Democracy Has Prevailed.

August 27, 2008

Pintek's Smears Continue

Local embarrassement Mike Pintek has hit the big time, again. He's been written up on, again. For an Obama smear he's made as a guest host on Quinn and Rose, again.

This time he's spreading the "infanticide" smear. Here's what he said (according to MediaMatters):
Back in the 2001, 2003 session of the Illinois state legislature, when he was a state senator, Obama opposed bills that would have required medical attention be given to babies who somehow survived the killing fields of the abortion table and would have given the aborted baby legal rights.
We'll be hearing a lot of this smear in the coming weeks, to be sure. MediaMatters is on it:
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama opposed certain bills amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 while he was in the Illinois state Senate because he and other opponents of the bills said they would pose a threat to abortion rights and said they were unnecessary because Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bills. [links in original]
The campaign has issued a rather extensive rebuttal to this smear (I somehow doubt Mike Pintek will be reading it anytime soon - if ever).

So let's see. The law in Illinois already prohibited the conduct addressed in the bills AND the bills threatened Roe v Wade. As Obama said on the Illinois Senate floor in 2001 (from
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. [emphasis in original]
And a year later:
I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.
And anyway, does Mike Pintek really think that Barack Obama wants to kill children? If so he should just say it up front without the protective veil of this "he opposed bills requiring medical attention to aborted fetuses so therefore he supports infanticide" line.


Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ said...

Why is Obama running from his defense of woman's choice.

The funny part is Obama called his critics liars and if turned out he was the liar.

You missed this part Dave,

Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language.
The statement was still on Obama's Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of "lying." But Obama's claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.

John K. said...

John K: There babies.  Using that term causes the left to cringe.  Good thing the unborn can't speak.  Wonder what they would say about the issue?  But if it isn't a life, in the words of Peggy Noonan, why is the left passing out condoms.  What are they trying to prevent.  If you have sex with a person who cannot have children then there is no need for a condom.  So exactly what is that condom preventing? 

John K. said...

John K: Remember, Hussein Obama said he did not want people stuck with a mistake, ie a baby.  He also did not want a 2nd doctor called in if the abortion was botched.  Because if that happened then there might be a question raised about life.  So Obama's plan, let the baby just die in the corner.  Why stick the adult with a mistake eh?

Anonymous said...

You are unquestionably more intelligent than this.

Yes, incredibly, Obama DOES, in a way, want to kill children (albeit not by his own direct action). If he did not, than his record would indicate that.

The reason I say "in a way" is that of course, I believe that Obama is somewhat ignorant of, or perhaps oblivious to, the reality of abortion. However, the reality remains. Truth does not stop being true.

Am I making a good effort at a charitable view of Obama's position?

But even my five-year old understands the reality (at a five-year old level, of course).

Why don't you?