Obama’s Lowest Moment in the 2008 Campaign

President Obama used his power as a committee chair in the Illinois State Senate to repeatedly kill the state infant born alive act.

It’s significant that he did that as a committee chair, because that means he just about had to have read the bill. It’s also significant that he did it repeatedly, because that eliminates the possibility that he made some sort of mistake and voted in a way he didn’t really intend.

He did it.

And he knew he did it.

But when State Senator Obama evolved into United States Senator Barack Obama and then further evolved into presidential candidate Obama, this action in the Illinois state senate started to be a bit of a problem. But then, maybe it didn’t.

In this interview, Candidate Obama does a fine job of hair-splitting and turning the tables on his accusers, and the reporter lets him get away with it.

YouTube Preview Image

The trouble is that he’s lying.

This is an audio of the Illinois Senate debate on this Infant Born Alive Bill. Listen closely because there are several points here that you need to understand:

1. The explanation of the bill shows flat-out that candidate Obama’s contention that this will would “overturn” Roe v Wade is claptrap.

2. The questions State Senator Obama raises show that he knew this. Notice that he focuses on the State Medical Association’s opposition to the bill and the “rights” of the woman, not overturning Roe vs Wade.

3. It certainly sounds like he opposed allowing a baby who survives an abortion to be required to get medical care.

YouTube Preview Image

For those who want to see it, here is the complete text of the bill:

YouTube Preview Image

The point, for the purposes of this particular blog post, is that our President lied to the American people about his own record during the 2008 campaign. His claims that “no doctor” would allow a baby born alive after an abortion to die without medical care might be a symptom of naiveté, except for one thing. State Senator Obama, as part of his duties as committee chair, heard testimony on the bill from this woman:

YouTube Preview Image

Is this Candidate Obama’s lowest moment in the 2008 campaign? I think so.

  • Zeke

    The “Born Alive” garbage is a thinly-veiled attempt to encroach on Roe v. Wade, nothing more, you know how politics works, and Obama clearly knows this. It’s the thin edge of the wedge. Obviously Catholics know this too, since the majority voted for him. Rebecca, please do us all a favor and switch parties, at least you would retain some shred of political dignity.

    • hamiltonr

      Ahhh Zeke … always the charmer.

    • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

      You have just shown yourself a very poor debater and polemicist, and a hazard to your own side. You did that by implying that, BECAUSE, Catholics supported the Born Alive Act, THEREFORE the Born Alive Act was step one towards the abolition of abortion. First, this implies that the only reason for a Catholic to take political action is to oppose abortion, which is a foolish notion to say the least. As a matter of fact, killing or allowing to die an infant born alive is not abortion by any possible stretch of the definition; it is, even to your ideological fellows, murder, pure and simple. And one would think that anyone whose principles include “Thou shalt not kill” and “we hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and endowed [never mind by whom] with certain and inalienable rights, first of which is the right to life” would oppose such an act merely because of what it is. But you think that others think as you think. Because your obsessions is to push forward the bounds of legal abortion to the very edge of birth and visible murder, you think that someone who objects to murder after birth is only really trying to attack murder before birth. This does not follow, does not make sense, is obviously contradicted by the fact that only a minority would vote for the abolition of abortion whereas a majority has repeatedly voted for Born Alive Acts, and sounds rather paranoid. It is, in fact, a clear case of projection – investing your enemies with the very qualities you have.

    • FW Ken

      Zeke, thank you for demonstrating my point.

  • FW Ken

    As late as the Autumn of 2012, the left would simply deny that Pres. Obama opposed the Born Alive act(s). Occasionally, you would get an admission with some convoluted excuse. I suppose they have no more reason to lie.

  • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

    I thought, actually, that he was very consistent. I recall that what got to Britain was an argument that if abortion is a right, then it has to be a right at all times. And my reaction was: Absolutely right, Senator (now President). I could not agree more.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    He is clearly the most pro-abortion and anti religious president this country has ever had. What a disgrace that Catholics actually gave him a majority of their vote in both elections. Besides being incompetant (Bill Clinton called him “the amateur”) I find him detestable. And not just for his anti religious agenda. The bottom for me was whehn he tacitly had his campaign put out the lie that Mitt Romney had killed a woman. Obama has a completely immoral side. I don’t think we really know his true personality. He is as phony as politicians come, and more so.

  • FW Ken

    Zeke’s comment is worth another brief comment. Rebecca is the professional politician here, but it seems to this layman that politics require compromise and negotiation which Zeke explicitely repudiates. Of course I would like to see abortion banned, but can we at least restrict it to less than 20 weeks, like
    most first countries? Can we require decent, clean, well-stocked sites for first trimester abortions, out-patient surgical centers after the 12th week, and hospitalization for the rare abortion after 20 weeks? Admitting privileges to real hospitals for abortionists? Not that real hospitals always want them, of course.
    No, we can’t do these things to protect the lives of women, because drooling fanatics are so concerned about … I strarted to say “the rights of women” … but I think … I don’t know what they want. Control? To stick it to the Catholic Church? More blood to sate their hatred for humanity? Who knows. I’m thinking most it’s a control issue, since they fear that any compromise will lead to complete loss of the abortion license. That’s interesting.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X