8mm
Posted on 10/10/2008 5:09:41 PM PDT by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Another analysis from a nonpartisan group shows Barack Obama misrepresented his votes in the Illinois legislature against bills to provide medical care for newborns who survive failed abortions. The analysis says a pro-life group was right and that an Obama ad on the issue was misleading.
At issue are Obama's votes on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act bills in the Illinois legislature.
Obama voted against them because he claimed they would interfere with Roe v. Wade, even though members of Congress voted almost unanimously for the same bill on the federal level.
The federal bill had language saying it would not impact Roe and the National Right to Life Committee obtained documents showing an amendment with that same Roe neutrality language was added to one version of the bill Obama opposed anyway.
Obama eventually called NRLC liars, a group representing one woman who survived a failed abortion criticized Obama in a television ad for his votes and Obama's campaign released a misleading advertisement attacking the ad and John McCain.
The PolitiFact.com web site, a nonpartisan site run jointly by Congressional Quarterly and the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times newspaper, says NRLC is right and Obama is wrong.
On the reasons for voting against the anti-infanticide bills, PolitiFact says, "Obama, along with other Democrats in the Illinois legislature, opposed the 'born alive' laws every time they came up, and this is not disputed."
"Obama has said as far back as 2004 that he would have supported the federal bill and that he would have supported the Illinois versions if they had a similar neutrality clause," it explains. "The laws the full Senate voted on in 2001 and 2002 did not have such a clause, but 2003 is a different story."
"The National Right to Life Committee says the 2003 bill did have a neutrality clause, and contends that Obama is misrepresenting the bill," it adds.
"We requested documentation from the Illinois State Archives about the 2003 bill and found that it did have a neutrality clause, as the National Right to Life said," PolitiFact concludes, agreeing with NRLC.
PolitiFact went on to critique the Obama ad defending his votes and attacking the ad from Gianna Jessen, the woman who survive a failed abortion and attacked Obama in her own television ad.
"[Obama's] campaign disputes the charges, but wrongly claims the attack came from John McCain," the nonpartisan web site says. "Instead of targeting BornAliveTruth.org or Gianna Jessen, the ad attacks John McCain."
"The ad shows footage of the BornAliveTruth.org ad, which the McCain campaign did not produce. So the Obama ad is blaming McCain for an attack he didn't make. The first ad clearly states that BornAliveTruth.org created it, as required by law," PolitiFact says of Obama's misleading ad.
The web site also says the Obama ad gets McCain's abortion position wrong.
This is the second time a nonpartisan group has agreed with National Right to Life and indicated Obama was wrong. The FactCheck web site of the University of Pennsylvania reviewed the controversy back in August.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
>>EVERYTHING about Obama is a LIE!
His father is the father of lies.
EVERYTHING about Obama is a LIE!
Actually, if you look at the rest of Politifact.com, you'll see that almost everything said about Obama by McCain, et al, is a lie or something less than the truth. The percentage of McCain camp lies and less-than-truths far outstrips that of the Obama camp.
(I got no beef either way; just sayin'.) :^)
Actually, I've thought you were a troll since you got here, now it's confirmed.
” Actually, if you look at the rest of Politifact.com, you’ll see that almost everything said about Obama by McCain, et al, is a lie or something less than the truth. The percentage of McCain camp lies and less-than-truths far outstrips that of the Obama camp.
(I got no beef either way; just sayin’.) :^) “
Do you really want me to list all the rumor/lies/innuendos by the Obama side against Palin? Really?
We justifiably said goodbye to many Rudy operatives last year. Why are we still sharing this space with an Obama operative?
Etixos, are you a paid Obama staff member, or just a very devout volunteer?
Neither; just an objective observer.
Did you look at the website?
Yes, you’ve said so before. What you never say, however, is how presenting truth is trollish. :D
“Operative” is such a spooky, sneaky word, isn’t it? :D
There's nothing trollish about it. It's called "discussion".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.