Obama Spins on Abortion Votes

[FUZO]

TweetObama Spins on Abortion Votes and Lets Not Forget The Uh’s
…I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

But David Freddoso, author of the book “The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate” proves Obama is outright lying once again:

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.

Obama’s work against bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one — so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.

At the end of last week, Obama gave an interview to CBN’s David Brody in which he repeated the false claim that the born-alive bills he worked, spoke, and voted against on this topic between 2001 and 2003 would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. This has always been untrue, but, until last week, it appeared to be a debatable point that depended on one’s interpretation of the bill language. Every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb.

But in 2003, in the health committee which he chaired, Obama voted against a version of the bill that contained the specific “neutrality” language — redundant language affirming that the bill only applied to infants already born and granted no rights to the unborn. You can visit the Illinois legislature’s website here to see the language of the “Senate Amendment 1,” which was added in a unanimous 10-0 vote in the committee before Obama helped kill it. This is the so-called “neutrality clause” on Roe that everyone is talking about

[Klash]

Tweet...this article makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims. If he did what the author has stated why not quote the language in the bill. The term "neutrality" to a "pro-lifer" might not be so "neutral" to a "pro-choicer".

[FUZO]

Tweetlike which ones klash

[Klash]

Tweet

Obama Spins on Abortion Votes and Lets Not Forget The Uh’s
…I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

But David Freddoso, author of the book “The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate” proves Obama is outright lying once again:

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. [An example would offer some credibility or are we suppose to just take the authors word for it.] He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in. [Senator Paul would put ear marks in bills and then vote against them - two different things.]

Obama’s work against bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one — so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.[Another missed opportunity to back up claims with an example or quote]

At the end of last week, Obama gave an interview to CBN’s David Brody in which he repeated the false claim that the born-alive bills he worked, spoke, and voted against on this topic between 2001 and 2003 would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. This has always been untrue, but, until last week, it appeared to be a debatable point that depended on one’s interpretation of the bill language. Every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe [again, this could be just the authors interpretation, another missed opportunity to support his claims]. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb. [Again, no support.]

But in 2003, in the health committee which he chaired, Obama voted against a version of the bill that contained the specific “neutrality” language — redundant language affirming that the bill only applied to infants already born and granted no rights to the unborn [Again, no definition of this "neutrality" language, no examples or quotes to support his accusations & when someone is throwing around these kinds of accusations it should be fairly simple to back your $hit up with facts but he doesn't which suggests to me this is just an agenda piece.]. You can visit the Illinois legislature’s website here to see the language of the “Senate Amendment 1,” which was added in a unanimous 10-0 vote in the committee before Obama helped kill it. This is the so-called “neutrality clause” on Roe that everyone is talking about [He has given me no reason to even want to visit the Illinois legislature's website - if it has what he says it has, why didn't he put at least part of it in his article? Probably because it's not as cut and dry as he is trying to present it.]

I deserve some reps for breaking that down!

[FUZO]

TweetDUDE AFTER I GO TAKE MY MORNING DUMP,LOL

[daved150]

Tweet

DUDE AFTER I GO TAKE MY MORNING DUMP,LOL

there's an example of prioritizing!!!

[Klash]

Tweetthat's one hell of a dump....

[daved150]

Tweet

that's one hell of a dump....

lmfao!!!!!!

[FUZO]

TweetWELL I SAY LOOK AT THE Illinois legislature's website thats all I can say