Mark My Words - commentary on news, politics, religion, philosophy, science and social issues

There's been talk lately that the Democrat party may be more open to those who are pro-life, even to the point of having a pro-life Catholic Democrat possibly speak at the convention. Barack Obama has even met with pro-life groups, as part of this outreach. But can Barack Obama overcome his own record with mere words?

That would be quite a trick though, considering what his record is, and the words he has already used to try and explain it.

Let's review that record. While an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama voted against legislation that would require medical treatment for babies that somehow survived abortion. It may be surprising, even to some who are pro-choice, that such legislation is even necessary. Sadly, it is required, and some still would vote against such laws. By comparison, similar federal legislation passed Congress, and yet somehow Barack Obama voted against the legislation in Illinois.

That somehow is actually no mystery as Barack has been asked about this already. His explanation is that the state legislation did not have a neutrality clause. That means the law would be limited to only those who survived abortion and made no statement regarding the pre-born, leaving Roe-vs-Wade intact. Obama said if he had been in Congress at the time, he would have voted for the federal law, which included that feature.

Now some may not be satisfied with that explanation, but it is what is. Except that it isn't, which may surprise those who felt it was a reasonable position. What has happened, is that documents have been found that make it very difficult to see Barack's explanation as anything but a lie.

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama’s legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose. (source)

Be sure to follow the links at Michelle Malkin's post for all the documentation. This is a serious issue and being informed is important, as Barack Obama has shown that he cares little for truth and even less for the most helpless, children who survive abortions. For those who may not be aware of the practice, here is testimony regarding one birth (there are more), which can be found at the NRLC document trail link as part of item B3 (emphasis in bold added):

Mrs. Stanek, who testified in front of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution during its hearing on H.R. 4292 and H.R. 2175, testified
regarding numerous live-birth abortions that she alleges have
occurred at Christ Hospital. The first she described as follows:

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted
Down’s Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled
Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold
him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not
bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a
Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the
45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old,
weighed about 1⁄2 pound, and was about 10 inches long. He
was too weak to move very much, expending any energy
he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet
that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him
up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through
his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded
his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny
shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all
of our dead patients are taken.

To some of us, it's bad enough to support the intentional neglect, so that they die, of babies who survived an abortion, simply to make certain that nothing would even slightly endanger Roe-vs-Wade. But with the neutrality clause, even NARAL no longer opposed the federal legislation, that passed 380-15 in the House and unanimously in the Senate.

Barack Obama said he would have voted for such legislation, if only he had the chance. The fact of the matter is that he did have that chance and he voted against it. Barack Obama is more radical than NARAL and nearly all of the U.S. Congress when it comes to abortion. That he adds to this lie, the condescending belief that he can convince pro-life and moderate pro-choice voters, that he's actually moderate on abortion, reveals an arrogance and callous disregard not only for the truth, but for those very voters he hopes to sway.

Barack Obama is no doubt insulting many voters with his thus far successful attempt to lie about his abortion record. Unfortunately, that insult and his disdain for the truth are sadly quite trivial compared to the tragedy of Obama allowing live babies to continue to be neglected and suffering until they die.

*Update*

Obama campaign responds

---

Filed under: Politics -- News

Trackposted to: Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, , The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Pet's Garden Blog, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Stageleft, Right Voices, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, A Blog For All, Cao's Blog, Phastidio.net, , Conservative Cat, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, A Newt One- Congressman Frank Wolf!, Political Byline, Allie is Wired, McCain Blogs, Walls of the City, and The World According to Carl, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.