Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 4:47 PM ET, 10/24/2008

Is Obama Guilty of 'Infanticide'?

By Michael Dobbs


Palin on CBN.

"To withhold medical intervention for a baby who is born alive as a result of a botched abortion and to allow that child to die without the medical intervention that that child deserves, it's appalling to me and I think it should concern voters."
--Sarah Palin, interview with Christian Broadcasting Network, Oct. 21, 2008.

According to Sarah Palin, Barack Obama's position on abortion is "so far left, it's way beyond the mainstream." The Republican vice presidential hopeful says that she is "most troubled" by Obama's opposition, as an Illinois state senator, to a "Born Alive" bill that would have guaranteed medical protection to children born as a result of a bungled abortion. The Obama campaign describes the Palin attack as "dishonest" and "insulting."

Is it true that Obama was ever in favor of withholding medical treatment for babies born alive as a result of a botched abortion?

The Facts

The "born alive" controversy is one of the most emotional -- and legally complex -- issues of the 2008 presidential campaign. Palin's attack on Obama echoes, in somewhat politer language, the accusations of "infanticide" made by various anti-abortion activists. It stems from Obama's "No" votes on a series of bills that were introduced into the Illinois state Senate between 2001 and 2003 to define the term "born alive infant."

Under the definition employed in the bills, the term "born alive" meant "any member of the species homo sapiens" expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits "a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles."

Pro-abortion groups, such as Planned Parenthood, viewed the legislation as part of a broader attempt to give fetuses the same rights as pregnant women and to impose criminal sanctions on doctors offering abortion services. They pointed out that Illinois state law already offered protection to babies born as the result of bungled abortions. A 1975 Illinois law requires doctors performing abortions on so-called "viable fetuses"--i.e. a fetus that might be able to survive outside the mother's body -- to take steps in advance to ensure adequate medical treatment in the event of a live birth.

The 1975 law requires the presence on such occasions of a second doctor whose primary responsibility is the provision of "immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion."

Anti-abortion groups argue that the 1975 law needed to be strengthened as it was full of "loopholes." The "born alive" bills under consideration by the Illinois state Senate -- and subsequently adopted at the federal level -- would have effectively done away with the distinction between "viable" and "non-viable" fetuses. According to Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, the 1975 law makes the doctor performing the abortion responsible for determining whether a fetus is "viable" or "non-viable."

Obama has depicted the Illinois bills as an assault on the principles of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that guaranteed a woman's right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy within certain limits. The "pro-life" camp says that the Illinois senator has offered shifting explanations for his opposition to the "born alive" legislation.

Obama has never made any secret of his "pro-choice" views, and has a 100 percent voting record from NARAL and other abortion rights groups. On the other hand, he has heatedly denied ever being in favor of "withholding life-saving support from an infant born alive." He now says that he would have supported a federal "Born Alive" bill, which included very similar language to the later versions of the Illinois bill.

The Pinocchio Test

Reasonable people can differ on whether the 1975 Illinois state law needed to be strengthened, and the likely effect of the various "Born Alive" bills rejected by the Illinois legislature between 2001 and 2003. But it is unfair to accuse Obama of supporting the withdrawal of medical treatment from babies born as the result of a botched abortion. He has never adopted such an "extreme" position.

(About our rating scale).

By Michael Dobbs  | October 24, 2008; 4:47 PM ET
Categories:  2 Pinocchios, Barack Obama, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch, Health, Social Issues  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain, Obama, Biden, and JFK
Next: Obama's Redistribution 'Bombshell'

Comments

The bottom line is this: he voted against the bill and babies in Illinois have been left to die. Just ask Jill Stanek.

http://www.jillstanek.com/bio.html

You can give it two Pinocchios if you want, but facts are a stubborn thing.

Posted by: info42 | October 24, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

info42, the Washington Post doesn't care about "facts" anymore. They've endorsed Obama and will cover up anything, and smear anyone, to get him into the White House.

REGARDLESS of whether "he has heatedly denied ever being in favor of 'withholding life saving support from an infant born alive'" the FACT is he voted against the State Bill. REGARDLESS of whether "he now says that he would have supported a federal 'Born Alive' bill" the FACT is he voted against the State Bill.

Facts are indeed a stubborn thing.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 24, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Under the definition employed in the bills, the term "born alive" meant "any member of the species homo sapiens" expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits "a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles."

OBAMA VOTED "NO" ON THAT BILL.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 24, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

These tragic cases of infants born alive are happening right here in the DC metro area and in states across the country. I speak from personal experience: abortion doctors do not want to provide care to these infants who survive. Stronger laws are needed and should be supported by every lawmaker, regardless of their stance on abortion. Once a child is born he/she deserves the protection and care we all enjoy.

Anyone concerned about this issue should read Obama's comments during the Illinois state senate debate:

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf
The pertinent section is pages 31-34.

We cannot in good conscience elect a man who opposes the medical treatment of infants. If he cannot recognize such a basic right, how can we trust him other matters?

Posted by: LawsNeeded | October 24, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

I urge the posters and the author of the article to do what I just did - read the statements on the bill at: http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf

Senator Obama, in no way advocated infanticide. He simply questioned whether this bill added an unnecessary layer of red tape to the process by requiring an additional medical doctor to be consulted as to the status of the fetus/infant. His job as a Senator was to ensure that laws help society and not result in additional burdens to the (in this case) medical community. He did his job. He felt that the attending doctor could be trusted to answer the question as to the whether the baby was alive at birth and if so, could be trusted to care for it. Unfortunately, if Jill Stanek is correct, some of these doctors either knowingly or unknowingly did not notice that some of the fetuses were alive at birth and should have been rendered full medical attention. All Senator Obama can be accused of, perhaps, is of is being too trusting of the medical profession.

Posted by: HawaiiGal | October 24, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I have a hard time with this kind of smear tactic. Does anyone really believe that a man who wants universal health care would also dictate withholding medical care? And who does Sarah Palin think she will attract with this kind of rhetoric? Will your average undecided voter wake up and say, "Obama is for infanticide? Oh Gosh, I can't vote for him!" Or, more likely, will Joe or Jane Undecided voter go, "Get away from me with all this slime. I want a civil tone for my politics." The fundamental problem for the McCain/Palin ticket is that they are alienating undecided voters in order to shore up their base. Looks more and more like a losing ticket to me.

Posted by: timohuatl | October 24, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Anybody who thinks that they will attract a single independent voter to John McCain with this nauseating strategy of accusing Obama of infanticide is out of touch with reality.

The truth is McCain has cornered the 'nasty, mean-spirited vote.' I am quite proud of the fact that you are not Obama supporters.

You people will lie and smear and distort to win an election and then ludicrously proclaim that you are Godly.

I doubt Jesus would want to have anything to do with the likes of you. You, who would invade a country who did not attack us. You who would not lift a finger to help those poverty stricken in America, but vote for policies that only aided the wealthy. You, who somehow thinks that letting all children get health care is sonehow socialist.

Sure, you believe in life, until the child exits the womb...then that child be damned.

We won't ever forget that the churches helped keep black people repressed in this country. Allegedly God-fearing people were the most virulently racist.

And I say that as a white man.

Here is your spiritual leader, Paul Weyrich, proclaiming with religious fervor, that people like you don't want everyone to vote because it gives you more power.

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/10/gops-remaining-strategy-voter.html

You folks are all about controlling others and gaining power over others.

But do not confuse that with spirituality.

Posted by: scootmandubious | October 24, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

I wonder why she states that she is pro-life but will happily send her son to an environment to kill or be killed after lovingly raising him for 19 years. Obama may have had the misfortune of being too trusting towards the "adult" doctors who perform these abortions, but Sarah Palin's son (Track) is being too trusting towards her mother's "Country First" rhetorics. In the end it is all about choices, and I can not question either one, otherwise I will have to cast the first stone towards myself!

Posted by: JohnWWW | October 24, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Oh, for heaven's sakes, you "infanticide" commenters. You must know that your hateful, extremist posts don't convince anyone. All they do are to convince people that you are wackoes. Wackos? Sane people, does the plural of Wacko have an "e" or not?

Posted by: queenoid | October 24, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

To listen to the far-right you would think that we were in early Salem Massachusetts. All of the accusations - hangs with terrorists, voter fraud, and now infanticide.

This is not politics. This is fear-mongering. This is vile and beneath us as Americans. Sarah Palin the person, not the politician, owes Barak Obama the person a very humble apology.

And I, as an American feel that this behavior cannot be accepted from anyone who would lead us.

I had considered myself to be a devout Christian for most of my life. I have not changed inside. But apparently the definition has. So I no longer can identify with what is called Christianity today.

Am I lost - or is your Church lost?

Vote for Hope.

Posted by: DidIHearYouRight | October 24, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Here she comes again...
Gov. Sarah Palin and the truth, a particular relationship.

She did the same with the so-called troopergate thing:

she somehow splits the facts in separate chunks, chooses the one chunk that serves her best and put it in the limelight, advocating with all her dedication for the defense of that particular chunk of truth. Let me explain:

The troopergate report, let's call it that way, found roughly two things:
1- She did not break any law when she fired the guy (I assume you know the story, if not: do a little research on the web: that is interesting!). Why didn't she break any law: cause there WASN'T A SINGLE LAW for her to break, since she was free to fire the guy anytime, without any justification to give. So yeah, bib news, she didn't break any law... (stupidity to stay for ever in politics... well, actually, that's not stupidity, that's acting in bad faith!)
Good... but the thing she doesn't say, but is in the report, is the other part of the story:
2- She was found guilty for breaking ethical laws in pressuring the guy to act illegally in order to help S. Palin settle a family score.
S. Palin in so busy claiming the first point again and again, and again, that oups' she forgets to talk about the other thing, the little detail, oups', that proved her GUILTY.

How convenient?

Now, the point I want to make here is this:
S. Palin is playing this very same little trick on us here, when she accuses Sen. Obama of being pro-infanticide:
1- Yes, he voted against this "born alive bill". Implicitly: those babies will be left dead, then? So this is a pro-infanticide support that Obama is giving? Yes, no...?

Well it depends. It depends on the other side of the story. The side S.Palin won't tell you, because, well she prefers the story when it only tells the part she likes the most... (That's creativity right? I know, when I was little I would skip the scary pages of White Snow...). And, this other piece of information, which was known by Obama, who apparently read the story in its whole..., is that:
2- Those 'born alive' babies, were already granted immediate medical support.

So, this bill's aim was not to protect those babies from infanticide (since this was already secured by another bill), and its formulation could be interpreted as 'an assault on the principles of Roe vs. Wade' and this is what Obama voted against (and not the medical support for those babies).

Therefore Obama did not vote against a protection against infanticide, or, to put in a shorter way, Obama did not vote for infanticides.
Palin got it wrong!

There for you Ms Palin.
Sick of your intellectual and moral dishonesty. What you are doing is a blatant act of manipulation of the American voters and, for many of them: it's another breaking of some fundamental ethical principals.

Posted by: think-of-it | October 24, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

The 67-page report is called "An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches."

I know it sounds crazy.

YOU HAVE TO READ THIS EVIDENCE. It is 67 pages of the most mind-blowing analysis of Obama's major speeches, revealing complex hidden hypnotic language patterns. The document is spreading all over the internet.

I know there is no way I will convince you, so just read the document.

Google for the document - it is all over the web.

Everyone who hasn't read it agrees it sounds absurd, yes it does, and apparently the media is pretending like they haven't read it.

Psychologists, hypnotists and NLP experts are coming out saying this document is "exceptional", having cracked a hidden linguistic code in Obama's speeches like those developed by a Dr. Milton Erickson, the father of modern hypnosis.

Obama conjures up images of your children and JFK, and then uses hidden hand gestures to transfer those feelings onto him, and uses complex hypnotic language patterns to sideline rational judgment. Not just subliminal messages, but complex engineered hypnotic patterns, non-dominant hemisphere programming, and clinical hypnotic trance inductions, all buried in his speeches.

As crazy as this sounds, imagine how mind blowing to find out it is real. It is one of the most amazing things I have ever read in my whole life.

It is on scribd here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7470439/Obamas-Use-of-Hidden-Hypnosis-Techniques-in-His-Speeches

also here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7470439/Obamas-Use-of-Hidden-Hypnosis-Techniques-in-His-Speeches

I know everyone is going to make fun of this because of how absurd it sounds. So go ahead and read it.

If the media chooses to ignore this, after the election they will have a lot of explaining to do.

In other words, if you consider yourselves objective, especially the media, go ahead. I dare you. Fact-check this document.

Posted by: besquared28 | October 25, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

scootmandubious:

"... then that child be damned."

Did you even read the article -- the children we are trying to protect HAVE "exit[ed] the womb -- that's the whole point of Gov. Palin's criticism. She never used the word "infanticide". At worst, he's guilty of conspiracy to commit infanticide. Those like HawaiiGal liken that to "trusting" abortionists.

Posted by: JakeD | October 25, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

The bizarre and twisted logic that liberals like the Post staff use to defend Obama is simply beyond belief. The simple truth is that abortion kills babies. Letting them be born and then left to die, is killing babies. And Obama voted for that exact thing. You can dress it up all you like, but bottom line is it is killing babies, and he approves of it. There is no constitutional basis for the right to choose (there is no right to privacy from whose penumbra it emanates) and there surely is no constitutional basis for making Americans who are opposed to abortion pay for abortions via federal funding for others' "choices". Funny how libs want the right to choose to kill babies, but don't want the parents of the babies who survive to have the right to choose where they go to school. Just another example of warped liberal "logic".

Posted by: Raison | October 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

The bizarre and twisted logic that liberals like the Post staff use to defend Obama is simply beyond belief. The simple truth is that abortion kills babies. Letting them be born and then left to die, is killing babies. And Obama voted for that exact thing. You can dress it up all you like, but bottom line is it is killing babies, and he approves of it. There is no constitutional basis for the right to choose (there is no right to privacy from whose penumbra it emanates) and there surely is no constitutional basis for making Americans who are opposed to abortion pay for abortions via federal funding for others' "choices". Funny how libs want the right to choose to kill babies, but don't want the parents of the babies who survive to have the right to choose where they go to school. Just another example of warped liberal "logic".

Posted by: Raison | October 25, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

If a woman wants to get rid of a fetus, she means to kill it, not to have someone else go off with it and raise it to hate its biological mother. Some doctor rescuing it is challenging the mother's constitutional rights, established by the Supreme Court, to kill her own fetus. This is the point which justifies Barack Obama's position and this is why he doesn't want the law tampered with. He also has the humanity to see an unwanted child as a punishment. I heard a strange story the other day that the mother in Roe vs Wade was forced to have her baby because the courts took so long and is now pro-life. I wonder if it's true. If it is, you can see the problem of letting an unwanted fetus develop into a child!

Posted by: turryl | October 25, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

tuyrrl:

I wonder if you are serious. If you are, I can now see the problem with some children not developing alright.

Posted by: JakeD | October 25, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Give it a rest: Obama doesn't like abortions! I don't see why every single time the man points that out, someone nevertheless goes ahead and calls him a baby killer and "pro-abortion" anyway. I don't like abortions either--I would consider myself, in that respect, "pro-life" like Obama--but I draw the line at having that be my deciding issue in every election. After all, have you who are more firmly "pro-life" considered that some GOP politicians might have been exploiting abortion as a wedge issue to keep themselves in power? Well, we see the Christian way in which they have acquitted themselves since then; Q.E.D.

Posted by: Bertilak | October 25, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Wow you people really are sick, you are huge non-abortion people but will cheer as our military kills innocent civilians. Talk about hypocrites. Just like your messiah George W. who proclaims to be pro-life but had no problem sending over 400 people to the death chamber. If your pro-life you should be pro-life for all not who you deem should be saved.....

Posted by: rharring | October 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Look up "Just War Doctrine" someday -- unless you think WWII was "wrong" too -- there's no comparable rationale for elective abortions.

Posted by: JakeD | October 25, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf

Please take a look at this website with the actual deliberative comments included. Get the FACTS, ma'am and/or sir!!

Posted by: wwIIbaby | October 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Palin never said the word "infanticide". She is correct in her interpretation of his intent to kill the Bill #1661 and all that that implies. The Medical Society opposed this Bill because, as Obama explains it for us, it "puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus:". It's clear Obama is arguing that if the child is scheduled to die by abortion then the end result should be a dead child circumstances notwithstanding.
Obama implies that doctors already feel the obligation to give life support measures to a child who survives the abortion belies the facts. But the fact is doctors are not giving support to those unfortunates, they neither give help nor do they put them down humanely, they just wrap them in a bloody linen, put them in the hamper and walk away. There is a need for this Bill.
If I had to put my dog down with a shot gun I'd make damn sure I had more than one bullet in case the first one just wounded him.

Posted by: diamondgirl2 | October 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"According to Sarah Palin, Barack Obama's position on abortion is 'so far left, it's way beyond the mainstream.'"

How stupid does Sarah have to get before people stop quoting her? Of course being "far left" is "way beyond the mainstream."
There's no chance it could be part of the "mainstream." But she's lying, as the Pinocchios show, in characterizing his position on "born alive" infants resulting from abortions. Obama very succinctly has said that he's pro-choice, but that he feels there should be fewer abortions. He's right. A few women use abortion as a birth control method; I knew one who had four abortions long before they were even decriminalized until she became pregnant a fifth time and decided to give birth to that one.

There are now birth control methods that are easy to use with few, if any, side effects, and women who don't want children at the time should be using these methods. Abortion should be legal; it should also be a last resort.

But a question no "pro-life" person has ever satisfactorily answered for me is this one: If women were forced to have children they didn't want and gave the children up, who would take them? If they are blonde-blue-eyed babies, barren white parents would. If Obaman's mother had turned him over for adoption, would he ever have been adopted? Bi-racial infants or infants with disabilities , like Sarah Palin's, aren't that easily adopted. So, are "pro-lifers" going to adopt them? If not, they should shut up for good.

One thing I don't understand about Palin; she has said she and "the First Dude" talked it over and decided to have their Down Syndrome baby. What was there to talk about if they are entirely "pro-life"?

Posted by: bryony1 | October 25, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

How sad how very sad, that people including Sara Palin, will do and say anything to get elected She can't plainly express her own practices; but try to twist and put a spin on others. How wonder how she could have been elected Pit-bull with lipstick; dog catcher.
Thank you Washington Post, for being here for those of us who want to know the truth. I wish the Senator Obama, could bring charges against people like MCCain/Palin for lying.
The Governor, should think of how awful she is when it comes to exposing her Down Syndrome baby and her pregnant teenage daughter; in an attempt to get elected.

Posted by: lindabanks_57 | October 25, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

bryony1:

Thousands of foreign and even disabled infants are adopted every year. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | October 25, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

I am pro-choice but if the child is out of the womb it should be saved. No questions asked. That is murder no matter how you look at it.

And being pro-choice does not mean only for abortion- but for the mother's right to choose.

Posted by: smdubro | October 25, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

JohnWWW you are so stupid. You must be one of those people who would like to bei n everyones bedroom to make sure they are not having S&M, etc.

War is different. Get over it.

Posted by: smdubro | October 25, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

I wish I thought the people writing this stuff didn't believe it but were just saying it to denigrate Obama- then they would be evil but not stupid. In this case, they are probably stupid and evil- like their heroine Sarah. Hey, why don't some of you read something you understand-I think the cat in the hat only uses 67 words- mostly really short.

Posted by: silverspring25 | October 25, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I do not know anyone or any group that is "pro-abortion"! That is a label used against pro-choice efforts by those who wish to ban abortions, and some contraceptives as well.

Please be careful in selecting your language so as not to apply one group's biased labels when describing an opposing group.

Posted by: quinnowen | October 25, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

I take it most of you don't really care about the facts- you are just interested in name calling.

Simply (even for the person who suggested we read 'Cat in a Hat'): Senator Obama voted not once, but four times, against a proposed law in Illinois that is identical to the Federal Law that later passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and was signed into law by President Bush in 2002.

When confronted about it, he said it was not the same - it was later proved to be the same and his campaign admitted it.

Since then, Senator Obama has once again said that this was not the case.

Don't take anyone else's word for it - look it up for yourself.

The law in question did not undermine Roe v. Wade; it stated only that a child born (even after an unsuccessful abortion) has constitutional rights and should be provided medical care.

Even NARAL did not oppose this. How could any human being be opposed to this?

Posted by: TxSaintFan | October 25, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Since when does a responsible new organization refer to Planned Parenthood, or anyone else, as "pro-abortion"? Who edits this column?

Posted by: SportinLife | October 25, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Like Ashley Todd, Palin will stoop to anything to discredit Obama. The sweet stench of last minute Rovian desperation.

Posted by: coloradodog | October 25, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

The bizarre and twisted logic that neocons like RNC Fox News uses to attack Obama is simply beyond belief. The simple truth is that pre-emptive war kills babies. Letting them be born and then left to die, is killing babies. And McCain voted for that exact thing. You can dress it up all you like, but bottom line is it is killing babies, and he approves of it. Just another example of warped neocon "logic"

Posted by: coloradodog | October 25, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

From this fact we could almost gauge the Universal healthcare that the Obma administration will adopt. Once a medical doctor tells a patient that he is no longer viable and has say a few months to live.. treatment should be withdrawn, second opinions will not count and will not be paid and he will be left to die. If anyone will disagree then why are you defending Obama in the case with the born, breathing child. This abortion right was made on the premise that the unborn child has no right in the American society but as soon as the child is born he has all the rights all of us enjoys and if anybody justifies Obama's vote then it could apply to you.

Posted by: statistician | October 25, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, HawaiiGal, for the link to the original state senate testimony on this issue. I would have cut and pasted the statements, but I can't copy .pdfs.

Suffice to say, Obama's questions were perfectly logical and sensible, and he clearly displays concern for a viable fetus. This bill was clearly unnecessary, and appears to randomly question the ethics of any one doctor with no actual benefit, or improvement of actual care.

We trust doctors every day. Why create a cumbersome step to call in a second doctor to verify the status of the fetus after one doctor has already determined it in the presence of other medical professionals?

In fact, the sponsor of the bill, when commenting on the practical workings, uses such terms as "as soon as is practical," further defined as "hours" or "days" for the second physician to verify. Obviously, if the actual health of such a viable fetus was the main concern, the time-lapse between the "birth" and the verification would be of utmost importance, and not defined in such a cavalier way.

Would it really be in the best interests of all parties to create a requirement for a fetus already defined as not viable to be kept for possibly days, waiting for additional doctors to confirm the original assessment?

After reading the statements, I think it's pretty clear there was a political motive behind this bill, reflected in this paragraph from the story:

"Pro-abortion groups, such as Planned Parenthood, viewed the legislation as part of a broader attempt to give fetuses the same rights as pregnant women and to impose criminal sanctions on doctors offering abortion services."

We already know so-called "right to life" advocates will bomb clinics, killing doctors and nurses performing legal procedures to forward their ends. It isn't much of a stretch to see ulterior motives in introducing such a bill.

Bottom line is that Obama acted responsibly, according to his beliefs and on behalf of the taxpayer and the medical community.

This is just another dishonest, shallow and manipulative attempt to cast Obama as evil, and is patently ridiculous.

Posted by: mikefarrace | October 25, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Killing Babies?
What do you Bible Thumpers call SHOCK AND AWE?
Hypocrites.
You not only deny the facts as presented here, you are in total denial of larger truth.

Posted by: ukeman | October 25, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

ukeman:

Look up "Just War Doctrine" (unless you think WWII was "wrong" too).

Posted by: JakeD | October 25, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

besquared28: Thank you for the link to the hypnosis theory, and for wasting my time, although it did have its entertaining moments.

It reminds me a little of the "Paul is dead" thing. You remember that -- where people with too much time on their hands obsessively analyzed album covers, sound effects when playing certain records backwards, the significance of bare feet as it applied to dead people in selected cultures?

Truth is, if you actually read the thing, and follow the links (hard to do, since the site does not actually enable links and they have to be typed in, which leads to utterly absurd videos of people like Donny Bonaduce interviewing pop-culture hypnotists with a little business on the side).

You have kind of shown your ass here, which, interestingly, doesn't really matter since your ass is anonymous.

Oh, by the way, I think Paul is actually alive.

Posted by: mikefarrace | October 25, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Just watch the cockroaches scurry when you turn on the light!

Obama for President!

Posted by: thrh | October 26, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

"There for you Ms Palin.
Sick of your intellectual and moral dishonesty. What you are doing is a blatant act of manipulation of the American voters and, for many of them: it's another breaking of some fundamental ethical principals.

Posted by: think-of-it | October 24, 2008 11:42 PM "

It is patently unfair to accuse Sarah Palin of "intellectual dishonesty." She can't even spell "intellectual." Never mind "ethical."

Posted by: thrh | October 26, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

"As crazy as this sounds, imagine how mind blowing to find out it is real. It is one of the most amazing things I have ever read in my whole life."

What was the other one?

Posted by: thrh | October 26, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

The earlier comments about articles on hypnosis and OBama need to be looked at with a very critical eye. Anything published by "anonymous" is suspect. The second author, Dr. Will Horton, is considered to be the world's Leading NLP Trainer and Master Hypnotist. He has a written many books - popular press - but appears to have never done any systematic experimental research. So his work and the article reflects his theories and anecdotal experiences. Great way to make money thru publications - but little basis in fact. Read warily... Unproven theories are just that - UNPROVEN.

Posted by: DrIntegrity | October 26, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

SHoulda, coulda, woulda, just more lying, skipping, backstepping, and dodging from Obama! This man is so pro-abortion he has never voted against the process, in any form or fashion.

He has supported unrestricted partial birth abortion ever since he took office in the Illibois State Legislature, which is also butchery, not to mention barbaric! He personally attended committees wherein the graphic details of the procedure were illustrated to the committee members, yet, he still voted for partial birth abortion.

If you don't understand the procedure, perhaps you could take a moment and research the subject. It is, without a doubt, a very barbaric and inhuman act.

This man is not that naiive, he knows exactly what he was voting for and why. He has made it quite clear that he is pro-abortion in every venue presented to him.

Posted by: Jordan48 | October 26, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

To Linda Banks -- At least Palin's chidren are well-dressed when being exposed to media scrutiny. The BabyGap at Mall of America was happy to clothed her new baby - to make sure he looks good (along with all the shopping she did for herself). How can someone who says they are ready to clean up Washington - and is advocating for Joe 6-pk and hockey moms - support spending $150,000 on clothes and make-up (not only for herself but her kids???). That is more than those she "supports" make in several years. What a lying hypocrite!! She should be ashamed - if she were Catholic I would send her to confession and plan for a LONG session.

Posted by: DrIntegrity | October 26, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

we seem to be a bit astray from the topic: Is Obama Guilty of "Infanticide"? As a compromise, may I note that no one is saying he is directly responsible for infanticide.

Posted by: JakeD | October 26, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

MarkInAustin is just another dumb c0cksucking fagg0t from Texas.

Posted by: wangbang747 | October 26, 2008 1:27 AM | Report abuse

It seems an issue not addressed yet is the fact that the term partial birth abortion is not even a medical term. Thus, physicians are now in a position where they cannot draw line between legal and illegal procedures.
The attitude of those who support legislation in this area infuriates doctors like Nancy Stanwood, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Rochester in New York. Stanwood used to perform the disputed procedure, which is known medically as intact dilation and extraction, or D&X.
"The great concern," Stanwood says, "is that essentially they've taken out of our armamentarium a procedure that for some women is the safest and best course. [It]'s really profoundly disturbing and unprecedented, that they don't have a health exception."
In fact, it is the first time Congress has allowed an abortion restriction that lacks an exception for the pregnant women's health. Stanwood says the Congress and the Supreme Court are in effect practicing medicine without a license.
"Usually people go to jail for that," Stanwood says. "Where does this go next? Are they going to tell a surgeon how to amputate a leg next? Are they going to tell somebody how to write prescriptions for antidepressants next? We within our medical practice base practice on scientific evidence, ongoing research, and on clinical experience. That's what medical practice needs to be based on, not what legislators think needs to happen."
Why does Sarah Palin not bring any of this up? Because she's narrow minded and once she has decided (on whatever process goes thru that brain) what she considers right, she ignores or negates alternative views and will stop at nothing (including LYING) to make her point...(hmmmmm seems a little like Dick Cheney without the intelligence gene)

Posted by: DrIntegrity | October 26, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

The Vatican made it quite clear, the democratic party has become the party of death. They have collectively, supported every barbaric practice known to man when it comes to supporting abortion. This is a part of the recorded record, and thses facts do not lie.

Early on, abortions were limited to the first tri-mester of pregnancy, but liberals kept pushing for more and more liberties in the abortion procedure, to the point that we find we have become quite proficient at murdering the innocent. This is called the shedding of innocent blood.

Regardless the justification, it is still immoral, and the one thing those who support this procedure must recognize is that you will be judged for your support of this heinous barbaric act.

Scoff if it eases your conscience, but what I say is a fact.

Posted by: Jordan48 | October 26, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse

Dear Washington Post,
You really let me down here.
Even NARAL gave the green-light on Born Alive legislation.
It's intent was blatantly known as not trying to undermine abortion, and every legislator knew that...
You have scarred your reputation.

Posted by: viceroyvic | October 26, 2008 6:12 AM | Report abuse

Dear Washington Post,
You really let me down here.
Even NARAL gave the green-light on Born Alive legislation.
It's intent was blatantly known as not trying to undermine abortion, and every legislator knew that...
You have scarred your reputation.

Posted by: viceroyvic | October 26, 2008 6:12 AM | Report abuse

Right, and as soon as that child is in the need of some other form of help like;
A job,
A home to live in,
A fair working wage,
A decent school to go to,
A right to vote without being lied to at the voting station,

When a person needs these things, Sarah Palin stops all the help!

Vote for Palin if you don't want Americans to have a decent working wage!
Vote for Palin if you want Americans to keep fighting eachother instead of supprting eachother.
Vote for Palin if you believe that Americans in the Blue states are less patriotic than Americans in the RED states!

Vote for Palin if you think all women are stupid as she is!

Posted by: vicbennettnet | October 26, 2008 6:43 AM | Report abuse

DrIntegrity:

This thread is not about partial-birth abortion per se. Do you think that babies ACTUALLY BORN have the right to live?

Posted by: JakeD | October 26, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

What is the Republicans plan for people ones they are born?

What right to daycare does a woman have?
What right to affordable housing?
when the child is an adult (18) what is the childs option for school?

Right now it seems like the Republicans only love the Abortion issue, because it avoids further discussion of other issues that immediatly follow!

Republicans scape goat abd have been for the last 30 years! they do not care about life! As soon as your alive, then they want to oppress you! When your alive they want to say you have no other rights!

Posted by: vicbennettnet | October 26, 2008 7:26 AM | Report abuse

It is ridiculous to even respond to the radical right on this issue. To suggest that any candidate for president wants to kill babies is just so out there that it is not taken seriously by 95 percent of the voters. The remaining 5 percent have had a disproportionate amount of influence in recent elections because most people were satisfied with the direction of the country. Not this year! There are real problems out there and people are not going to be influenced by the so called pro-life wingnuts. I don't support abortion but I also don't think the federal government should be making reproductive decisions for women.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | October 26, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Obama is guilty of supporting a bill that withholds medical care from babies who survive an abortion. That is a fact. No civilized society or humane person would withhold medical care from such babies.

Posted by: mediaskeptic | October 26, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

This is the typical half truth and flat out lies told by the FAKE CHRISTIANS who lie on a regular basis.

A good godly Christian who walks the walk of a Christ like life everyday does NOT LIE!!

Palin and her followers are NOT GOOD Christians....THEY ARE FALSE CHRISTIANS AND FAKES WHO LIE FOR THE SAKE OF POWER!!!

They have sold off their faith and their GOD for the illusion of power in politics!!


THEY ARE FAKES, LAIRS, AND FALSE PROFITS WHO CAN'T BE TRUSTED!!!!!!!

Posted by: imZandor | October 26, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Not only is the mata hari pentecostal hypocrite Sunday Christan farting hot air BS, lying through her teeth, but her self far worst.

She at age 44 kept her pregnancy a secret for seven months, why. Not even the people in her own governor's office and her so called advisers knew that she was pregnant. When the political blew that the child belonged to her 17 year daughter, who was running around boozing and parting with all kind of illegal activities, the madam governor claimed the child was her.

The photographs show the the daughter indeed looked pregnant then the mother. The bigger question is why was the daughter kept out of school for 8 months with the excuse of mono. Where were these parents when the 17 year old was partying and boozing all kind of hours and the facts are backed up with pictures of the daughter binge drinking.

In Late March early April this year while the madam Governor was in Houston at the GOP Governor's conference, she is said to find herself in labor and leaking birth water. However at age 44, instead of seeking medical attention in the world's best medical facilities, the Madam Governor and her high school educated vigilante husband high tailed to there little town of Wasilla. WHY? What was so important and impelling that she as a malignant narcissist endangered the health and welfare of the unborn in the distress of birth. She and that dude husband of hers took a over 10 hour high altitude flight and subjected the unborn to the congested and diminished capacity oxygen cabin. Why ?

Why has she not released any of her medical records. The child is not declared to be retarded and afflicted with downs syndrome. The poor kid is ward of his pregnant sister, while the mother is running around wrapping her self in the flag and farting patriotism. She has spend less then 72 hours taking care of the child in the last month and a half.

Why records of the birth of the poor child are not even released by the hospital, where he was born. Why was there no announcement of his birth in the local Alaska media and all, when these hypocrite Sunday Christians are so gun ho about the rights of the unborn and the rest of the BS.

One would think the Governor and her secret family would be forth coming with all the DNA results about the child, the downs syndrome along with the mothers and the fathers records of the same. What are these hypocrites hiding.

Posted by: winemaster2 | October 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Whoa, the PUMAs are out in (small) force! Those nut job Republican's are still stuck in the anger phase.

I love the comment about secret hypnosis - its true you know. Generic aluminum foil will not work to stop the mesmerizing waves - go with the name brand.

Posted by: Keesvan | October 26, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I did read the pages from the Illinois hearing and they support this Post article. Obama's entire statement there was that a doctor can professionally determine whether a fetus is viable and would care for it without need for a second doctor to question the first doctor's professional opinion. Not only was this already Illinois law, but it is part of the Hippocratic Oath of all doctors. If you want to question their professionalism, then you want to inject partisan political government into the practice of medicine. Presumably, anti-abortion activists define a doctor who performs an abortion as a bad doctor and not to be trusted. Our society doesn't function well under that kind of paranoia and cynicism. Battling against abortion in the hearts and minds of Americans is fine, but moving towards criminalizing or even second-guessing the professionalism of a doctor for performing a legal operation tears the fabric of our civil society.

Posted by: muse901 | October 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Palin has no moral compass; neither does McCain of course. They are both vicious, mean-spirited individuals using demagoguery as a means to continue the Bush Administration. Just disgusting. No plan, no clue, nothing left but McCarthyism at its most base.

Posted by: Annandale | October 26, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I do not know if Sarah Palin is actually "campaigning" on this highly sensible subject knowing that Obama never said what she claims or because of her mere incompetence in the matter.

In both cases she sould be put in jail for a month. I mean it.

Posted by: yabouillet | October 26, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: hclark1 | October 26, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

This is a vitally important issue for our nation. While I personally support Obama because I am not a one issue voter, I think a point raised from someone in this blog is important (and impacts my enthusiasm to go to the polls on Nov. 4). Namely, how does Obama's stance on abortion impact his other ways of thinking? Anyone who would support partial birth abortion, which Obama did, supports infanticide. A third trimester infant is a very different reality than a fetus during the first trimester -- I don't see how this can be disputed. The moral status of a third trimester fetus cannot be compared to the moral status of a first or even second trimester fetus simply by taking into account its biological, neurological complexity. And the slippery slope argument offered by statistician holds a great deal of water if the line is moved back so far. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is an issue that all of us must address in an intelligent, objective as possible, and compassionate manner. Let's come together to find solutions that actually promote the dignity of human life in all its stages and stop the name calling, slander, and myopic thinking that only hurts all of us.

Posted by: ScotDavids | October 26, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Think what this legislation would mean--I had a planned and wanted pregnancy which ended in an induced labor at 24.5 weeks because my amniotic fluid was infected. The baby was born alive in a Catholic hospital that does not do abortions but it does have to do deliveries of preterm infants when a patient is very very ill. At this hospital, they did not put him on live support because the doctors felt that it would only inflict pain and torture on a child who would die shortly from sepsis. Instead, his brief life was spent in our arms. I will always be grateful to my doctor (who is personally a ardent pro-life Catholic but also a sane and humane one) for helping us see that intervention to prolong our child's life would cruel rather than kind and that medical heroism would be a mistake in this instance. The problem with legislation such as this is that it interferes in decisions only doctors and patients can make on a case by case basis. Life has so many variations and unexpected twists--Legislators cannot foresee them all in creating blanket conditions to enforce "pro-life" doctrine.

Posted by: judithgelman | October 26, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Don't believe for an instant that any self-described 'right-to-lifer' is in any way concerned with human life, born, unborn or otherwise.

Their support for capital punishment, their support for any war waged by any Republican administration and especially their resistance to any form of gun control is testament to their hypocrisy in this matter.

Their true import is to exert control --and to use the government to exert control-- over other people's personal decisions.

Roe vs Wade was about that -- it not about abortion. It was about the individual right to privacy in their choice of the medical (and moral) decisions facing them. It is NOT the government's role to decide these things.

Strike you as funny that the anti-choice movement is so resistant to government intervention anywhere else?

It shouldn't. It's all about controlling the population. The extreme right Republicans are the closest America has come so far to fascism, communism and totalitarianism in general.

In the meantime, you're right-- their scandalous, hate-filled and downright criminally libelous accusations only serve to encourage thinking people to move away from 'their' side.

So keep it up people! We NEED Obama to win.

Posted by: itchy2008 | October 26, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey everyone...I hear all sorts of things about Obama...like his "Associations" with folks like of Ayres, and then there's Khalidi and then a guy named Michael Klonsky and Rezko and then the religious dudes Flager and Reve Wright... and someone told me that while living in Hawaii his mentor was a guy name Fank Marshall Davis Gonna watch Sun(oct26) 9ET on Foxnews Sean Hannity's show on Obama to understand

Posted by: goforit999 | October 26, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

How pathetic. The insanity that is Sarah doesn't realize that her own extreme anti-choice views would result in true infanticide as we go back to the days of back-alley abortions and self-terminated pregnancies. Tragically, this terrible chapter in our history is forgotten. Many spewing forth the sins of abortion, like Sister Sarah aren't old enough to remember, but she should certainly be old enough to know better.

Posted by: aphilsmith | October 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I have read that he voted now because the bill protecting newborns was already on the books and he didn't feel that the new bill changed anything so why have two bills that say essentially the same thing. I do not know what is right or wrong with that as I don't live in Illinois and I don't know enough about it to decide. I definitely feel that the baby should be cared for if born alive and I can't understand why it wouldn't be. Isn't there a Hippocratic Oath anymore? Do No Harm.

Posted by: jennypulczinski | October 26, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Born alive infants have nothing to do with soldiers and what they are required to do in war. The bottom line is that Obama supporters will hear no other opinion other than their own, this has become the mantra of the ultra-liberal dems and the basis of this heavily biased presidential campaign. Obama's voting record shows the facts. 3 Pinnochios for this one!

Posted by: suze1 | October 26, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

The only people who doubt this are those who haven't read it.

Unfortunately, the media will have a lot of explaining to do if this comes to light only after the election.

JUST READ THE EVIDENCE

I challenge anyone to fact check this. I challenge anyone to find experts to analyze it.

The 67-page report is called "An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches."

Obama is not "the greatest leader of a generation" who simply hasn't accomplished anything.

Obama's major speeches contain complex engineered hypnotic language patterns which you can easily spot once you understand the science behind it, explained thoroughly by this document. Psychologists, hypnotists and NLP experts are coming out saying this document is "exceptional", having cracked a hidden linguistic code in Obama's speeches like those developed by a Dr. Milton Erickson, the father of modern hypnosis. Obama conjures up images of your children and JFK, and then uses hidden hand gestures to transfer those feelings onto him, and uses complex hypnotic language patterns to sideline rational judgment.

The document is spreading all over the Internet, but not fast enough.
It is on published the web here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7470439/Obamas-Use-of-Hidden-Hypnosis-Techniques-in-His-Speeches
also here:
http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama's_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

JUST READ THE EVIDENCE OR YOU MAY BE SORRY

Posted by: besquared28 | October 26, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The only people who doubt this are those who haven't read it.

Unfortunately, the media will have a lot of explaining to do if this comes to light only after the election.

JUST READ THE EVIDENCE

I challenge anyone to fact check this. I challenge anyone to find experts to analyze it.

The 67-page report is called "An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches."

Obama is not "the greatest leader of a generation" who simply hasn't accomplished anything.

Obama's major speeches contain complex engineered hypnotic language patterns which you can easily spot once you understand the science behind it, explained thoroughly by this document. Psychologists, hypnotists and NLP experts are coming out saying this document is "exceptional", having cracked a hidden linguistic code in Obama's speeches like those developed by a Dr. Milton Erickson, the father of modern hypnosis. Obama conjures up images of your children and JFK, and then uses hidden hand gestures to transfer those feelings onto him, and uses complex hypnotic language patterns to sideline rational judgment.

The document is spreading all over the Internet, but not fast enough.
It is on published the web here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7470439/Obamas-Use-of-Hidden-Hypnosis-Techniques-in-His-Speeches
also here:
http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama's_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

JUST READ THE EVIDENCE OR YOU MAY BE SORRY

Posted by: besquared28 | October 26, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Enough! Abortion has screwed up the demographics of this country so badly that if we did not have Mexicans between the ages of 18-40 streaming across the border, we would be in the same sorry mess as Russia and Europe. In spite of our importing a younger population, the sub-prime mortgage crisis does not address the fact that we do not have a young enough population to keep the housing market viable. Of course women should be able to chose whether they want to be pregnant or not--but abortion??? Is this the best choice we have?? Are we not a nation that put a man on the moon, for heaven sakes? Can't we provide women a device that would allow them to know easily when they are ovulating? Is butchering your young progressive? And, yes Obama did vote against a Born Alive Protection Bill in Illinois and yes he did say at the time that anything less would limit an abortion doctor's ability to do his work.

Posted by: momlove | October 26, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: info42
You can give it two Pinocchios if you want, but facts are a stubborn thing.
---------------------------------
True, facts are a stubborn thing. It's too bad that self-rightous people like you won't listen to them. However, it's not suprising since your leader, John McSame and the Hee Haw Hooker lie every time they open thier mouths. No matter how many times non-partison groups point out thier lies, they just keep telling them. Kind of like you are doing here.

Posted by: xconservative | October 26, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is a scumbag who will say and do anything to get elected.

She adopted the same tactics when running for Mayor of Wasilla in 1996. She viciously attacked her old friend and mentor, John Stein, bringing Abortion, God, and Guns into the campaign.

She initiated a whispering campaign that her opponent was not legally married, forcing him to provide his marriage certificate. When this didn't work she started the rumor that he was Jewish.

I believe that she is an ignorant, biased, mean person who is trying to lie herself into the oval office- since McCain is not long for this world.

By the way, Senator Obama does not approve of abortion. He just doesn't think that the government should impose itself in the attempt to control women's decisions about their own health and body. They tried that in fascist Romania with disastrous results. It's a moral issue- not a political one.

Not this time, folks.

Vietnam Veteran
Khe Sanh 1968

Posted by: Luke2 | October 26, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

besquared28 wrote: I challenge anyone to fact check this. I challenge anyone to find experts to analyze it.

The 67-page report is called "An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches."
--------------------------
It is hard for any rational person to understand how someone else can be so gullible. Whatever medication you are on should be doubled and you should accelerate any psychiatric treatment you are receiving because it obviously isn’t working. This type of nonsense is one step below the National Enquirer of the 1950’s and The Weekly World News. This belongs on the same page as Bigfoot and Alien space babies. You should be embarrassed for believing it and more embarrassed for spreading it.

I recommend that you go back to your job as head slurpee maker at the quickie mart and stop trying to think. It’s apparent that you are incapable of reasoned thought.

Posted by: xconservative | October 26, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Way to say it Scootman! I didn't need to read anything beyond that post.

I'm betting on a splinter group new party with Palin as its standard bearer. Then, maybe the old style Lincoln variety Republicans can provide a reasonable alternative for us to choose from. Let the wackos have their 20% of the government (I'm being generous. I'm betting Sarah gets a talk show of her very own. How about: Pallin' Around With Palin" ? Scary, I know, but it should be entertaining in a masochistic sort of way.

Posted by: EmperorWatcher | October 26, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Jeez, guys and gals! The entire abortion discussion seems to dance around one very basic fact: whether you approve or disapprove of abortion, is a matter of BELIEF!!

The Right to Life movement is immoral. Like the Taliban and the Spanish inquisition, they attempt to force their BELIEFS on everyone. Naughty!

If you believe that a human ovum becomes a human being at the moment of fertilization, then you shouldn't have an abortion. If you do not believe that, my preggo friend, you're free to act as you see fit.

I've publicly offered to publicly debate the issue - there were no takers!

Posted by: dunkberg | October 26, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Ummmmm....I think that Sarah Palin and Co. need a history lesson (or two.)
While this article is about abortion rights, Republicans and Democrats need to be very careful about throwing around terms like "infantcide."
As some students of history will recall the 60minutes Stahl/Albright interview in reference to the UN sactions against Iraq that started in 1990. At the time of interview UNICEF estimated that 500,000 children under the age 5 died as a result of the trade sanctions. The sanctions resulted in malnutrition and water contamination issues.
This trade embargo was enforce by the bush administration(s) and the Clinton administration. So there is plenty of blame to share.
But my point remains, the politicans should be really careful with the words they choose for branding themselves or other candidates.

Posted by: seriously11 | October 26, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Try http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html for an analysis of Obama's position written by people not on his payroll or in his train of worshipers.

Posted by: SuzanneG | October 26, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

The so-called "pro life movement" is the most extreme, bizarre and un-American political movement in American history. It has nothing to do with "life." It is "communism" --a claim that the government owns the wombs of female citizens -- the very communism of which many pro-lifers falsely accuse anyone who disagrees with them.

Posted by: mnjam | October 26, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Palin always outdoes herself by her lies. In this case this is the most vile and devisive lie of all. Abortion is such an emotional issue with people and playing them with these types of lies shows what type of person she is. This shows what type of person she is at the core of her being. I would never vote for the Republican ticket because this woman is a heartbeat away from the presidency. She has proven herself unfit.

Posted by: lucy2008 | October 26, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

By framing this 'question" in such an extreme way so as to paint any opposition to Obama as totally wacko, the WaPo is just being true to form. Obama should have to declare the entire WaPo budget as a corporate campaign contribution.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | October 26, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

lucy2008:

Prove any fact Gov. Palin stated about Obama's position that is untrue.

Posted by: JakeD | October 26, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

We will probably see leaflets showing pictures of dead babies either handed out at churches or in the parking lots next week. Nothing new and those that will be effected by such things are probably already committed to McCain.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | October 26, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

I believe that every member of the species homo sapiens expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits a beating heart or movement of voluntary muscles deserves a fair trial with a competent and fairly compensated lawyer, having adequate resources, before being put to death by the state.

Posted by: charles_rev | October 26, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure these fanatics will resort to terrorism again quickly once they realize they're not going to get their way.

Posted by: timscanlon | October 26, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Defense of others is an accepted "legal" defense.

Posted by: JakeD | October 26, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Desperate times call for desperate measures and it's desperation time for the GOP; so, today they drag out the old faithful wedge issue 'abortion' to raise the level of hysteria. And, if it's abortion today, can the 'save marriage amendment' be far behind? The GOP definitely needs more homophobia in this campaign. And they need to use the term 'different' more in describing how Sen. Obama is 'different' from a majority of Americans. I think you know what they mean when the GOP uses the term 'different'. Their 'base' sure does. Shoot, Obama is so far left he uses his LEFT HAND! It don't get more 'left' than that! What more proof do you need, America? Truly, the End of Days are upon us!

Posted by: free9604 | October 26, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Ok, y'all. If you believe that:
1) abortion is murder
2) birth control is a form of abortion (which is the argument I've heard over and over from so-called pro-lifers who say that birth control is not an acceptable way to reduce the number of abortions)
then you must believe that
3) that anyone who uses birth control or has an abortion should go to jail.
So, if abortion is a criminal act, and the woman having one by whatever method is guilty of murder, how much time should the woman serve? Is a woman who has been on the pill for 5 years guilty of 60 infanticides? Should she get the death penalty? Would you be willing to send your neighbors, your sisters, your daughters to jail? If you are, you should say so loud and clear. If not, you should be prepared to explain why someone who knifes their neighbor in an argument over property lines should go to prison, but a woman on birth control or who has an abortion should not. I have yet to meet anyone anti-abortion who advocates jail time for women who use birth control or who have an abortion, or who can give me a rational explanation why they don't. Could this be a capitulation to "mainstream" beliefs about birth control and abortion not being criminal acts? A realization that the rational people of the world would rather prevent pregnancy, thus obviating the need for abortions except for reasons concerning the life and health of the pregnant woman, and that if they show their true intentions they'll be seen as the extremists they are? Or they just hypocrites? As they say on FOX, you decide.

Posted by: luses | October 26, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe that any person or organization can be described as "pro-abortion." Yet the writer of this fact-check article describes Planned Parenthood as being pro-abortion.

It is a loaded term and, I think, inappropriately used.

Posted by: chinasea | October 26, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm pro-life and pro-choice..At the ame time, I can see that there are instances when a choice to abort might be called for is someone's life. OMIGOD. Which level of hell will I be sent to?

How about "Thou Shall't Not Kill?" How many rationalizations are created to make that one go away?

Extremists of any ilk are no better than the Taliban & Al Quaeda. The inquisition is considered to have been rather inhumane, to put it mildly. I just can't believe how we humans can justify any behavior while condemning the same in others.

Spin Baby Spin.

Posted by: EmperorWatcher | October 26, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

This fact-checker has become a total liar.

Posted by: AsperGirl | October 26, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

to HawaiiGal:
"All Senator Obama can be accused of, perhaps, is of is being too trusting of the medical profession??" You have got to be kidding!! The doctor was performing the abortion knowing there was a heartbeat (life). You don't think he/she is also willing to make the decision that the fetus is "non-viable" as allowed by the 1975 law?

He is getting paid by the woman to GET RID of the baby, not to greet her with a bundle of joy when she recovers. What determination do you think the aborting doctor will make? Put the baby on the shelf as Jill Stanek testified, and let it die.

Yes, he trusted the medical profession to "not punish these women with a baby" like he stated he wouldn't want his daughters punished if they made a mistake.

Posted by: ElProfe7787 | October 27, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Everyone in this post needs to sit back and think. Admit it, we all watch too much TV and believe what other people tell us. It is amazing how the same party (democratic) that supports animal rights, and opposes the dealth penalty does not support the rights of the unborn. According to the media, conservatives are simply in strict disagreement with liberals on the issues stated. I guess nobody has a pure soul...
Don't believe what you read/hear, there are people out there that do care about what is best for animals, women, inmates on death row, and unborn fetuses. Unfortunately, these people do not have a political party to turn to. And this is why we have independent voters in this country.

Posted by: jschmo | October 27, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

When are we going to learn to respect that others have a right to their opinion? Just because you have a different opinion than I do, does not give you the right to degrade and defame me for not agreeing with you.

People like Sara believe that if we do not agree with them then they should pass laws that force us to agree with them. That is certainly not in keeping with the true Christian beliefs of tollerance and forgiveness. It is certainly not in keeping with the American fondation of equal rights and freedom of expression.

Right wing radicals such as Sara Palin, have been successfully stoking the flames of whatever fire they can stir, race, religion, civil rights, civil liberties, gay marriage, abortion nothing is immune from their use to divide and pit Americans against Americans. They choose to deny the recognization of everyone's rights to their own belief, and their goal is to generate and fuel hostile emotions and mob mentality attacks on those who do not share her beliefs and support her quest for money and power.

It is great to see that this hate mongering power hungry radical is failing in her latest goal, thanks to Americans who have truly put "America" ahead of "Party". While she may enjoy support from a few fringe radicals, the majority of America sees her for what she is, a misleading, hateful and definitely Un-American power hungry, two faced zealot.

That wholesome small town friendlyness, Christian values and tollerence seems to have absolutely no meaning when money and power are at stake.

It's bad enough she has flagrently abused her authority in Troopergate, and made the Alaskan tax payers pay tens of thousand of dollars for her family junkets. Imagine the abuses she would continue to be responsible for is she were to have access to the American treasury and control of the Justice Department?

And don't think she isn't drooling over the thought of being a heart beat away from the presidency with only a 72 year old man with health problems in her way.

That $150,000 wardrobe she charged to the RNC is nothing compared to what she could stick to the American taxpayers. And her supporters are absolutely right in stating that with the little morals John McCain has left in this election, he has been holding her back from what she could really do and say.

Without McCain holding her back, she could wear that famous red jacket of her's and include the color coordinated Arm Band and Swastika as she approves the succession of Alaska from the United States of American.

Posted by: pjc8300892 | October 27, 2008 8:36 AM | Report abuse

"Pass laws that force YOU to agree with them"?! You mean like 4 Judges force same-sex marriage on us?

Posted by: JakeD | October 27, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Oh, poor little Jakey, did 4 mean old Justices force you to marry someone of the same sex? What an easily manipulated little wussy you must be! Typical wing-nut. Gay marriage will not be FORCED on anyone!

Posted by: EdDe1 | October 27, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

You sure added alot to the discussion, wangbang747.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 27, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Yet again, the radical christian fundamentalists trying to force their religous beliefs on everyone else. These radicals are no better than the radical fundamentalist Islamics. Same tactics, same violence, etc.

Posted by: emant2 | October 27, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

There should be a law that prevents lies on the scale that this woman states as fact. She is beyond dangerous she and her fanatical evangelists are truly lunatics.

What's really funny is to see people like JajeD et al actually supporting and agreeing with this trash. You neocons are really sad. Jsut sad.

Posted by: jfeliccia | October 27, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Just another example of Palin distorting reality to fit her warped, self-righteous, Machiavellian view of the world. She is all about morality, but cares nothing about ethics.

Posted by: labman57 | October 27, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

FACT CHECKER GETS 5 PINOCCHIOS

Just consider "Fact Checkers" own quote:

" It stems from Obama's "No" votes on a series of bills that were introduced into the Illinois state Senate between 2001 and 2003 to define the term "born alive infant."

Under the definition employed in the bills, the term "born alive" meant "any member of the species homo sapiens" expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits "a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles."

RESPONSE--Infanticide, pure and simple.

The Wash Po needs a reality check.

Posted by: JaxMax | October 27, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I can not beleive the dirty campign of McCain-Palin.
What else we have to support in this last days?

Posted by: vincentvg | October 27, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Wow - people don't read things very well do they.

"A 1975 Illinois law requires doctors performing abortions on so-called "viable fetuses"--i.e. a fetus that might be able to survive outside the mother's body -- to take steps in advance to ensure adequate medical treatment in the event of a live birth."

The law was intended to remove the distinction between viable fetuses (those which are capable of survival) and non-viable ones (those which are not capable of survival, no matter how much treatement is wasted on them).

In other words fetuses with a chance to survive outside of the mother were already covered by law. This stupid law that Obama voted against wanted to try to give medical treatment to non-viable babies - in other words violating basic principles of medical morality in order to waste money on babies with no real chance of survival according to medical experts.

Given this saps medical resources from those who do have a chance of survival and ties up additional doctors on non-viable fetuses (a second doctor is present in the case of viable ones given the existing law) this is essentially bringing politics into medicine and having the right wing set an unprecedented form of triage in play in which even fetuses with no chance of survival are more worthy of allocating resources to than poor people.

Still don't understand and think that Obama was encouraging or guilty of infanticide? Read what I've written again, and again ad infinitum till you get the point because your argument makes no sense in light of it.

You might as well spend the money attempting to dig up graveyards and bring people back from the dead for all the good treating non-viable fetuses will do. That would actually be closer to the whole claim of being pro-life amusingly enough.

Posted by: TTXINOZ | October 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why Obama's supporters object to the airing of these quotes. His past views, his tax plan, and other spontaneous offerings ("Spread the wealth around") are a fair enough representation of a European socialist view of how to take money from higher wage earners and redistribute it to the less well off, apparently on the twin premises that one's income is really property of the state, and, that the mechanism by which a market compensates people is arbitrary and unfair and in need of 'redistributive change.' This view is shared by former associates like Wright and Ayers, Obama's parents, and almost everyone in his circle in Chicago.

Posted by: jumland | October 27, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Palin repeatedly lies & twists the truth for her own purposes-to attain power over others. She wants to denie any woman a choice on wether to carry a fetus to term or abort it. A child is raped savagely, & it's happened. But per Palin she HAS to carry that baby! She even considers the birth-control pill as abortion. If a girl or woman has been raped she tries to stop the possible abortion by making her buy her own rape-kit, hoping that the "stigma" of being raped will make her ignore the possibility that some "animal" has impregnated her. In my estimation Palin is an animal!

I have a question. If she is so intent on every woman carrying a fetus to full term then why did they consider abortion? Her own opinion: One thing I don't understand about Palin; she has said she and "the First Dude" talked it over and decided to have their Down Syndrome baby. What was there to talk about if they are entirely "pro-life"?

Obviously she has one demand of others & a maybe for her. What kind of determination if she were to become Vice-President & then become President? That scares the hell out of me, & it should you if you are considering voting for McCain.


Posted by: Art36 | October 27, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Are we to expect that the abortionist, who is being paid, in many instances, by the mother, will, in every instance safegard the life of the baby should it be born alive? It takes a truly morally bankrupt physician to perform an abortion in the first place, unless the life of the mother is in imminent danger!

It is the thought processes of men like Obama which in truth perpetuates the abortion practice in this country. He is and has been pro-abortion. A true leader would stand up in opposition to these barbaric practices. He would desire to do that which is morally right, in opposition of those who seek to do that which is convenient and barbaric.

After reading Obama's comments concerning this piece of legislation, I found nothing that is redeeming of his actions in opposing this legislation!

Posted by: Jordan48 | October 27, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Oh so now Obama is sending subliminal messages in his speeches, what next reading his book backwards? Desperation is a beyotch.

Posted by: eaglechik | October 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Art36

I seriously doubt that hell is being scared out of you! In fact, in supporting the practice of abortion, you most assuredly share in the shedding of innocent blood!

Posted by: Jordan48 | October 27, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

What truly troubles me about you pro Obama supporters is that you do check your candidates facts, but are content to follow his lead right or wrong.

It has been established through the reported events concerning the present economic crisis that the seeds to this financial debacle were sown during the Clinton administration. Allan Greenspan was the idiot that introduced this legislation and Clinton supported it.

Perhaps you could open your eyes and examine the record instead of blindly following the blind.

Posted by: Jordan48 | October 27, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse


I really have to wonder....

Of those who are fervently anti-abortion, are you also against sex education and contraception??

Because the statistice around the world show that abortion rates are the same in countries where it is illegal as those in which it is legal. The main difference is, where it is illegal there is a much higher death rate for the mother.

The countries with the lowest abortion rate (like the Netherlands) are those where abortion is legal and sex ed and contraception are widely available.

I have no doubt that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, some religious zealots would start demanding that spermicide should be illegal. (Of course, then they would have to arrest every teenager who "abandoned" his sperm.)

Posted by: mikeinmidland | October 27, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Oh the ignorance...

Many people make the mistake of believing the Bible says, “You shall not kill,” and seek to apply this command to war. However, the Bible actually says, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). The Hebrew word literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice.” God often ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations (1 Samuel 15:3; Joshua 4:13). God ordered the death penalty for numerous crimes (Exodus 21:12; 21:15; 22:19; Leviticus 20:11). So, God is not against killing in all circumstances, but rather only murder. War is never a good thing, but sometimes it is a necessary thing. In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable. Sometimes the only way to keep sinful people from doing great harm is by going to war with them.

The Bible never specifically addresses the issue of abortion. However, there are numerous teachings in Scripture that make it abundantly clear what God’s view of abortion is. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He knits us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as the penalty for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb as just as much of a human being as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6).

Therein lies the clearcut difference between aborting a fetus and going to war in Iraq.

Posted by: SilverBullet17 | October 27, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Those bringing the Bible into this - if you're going to base your morality on bunch of ancient manuscripts, then please explain why you're picking and choosing. If it's down to Biblical morality then really you should be for killing everyone who doesn't believe in God the exact same way as you. Women who are raped but don't scream out loud enough should be killed if married or forced to married their rapist if unwed. That sure is some fine morality there.

Seriously this should be a point against McCain and Palin - they are essentially supporting wasting money on non-viable fetuses, that is to say fetuses who are not at a stage where they can survive outside of the womb no matter what medical care is given to them.

This is a clear attempt to use an emotive issue that most American's are clearly uninformed about for political gain but I'll say it again, the difference between the existing law and the one Obama opposed is that the existing law doesn't promote spending money on fetuses who WILL NOT SURVIVE BECAUSE THEY AREN'T DEVELOPED ENOUGH TO DO SO.

So her charge of supposed infanticide comes down to an inability on her part to understand that non-viable fetuses are ones that will not survive in any case.

Palin is essentially supporting using taxpayer funds to attempt to bring dead babies back to life through the miracle of her quaint religious beliefs.

Talk about your bridges to nowhere.

As for those charging a mass conspiracy of doctors... be serious (if you can), it would be obvious to even casual medical examination whether a fetus is viable or not, why would a doctor risk his career and livelihood just to kill a baby who would otherwise be adopted? Doesn't make sense, sorry.

P.S. Finally those blaming Clinton for the economic troubles - yeah, that's the cause - all Clinton, not the administration that has had EIGHT YEARS to change his policies if they were so flawed (or for that matter if they were appropriate policies at the time and the situation changed which is what actually happened).

What ever happened to the buck stops here? Bush has had his chance to change things and McCain has policies no different from him economically (and in fact has admitted he doesn't understand the economy and jokingly said that this was okay because he had Alan Greenspan's book).

Posted by: TTXINOZ | October 27, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

On this issue the author is completely misrepresenting what happened, Nurse Michelson, I believe has her entire transcript and debate online for anyone to see exactly why Obama is being targeted on his view where abortions are concerned. AND Planned Parenthood actually supported this bill, they never stated that it was NOT necessary, in fact they supported it because they believed that after a child is born alive there are other avenues available, such as adoption, look up you facts Mr. Reporter, it seems that you just want to support your candidate instead of actually reporting the TRUTH as it is in the transcripts from the congressional hearings held in 2001-2003. Obama said that the pictures the nurse brought in of a living baby in a garbage can at the hospital where she worked were nothing more than meant to provoke emotions in the political process (excuse me!). This is about women wanting to abort after the 7th month of pregnancy?! Not because they have a health issue! PEOPLE what is going on! WAKE UP!!!! Read the TRANSCRipts!!!! And I wish Washington post would prevent reporters from completely being one sided and just doing nothing more than supporting their own personal agendas! Where are the partisan reporting agencies are there any left out there or did they get swallowed up by the OBAMA political machine?

Posted by: rocky12272 | October 28, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Is Obama Guilty of 'Infanticide'?

Nope. Just another low bottom of the barrow cry for help from the McCain/Palin descending scare tactic pit.

Posted by: Nisey01 | October 28, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I think it is hilarious that we have WASHINGTON POST, who has completely supported Obama since his inception into politics regardless of everything he has said and done, and everyone that he affiliates himself with doing a "Fact Check"...HA! Isn't anyone even curious as to why there is soooo much support for him regardless of all of his shortcomings? Or does most of America just like to be "Led to Slaughter"?

Posted by: rocky12272 | October 28, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

The only reason Republican's claim media bias is cause for the past 8 years the media has been their b*tch but their current candidate and his loopy Alaskan sidekick are so full of embaressing stupidity that even a media that is as right wing as America's can't spin the facts well enough.

If she had said it then it'd be grounds to worry about her competence at her chosen profession.

As for the "living baby in the garbage can" claim.... you're an idiot, do you just mindlessly accept any claim against the Democrats no matter how implausible so long as it's negative?

Face it, compared to just about anywhere else in the world the American media (and political scene) is far right of centre.

And rocky12272 - stop lying, a nurse wouldn't have said that because you can't adopt NON-VIABLE fetuses which is what this law actually adressed. The reason you can't adopt them is cause they INEVITABLY die. That's why they are non-viable.

Finally there is no suggestion (well save that from uninformed nutcases) in any of this about anything in terms of abortions after 7 months. This is about the right wing trying to suggest there is no difference between a baby that can survive outside the womb and a fetus that can't... the purpose for it seems to be to open up doctors performing legal abortions to additional risk of legal charges being pressed against them.

Posted by: TTXINOZ | October 28, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

How much do we really know about Sarah Palin? I call on the press to finally investigate Palin's belief that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together 6000 years ago. We can't let a wacko like this into the White House.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | October 29, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

How much do we really know about Sarah Palin? I call on the press to finally investigate Palin's belief that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together 6000 years ago. We can't let a wacko like this into the White House.

Posted by: GeorgeSanders | October 29, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company