Politico's Martin uncritically reported false claim that "Obama opposed legislation that ... would protect legal protection to babies outside the womb"
SUMMARY: In a Politico blog post about an ad attacking Sen. Barack Obama for abortion-related votes he cast as a state senator, Jonathan Martin wrote: "As a state senator, Obama opposed legislation that proponents said would protect legal protection to babies outside the womb." But Martin did not note that the suggestion that at the time Illinois law did not already provide "legal protection to babies outside the womb" is false. Additionally, the Illinois Department of Health reportedly said that the alleged actions cited as evidence that the bill was necessary were already illegal.
In a September 16 blog post on an ad by Bornalivetruth.org "attacking [Sen. Barack] Obama for abortion-related votes he cast as a state senator," Politico's Jonathan Martin uncritically reported: "As a state senator, Obama opposed legislation that proponents said would protect legal protection to babies outside the womb." But Martin did not note that the suggestion that at the time Illinois law did not already provide "legal protection to babies outside the womb" is false. Additionally, Martin did not note that the Illinois Department of Health (IDPH) reportedly said that the alleged actions Bornalivetruth.org has cited as evidence that the bill was necessary were already illegal.
In a purported "fact check[]" on its website, Bornalivetruth.org stated:
1. Hospitals weren't leaving children to die.
Obama: "There was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged."
REALITY: After seeing a colleague place an infant who survived an abortion in the hospital's soiled utility room, our spokesperson and former Christ Hospital nurse Jill Stanek testified before Congress and several state legislatures of holding a live aborted infant for 45 minutes until he gasped for his last breath. Another Christ Hospital nurse, Allison Baker, testified before Congress after observing similar practices.
In fact, the IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek and Baker had alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law. 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 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.
Martin also reported that the ad "featur[ed] a self-proclaimed abortion-survivor." In the ad, video of which Martin included in his post, Gianna Jessen said she was "born after a failed abortion. But if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here. Four times, Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to protect babies left to die after failed abortions." But Martin did not note that the existing Illinois abortion law specifically required a doctor to provide medical care to a fetus born alive in the situation described by Jessen.
Jessen's website states that the attempted abortion took place in the "third trimester." The Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, as it existed when the legislation was being considered, requires that except in cases involving medical emergencies, when a doctor performed an abortion on a viable fetus, a second doctor was required to be in attendance during the procedure and, "if a child is born alive," that doctor "shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to provide such care constituted a felony.
From the Illinois abortion law:
(2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; [...] Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.
From Jonathan Martin's September 16 Politico blog post:
A new 527 aimed at attacking Barack Obama for abortion-related votes he cast as a state senator is up today with an ad in Ohio and New Mexico featuring a self-proclaimed abortion-survivor.
As a state senator, Obama opposed legislation that proponents said would protect legal protection to babies outside the womb.
Ohio and New Mexico, in addition to being two of the most hotly-contested swing states, also feature thousands of anti-abortion Catholic voters.
Anyone who believes this crap is a moron.
Anyone who believes this crap is a moron.
And the Republican Party is LOADED with morons.
As evidenced in multiple previous postings by Media Matters, there are lots of ignorant people who don't seem to understand that existing Illinois law required that viable fetuses (newborn babies and premature babies alike) to be provided medical intervention.
This is nonsense that some media source would uncritically fail to report that the proposed law was necessary to protect infants.
It furthers the conservative agenda by making Obama look uncaring towards infants, and that's not true.
The Illinois Abortion Law states that "No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion."
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act covers fetuses that are not determined to be viable and therefore is not the same as the Illinois Abortion Law.
Obama's concern is with previable fetuses. From his testimony "whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kind of protections that would be provided to a -- a, child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place."
The problem with his argument is that once the baby is born alive it is no longer previable. It is no longer a fetus but rather a living homo sapien. Therefore there is no threat to abortion rights.
Either you're woefully undereducated or you're a dishonest punk.
The problem with his argument is that once the baby is born alive it is no longer previable. It is no longer a fetus but rather a living homo sapien. Therefore there is no threat to abortion rights.
- Thorn / Wednesday September 17, 2008 7:23:58 PM EDT
A fetus leaving the womb doesn't make it viable. A fetus leaving the womb doesn't mean it can't be previable.
A non-viable fetus is a fetus that is outside of the womb, but can NOT sustain life, even with significant medical intervention, love, food, and shelter. A viable fetus is one that is outside the womb and can sustain life.
If it's a baby, either a full term infant or a premature baby, then it's already protected by the Illinois law - they're people! If it's a non-viable (previable in Obama's words) fetus when it leaves the womb, then it should not be protected by laws that protect people!
Fetuses that leave the womb before they are viable never become "babies". They remain fetuses that are non-viable. Leaving the womb doesn't magically make those fetuses become babies! That's the point.
So, are you simply ignorant of the facts here, or are you a dishonest punk?
I'm just quoting Obama and showing how the legislation is not the same. Whether or not a fetus is viable or previable or whatever is a neverending debate. But if an infant is born as defined under Senate Bill 1662 which states,
"'born alive' to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion."
then the infant is no longer previable but rather "born alive" as defined above and so Obama is focusing the debate on the irrelevant issue of previables.
If a woman wants to have an abortion that's fine by me. I've met plenty of people who I wish were aborted. Let's at least give the little people a chance to survive if they are "born alive" rather than tossing them in the towel room to die. If they turn out to be losers there's always capital punishment as an alternative.
My bad. Your right. There is an exact definition for viable and previable.
Viable = capable of living <the skin graft was viable> <viable cancer cells>; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of living outside the uterus -- often used of a human fetus at seven months but may be interpreted according to the state of the art of medicine <a viable fetus is one sufficiently developed for extrauterine survival -- Words & Phrases> <the fetus is considered viable when it weighs 500 grams or more and the pregnancy is over 20 weeks in duration -- S. W. Jacob & C. A. Francone>
Previable = not sufficiently developed to survive outside the uterus.
The point is that Obama intentionally focused his testimony on previables which is not the issue. If a fetus is determined to be previable prior to an abortion and happens to live once extracted it is no longer a previable but rather a "born alive" infant as defined below.
"'born alive' to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion."
The legislation is regarding "born alive" infants and not previables. There would be no threat to a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
I think abortion is a woman's right. Let's be humane and help the one's that are born alive rather than dumping them into the towel room to die.
No, the law was plainly an attempt to restrict abortion. Here is how Obama explained it:
"The only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor – the attending physician – who has made an assessment that this is a non-viable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, ...that labor is being induced, that that physician a) is going to make the wrong assessment and b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a non-viable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician or his own accord or her own accord would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now if—if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense. But I suspect--and my impression is that the Medical Society suspects as well--that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making those determination and that, essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physicians to induce labor and perform an abortions. Now if that’s the case… I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births."
The "towel room" scenario that you talk about was already illegal under Illinois state law, which you would have known if you had actually read this Media Matters article.
You're wrong. The older legislation spoke of viables, not previables. Do your homework before you post. And read all of my previous posts which completely refute your ignorant comments.
You are totally wrong.
The proposed law suggested that any live birth, whether the fetus was non-viable (not able to sustain life on its own, even with medical intervention, love, food and shelter) or viable (a newborn baby or a premature infant) had to get medical intervention.
It would have prohibited mid and later term abortions.
It wasn't necessary to protect viable fetuses, because they are babies once they leave the womb and they were already protected.
We've already argued all these points. There are no facts that you can argue that support that anti-abortion stance. Not one. All you can use are religious arguments. That's it.
Read your previous posts? The ones where you write with an air of authority on how Obama doesn't understand the distinction between viable and previable, only to be corrected by two other posters and then admit you didn't know the meaning of the words?
Or where you confuse the very bills you seem to think you're an expert on (your Obama quote is from the debate on 1093, not 1662)?
Or where you pretend you're not an anti-abortion zealot?
Or where you make the false claim that existing law allowed babies to be left to die?
Better advice would be to stop reading your posts altogether, Prick.
If a fetus is determined to be previable prior to an abortion and happens to live once extracted it is no longer a previable but rather a "born alive" infant as defined below.
What a dunce.
A non-viable fetus inside the womb is still a non-viable fetus outside of the womb. It never becomes a baby.
A viable fetus, when it leaves the womb, is a baby. It's a person. It gets protected by existing law.
Some non-viable fetuses will exhibit some breathing, or a heartbeat, after they leave the womb. But they can't sustain life. So it's CRUEL to force life support on them when they will never be able to sustain life!
You are the heartless one for suggesting it's appropriate to force medical intervention on a non-viable fetus!
Whether or not a fetus is viable or previable or whatever is a neverending debate.
No, actually it's not debatable. It's factual.
You don't have a clue. What a dishonest punk you are to claim that yours is a superior argument. It's not an argument at all! It's nonsense!
A non-viable fetus should not be given medical intervention unless the parents want to keep the fetus alive for a short while longer than the fetus would survive without that medical intervention and the medical personnel don't judge it cruel to force life support on that non-viable fetus. The proposed law would have forced medical intervention on any non-viable fetus, which would have prohibited mid and later term abortions.
Who friggin cares?? IF YOU DON'T LIKE ABORTIONS, DON'T HAVE ONE! Convince your friends, too! But don't try to force your religious beliefs on me ... Besides, there already was a law protecting against this crap and the law he voted against would strip more Roe V. Wade choices for women.
Why don't you just ASK Obama where he stands on aborted babies that survive and be done with it?
ever ask yourself how norma leah mccorvey feels about abortion? she is your hero, right?
It doesn't matter how she feels currently about the choices she made, or about the choices that she couldn't make years before that. It's totally irrelevant.
But if you want to bring up women who regret having an abortion, a larger percentage of women that had children regret that choice than those who chose abortion.
If you want to bring up how unhealthy physically and mentally it can be to have an abortion, it is more dangerous physically and emotionally to carry a pregnancy to term than it is to have an abortion.
When will you crazy abortion foes learn? You can't win on the facts! All the facts are against you. Every one!
The only way you can defend being against abortion is through emotional and religious arguments and arguments related to when life begins. But if you argue the "when life begins" arguments, then we should see all of you protesting at in-vitro clinics (and we don't, of course), and if you want to argue emotional and religious arguments, then you should recognize that you can't force your emotional and religious precepts on anyone else!
But don't try to force your religious beliefs on me ...
EXACTLY
So please do not tell me that I have to fork over more of my hard-earned money to support the poor. You would be forcing your religious beliefs on me. What I do for charity is a personal decision.
Furthermore, do not tell me that my children have to learn about evolution or global warming as these are not my beliefs. Your argument is ABSURD as is liberalism in general
Helping out those less fortunate is a religious belief????!!!! I thought that was being a good person...
Oh yeah, that's right, hypocrisy is one of the major tenets of today's conservative. You know - go to church, preach personal responsibility, moral values, etc. But just don't expect them to actually walk the walk.
But don't try to force your religious beliefs on me ...
...
Furthermore, do not tell me that my children have to learn about evolution or global warming as these are not my beliefs. Your argument is ABSURD as is liberalism in general - NOLEFTTURNS
Are you trying to be funny? Science is not religion; it is proveable. Evolution has been proven. Global warming has been proven. You can deny them, but you're ignoring things that have been shown to be true. You can teach your children that gravity doesn't work, too, but you'll be equally wrong.
"Supporting the poor" is something that several religions promulgate, you're right there. You're dead wrong (again) when you assert that federally funded social service programs are supporting some religious agenda.
Your arguments are incoherent and nonsensical. Again.
Evolution and global warming are not beliefs. They're facts, and so not comparable to abortion restrictions based on religious beliefs.
Supporting the poor has been shown to benefit society - the value given to society vastly outweighs the costs. Just because you're too selfish to recognize that isn't our problem, it's yours.
Hey, that ellipse is pretty handy.
Noleftturns posted at MMFA in between long bouts of surfing for kiddie porn
Noleftturns posted at MMFA...
That second statement is true, and no amount of spin can stop that ! NLT is a pedophile, case closed.
What a dishonest punk you are.
Did you forget what the mission statement of Media Matters is?
They publicize conservative misinformation in the media that makes liberals look worse than what they deserve to look.
Simply mentioning that he voted against a bill, and falsely describing what that bill would have done, is 100% going to further the conservative agenda.
What a dunce.
GW.