In my previous post, last night, I mentioned the fact that Obama voted to keep infanticide legal. This morning I see that Politico writes about a new 527 group called BornAliveTruth.org. Here's their first ad, playing in Ohio and New Mexico.
Personally, I don't find the ad to be too powerful. I think most viewers will link it too closely to children who survived abortions but were not immediately born, and will disregard it because of that. I think it plays into the hands of Obama who wants to make this about abortion, instead of live births.
And I find the claim that "if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here" to be specious at best: Obama was not saying every born child resulting from botched abortions should be left to die, only that doctors should be allowed to let them die, and I see no evidence that Gianna Jessen's doctor chose to let her die, but was stopped because of any law.
What Obama voted for is horrific enough without misrepresenting it. I hope future advertisements from BornAliveTruth.org are more powerful and more accurate; if so, they may elicit a donation from me.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 16, 2008 08:15 AM | Email ThisThe entirety of the issue is putting the power to play God into the hands of doctors, instead of requiring them to live up to their oath and put ALL political considerations aside.
There is no misrepresentation here. For if this is a "misrepresentation," than so is every ad ever aired by the OhDrama campaign or any of it's surrogates.
And this ad will no more disregarded by the public than it was disregarded by you.
Posted by: hinton on September 16, 2008 08:36 AMBut yes, a great many ads are misrepresentations, on both sides, and this one is not exceptionally misrepresentative. Certainly it is far closer to the truth than ads by MoveOn etc.
Still, personally, I don't like the ad.
BUT, this is one more example of just how far to the left Obama really leans. He's willing to suspend good judgment yet again, for a Lefty Doctrinaire Cause like abortion rights. To me this is similar to hanging around with people like Ayers and Wright. Fine if your goal is to be a Nutroots Super Hero, but not good judgment for someone aspiring to future higher office. And especially the Presidency. Obama has pretty much disqualified himself just based on his poor judgment. Good politicians have much better built in Geiger Counters.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 16, 2008 08:53 AMI believe the facts speak for themselves: he is entirely willing to allow infanticide to protect doctors from liability, to protect a "right to choose" ... to choose to kill that newborn baby. He doesn't want infanticide, he just thinks newborn babies dying alone in a utility closet is an acceptable sacrifice on the altar of Choice.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2008 09:10 AMMaking Obama either one of two things... A coward of the lowest order unwilling to adhere to his personal moral code for the sake of his own political aspirations or a truly evil man that considers infants born to a mother that did not want them as just human debris to be discarded and left to die in soiled utility closets. There really is no middle ground here.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 16, 2008 09:15 AMThis fool stands for nothing. He's what ever you want him to be.
Yeah there's a (Leader)
not.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 16, 2008 09:30 AMPudge, how many doctors who perform this type of abortion, do you think would do anything BUT let this child die after she had been born alive?
I think the ad could do a little more to explain the type of procedure that was done in this case. It was a saline abortion, in which the doctor injects saline into the the woman, to poison the baby and burn her skin. Then the mother gives birth to what is usually a dead baby. Amazingly, this baby happened to survive. When that happens, the protocol is to just let the baby die when the procedure fails to kill her.
So, aren't we just mincing words when we say, "He voted for allowing doctors to allow this girl to die.", rather than, "if he had his way, I wouldn't be here."? This bill was only voted on because a nurse brought it to the legislature's attention. She was horrified that letting these babies die was the protocol, and wanted them to instead, have their right to life protected when they were found.
Posted by: Michelle on September 16, 2008 10:04 AMI think you're straining at gnats and swallowing camels on this one. Obama has always facilitated US genocide through his abortion promotion. Intent is inferred through the natural and probable consequences of one's acts or omissions. Legislation permitting doctors' omissions to result in no-fault infanticide implies the intent to murder. Obama's legislation clearly promotes first degree murder. Let's not equivocate here. Don't get sucked into the left's speciousness. Let them say we're misrepresenting them, which we're not. Fight fire with fire, or get burned, because the battle is intensifying. Debate must now yield to propaganda against the enemy. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
Posted by: The Pirate on September 16, 2008 10:15 AMNo. He has never said he wants all newborns resulting from failed abortions to die. He only said he wants to allow doctors to kill them.
Think of it this way: Obama wants the law to be as it was when she was born ... and yet she survived under that law.
It's obviously and false to say that if Obama had his way she'd be dead, because Obama's way is for the law to be exactly what it was when she lived.
I am not sticking up for Obama here. I am sticking up for truth. Again: what he actually voted for his so horrific, I see no reason to make things up.
You could say Obama voted to allow doctors to let her die, but to say if Obama had his way she would be dead is just wrong, because the law was what Obama wanted it to be, and she is alive.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2008 10:26 AMOTOH, sometimes political consultant types like to stretch the truth just to get the other guy to try to deny it ...
Gianna Jessen herself has said many times that the ONLY reason she was not killed post-delivery OR simply "allowed" to die was because the abortionist had already gone, that a nurse saw she was alive, breathing and struggling mightily to live and that nurse called an ambulance.
Excellent point.
Posted by: kim in vancouver on September 16, 2008 12:52 PMAs a state legislator, Obama spoke out against, and voted down, a bill that would have explicitly extended legal protections to born-alive premature infants. In other words, he cast a vote against banning infanticide.Americans must ask themselves why Barack Obama really opposed this legislation. Put crudely, once a woman chooses to abort, she's entitled to a dead baby.
How does one properly describe another who would -- for purely selfish political reasons and with deliberation -- intentionally refuse a thirsty child water or a hungry child food?More specifically, what does one call a lawmaker who would condemn to death the child survivor of a botched abortion by permitting doctors to refuse that child, once born alive, potentially life-saving medical treatment and nutrition?...
Last year the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart the federal ban on the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. Congress overwhelmingly passed the ban in 2003. Even some of the most liberal members of Congress experienced unexplained fits of common sense, voting for the ban in the face of angry demands from mouth-foaming feminists.
Although the American Medical Association has determined that partial-birth abortion is never necessary under any circumstances, Obama threw a hissy, nonetheless, after the opinion came down. While deriding the Court for its ruling, he whined, "For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors." ...
...So what, exactly, did the ban ban? What "hard-won right" -- as he later called partial-birth abortion -- was Obama so steadfast to preserve? ...
...During a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a fully developed, fully "viable" child - often kicking and thrashing -- feet first from her mother's womb, leaving only the top of her head in the birth canal. He then stabs her through the skull with scissors or some other sharp object, piercing her brain until her kicking and moving about suddenly and violently jerk to a halt. Her brains are then sucked out -- collapsing her skull -- and her now limp and lifeless body is tossed aside like so much garbage. ...
Again, medical science has determined that this horrific practice, which is nothing short of infanticide, is never necessary. But Barack Obama -- the man who would be President -- doesn't see it that way. He called the partial-birth abortion ban, "a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women." ...
BAIPA very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion - when she is "born alive" - further attempts to kill her must immediately cease, and steps must be taken to ensure her health and well-being.
Makes sense, right?
Not to Barack Obama.
I don't really care much about this line of discussion -- it's really not important, compared to the actual issue we agree on -- but if I am missing something, I'd like to know it.
I agree with everything else being said, pretty much, except that I don't see what Obama would have done to cause her to die.
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2008 01:01 PMHis words, his votes are responsible for that horrendous opinion of him. With those words and votes he has told me, and many like me, that he cares NOT to protect life.
The question we have to extrapolate from that is that if he doesn't care to protect a pre-term human child, if he doesn't care to protect one born alive, what would allow us to think he would protect a human of 90 either?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 16, 2008 01:19 PMI don't like this line of discussion, either. Please open a new topic, e.g., Sarah's visit to the Eastside next Wednesday and a possible public rally.
Posted by: The Pirate on September 16, 2008 01:31 PMI'm not sure what you're looking for Pudge. I don't know that he would have changed anything, however, I believe with my entire being that had he been the nurse, had he had influence over the nurse at that moment, Gianna would have been left to die.
That's a fair statement, but it is opinion, not fact. That's my point. There's plenty of room for people to say that opinionated statement is wrong, which is why I think it weakens the ad.
His words, his votes are responsible for that horrendous opinion of him. With those words and votes he has told me, and many like me, that he cares NOT to protect life.
Me too. As I said: there's plenty of statements to make about what he actually did, rather than what he hypothetically would have done, it seems better to me to stick to those.
And Duffman was referring to the spam someone kept posting about Obama eating babies, which I marked as such.
The Pirate: do we have any info to post yet?
These babies were protected by Illinois statutes from infanticide. Yes, infanticide was already illegal, folks. - Posted by bah at September 16, 2008 05:11 AM
I wonder if the bHo-philes and proborts realize that this statement undermines their defense of the babykiller.
IF as bHo claimss it was duplicate law, IF the children were already protected, THEN WHAT REASON WOULD bHo HAVE FOR NOT JUST CONFIRMING IT?
Oh I know... he supports killing babies via abortion, he supports "not punishing" his daughters, HE SEES NOTHING WRONG WITH MURDERING DISPOSABLE CHILDREN.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/hotline-poll-palins-favorables-declining/
I knew that the "Bridge to Nowhere" flip-flop would hurt. Here's an anecdote that is damning:
overheard guy at work today:
“That lady, running for VP, turns out she lied about the Bridge to Nowhere thing and actually did support it…”
this is the type of message that gets thru to the average Joe Blow out there
jp on September 16, 2008 at 5:22 PM
The more damning thing about that whole Born Alive Infant Act for me was Obama's lies about why he voted against it. There MIGHT have been legitimate reasons to oppose the bill (I would never condemn anyone for voting against a bill just based on the title), but Obama did not do that. He claimed his vote was that the language was different than the federal language.
Which is even worse than a lie, since Obama's committee (he was chair) refused to add the amendment that added the Federal language.
Completely dishonest.
Posted by: iconoclast on September 16, 2008 03:08 PMA question. When a woman wants an abortion, does she go to a animal shelter, a garden center or to Swedish Hospital? Remember now, she is "only" two months pregnant with a "non-viable" non-human blob.
Posted by: barrackslawyer on September 16, 2008 04:12 PM???? What's your point?
Posted by: Chris on September 16, 2008 04:18 PMMeanwhile the GOP (aka the Hypocrisy Party) is trying to obstruct an bi-partisan probe (how Clinton-esque) of Gov. Palin's purported abuse of power. Now that's an exciting issue. =)
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/alaskan-lawmakers-to-file-suit-to-stop-legislative-probe-run-amuck/
You'll also note that a group of private citizens have also filed suit for the same purpose.
Posted by: David on September 16, 2008 04:49 PMOnce again you are either ignorant or lying.
This is not about abortion. This is about children being born alive and then left to die.
Does it matter? If it happens once -- and it has happened -- isn't that reason enough to be outraged, when some people stand up for legitimizing it?
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2008 06:17 PMWhat ad were you watching? It's brilliant.
Posted by: b on September 16, 2008 06:24 PM"..and that essentially,adding an addititional doctor who then has to be called in a 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"
Ergo, a surviving infant (outside the womb of the woman so you can't claim life of the mother issues) of a botched abortion is in his disturbed mind a "burdensome" mass of tissue with a viable heartbeat that should be eradicated as soon as duly possible so as not to burden the original decision to abort....i.e. infanticide.
Which means, I can add South Side Sociopath to my many designations for the jr. senator.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 16, 2008 06:26 PMNow that we have conclusively established that Obama believes it's OK to murder an infant - already born, outside the womb, viable - the question is no longer about "abortion" but when we decide murdering children in the name of convenience ends.
Is it within 12 hours of birth? 12 days? 12 months? 12 years?
See, the act itself is now OK according to your candidate. So how far past birth is child murder because of convenience allowed?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 16, 2008 06:59 PMClaimed Levi Johnston was a rapist by Alaskan Law. When confronted to prove it, he selectivey quoted a sentence of rape law when in fact when the entire text reveals the intercourse was perfectly legal in Alaska.
Claimed Seattle Times endorsed Bush in 2004.
Makes stuff up out of thin air, no facts, no proof.
Posted by: pbj on September 16, 2008 07:56 PMas opposed to:
fetus fe·tus (fē'təs)
n. pl. fe·tus·es
1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.
He's not a mad baby killah! you are all so far out! Crackin me up! Have you heard of shock and awe? Now THAT killed a lot of babies. Bet you were up in arms about that! Aah those pretty colors over oldtown bagdad were dang stunning with a cold beer and a bong hit though, huh? Party on my brothahs and sistahs!
Posted by: Acid Brain on September 16, 2008 08:19 PMAcid has truly rotted your brain. That dictionary is of no use to you if you don't understand that Obama's position was to SUPPORT KILLING CHILDREN.
These are NOT fetuses; they are already born, outside the womb, and if cared for would survive to grow up. In other words, INFANTS.
You're a sick, twisted individual who's looking to support a baby-killer because your politics trump basic morality.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 16, 2008 08:25 PMThe abortion definitions include:
" an immature and nonviable fetus."
"Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival."
The question we must put to the annointed hypocrite Obama is whether having your child and then deciding you should have aborted them and then proceed to let them to starve to death, throw them in the trash, etc. are also accepted forms of "abortion rights" advocacy. When is a life a "viable life" to this imbecile? first feeding? first communion? first date? If his answer is "it's above my paygrade" like the last cowardly dodge he did with Rick Warren, then he is obviously not suited for the oval office, but then he's already made that decision easy for me already.
Acid Brain: Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation.
Yes, it is true that supporting legal infanticide, and opposing a bill to make that infanticide illegal, are different things. There can be many reasons for opposing the legislation ... and Obama has kept giving different reasons why.
But ultimately, it is clear that Obama wanted to keep this procedure legal. He supports legal infanticide. Obama said, as Rick D. wrote above, that outlawing this procedure would "burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion," and this is ultimately why he supported keeping it legal.
So no, it is not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of fact, by his own words. Obama intended to keep this procedure legal, in order to protect the decision to have an abortion, even if that abortion fails and the baby is born. That was why he voted against the bill.
That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant."
Um. What would you call it? Once it is born, it is no longer a fetus. Part of the DEFINITION of fetus is that it has not yet been born. It is an infant.
It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
The law had loopholes, which is why it was still happening, and a change in the law was needed.
Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.
We already proved beyond reasonable doubt that the bill he voted to kill DID preserve abortion rights. So that's not flying. Even Obama's campaign has admitted this.
you kooky dudes! looky what I found in my old backpack behind the internet! A dictionary!
Um. Yes. You quoted a dictionary saying a fetus is unborn. But these are born children. They are not fetuses, period.
OR A HUMAN CHILD?
"You know why they call it birth control? Because it's meant to stop a birth from happening nine months later. We know when life begins. Everyone who ever bought a pack of condom knows when life begins. To put it another way, with conception something begins. What do you think it is? A car? A 1948 Buick?" --Peggy NoonanPosted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 16, 2008 09:46 PM
You guys are getting desperate -- but I don't think it's going to work this time.
Posted by: scottd on September 16, 2008 09:49 PMYes, because killing newborn babies is such a humane thing to do...
And then we'll make sure they learn about sex ed before they can read.
And then we'll tax them into oblivion, that is if they can find a job in the destroyed economy that Obama will bring.
Not to mention the destruction of the housing and financial markets that Obama and the rest of the Slavery Party have presided over.
If Obama can't kill them in the womb, or kill them when they're born, he's going to do his best to make their lives miserable!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 16, 2008 10:05 PMGood luck in November.
Posted by: scottd on September 16, 2008 10:11 PMUm. Desperate? He votes to keep infanticide legal, and the best you can do is attack us for pointing out that fact?
Posted by: pudge on September 16, 2008 10:41 PMThat "fact" exists only in your mind -- repeating it doesn't make it any truer.
Infanticide is illegal -- most of us know that.
If you and McCain's surrogates want to waste your bandwidth on phony wedge issues, please be my guest. It entertains the crazies and helps the rest of us more clearly see the nutjobs McCain is aligning himself with. Somehow, I don't think that's going to help him this time.
Posted by: scottd on September 16, 2008 10:56 PMThat "fact" exists only in your mind
You are incorrect, of course, as anyone who has followed this story knows.
repeating it doesn't make it any truer.
Yes, repeating it does not make it true ... which is why I linked to many, many facts that prove it is true.
Infanticide is illegal -- most of us know that.
It depends, of course, on how you define "infant." Obama wanted to keep newborn babies -- out of the mother's womb, living on their own -- defined as not-infants. This is a fact.
If you and McCain's surrogates want to waste your bandwidth on phony wedge issues, please be my guest.
The fact that Obama voted to allow newborn children to be killed is neither phony nor a wedge issue, it's an actual real issue, as much as any other possible issue we could be facing.
Bury your head in the sand and pretend Obama didn't do what the facts prove he did. Stay ignorant or be a liar, the choice is yours.
Sure, own your support for murdering babies (you simply cannot deny that - Obama voted for it, there is no debate).
Obama also supported a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten aged children.
Obama wants to raise taxes, which he even admits will slow and hurt the economy. But he'll do it anyway.
Obama wants to increase the taxation of businesses and the wealth creators of society, punitive in nature. That will result in lost jobs. Look no further than our own state, Washington. Beat up business, we leave (I did). And unemployment rises (now at 6% and increasing).
Obama and your Slavery Party were the sponsors of the legislation that started the whole housing debacle, back under Carter and again with Clinton. And when the Republicans wanted to fix the situation in 2003, and again in 2006 the Democrats filibustered and stopped the solution.
Of course, with Dodd and Obama raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, of course they pushed to keep things fast and loose.
So where am I wrong? Call it attacks, call it negative, but you simply cannot call it wrong. Facts all, and if those are inconvenient, well tough.
And with McCain leading national polls, and winning the battleground states, it appears a majority of the country also agrees. With this newest big issue it's only going to get worse for Obama (and his partner, where's Waldo-er-Biden).
Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 16, 2008 11:06 PMUm.
Barack Obama voted to keep infanticide legal.
This is a fact.
If you disagree, argue the facts. I do not care whatsoever what you think of me.
Got it: too much acid.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 16, 2008 11:25 PMYou can say it had no legal effect, but since the law was actually allowing the practice to happen, it kinda shows that it did.
Posted by: pudge on September 17, 2008 08:27 AMRagnar you have been really trippin, you holdin out on me? You were goin on an on about some self preservation justification and moral equivalency but you don't really believe in it yourself. Your using a rhetorical fallacy to skip an uncomfortable thought. You know that stuff sells for cheap on the corner these days and keeps you from sleeping. Share the love.
Posted by: Acid Brain on September 17, 2008 10:46 AMNothing you said there has any meaning to me.
I am here to talk about a specific issue. It is not about tactics for me, though certainly I hope this issue can be used to defeat Obama, but that is only because I care about the issue.
Your comparison to war is obviously insipid and not deserving of comment.
I think that many people WILL be outraged by this, who are not outraged by abortion. Sad, but true. And I cannot hope to change their minds about that, but I can hope to inform them about the facts.
So I don't think any 30-second ad about this issue should get into those contradictory perceptions. I think it is far more effective to inform them of the facts about this particular issue, and then once they are convinced it's bad, hope that they will then reconsider their views on abortion itself.
I agree with you, but I don't believe I can change minds. I can only try to inform, and the more information people have, the more they will reconsider their existing preconceptions on their own. That doesn't mean I won't provide arguments to help facilitate that reconsideration, but in a 30 second ad, that will only distract: they will be more likely to say "well this is just like abortion so I won't think about this issue" than they will be to say "well, this is terrible, so abortion is wrong too."
Preconceptions do not fall down so easily.
The law was void, regardless of its practice or "legal affect." All laws are not legal. That's why there are appellate courts, initiatives, amendments, strikings, etc. Avoid the fallacy of the general rule. Murder is murder is murder, regardless of the bandwagon you're on
Acc. to testimony, some of these babies were less than 30 weeks, and one was under 20 weeks. They breathed, their hearts beated, they lived outside and on their own from 45 minutes up to several hours.
And it makes me literally sick to think about it.
a. it is better to kill children before they are born than that they should be abandoned
b. life isn't important enough for anyone to value their own life
And then, of course, you state things that you simply cannot back up with logic: that life does not begin at conception (when science proves it starts before implantation at the latest) and that God doesn't exist (something no one has ever been able to substantiate).
And to top it all off, you're talking about abortion when, in fact, this issue is about killing already born children.
