CNN's Fact Check Fumble

[cosmo]

CNN's "Fact Check" Fumble [Ramesh Ponnuru]


Once again, "fact-checkers" mangle the facts. CNN claims that McCain was "misleading" on the born-alive bill: Obama wasn't "vot[ing] against caring for the children" because a law already on the books required such care. CNN has it badly wrong.

CNN's claims make well-known features of this story incomprehensible. For example, nobody disputes that Obama repeatedly claimed that the born-alive bill would threaten Roe. How could that possibly be the case if it merely restated existing law?

Once again: Obama objected to the bill because it provided protections for infants that abortionists deemed pre-viable. He objected in principle to providing legal protection to such infants. Existing law did not so protect them, as the attorney general of the state said in declining to bring prosecutions under it for the mistreatment of these infants.

[Miroslav]

Re: CNN's Fact Check Fumble

Once again: Obama objected to the bill because it provided protections for infants that abortionists deemed pre-viable. He objected in principle to providing legal protection to such infants. Existing law did not so protect them, as the attorney general of the state said in declining to bring prosecutions under it for the mistreatment of these infants.

Well....duh. Yes, Obama opposed it on principle. But this is what pro-choice people do by definiton.

As has already been explained, Illinois law already included provisions that required a doctor to provide care to any fetus that demonstrated viability in a post-abortion setting. "Pre-viable fetus" was a term defined to apply to fetuses "born" with any life signs, but that doctors would determine to have no reasonable probability of survival. The bill was worded in such a way that it would broadly define rights to these "pre-viable fetuses" in such a way that it would basically open the door to invalidating and outlawing all abortion - as is generally the desire of right-wingers.

You may disagree with Obama on principle, but no one should be surprised that he voted against the bills, as did many other pro-choicers.

And there is a difference, in my opinion, in voting a bill down based on the legal precedent it is trying to set with regards to the basic legality of abortion and trying to eliminate care for any viable fetus - which Obama was not trying to do. And that's what the Republicans are trying to portray, and it is misleading.

And I'm not even saying that I agree with Obama's position on abortion...

[cosmo]

Re: CNN's Fact Check Fumble

Well....duh. Yes, Obama opposed it on principle. But this is what pro-choice people do by definiton.

You may disagree with Obama on principle, but no one should be surprised that he voted against the bills, as did many other pro-choicers.

Um, no. Obama was the only senator in the Illinois state senate to oppose the bill, and the same bill passed in Washington, with no opposition.

This passed overwhelmingly in the US Senate, 98-0.



2001

Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Obama's "no" vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committeehere, March 28, 2001

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90

Obama's "present" vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001

2002

Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Obama's "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 6, 2002

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35

Obama's "no" vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002

Listen to audio from Obama's 2002 IL Senate floor debate wherein he argued that while babies might be aborted alive, it would be a "burden" to a mother's "original decision" to assess and treat them.

Meanwhile, the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act with a "neutrality clause" added passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, the U.S. House overwhelmingly, and was signed into law August 5, 2002. The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the bill.

2003

Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. This year Born Alive was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.
As can be seen on the vote docket, Obama first voted to amend SB1082 to add the "neutrality clause" from the federal version of Born Alive to the IL version to make them absolutely identical. (DP#1 means "Do Pass Amendment #1.)

Then Obama voted against the identical version. (DPA means, "Do Pass as Amended.)

Additional corroboration of Obama's vote: IL State Senate Republican Staff Analysis of SB 1082, March 12-13, 2003, bottom of page 2

For 4 years following his 2003 vote Obama misrepresented it, stating the wording of the IL version of Born Alive was not the same as the federal version, and he would have voted for it if so. As recently as August 16, 2008 Obama made this false assertion.

But when evidence presented was irrefutable, Obama's campaign on August 18, 2008, admitted the truth to the New York Sun.

The nonpartison group FactCheck.org has since corroborated Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote.

[shosh]

Re: CNN's Fact Check Fumble

Um, no. Obama was the only senator in the Illinois state senate to oppose the bill, and the same bill passed in Washington, with no opposition.

This passed overwhelmingly in the US Senate, 98-0.



2001

Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Obama's "no" vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committeehere, March 28, 2001

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90

Obama's "present" vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001

2002

Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Obama's "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 6, 2002

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35

Obama's "no" vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002

Listen to audio from Obama's 2002 IL Senate floor debate wherein he argued that while babies might be aborted alive, it would be a "burden" to a mother's "original decision" to assess and treat them.

Meanwhile, the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act with a "neutrality clause" added passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, the U.S. House overwhelmingly, and was signed into law August 5, 2002. The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the bill.

2003

Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. This year Born Alive was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.
As can be seen on the vote docket, Obama first voted to amend SB1082 to add the "neutrality clause" from the federal version of Born Alive to the IL version to make them absolutely identical. (DP#1 means "Do Pass Amendment #1.)

Then Obama voted against the identical version. (DPA means, "Do Pass as Amended.)

Additional corroboration of Obama's vote: IL State Senate Republican Staff Analysis of SB 1082, March 12-13, 2003, bottom of page 2

For 4 years following his 2003 vote Obama misrepresented it, stating the wording of the IL version of Born Alive was not the same as the federal version, and he would have voted for it if so. As recently as August 16, 2008 Obama made this false assertion.

But when evidence presented was irrefutable, Obama's campaign on August 18, 2008, admitted the truth to the New York Sun.

The nonpartison group FactCheck.org has since corroborated Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote.

wow strong evidence

[Miroslav]

Re: CNN's Fact Check Fumble

Yes, I think Obama misrepresented his vote on this one. I think the reason he still opposed the Federal version is because despite the "neutrality clause", it is STATE, not Federal law that governs abortion care. Thus, still the same perceived Constitutional threat to abortion rights. Even your FACTCHECK source says this, if you read through it.

Look, I'm not saying that Obama was right in doing this. I'm just saying that despite the mountain of evidence, all this comes down to is: are you pro choice or pro life. If your'e pro choice, you're going to tend to oppose things like this; if you're a pro lifer, you're going to by definition support them. He was a liar in the way he represented his vote, but beyond that when you get into portraying him as a baby killer...well, I guess that's really just going to depend on whether or not your ideology basically interprets abortion as murder. And if you're quoting Jill Stanek, then it's presumably obvious what side of that debate you're on.