Wash. Post purported to give both sides of "Born-Alive" bill dispute, but left out Illinois' reported position
SUMMARY: The Washington Post reported that "[a]bortion foes are now accusing [Sen. Barack] Obama of being an abortion-rights extremist" and purported to give the views of both the proponents and opponents of the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act," which Obama voted against as an Illinois state senator. But at no point did the Post note that the Illinois Department of Public Health had reportedly said that the alleged conduct the Post identified as having been the impetus for the bill was already illegal.
In an August 20 Washington Post article stating that "[a]bortion foes are now accusing [Sen. Barack] Obama of being an abortion-rights extremist," staff writer Jonathan Weisman purported to give the views of both the proponents and opponents of the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act," which Obama voted against as an Illinois state senator. But at no point did Weisman note that the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) had reportedly said that the alleged conduct Weisman identified as having been the impetus for the bill was already illegal.
Weisman reported: "At issue is a measure in both Illinois and Congress called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which defines as a protected human any life expelled from a mother. Abortion foes championed the cause when an Illinois nurse and antiabortion activist said some pre-viable fetuses were being aborted by inducing labor and then being allowed to die." Weisman continued: "Obama, then a state senator, opposed the measure in 2001, saying it crossed the line of constitutionality and 'essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus.' " But Weisman did not note that in addition to saying that the bill was constitutionally problematic, Obama has also said it wasn't necessary: He has cited specific provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statutes in stating that "existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions."
Indeed, after investigating the claim of Illinois nurse Jill Stanek that, in Weisman's words, "some pre-viable fetuses were being aborted by inducing labor and then being allowed to die," the IDPH reportedly said that the alleged conduct, if proved, would have constituted "violations of existing law" but that it could not substantiate the allegation.
In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating: "[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. ... We took (the allegations) very seriously." Zorn further wrote: "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.
From the August 20 Washington Post article:
Obama's hesitant statement at the forum that defining the beginning of life is "above my pay grade" took even some supporters by surprise. Since then, the National Right to Life Committee has challenged him on an obscure law that protects babies born alive after failed abortions, saying that his opposition to the measure in the Illinois state legislature proves he is an extremist.
[...]
Similarly, Obama has made a show of reaching out to abortion opponents to find common ground on pregnancy prevention and adoption. He has urged evangelicals and Catholics to expand the definition of "pro-life" to include opposing torture, poverty and unnecessary war. In the Democratic primary, Obama was criticized by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign and others for being insufficiently committed to abortion rights because he did not cast some votes on the issue in the Illinois legislature.
Abortion foes are now accusing Obama of being an abortion-rights extremist. In recent days, the National Right to Life Committee has charged that Obama is misrepresenting his record to broaden his appeal. At issue is a measure in both Illinois and Congress called the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which defines as a protected human any life expelled from a mother. Abortion foes championed the cause when an Illinois nurse and antiabortion activist said some pre-viable fetuses were being aborted by inducing labor and then being allowed to die.
Obama, then a state senator, opposed the measure in 2001, saying it crossed the line of constitutionality and "essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a pre-viable child, or fetus."
I've got an idea - since a few wingers were talkin' me down for picking on songbird john's service, let's have a nice little discussion about republicans trashing veterans!
Right-Wing Vets For Freedom Attacks Hagel’s Military Service: ‘Show Me What Battle He Fought In Iraq’
Today on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, a caller questioned Vets for Freedom (VFF) founder David Bellavia about the group’s attacks on Vietnam veteran Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). Bellavia quickly praised Hagel, saying he was a “patriot.” “You don’t question another man’s service,” said Bellavia.” “I will never attack a Vietnam veteran, like some of these other individuals have during this political season.”
Content he paid enough lip-service to Hagel, he then began attacking the senator, an outspoken critic of the Bush administration. Bellavia’s dismissed the Hagel’s service in Vietnam — for which he earned a Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge — as irrelevant to the current conflict:
It’s doubtful there any military experts who would agree with Bellavia that there’s nothing to learn from past U.S. conflicts. In 2000, President Bush even said, “A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam.” Bellavia and VFF also have no problem with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), even though he also fought in a war “30 years ago.”
VFF is largely a front group for the Bush administration, with their supposedly “objective” work being pushed by former White House officials. The organization has gone after lawmakers, such as Hagel and Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), who have dared to oppose the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq.
Additionally, just because Bellavia and other VFF members have served in Iraq doesn’t mean that they speak for all U.S. troops. Other soldiers and veterans — including groups like VoteVets — are increasingly rejecting the Bush administration’s policies.
The article below was written by syndicated columnist, Thomas Sowell, a black man. He wrote it in a humorous way this past week in a column titled "Random Thoughts" and published it in newspapers nationally, so maybe you've already seen it:
Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain. After long and serious thought, I have decided to endorse Senator John McCain for President. We all know the choices by now and, that said, I do believe that the process of selecting a chief executive is deeply flawed. The words "money" and "special interests" come to mind, among many others. Here's the way I see it: Barack Obama, you are a fine public speaker. You are also an extremely liberal Senator from the State of Illinois , which has a long and rich history of political corruption of the first magnitude. You are indeed a child of that system. You have finally insulted my intelligence far beyond my capacity to tolerate your insults. It has nothing at all to do with your skin color. As a matter of fact, it would be so COOL to finally have an African-American for President. What a great statement that would be to the entire world that we are indeed the greatest country on earth! But, unfortunately, General Colin Powell is not running, and YOU are NOT the man for this job ! Barack baby, you want me to believe that you have never heard the sermons of your own pastor, the Right Reverend "God Damn America" Jeremiah Wright. It is a matter of record that this has been your church for over 20 years. It is a matter of record that you were married there by this very pastor, and that your children were baptized there. The good Reverend saw fit to visit Khadafy in Libya with you and to give a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, of all people. We have all now seen excerpts of his sermons all over the airwaves by now. And you have publicly stated that this man IS your "spiritual mentor." BUT, your pastor is NOT the reason I am NOT voting for you. His words were disturbing enough, but it is your own HUGE church congregation, seen jumping, hooting and howling to his words in the background that disturb me the most. And please don't tell me you attended church there and never once heard a "discouraging word" in the 20 years you attended there. Don't tell me, that in addition to the good reverend, that you are now not having anything to do with all those other people seen hooting and howling out in the audience in the background of his fiery tirades. Even Oprah Winfrey got disgusted and walked out on your campaign. I am no Oprah fan, but still she did the right thing. Now you look me in the eye and ask me to believe that you never heard such language in all the years you attended there! This is like me telling you that I attended dozens of Klan rallies and never once heard the "N" word. Yep. And Bill Clinton "did not inhale". Yes, Mr. Obama, we all have friends who have said stupid things that embarrassed us, but NOW you have asked me to believe something that is so incredibly stupid that you are telling me that I am just stupid enough to believe you. THAT is the main reason that I will never vote for you. I am deeply sorry, that in a country teeming with enormously talented African Americans who would make a good President, that the political system has chosen YOU. You are a pathetic and plastic excuse for an American, who will not even salute the Flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. God forbid you ever get near the Oval Office. Which leaves us with Senator John McCain. John, you are a flawed man. You are a bit old, a bit looney, and you have a notoriously bad temper. This perfectly qualifies you, in my humble opinion, to lead us for the next eight years. I WANT your trembling hand on the nuclear button. Think about it. We have Kim Jong IL, Chavez and Ahmadenijad all running around like lunatics, threatening America and threatening to plunge the world into nuclear Armageddon. We have Putin and the Chinese blustering and rattling their sabers at us. I want John McCain in the Oval Office and I want him to be really ticked off at all these other nut jobs around the planet. John, once you are elected, I want you to go into the Oval Office and throw one of your perfect FITS. Jump up and down and throw something through a plate glass window. Rip the drapes down and foam at the mouth a bit. And I want the whole thing on camera so that Ahmadinejad can see it. I want ALL of these "world leaders" to lay awake at night and to break out in a cold sweat every time they think of messing with the United States of America . I want the nuclear button sitting right next to the alarm clock on your night stand. I want pictures of this to be sent to Iran , Russia , China , Venezuela , Cuba , Libya , Syria , Pakistan , and those other dopes in the sheets, the Saudis.
Great, throw Grampy McNuts into the mix and we'll toast marshmallows over the coals of our cities.
Thomas Sowell wants McCain to throw a fit in the White House? This is why he is a neo-con (NOT A CONSERVATIVE) and an apologist for the war mongers/crooks in the White House. Neo-cons can only get elected by appealing to mindless fear and unpurified emotion.
This is also true for the issue of abortion. Never mind the fact that some 540,000 abortions took place the year before Roe v Wade. The goal of reducing abortions isn't what the neo-cons are after. They want dominance and control over others, and they play the religious right for suckers every time.
p.s. cutting and pasting a long diatribe by Thomas Sowell is less than impressive to people who know his history.
. cutting and pasting a long diatribe by Thomas Sowell is less than impressive
Watch it, Mary. I can hear the whining about an Ad Hominem attack already.
And MGarnett, just post a link.No Need to fill up half a page with the pablum you find fresh and enlightening. Most of the people here have seen it all before.
Nixon had a theory that if he could convince the leaders of Vietnam that he was just crazy and belligerent enough to go ahead and hit the button that he would be able to bully them into peace talks.
So, how did that work out in the end?
mgarnett,
The document you have posted and attributed to Thomas Sowell is a fake...Thomas Sowell did not write this article.
If you can provide a "direct" link to this supposed column written by Sowell...I'll stand corrected. Don't waste my time with sites that copy this info and attribute it to Sowell.
-- He wrote it in a humorous way this past week in a column titled "Random Thoughts" and published it in newspapers nationally -- mgarnett
That's your claim...where's the link?
MGANETT,
A simple link to said article would have sufficed!
Many of us in here are critical thinkers.... so I don't think that copying and pasting all the text of an article you want everyone to see is a way to the hearts of those you are trying to speak to?
Rightwingers are absolutely insane. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and over, while expecting different outcomes.
Here's a good campaign slogan for you meatheads: Bush wasn't dumb, destructive or pissed off enough. Vote McCain and double down on insanity.
An incredibly important part of the discussion about this issue is whether or not the proposed bill actually fixed a problem.
It didn't. When viable fetuses are born, they get medical treatment.
When non-viable fetuses leave the womb either naturally or by some artificial method, medical personnel should not be forced to provide medical intervention.
Babies (viable fetuses outside of the womb) are already protected by current law.
There's no evidence that there has ever been a viable fetus (one that could be kept alive if food, shelter, love, and appropriate medical attention were provided) that was left to die. That's a relevant fact that needs to be included.