Freddoso misrepresents IL government findings to accuse Obama of lying about "born alive" legislation
SUMMARY: In The Case Against Barack Obama, David Freddoso misrepresents findings by the Illinois state government to claim that a statement by Sen. Barack Obama explaining his opposition to a bill that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 was "not true." Obama asserted that "measures mandat[ing] lifesaving measures for premature babies" were "already the law" in Illinois. Freddoso falsely asserts that the Illinois Department of Public Health and a letter from the Illinois attorney general's office refute Obama's statement. They do not; indeed, a reported statement by the Public Health Department supports it.
In his book The Case Against Barack Obama, author David Freddoso misrepresents findings by the Illinois state government to claim that a statement by Sen. Barack Obama explaining his opposition to a bill that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 was "not true." Claiming that Obama's assertion -- that "measures mandat[ing] lifesaving measures for premature babies" were "already the law" in Illinois -- was false, Freddoso falsely asserts that the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and a July 2000 letter from Illinois' then-Attorney General Jim Ryan's office refute Obama's statement. They do not; indeed, a reported statement by IDPH supports it.
The July 2000 letter was a response from Ryan's office to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. In a letter on Ryan's letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote in part:
On December 6, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not indicate [emphasis added] a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act.
No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.
[...]
While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.
From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that "[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois." But the state's conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims -- IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law. (The word "indicate" is in italics above because in his quotation of the letter, Freddoso substitutes the word "include" for the word "indicate.")
In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: "[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. ... We took (the allegations) very seriously." Zorn wrote further: "Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, 'The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.' "
From Zorn's 2004 blog post:
As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker.
Why?
"Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law," IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. "We took (the allegations) very seriously."
Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone."
Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.
In other words, contrary to Freddoso's claim, the IDPH's reported position supported Obama's explanation: Current law already "mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies." Freddoso writes of Obama's assertion: "This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan" [emphasis in original].But the letter does not, as Freddoso claims, assert that "[s]uch measures were not already the law in Illinois." Nor does the IDPH; indeed, Zorn quoted the IDPH spokesman saying that the actions alleged by Stanek would have violated the law at the time.
Echoing his book, Freddoso made similar statements in writing in an August 13 National Review article: "Hospital officials dismissed Stanek's concerns. She then approached the Republican attorney general of Illinois, Jim Ryan, who issued a finding several months later that Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois. Doctors had no ethical or legal obligation to treat these premature babies. They had passed the bright line of birth that had effectively limited the right to life since the Roe v. Wade decision, but under the law they were non-persons." The letter from Ryan's office did not say that "[d]octors had no ethical or legal obligation to treat these premature babies"; IDPH, tasked by Ryan with investigating the allegations, reportedly said the opposite -- if what Stanek was alleging were true, the hospital would have violated existing law.
From Pages 192-199 of The Case Against Barack Obama:
A nurse, Stanek's friend, had helped in the abortion. She had been told to take this baby and leave him in a soiled utility closet. (The hospital would later deny that such things happened, stating that they had already set up "comfort rooms" in which to leave the babies to die.2)
[...]
Could it even be legal to take a living person of any size, already outside his mother's womb, and leave him to die -- to die amid medial waste?
Stanek began talking to hospital officials, who were dismissive of her concerns. She then sought out help from a pro-life group, the Concerned Women for America, and approached the Republican attorney general of Illinois, Jim Ryan. Ryan made inquiries with the state Department of Public health, to determine whether this practice was legal.
[...]
On July 17, 2000, Attorney General Ryan reported back on the investigation of Christ Hospital by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH):
On December 6, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not include [sic] a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act. No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution ... While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.5
In leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois. Doctors had no ethical obligation to treat them. Under the law, they were non-persons.
Stanek had found a cause -- a real injustice she wanted to right.
[...]
[In 2006], he [Obama] would offer this explanation for his opposition to the Illinois legislation in The Audacity of Hope:
It mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies (the bill didn't mention that such measures were already the law) -- but also extended "personhood" to pre-viable fetuses, thereby effectively overturning Roe. v. Wade.14
This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan. They had said Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal. [emphasis in original]
Article:
Life is precious. Obama has manifestly advocated the slaying of unborn and newborn persons. There is no basis to believe that any other life - other than his own and his family's - is dear to him.
That includes the old and infirm. And it includes the entire population of the U. S. when national security and survival is concerned.
(the link even opens in the same window just like righties prefer)
I want to vote for him but if he's in favor of having people my age put down, then I'll have to reconsider my vote.
But then again, even death is better than having to endure watching another McGrampy mechanical smile after he makes a rather dull right wing point on the Teevee.
Even Obama's own campaign has admitted that he wasn't telling the truth!
WaPo, 8/20/08: "Obama aides acknowledged yesterday that the wording of the state and federal bills was virtually identical."
I'm afraid MM is trying to revise history ... again.
Worse than that, Nurse Stanek and her ilk are deliberately conflating the complaint with the official response, in order to evade the fact that the investigating agency found no evidence that her accusations were even true!
It's deliberate subterfuge.
Yeah. And plus, the Nurse was lying on purpose.
WHy doe it matter if they were the same?
1. There was already a law in Illinois and
2. The federal law was already in place in 2003 when the bills were the same.
If the right to lifers in Illinois thought babies were really in danger, they should have removed the unconstitutional anti-Roe language in their bill in 1995, when they first proposed it. They waited eight years to do so even as they claim that babies were being killed. They are either lying or they don't really care about babies at all.
But then again, even death is better than having to endure watching another McGrampy mechanical smile after he makes a rather dull right wing point on the Teevee.
AMEN!
But the state's conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims -- IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law-- MMFA
A better way of stating this is that the investigative agency found no evidence that Stanek was correct, so they closed the complaint. No evidence at all.
WK, I congratulate you. You've captured the essence of the rodeo-princess-wave. Are you from Arizona?
At least at a rodeo, when the barrel-riding rodeo princesses are galloping past the stands at breath-taking speed, the idea that they can perform that mechanical wave-n-smile is admirable and even awe-inspiring actually, with the thudding hooves and the shaking stands and the dust aflying.
But since the President of the USA isn't expected to be doing any barrel riding, the skill seems misplaced.
Disregarding a person's opinion based on their documented history of being dishonest or unreliable is not an Ad Hominem attack. The term has been twisted by the right wing media in an attempt to avoid any accountability for their own words.
I'd advise you to grab a logic textbook, Greatjob.
Will do, sir. Here's an example from Carl Sagan (admittedly from one of my old English texts and not a logic one):
ad hominem--Latin for "to the man," attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously)
I'm not in to the Al Franken style of discourse myself.
Hey, Greatjob, I didn't get back at work today, so if you come back, I was just making the point that "Ad Hominem" is really overused. WZ wasn't even addressing Horowitz' argument, just noting that he wasn't even going to look at it based on Horowitz' reputation. That's just a timesaver, WZ didn't imply that he had won any argument by pointing out Horowitz' rep.
I'm in favor of a little more judicious use of the term.The way I've seen it abused is by habitual liars having no incentive to stop lying if any citation of their past lies can be dismissed as an Ad Hom. attack. I also see it abused, in the media and in comment boards like this, by those who post increasingly idiotic comments, then cry "Ad Hominem" when somebody finally calls them an idiot.
The most flagrant abuse I've seen of the term is when a poster logically demolishes a BS-filled post,or provides evidence to show that the other poster is lying, then adds as an aside that the other poster is a liar.
It's not uncommon to see the exposed liar cry 'Ad Hominem".
Article:
Obama's campaign website offers two reasons why the senator opposed the bill in 2003. First, the website claims that Obama did not support the state legislation because it lacked language "clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." The website cites Obama's assertion that he would have supported the similar federal born-alive bill, which included language clarifying that it would not undermine Roe v. Wade when it unanimously passed the Senate in 2001.
In fact, the federal legislation and the final version of the Illinois senate bill were essentially the same. On Monday, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) released documents that showed that the Illinois senate committee unanimously approved an amendment that made the state legislation almost identical to the federal legislation. The amendment provided that the act should not be "construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive'". This was the precise language of the federal bill Obama thought to be a sufficient protection of Roe v. Wade.
The other reason Obama opposed the bill, according to his website, is that the "born alive principle was already the law in Illinois." An existing 1975 law is cited as proof that new legislation was unnecessary.
Illinois state senator Dale Righter, the ranking Republican on the 2003 Health and Human Services Committee, says Obama did not raise that concern at the hearing: "There was no discussion of anything like that." Democratic state senator Susan Garrett similarly says she did not remember the 1975 law being raised during the hearing.
Obama's campaign did not return a phone call asking for a response to Righter's claim.
In any case, the 1975 law does not apply to non-viable infants born alive. According to Paul Linton, special counsel for the Thomas More Society, the 2003 bill was a response to the question, "What duties are owed to a non-viable child born alive?" The bill sought to guarantee comfort care for non-viable infants similar to the care that would be provided to any terminally ill adult. "Many of these babies lived for hours after birth," Susan T. Muskett, legislative counsel at the NRLC, writes in an email. "Are these babies medical waste, or persons protected by the Constitution? Obama's reaction was to consider them non-entities under Roe v. Wade until they were 'viable,' even when they were gasping outside the mother."
What's the topic covered by this posting by Media Matters? Oh, yeah, it's the lies that Freddoso, or whatever the heck his name is, told, and how Media Matters debunked his lies.
Actually, no it's not, you dishonest punk.
Summary: In The Case Against Barack Obama, David Freddoso misrepresents findings by the Illinois state government to claim that a statement by Sen. Barack Obama explaining his opposition to a bill that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 was "not true." Obama asserted that "measures mandat[ing] lifesaving measures for premature babies" were "already the law" in Illinois. Freddoso falsely asserts that the Illinois Department of Public Health and a letter from the Illinois attorney general's office refute Obama's statement. They do not; indeed, a reported statement by the Public Health Department supports it.
You're scaring me, doll! BTW, don't bring any pot to the DNC, cause we're just a bunch of pot smoking hippies!
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Fox_advises_against_marijuana_at_Democratic_0820.html
Obama is pro-baby killing. Anything else you wish to add?
Yea, I think Obama likes to kill them after they've had their bottle and been burped...maybe even after they've learned to say "Da-da"...at least that's the impression I got from Rush Limbaugh and other right wingers.
So you are saying that a baby living outside the womb not connected by the umbical cord, breathing on their own, with a beating heartbeat is not a human life?
Wow, that says a lot.
How do we know that they baby won't live if he/she gets medical care. Perhaps with medical they can survive. It's not worth even trying to save a human life?
Wow!!!!
Yet doesn't Murdoch (or is it Mürdoch?) own every media outlet but ABC and NBC?
No. He owns Fox, Faux News, Skynews, the Wall Street Journal, and various tabloids around the world. CNN is owned by Time Warner, CBS is owned by Viacom, ABC is owned by Disney, and NBC. CNBC, and MSNBC are owned by General Electric.
Yes, Science, O'Reilly and Limbaugh and the others will certainly tell you lots of things, they just won't be true things. But of course they allow no on-air challenges to their claims of superior intelligence and patriotism, so you have to, you know, check things out for yourself.
"But didnt Obama also say that he'd support the Federal bill, while it was the same as the State bill that he voted against? I recall hearing something about that."
Federal bills apply to all 50 states (I hope you knew that). If a state didn't have a law that did what the federal law does then the federal law would apply.
Neon,
Unfortunately, it looks like from the past few days posts that you've jumped the shark.
Where once your posts were full of wit, lately you have joined others who have nothing to offer. If you insist on juvenile putdowns and private jokes, make them the icing and not the cake.
Geez, thank GOD you're back. I'm exhausted.
I gotta tell ya, Barn, after just a morning of filling in for you and MGARNETT, I have a new appreciation of what you guys do. There is no way I could do it day after day. It'd kill me.
Anyway, glad you're here. Tried to leave things so that you'd recognize them. Now back to the other side...
Thank you, Col. Though, with the low degree of difficulty, I doubt my score will get me into the medals. Couldn't have even made it this far, though, without everything you've taught me.
Add me to the list of those who appreciate your wit and humor, Neon; your channelling of the right-wing fringe is spot on.
Well you'll have to add me to the list, but next time give me some warning. I don't like spitting out good wine!
Neon, if you get back here, I'm giving you another terrorist fist-bump. I was popping in at work, and I don't think I really appreciated the full beauty of your work here.
The quilting post, a perfect send-up of AA's unrelated-to-the=topic plagiarism was nice enough. But then, to have the dim-witted straight man come in and give you advice on posting more substance....priceless.
It's like AA got to step outside of his body, and he finally got to see himself at arm's length.
Here's the downside (and I'm giving it to you from personal experience);
Once you embarrass AA enough (and he realizes it), you'll join me on his "ignore list". He'll find somebody more patient and polite to lecture with his boneheaded "advice".
On the plus side, you can still make fun of him, and not have the threads filled up with his feeble rebuttals.Congratulations on "Jumping the Shark"!
No F-in way! Somebody scrubbed Neon's posts! I am outraged!
I doubt it was MMFA, as I've seem much more off-topic stuff left in the archived threads. Could the targets of the satire have finally caught on, and flagged them out of embarrassment?
Oh really? YOUR ilk has lower menatlity wattage like the bulb in MY REFRIGERATER!!!! :-P
(filling in for MGARNETT and ANOTHERAMERICAN today, so grant me a little leeway, please. If you have HELPFUL suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them.)
Why did the word "clueless" pop up when I read that?
Oh, that's right....
WHAT EVER. THAT DOSNT' MEAN ITS' NOT TRUE!!!!!11!!!1!!!!
(Now that Barn's back on the clock, that one was on my own time.)
p.s don't get upset Pearlene-- I'm making fun of the old quilting days.
LOL
No problem Carlileb, it's not like I haven't heard the word before.
I am guessing Fredozzo is taking over what " traitor " Novak left behind ?
bio-David Freddoso is a political reporter for National Review based in Washington, D.C. He has covered Capitol Hill for six years, working under Robert Novak at the Evans and Novak Political Report and earlier at the conservative weekly newspaper Human Events. He studied Classical Greek at the University of Notre Dame and earned a master's in journalism at Columbia's Pulitzer School before covering southwest Brooklyn at the weekly Home Reporter and Sunset News. He hails from South Bend, Ind.
He hails from South Bend, Ind.
The worst thing to come out of South bend since the Studebaker Lark.
Freddoso is your garden variety lyin' conservative scumbag...
He's got a lot of John McCain in him.
McCain is such a lyin' hypocrite. Running that commercial where he said Obama was going to raise taxes on people making $41,000. It's sad to see a military hero like McCain just disgrace himself. I guess he just sold his soul.
I guess he just sold his soul.
I suspect that Jerry Falwell arranged the sale. And he'll be down in hell to make sure the transaction is finalized once Gramps McCain gets down there.....
Ok, I must be missing something here. I see nothing in this little "expose" that says the reason the IDPH was investigating the hospital had anything to do with the withholding of lifesaving measures from a human being that survived a live birth abortion. What I do see is an investigation into whether these live human beings were abandoned and left to die. The key word here being abandoned. I mean lets get serious here people. The IDPH investigation had nothing to do with the fact that these live human beings were allowed to die. They were simply looking into the abandonment allegations. Hell one has only to look at Zorn's blog to see what the focus of the investigation was i.e; "...The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone." The IDPH wasn't investigating the deaths of infant survivors of live birth abortions. The IDPH just wanted to make sure infant survivors of live birth abortions weren't dying alone.
Freddoso isn't wrong here. This oft quoted crutch...oh pardon me...excuse/law presently used by Obama to justify his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which he helped kill during his term as an Illinois Senator was not written with non-viable infants in mind. There is no support in the 1975 law requiring medical support for non-viable infants born alive. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/more_on_obamas_vote_on_the_bor.asp) The Born Alive Infants Protection Act was introduced to allow non-viable infants to receive comfort care similar to what a terminally ill adult would receive. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/more_on_obamas_vote_on_the_bor.asp
So show me I'm wrong here. Show me where the IDPH was investigating whether living non-viable infants were receiving life support. If you cannot Freddoso misrepresents nothing.
Obama voted "Present" in the IL Senate. The bill died in the IL House. Add that bill to the list of exaggerated claims of what Obama has killed.
Randy
How can Nurse Ratchet's story be refuted now after all this time? Is there even any evidence? If what she said is true, then, how guilty is she for not providing life support for that baby? That was the law in Illinois at that time and now, to provide life support.
If its important to you to dipict Obama and liberals as vicious baby killers then I feel very sorry for you.
To go though this rigamarole to insure a painful lonely death and thereby become a subhuman demon.
You deny us any humanity thereby. Sweet.
I'm still waiting for a female wingnut to show up here and take a hard prolife position. So far the only ones to show here have no chance of ever becoming pregnant. I find their positions selfserving to irrelivent, and little else
With all due respect Fant might I ask you to supply me with a link to the Illinois Senate Committee Action Report showing Mr. Obama's vote of "Present". Furthermore, why would Mr. Obama claim himself to have opposed the Bill in question then vote "Present" ?. But I digress. Just in case you can't find a link let me give you one to ponder. If you choose to follow my link, and I hope you do, you will see the following: The left side of the Illinois Senate Committee Action Report shows Obama voting YES on a neutrality clause copied verbatim from the federal bill to be added to the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Bill. The right hand column shows Obama voting NO on the newly amended bill. Btw...in an interesting side note, Obama presided over said meeting as well.
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaKills2003amendedBAIPA.htm
And Eweston please explain to me how I'm trying to depict Democrats as anything. I like to believe I'm simply taking part in a very meaningful debate. I've slandered no one. Any perceptions you may have of my intent are yours alone. As for my views on abortion being self-serving or irrelevant please trust me when I say I value your opinion as much as you value mine. Neither you or I are irrelevant. Nor are our opinions.
Sky
What do you expect to find at the end of this investigation?
If anything other than another reason not to support a democratic candidate? To somehow conclude that that he is not an enemy of developing fetuses? You really think this is the forum to discuss Obama's dicision on this bill, while dragging in arkane studies that you do not link to.
Tell me why I need to spend time on this? I have a lot of issues with this campaign. Abortion in detail not to say microscopic examination of the detail rates extremly low on my concern list.
Maybe you'll get this?
Hog, this is why nobody "gets" conservative humor. Actual humor makes fun of something real about the target of their humor. Con humor satirizes things they make up about the target of their humor. (Abortion-loving Planned Parenthood, Hillary frantically vying for VP slot).
See, it should be something true that you're poking fun at, not some imaginary boogeyman or talking point. That's why the 1/2 hour news hour wasn't even good enough for Fox viewers, and why Redeye needs good looking women sitting next to the camera with their asses hanging out of their dresses.
Truth is an essential element of humor, making it very difficult for Republicans to pull off.
BTW, if you get any of those emails filled with GOP talking points that George Carlin supposedly said? They're just desperate Republicans trying to use a good man's name to promote their agenda. They're bullshlt, and an affront to GC's genius in their suckiness.
What's really funny is a constant hand wringing liberal, much like yourself who invents slights and looks at the world through a prism of a victim.
I'm laughing AT YOU, lieutenant, not WITH YOU!
YOU have no credibility...remember you advocate that Republicans killed the Kennedy's, MLK ect...
As for G Carlins talking points...well your wrong again:
George Carlin: enjoy
Tick off a feminist
Pay attention to Carlin's "work ethic", lieutenant! It's fitting for you!
Sorry, Hog, I think you're still stuck in the little gooey womb of your neighborhood of Make believe. I don't do a lot of handwringing, and I'm pretty sure I've never portrayed myself as a victim. That's more in the wheelhouse of you wingnuts.
I don't know how you think you're laughing at me when your "jokes" are about figments of your imagination. You're laughing at yourself, you just don't know it.
The part about GOOPers killing the Kennedys....uhhh... You've strayed too far from reality with this one for me to even guess what your problem is. Sorry, you'll have to work this hallucination out on your own.
I was right about Carlin too. I'm a big fan of his, you only found some clips that don't jibe with your invented idea of liberal thought.Again, that's your confusion, not mine.
The emails I linked to, you'll notice, don't have any of the art that GC's actual comments do. They're simple, dumbed down versions of Carlin's crankiness you're not even getting the point of Carlins words.
I hope you didn't spend too much time on that post.
OK, so you're a habitual liar or better yet, what was the term, oh a "seagull" you don't actually read the posts you just come in crap all over everything and generally make a mess of things.
Which one were you doing here when you were defending a post that claimed the GOP, "goops" as you say, killed the Kennedy's?
Lieutenant Sanders POSTED:
If no other libs are chiming in and coming to your rescue, then that's a good bet you're pushing a losing hand! - hogprint
Or he's kicking your ass, and doesn't need any help. The mob mentality toward a losing cause is more of a conservative play.
I'll ask you again...do you support that the GOP killed the Kennedy's? If you do then you'll cover all the bases, liar and seagull!
I guess i should give credit for the "Seagull" term lest I be labeled a plagiarizer.
I don't know who posted it but it was funny and appropriate in your case lieutenant. I co-opted it for this purpose.
I knew you'd dodge...
So you admit you're a Seagull!
I'll hold your hand for you and lead you through the minefield. Look at the date of YOUR post. It was in reference to an idiotic post about Republicans killing the left wing scions of the '60's. I was having a tit-for-tat with the moron that made the claim when YOU flew in.
YOUR post was in defense of that statement. Right? If so, you are lying. If not you are a seagull.
Which title would you like hung around YOUR neck?
Just in case you want to actually READ the back and forth (I get the feeling you either didn't read it or are back peddling off the statement) .go to the AUG 14th Thread : Feerehy on Hillary's DNC roll call;101-120 post or so..
Or just deny you ever defended such an asinine post. I know better.
Thought I'd check back, Hog, see if you'd sobered up and come up with anything. Nope. Bye bye.
Hey lieutenant look above this post.
You lose rank every time you make a stupid post. You're now Ensign Sanders. Careful you don't slip to the WO Corp.
Freddoso: just another lying GOOP-shilling scumbag? Hunh. What a rarity!Is he museum quality? No. Is he even marginally collectible? No.
Freddoso (Freddie-bear) turns out to be merely a garden-variety election-year Corsi-style scumbag GOOP liar ... I hear this same falsehood echoed on local as well as national rightie-hate radio ALL DAY LONG. But I am very glad to see MMfA's refutation, that might come in handy.
Has anyone heard Hannity and this Jill Stanek person discussing this subject? It is a serious subject without the political mumbo jumbo concerning Obama. But with this woman and the Sissy Boy they always I mean ALWAYS, use the term SOILED utility room. By adding the word SOILED everytime, they diminish the discussion and point it towards politics.
Why would Jill Stanek enchance her story by adding the word SOILED? As a true advocate for her cause, which I believe she is, she shouldn't fall into the glitz and glamor of the ratings mongrels.
Folks, I am BEGGING you to please continue to discuss this issue. If the election is decided on the issue of whether or not a baby receives medical treatment after he/she has been born alive, which candidate do you believe that will favor?
You'd think you have enough sense to want to bury this issue and make it go away. Thanks for keeping the story alive.
Barry Obama voted against a bill guaranteeing medical care for a baby born alive. He LIED about it. He said he supported the federal law providing for this. The language of the federal bill and the bill he voted against was the SAME. Please look at the language, and tell me if it is not the same. He LIED. His campaign admitted he LIED.
I hope this story is discussed every day between now and NOvember. Again, thanks for keeping it alive. Keep up the good work.
Shhhhhh!!!!!!!
Bobby, you're giving away the signals!!!!!
Don't worry though, they'll keep beating their heads against the wall!
You dishonest punk.
It's not about babies being killed.
A non-viable fetus that leaves the womb is not a baby and doesn't get to force a woman to continue that pregnancy or get to force a medical professional to provide medical intervention.
Fetuses that aren't viable should not get medical intervention to prolong their death. Forcing medical intervention on those non-viable fetuses is stupid and crazy and a waste of money. Spending money on viable fetuses - a good idea. Wasting money on medical care on a fetus that cannot sustain life is a waste of money.
If a non viable child is still alive then....oh never mind...
Non viable child?
To me I just wish BHO would tell us right now, not what he use to do or did, right now... HOW DOES HE BELIEVE, should a baby born alive after a botched abortion be allowed to die or be treated?
Simple...
Why can't he answer that?
Much has been made of late, and deservedly so, about Barack Obama’s votes in the Illinois State Senate on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The National Right to Life Committee released a number of documents recently showing Senator Obama’s previous statements on the matter did not match the public record. Obama’s campaign is spinning hard and digging deep.
I just want to take issue with one small part of the Obama campaign’s mess that relates to his rhetoric today. In a statement to The Brody File, a blog of CBN News the Obama campaign said that certain bills he opposed were “crafted to undermine Roe v. Wade or pre-existing Illinois state law regulating reproductive healthcare and medical practice, which is why Senator Obama objected to them.” The Obama campaign also released a PDF fact sheet comparing the various bills. One category is for “Language Clearly Threatening Roe.” This is the language from the bill: “(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a
human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.”
Now, I’m no former lecturer in constitutional law and race relations at the University of Chicago, but I just don’t see how that language “clearly threatens” or “undermine[s]” Roe. If Roe means that before being born, the fetus is just a blob of tissue and not a human person, how does that language undermine that definition. Under the bill’s language, before he or she is legally recognized as a human person, the child must be alive and born. I just don’t see the connection.
And I note that this is the Obama campaign TODAY - not Obama in 2001 or 2002, but Today. The spin just doesn’t match the reality.
"The July 2000 letter was a response from Ryan's office to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room."
I thought that only happened in Texas, with George W. Bush's approval (and the Hospital's accountants making the final judgement), if the parents were minorities and didn't have adequate insurance ...
Anyfreedom posted:
I thought that only happened in Texas, with George W. Bush's approval (and the Hospital's accountants making the final judgement), if the parents were minorities and didn't have adequate insurance ...
Link us please...