Final Debate: Obama Lied (Once Again) On BAIPA
As Weekly Standard notes, Obama lied regarding his motivation for voting against the Illinois born alive infant protection act:
Questioned about his vote against the born-alive infants protection act, Obama said: “There was already a law on the books that required lifesaving treatment, which is why … I voted against it.” Obama and his colleagues never cited this law as a reason for opposing the bill in the Illinois Senate. More importantly, that 1975 law only protected “viable” infants–and left the determination of viability up to the abortionist who had just failed to kill the baby in utero.
The National Right to Life have done their homework on this subject — see Barack Obama’s Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection of Born-Alive Aborted Infants -– and What They Tell Us About His Thinking on Abortion for short rebuttals to a number of Obama’s perpetually-shifting claims about why he sought to suppress this legislation in 2001, 2002, and 2003 while an Illinois State Senator. For much more extensive documentation on the Obama record on this issue, see Index of documents relating to Barack Obama and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
17 Responses to Final Debate: Obama Lied (Once Again) On BAIPA
![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YqM_zH1K7Uw/TOK1hLlt3BI/AAAAAAAAA1o/HCzoksN1-ME/s1600/email+icon+32x32.png")
- John2 commented on Bad History: Was the Persecution of Christians a Myth?
(1 hours ago) - Bonchamps commented on Can the Free Market Adequately Care for the Poor? -- Rev. Robert Sirico and Mr. Michael Sean Winters
(2 hours ago) - Bonchamps commented on Can the Free Market Adequately Care for the Poor? -- Rev. Robert Sirico and Mr. Michael Sean Winters
(2 hours ago) - Art Deco commented on Can the Free Market Adequately Care for the Poor? -- Rev. Robert Sirico and Mr. Michael Sean Winters
(3 hours ago) - Tom Davis commented on Can the Free Market Adequately Care for the Poor? -- Rev. Robert Sirico and Mr. Michael Sean Winters
(4 hours ago) - Donald R. McClarey commented on Bad History: Was the Persecution of Christians a Myth?
(4 hours ago) - T. Shaw commented on Bad History: Was the Persecution of Christians a Myth?
(4 hours ago) - Dave Hartline commented on Francis Has Returned As Pope?
(4 hours ago) - Dale Price commented on Bad History: Was the Persecution of Christians a Myth?
(5 hours ago) - CrankyinAZ commented on The Myth of Candida Moss
(5 hours ago) - Bonchamps commented on Can the Free Market Adequately Care for the Poor? -- Rev. Robert Sirico and Mr. Michael Sean Winters
(5 hours ago) - Elisa commented on Bad History: Was the Persecution of Christians a Myth?
(6 hours ago) - Blackadder commented on Bad History: Was the Persecution of Christians a Myth?
(6 hours ago) - Deacon Ed Peitler commented on Can the Free Market Adequately Care for the Poor? -- Rev. Robert Sirico and Mr. Michael Sean Winters
(7 hours ago) - Tom Davis commented on Can the Free Market Adequately Care for the Poor? -- Rev. Robert Sirico and Mr. Michael Sean Winters
(7 hours ago) - Art Deco commented on Can the Free Market Adequately Care for the Poor? -- Rev. Robert Sirico and Mr. Michael Sean Winters
(7 hours ago) - Tom Davis commented on Can the Free Market Adequately Care for the Poor? -- Rev. Robert Sirico and Mr. Michael Sean Winters
(7 hours ago) - Tom Davis commented on Can the Free Market Adequately Care for the Poor? -- Rev. Robert Sirico and Mr. Michael Sean Winters
(8 hours ago) - Dave W commented on Francis Has Returned As Pope?
(8 hours ago) - Tom Davis commented on Can the Free Market Adequately Care for the Poor? -- Rev. Robert Sirico and Mr. Michael Sean Winters
(8 hours ago) - Dave Hartline commented on Habemus Papam!
(8 hours ago)
The debate starkly showed the difference between the candidates on abortion. If you think that abortion on demand is good social policy, and you wish to remove any restrictions on abortion and have abortions paid for the poor out of public coffers, Obama is your man. If you believe that abortion is an unmitigated evil and that abortion on demand must be fought against, McCain is your candidate.
Senator McCain: I will pick judges based on their competency. Roe v. Wade will not be a litmus test.
“Senator McCain: I will pick judges based on their competency. Roe v. Wade will not be a litmus test.”
Yep and Obama does have a litmus test for justices.
But I guess in both cases we will not get judge #5.
No, if McCain is elected I think he would nominate someone in the mold of Scalia and Roberts, who he supported in the Senate. Obama voted against both of them, largely because he feared that they may vote to reverse Roe.
Could McCain even get the judges necessary to overturn Roe past an oppositional congress?
Mark,
You can justify all your want about your decision for Obama; but you know that you are being disingenious with your comment… he said he would support a justice that goes against Roe v. Wade in the dabate.
He said….just like Reagan said… with Kennedy and O’Connor as the result , and Bush 41 said, with Souter as a result.
Mark,
Perhaps you missed the line right afterwards when McCain said, “But a judge with a proper understanding of the constitution would not support Roe.”
It was during the overtalk after McCain’s litmus test comment. Anyone have the exact quote on that for did they skip the overtalk in the transcript?
He noted for Breyer (sic?).
Mark,
He said, “I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications…”
Look at 1:45 – 2:03 on the video….
Besides why did we get Kennedy? Was it Reagan’s fault or the Democratic Congress’ fault? We would should have gotten Justice Bork if wasn’t for the Congress.
Reagan buckled.
Though I will agree thus far: I honestly don’t know if we’d get Justice #5 from McCain. I don’t think he has a terribly coherant judicial philosophy.
But we know that Obama’s justices would be absolutely terrible. In every respect.
(And it doesn’t help that Obama would doubless manage to prolong the recession with his tax policies.)
Overall, I thought McCain brought up a lot of the right stuff in this debate. But Obama was simply teflon — even when he had no principled answer he just smiled and said something glib and for a moment even I would find myself forgetting the guy is a hard leftist with virtually no experience.
I suspect that with many who haven’t already made up their minds, Obama seemed like the winner.
Mark,
He put two justices up there… and both were shot down by a Democratic Congress…. but you want a Democratic Congress with Abortionist President.
Who is buckling?
Bret, thank you for pointing out the details! McCain did miss one opportunity, for all Obama’s talk on supporting abortion restrictions with the “health exception”, he did pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would effectively eliminate all restrictions. Clearly this guy is not in the mainstream on abortion.
That is why we need Sarah Palin debating this stuff
Because Sarah Palin Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alan,
I did watch the interview with Margaret Sanger on your blog… pretty interesting stuff… really scarry stuff…
especially about Philip Morris