Thursday, February 23, 2012

More evidence NY Times' Andrew Rosenthal isn't a very smart man

Here's his take on Gingrich's debate statement on Obama's votes on Born-Alive legislation:
In 2001, 2002 and 2003, when Mr. Obama was a state senator, pro-lifers proposed bills that would have classified a fetus that survived an abortion as a person with full legal rights. The bill would never have survived judicial scrutiny, but in any case Illinois law already required doctors to try to save viable fetuses. It had no purpose other than the declaration of "personhood," so Mr. Obama opposed it. Far from getting a pass from the "elite media," many outlets reported on this tempest-in-a-teacup during the 2008 campaign.

Never survived judicial scrutiny?

Ummmm...... the Illinois bill ended up passing in 2005 and it's still on the books.

The federal legislation (which mirrors the Illinois legislation Obama voted against) passed in 2002 and has yet to face judicial scrutiny as far as I know.

Not to mention the numerous states besides Illinois which have unchallenged Born-Alive laws.

The laziness or bias of people like Rosenthal is mind-boggling. He can't even bring himself to look at a single source of information from prolifers. He can't even get an intern to do it.

Imagine the "thought" process or worldview of someone who thinks it's beyond question (so beyond question that he wouldn't do a shred of research) that the judiciary would rule against legislation to give children who survive abortions legal rights. Makes me shutter.

No comments:

Post a Comment