It fails to ‘fess up to Obama’s years of misrepresentation regarding his excuses against voting to provide protection to infants who survive abortions. The only defense it can provide of Obama’s committee vote against the 2003 Born Alive legislation with the neutrality clause is a Planned Parenthood talking point dated before the neutrality clause was added and a note about the Illinois Medical Society’s opposition to the bill which doesn’t give a date (so you don’t know if the opposition continued after the addition of the neutrality clause).
If you want to get a slight idea of how pathetic some in the pro-choice blogosphere are, check out this piece* from the RH Reality Check’s Brady Swenson, who links to the Obama campaign’s “fact sheet” as if it somehow disproved National Right to Life claims and then intentionally attempts to mislead people into thinking Jill Stanek is now claiming her accusations against Obama opposition to the Born Alive bills were a “mistake.” The mistake in question was that Stanek previously believed Obama didn’t allow the neutrality clause amendment to be added to the legislation. Scott Swenson, also at the RH Reality Check blog, makes similar misleading accusations. *UPDATE* - Brady edited his post (though it's not completely satisfactory) after I pointed out his mistake. Scott failed to do so.
After reading this I’m beginning to wonder if pro-choice supporters of Obama are just too stupid to realize Obama has been misrepresenting himself for years or just so infatuated with him they can’t take an honest look at the evidence. Can someone be so intentionally dishonest about something that is so easily checked - Stanek’s “mistake” didn’t cite the firestorm but the correction of the “mistake” by National Right to Life and the realization and admittance by the Obama campaign that Obama has been misrepresenting the reasoning for his votes.
David Reinhard of the Oregonian isn’t buying the Obama’s ever-changing story.
Right after the Brody interview aired, the Obama camp admitted to The New York Sun that he had voted against a "Born Alive" bill with the neutrality clause. Which prompts two questions:
When will the media start chastising Obama for such fast-talking? How could Obama have voted to deny legal protection to these "born alive" babies?
Fox News has Jill Stanek’s interview with Sean Hannity from last night.
At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey lays out why he thinks Obama voted the way he did.
Nowhere in this argument does Obama say, “I oppose this bill because of its companion bill,” the lame argument that has surfaced over the last 48 hours from Team Obama. He doesn’t talk about the bill’s supposed unconstitutionality. Moreover, during the presidential campaign, he said he would have supported the federal bill even though it had all of the same supposed flaws Obama argued against in this passage.
Obama protected infanticide in order to protect abortion on demand. There simply is no other explanation except abject stupidity, and this passage proves it.
The Sydney Morning Herald highlights the accomplishments of Dutch swimmer Maarten van der Weijden, who won the gold medal in the 10K open water race. His leukemia was previously treated with a stem cell transplant.