Quick Fact: Reviving "born alive" falsehood, Beck claims Obama suggested it's OK to "put a spike in the baby's head"
Glenn Beck falsely claimed that President Obama "suggested that [it] was OK" to "go into those pregnant women and pull the babies out of them and put a spike in the baby's head," echoing the oft-repeated right-wing falsehood that Obama did not support protecting babies who survived botched abortions. In fact, while serving in the state Senate, Obama opposed legislation to amend the Illinois Abortion Law because the amendment threatened abortion rights and was unnecessary since existing law already required doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the November 25 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: Do you remember when we went in and we sent our troops in, and we said -- we gave them spikes -- and we said, "Go into those pregnant women, and pull the babies out of them and put a spike in the baby's head. "Oh, no, wait, no, I'm sorry. That's what Barack Obama suggested that was OK when he was in the Senate, but not overseas, but here in the United States." [The Glenn Beck Program, 11/25/09]
Fact: Obama opposed an unnecessary Illinois abortion law amendment because Illinois criminal code unequivocally prohibited killing children
As Obama and other opponents noted, criminal code already prevented killing of children. While serving in the Illinois state Senate, Obama opposed legislation that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. 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 criminal code already required doctors to provide medical care for "babies who somehow survived abortions." 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 existing Illinois law. The Obama presidential campaign subsequently cited specific provisions of the Illinois Compiled Statutes in stating that the "born alive principle was already the law in Illinois."
...so... putting babies on spikes is okay as long as it's overseas?
"Go, then! That's the American Dream! Babies on spikes!"
you have to be next to sean the dumbs person alive. I think rushbuttboil has just a little higher IQ then you.
I was always taught of the Greatness of the Man, i guess you see President Lincoln as somewhat Meeker?
Can you help me find this Vid Glenn?
You Bastion of Untruth & King of Spin.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Making it abundantly clear that Pres.Obama supports the right of a woman to instruct her doctor to into her pregnant body and using forceps...crush the baby's skull and dismember the body in order to vacuum it out...no need for spikes.
mmfa and its legions support this scenario...I get it. But there are many of us who don't...and that's the real issue...not some mumbo jumbo from mmfa in their efforts to support all things Obama.
Tip of the day: Don't waste your time with the fetus/baby hokum...I won't be interested or swayed by the argument that equates an unborn baby with a blob of cells no better than fecal matter.
As always, you are free to not have an abortion and convince all your friends to not have one and purchase a billboard telling people not to get one and write a letter to the editor decrying abortion.
Completely ignoring the disgusting overheated rhetoric of his hero, Glenn Beck. Congrats, Wesley, nicely done!
Your statement of "Pres.Obama supports the right of a woman to instruct her doctor to..." should have stopped there. Wether you are "swayed by the argument that equates an unborn baby with a blob of cells" or not, it is simply not your right to tell anyone else what they can or can't do with the cells in their own bodies, as it is no one else's right to tell you what you can and can't do with yours. This is the heart of the matter, and if you don't support it, don't do it. It's really that simple.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."
Since that is easy enough to look up, I am assuming you intentionally decide to ignore so as to lie about his position. Nice work!
So which is it media matters (for very little)? Not to worry, prez, you probably only voted 'present' anyway.
Not a criminal lawyer here, but it looks pretty obvious to me. I don't see any contradiction in legality. Now that I think about it, why would you even pose such an arguement? Surely this isn't original, and has been used by the prolife (anti-abortion, take your pick of venacular) front in courts already. And since abortions are still legal, it would appear this arguement didn't pass mustard.
Perhaps saving American lives just too expensive, or maybe the health care legislation is just too many pages. Just possibly there is too much money to be made off the backs of sick and dying Americans, so government should stay out of it, and instead, people's lives should be dependent upon market forces?
Which is it?
If a government run health care insurance program helped save thousands of lives, would it still be wrong?
The right-wing has many explanations as to why saving lives after birth, and without a profit motive, is a bad idea, so which is it? Whatever it is, we do know you'll be proud of whatever reasoning you supply.
1. either don't understand why he voted the way he did in spite of
the fact that he acted according to existing laws and a full ex-
planation of the basis for his vote has been provided
2. have a problem making connections between actual reality and the
reality that exists in your mind
3. will take a negative view of President Obama even when untruths
have been found to be false
4. don't understand that many state legislatures allow lawmakers
to vote present because they need mmore time to study the issue
under consideration and don't want to hold up the legislative
process, and that voting present in a state legislature is not a
sign of weakness, which is how you want to interpret it when
referring to President Obama.
All except Nothing-to-be-proud-of Conservative. He enjoys his limited brain function.
For us in IL, this is soooooooooo old. Google the lying Jill Stanek/Eric Zorn (Chicago Tribune) and go from there. You'll find the truth (for those interested).
Abortion is legal. Don't like it? Vote for people who will actually change the law. That's not the Democrats OR the Republicans. Which means you should be saving some of your venom for all the pandering liars who pretend to be on your side concerning this issue and then conveniently forget you exist once they have your money and your votes.
Oh, who am I kidding? You like being pandered and lied to. It's a sickness, I guess.
Which party is that?
No wonder the GOP gets away with it in election after election, with idiots like you as constituents.
I for one am tired of the nonsense, the lies spewing forth, the downright hatred from the white trash that derides this president.
I believe the only solution at this point is to fight fire with fire and start telling outrageous lies about Bachman, Beck, Tates, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reily, Krauthammer, Thomas, Murdoch, Rove, both Cheney's, Morris, Dobbs, the Christian Coalition etc. If they can manipulate the media with lies and obfuscation, then we should begin an aggressive campaign to do the same against them.
If we progressives don't grow a big pair and start fighting back now, then the rabid right will succeed in undermining this administration and surrender our country to the highest bidders and most greedy. When your opponent is kicking your butt fighting dirty, then the gloves must come off if you are to win the fight and the war.
Here are some suggested starting examples: Hannity's family was allegedly once slave owners that beat, killed and often raped their slaves and that is where his deep seated hatred for Obama is coming from.
Beck was allegedly born illegitimately to a diseased prostitute and was eventually taken away from his mother and raised by a foster family who was later found to have regularly beaten him upside the head for failure to follow their strict religious rules.
Dick Cheney was allegedly accidentally shot in the face as a toddler and suffered considerable brain damage as a result.
Now in the campaign to spread lies and rumors about these fear-mongering lying liars, I would suggest dropping the use of the word "allegedly."