RSS 2.0 Follow Us!

Related Posts

Time Magazine Providing Cover for Obama…Again

John on October 13, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Michael Sherer at Time does a special bit of fact checking titled How Valid is Palin’s Abortion Attack on Obama? I’ll save you the suspense. Not very valid. But then what else would Time say? Anyway here’s the argument:

Late last week, and with little fanfare, Palin began claiming at rallies and in a radio interview that Obama had once opposed providing medical care for certain newborn babies, who later died…

In each case, Palin’s words were carefully chosen for maximum effect, without employing any outright falsehoods. Taken in isolation, however, her statements were also quite misleading, as they suggested that Obama supported the death of babies after birth who had a chance of survival.

So he says off the bat that Palin’s statements were accurate but misleading. Scherer then goes on to explain:

Between 2001 and ’03, Obama repeatedly voted to oppose bills in the Illinois senate that would have declared, simply, that any child “born alive” as a result of an abortion shall be protected as a “human person” under the law. The bills broadly defined a live birth as any child outside the mother who shows voluntary movement, breathes or has a beating heart, among other attributes.

At the time, as the Obama campaign has pointed out, Illinois state law already required doctors to provide medical treatment for all children born after abortions who demonstrated viability, which was defined under the law as a “reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.” The Born Alive legislation, therefore, would have primarily impacted a different category of babies — those born with life signs that doctors decided did not have a reasonable chance of survival.

First, note that his big explanation of those votes is preceded by “as the Obama campaign has pointed out.” In other words, Scherer is relying on Team Obama talking points. In any case, the big nuance that Scherer is using to defend Obama is that the bill he voted against would have protected born-alive babies who didn’t have a “reasonable chance of survival.” Two points on this:

  1. The chance of survival was to be determined by…? By the abortionist of course! He was paid to deliver a dead baby and failed. Obama thinks we should now trust him to do the right thing and call an ambulance. Sure, it’ll mar his record and open him up to lawsuits, but abortionists are good folks. We can trust them when it comes to the helpless life of a struggling newborn to look beyond self-interest and stand up for the sanctity of human life. It’s not like they kill babies for a living or anything. Good call, Barack.
  2. Why don’t the babies have a “reasonable chance for survival?” Because they were aborted, dummy. They’re not viable because someone ripped them out of the life-sustaining womb and dumped them in a bedpan. Sure they may be kicking and wailing a bit, but don’t let that bother you. Obama wants to make sure killing “previable babies” is a foolproof operation and, hey, what’s unreasonable about that? We want the thing dead. What do a few “signs of life” matter.

So just to be clear on this:

they suggested that Obama supported the death of babies…

That’s true.

they suggested that Obama supported the death of babies after birth…

That’s true too.

they suggested that Obama supported the death of babies after birth who had a chance of survival.

Well, Obama’s support for abortion made that last bit pretty unlikely anyway.

Bottom line: Obama is as far left on this issue as anyone in American politics. Apparently it doesn’t bother him that he voted to consign living human infants to spend their last moments dying in dark closets. Nor does it bother him that a disproportionate number of aborted babies are black.

Time magazine’s Michael Scherer, not suprisingly, isn’t interested in that sort of nuance. He also wasn’t interested in the fact that Obama lied about the contents of the bill in question until it was uncovered. Then he backtracked and changed his story to, well, to this story. Scherer didn’t see fit to mention any of that. All par for the course at Time magazine.

Post to Twitter

Category: Pro-Life |

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.