Coulter revives campaign falsehood about IL "Born Alive Act"
SUMMARY: Ann Coulter revived the false claim that President Obama opposed a bill as an Illinois state senator that "allowed doctors to give medical care to babies who somehow survived abortions."
In her May 20 column, Ann Coulter asserted that "[a]s an Illinois state senator in 2002-2003, [President] Obama repeatedly blocked and voted against the 'Born Alive Act,' which would have allowed doctors to give medical care to babies who somehow survived abortions and remained alive, wholly apart from their mothers." However, the suggestion that at the time Illinois law did not already "allow[] doctors to give medical care to babies who somehow survived abortions" without the "Born Alive Act" is false. In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already required doctors to provide medical care for "babies who somehow survived abortions."
As Media Matters noted, when tasked by the Illinois attorney general's office with investigating allegations that fetuses born alive at an Illinois hospital were abandoned without treatment -- the alleged incident that inspired the "Born Alive Act" -- the Illinois Department of Public Health reportedly said that it was unable to substantiate the allegations but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of then-existing Illinois law. Obama himself has cited specific provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statutes in stating that the "born alive principle was already the law in Illinois."
Coulter, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh, Fox News host Sean Hannity, and several other conservative commentators have previously claimed that Obama's votes against this legislation mean that, in Limbaugh's words, Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion."
A: You can see her adam's apple moving.
Annie, please join the new millennium. Or are you losing you status. Looks like BeckieBoy got your gig.
I'm reminded of recent assertions that refusing to specify that sexual orientation does not mean pedophilia is the same thing as protecting pedophiles.
Understanding and defeating this tactic involves thinking through more than two steps, which unfortunately is a skill many in our media lack.
In 'polite conversation' I usually say, in a tone that indicates that I can back up the assertion 100%, "THAT IS A DAMNED LIE." (Not very polite, granted, but it leaves little room for waffling.) If they do feel like questiong me, I 'educate' them, not with the MMFA article itself, but rather the sources they cite. (That way it's harder for them to just dismiss the info as 'coming from a left wing site.') After a while, you won't have to keep proving your assertions. People don't like to be prooven wrong, and if you have a rep for being able to back up your facts, people will realize that you know what you're talking about.
You won't turn a Conservative into a Liberal this way, but you CAN turn a talking-point-spewing-parrot into someone that at least occasionally thinks a little before letting these scumbags fill them up with outrage over lies. Not always, to be sure, but hey: They're conservatives. Change doesn't come easy to them.
Randy
You're talking about abortion again?
His speech at Notre Dame was last week and the serious debate about that was over two weeks ago. We're onto Closing Gitmo and is CO2 a pollutant now. We're not even seriously discusing torture anymore (unless you're Dick Cheney).
Ann are you so far out of the loop that you aren't even told what current events are being discussed before you hit the air waves? It's as if you hadn't seen the news since the last time anyone really cared about what you had to say.
shows the news game is really a mess
This dame lies like a rug
With a wink and a shrug
I like horsesh*t much more, I confess.
Obama has always voted 100% for abortion of every kind. Even against the Baby Born Alive Act.
His tortured reasoning would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
Does anyone know where Obama has ever taken the side of the unborn baby in this debate?
Rhetorical, of course, because I assume you define "taking the side of the unborn baby" as being opposed to abortion in all cases, regardless of how early in term or other circumstance, such as rape or incest.
As far as I can tell, he has taken the side of killing the innocent, developing human inside the womb, every time up to and including when failed abortions end up in a live birth.
This attempt to depict Obama's mainstream position on abortion as radical by lying about the record may be helpful to the careers of Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., but I don't see how it can do anything but hurt those who are sincerely pro-life.
Trying to obfuscate the issue by posting meaningless non sequiturs aimed at me does not help your side.
What have Republicans done?
"I have clearly laid out for you moonbats what this debate is about. Despite the fact that you have eloquently and logically pointed out that my framing of the question re: taking the side of unborn babies is not even interesting, let alone clever, I still insist: I have TOLD you what the issue is -- that is not for you libs to determine-- now quit trying to obfuscate MY ISSUE. It's MINE!"
AA, did you guys get a uterus?
Randy
Actually you posted a nonsensical rhetorical device and you have no intention of changing your beliefs. Instead you fill your post with half truths, straw men arguments, untruths, and your own misconceptions in a confused effort to create some sort of equivalency between the unborn and the born. The fact is that you believe in the right to kill babies in the womb while somehow making a leap that once they leave the womb and from then on, they now deserve compassion that you would deny those in the womb.
I never said the lives of people outside the womb are none of our business. So your straw man argument fails.
I believe it is the duty of the strong to defend the weak. Do you disagree?
I believe in protecting the innocent. Do you?
I believe all human life should be cherished. Apparently you do not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
No you dont. I have seen too many of your posts saying EXACTLY the opposite
I believe in protecting the innocent. Do you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
No you dont. Too many of your posts contradict this
I believe all human life should be cherished. Apparently you do not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No you dont. Apparantly you just like to lie about it
Randy