to apply only to live children fully expelled from the mother's body and with "neutrality" language so as to not otherwise restrict abortions - even partial birth abortions where the live child is killed while partially outside the vagina.

States had to decide whether to also pass such a law to address infanticide in their states. The bill came before the Illinois Senate in all practical terms in the same form as the federal law. Doug Ross posts a copy of both the federal and state bill as well as the roll call for the vote on the bill in the Illinois Senate. Obama voted against the bill.

Subsequent to Obama's lie shown in the video above, when confronted with proof of his vote, the Obama campaign admitted that Obama had in fact voted against the bill. This came with a caveat. Initially that caveat was that he voted against the Illinois bill because it did not contain "neutrality" language that would otherwise leave the right to an abortion unaffected.

We learned the next day that Obama was lying again. Obama, as a state senator, was in charge of the committee that oversaw their state legislation on this issue and, in fact, voted to include the "neutrality" clause in the Illinois bill preserving all rights to an abortion other than in this narrow category of infanticide. It was after the neutrality clause was inserted that Obama had voted against the bill.

Obama's excuse then changed again. His newly articulated justification for his vote against this legislation was because the anti-infanticide bill was part of a package of legislation and that he did not agree with the entire package.

I do not know whether in fact this anti-infanticide legislation was part of a larger package. As the facts below show, it does not matter.

Obama's latest in a string of serial lies falls by the wayside today with transcripts and tapes of Obama arguing explicitly against this bill to halt infanticide. He does so on the merits, wholly without reference to any other legislation to which this bill was attached. Here is the audio, compliments of Gateway Pundit, of Obama arguing against the provisions of the bill on the grounds that it might effect a woman's decision (not her right) to have an abortion:

I was going to analyze this, but Hot Air does so with exceptional clarity, adding in the more detailed transcript of Obama's argument against this bill in the Illinois Senate:

. . . On pages 32-34 of the April 4, 2002 session, Obama debates the bill on the floor of the state Senate. He says essentially the exact same thing as he did in this audio passage above, but with a little more detail:

[T]he only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made the assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, is being — that — that labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, and in fact this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that the physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical procedures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.

Now, if — if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects that doctors feel that they would already be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations, and that essentially adding a — an additional doctor who the has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

Now, if that’s the case –and — and I know some of us feel very strongly one way or the other on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure they’re looked after.

This passage is really remarkable for the willfully obtuse nature of Obama’s arguments. By the time this debate took place, Jill Stanek had already revealed that doctors weren’t providing medical care to infants born alive during abortions, at Christ Hospital, and a subsequent investigation proved that other abortion providers also abandoned such infants to die. That was the entire reason for the debate. Obama acts as if this is some curious academic hypothesis.

Instead of addressing the actual issue of infanticide, Obama twists it into a protection for abortion. He frames his own hypothetical as an abortion “for the health of the mother”, but the circumstances of the mother’s health has no bearing at all on whether a live infant should receive medical care. How would treating a live infant threaten the health of the mother?

And finally, as the original audio notes, the remainder of Obama’s opposition rests on the “burden” of calling in a second physician to make an independent determination of the birth. The bill created that “burden”, a procedure which would take very little time at all, precisely because the doctors at Christ Hospital and elsewhere threw live infants away with no oversight at all.

Nowhere in this argument does Obama say, “I oppose this bill because of its companion bill,” the lame argument that has surfaced over the last 48 hours from Team Obama. He doesn’t talk about the bill’s supposed unconstitutionality. Moreover, during the presidential campaign, he said he would have supported the federal bill even though it had all of the same supposed flaws Obama argued against in this passage.

Obama protected infanticide in order to protect abortion on demand. There simply is no other explanation except abject stupidity, and this passage proves it.

This is one lie that has caught up with Obama. This is simply too well documented for him to disown. Whether this will be publicized and be reflected in voter's assessments of his character and judgment is an open question. That it should is, I believe, beyond doubt.


Anonymous said...

I suspected all along a vast Hillary conspiracy was at work here. I had no idea that this conspiracy has reached as far back as 2002, and I must admit how impressed I am. Not only did she predict that Obama would challenge her in the Democratic nomination, so many years into the future, but she also predicted that she would lose to him. There is really no other explanation why poor BHO is being so hastled by his supposed prior improprieties. What's next, videos of Obama selling crack on street corners?
On a serious note, I am certain there is a huge group of democratic superdelegates thinking how they should have voted for Hillary.

MathewK said...

This is a soft spot for Obama and people need to be made fully aware of this, especially those Christians who are thinking about voting for him. I personally cannot see how a true Christian can support him based on this, the fellow is more pro-abortion that some abortion advocates even, it's morally depraved in a word. The fact that Obama pretends to be some sort of pious Christian makes this joke a sick one.

Anonymous said...

Excellent, hard-hitting post, GW. I have posted on this in the past, but you have really fleshed it out and hit it home. I think it's time for a resurrection of this with a link back to you.