Obama enabled infanticide while in the Illinois legislature and has been dissembling about it.
David Fredosso, author of the excellent new book "The Case Against Barack Obama," points out that Obama has repeatedly made the false claim that he only spoke out against an Illinois bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as "persons" because it would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. Yet "every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb."
Obama's own words, circulating in transcript form and on YouTube, are even more incriminating, as he articulates his opposition to the bill seeking to protect a baby born alive as a result of a botched abortion. "Essentially, adding an additional doctor who then 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."
Translation: Obama will not theoretically burden a woman's right to abort her child, but he will actually burden an already-born infant's chances of surviving.
As was demonstrated in my previous post, the only defense that the Obama camp has is to deny, deny, deny and say “trust me on this, my opponents are lying.” That may be good enough for the hard core Left. In fact they know - but can’t admit - that they agree with Obama on this that infants destined to be aborted but born alive should be allowed to die. But like partial birth abortion, for most people it’s simply wrong. And that’s what this election is about.
Kathleen Parker, also writing in National Review Online, is willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Based on his comments at the time, he apparently reasoned that granting personhood to an aborted fetus, albeit one with a heartbeat, was a subterfuge tactic aimed at granting personhood to a fetus.
…When asked to explain his position as a state legislator, Obama said he would have voted for the law had it included a neutrality clause -- similar to one added to the federal law -- affirming that the bill would not impact Roe v. Wade.
But the Illinois legislation in final form did include such a neutrality clause, prompting charges that Obama deliberately lied. Or did he merely misremember, as often happens in politics?
… The most revealing answer may have come when pastor Rick Warren asked the Illinois senator when a baby gets human rights.
"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade."
Well, uh, not really. …Obama's born-alive problem ultimately could prove fatal to the man who thought too hard and lost his sense.
Parker falls into the trap of believing that Obama is about “nuance;” that he is so cerebral that simple answers simply won’t do for him. But as you learn more about Obama you realize that is not the reason for the long, rambling, stuttering answers Obama gives when he’s unscripted.
Obama is about avoiding responsibility, that’s why he has so many “present” votes. He’s about mirroring his audience, he acknowledged that in his book when he described himself
"I serve as a blank screen," Obama writes, "on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."He’s about disguising his instincts which are revealed by the people around him: his wife, Michelle, Wright, Ayers, Rezko, and the entire crooked Chicago political machine.
Barack Hussein Obama is a man desperately trying to remain a blank screen, mouthing empty platitudes, denying his core beliefs, just long enough to skate into the White House. The “Born Alive” bill is another rip in that screen showing the man behind it.
No comments:
Post a Comment