The Real Barack Obama
Until now, Barack Obama has has some success casting himself as a moderate. Thanks to David Freddoso’s book and Mr. Freddoso’s column, we now know different. Freddoso’s column for NRO rips the cover off of Sen. Obama’s facade.
Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.
Obama’s work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one, so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.
when Mr. Freddoso says that there’s documented proof, this is what he’s refering to:
But in 2003, in the health committee which he chaired, Obama voted against a version of the bill that contained the specific “neutrality” language — redundant language affirming that the bill only applied to infants already born and granted no rights to the unborn. You can visit the Illinois legislature’s website here to see the language of the “Senate Amendment 1,” which was added in a unanimous 10-0 vote in the committee before Obama helped kill it. This is the so-called “neutrality clause” on Roe that everyone is talking about:
1 AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1082
2 AMENDMENT NO. . Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by
3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:
4 “(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to
5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal
6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at
7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this
8 Section.”.
The addition of this amendment made the bill identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
This Committee Action Report, dug up in Springfield by the National Right to Life Committee and revealed last week, shows two different votes. In the left column, under the heading “DP#1”(or “Do Pass” Amendment 1), we see that Obama’s committee voted 10-0 to add this neutrality language to the bill. In the right column, we see that the committee then voted 6-4 to kill the bill. Obama was among the six “No” votes.
What type of ghoulish monster votes against a bill that protects fully born babies outside the womb? This isn’t just about abortion, which is bad enough. This was an instance of Sen. Obama voting against giving legal protection to babies outside the mother’s womb.
Sen. Obama has plenty of explaining to do on this one. This won’t even play well with pro choice voters. I recall Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s quote after voting to ban partial birth abortions. He said that, after reviewing the procedure that it was “too close to infanticide” for his liking.
This isn’t just “too close to infanticide”. It is infanticide.
I don’t see how this doesn’t strip away Sen. Obama’s facade of being a moderate. It’s too ghoulish not to draw a visceral reaction from thoughtful people.
UPDATE: Rich Lowry hsa more on Sen. Obama’s ghoulishness here.
Technorati Tags: Obama, Abortion, Infanticide, Amendments, Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Partial Birth Abortion, Pro Choice, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
August 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
This is disgusting and certainly, despite the fact that I am pro-choice, I would never sign off on the idea that the murder of a living, breathing baby completely separated from its mother should ever be legal. That’s just insanity.