Blog @ MoreWhat.com

How’s this for a sexy teaser?

OMG! ‘Gossip Girl’ star Blake Lively flaunts her assets with a plunging neckline on the red carpet

A successful stint on what appears to be a popular television program. A girl whose appearance is visually pleasing. Or put another way, yes, this qualifies as eye candy. OMG, sex, exploitation, perhaps a political agenda and the masses will rebel. NOT

No need to discuss all the possibilities for debate on what is presented here. Just ignore the natural inclination to weigh in and enjoy the view.

Speaking of views provides a handy transition to the next related item. OMG, controversy over one person’s, correction, two persons’ decision to make a statement about a topic apparently important to them. The piece below is spot on in its analysis.

Tim Tebow chose to take a stand about his beliefs.

It’s certainly his right. He and his mother, Pam, are scheduled to star in a Super Bowl commercial next Sunday night that advocates an anti-abortion message. It has created a firestorm among special-interest groups believing that the national communal experience that has become Super Sunday should be independent of political infiltration.

Those who disagree with their position can choose to take their television remote in hand when the ad appears on CBS and change the channel.

And finally let’s consider a story from a member of the Palin family that is not an attack piece from the MSM or lefty blogosphere.

Bristol Palin vows no more pre-marital sex - and says other women should follow her lead

Here’s a kid dealing with accepting consequences for her decisions. As they say, she chose life. And even with a great deal of support from family and friends that is no easy path. Some may continue to criticize, attack and bash the Palin’s including Bristol. But her ‘goal’ is not something to diss. In addition to what she faces for years to come, if using the media attraction to promote responsible living also comes from it she should get applause not criticism.

So that about wraps up this presentation of three sex stories. A story about an attractive young woman and her apparel which may seem tame these days. A young man and his Mom taking a stand on what they believe at some personal risk. And another attractive young woman dealing with the reality of life’s serious consequences. All of them deal with sex in some way. A topic that can use both serious and light-hearted attention. But one that we must give proper consideration to avoid serious damage and unnecessary setbacks.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Two shining examples of elected Representatives in the House allowing their votes to be bought for so-called health reform are Bart Stupak and Joseph Cao. A pair in the Senate likewise demonstrate the 60 vote fraud that is the Democratic party’s reform, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson.

After a brief review of manager’s amendment of Senate Majority Leader and vote buyer (with your money) Harry Reid a search of the vague and openended legislative item produced 19 references to abortion. From instances of where federal funding is prohibited for abortions to where it is allowed and various provisions demonstrating differences between federal and state wiggle room on the topic Reid’s back room deals are a masterpiece of arrogance and ignoring public opposition to this bill.

One might not expect provisions regarding firearms possession and similar items within a bill on health reform but that merely emphasizes the culture of corruption in Washington and a common description in most legislation allowing ‘and for other purposes’ to cover any deal POLS make.

Here are a few less contentious references to the Harry Reid manager’s amendment.

There are arrangements for using an arbitrary percentage to determine among other things rebates to premium payers under certain circumstances.

from the amendment….

In determining the percentages under paragraph (1), a State shall seek to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market in the State, and value for consumers so that premiums are used for clinical services and quality improvements.

‘‘(3) ENFORCEMENT.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for enforcing the provisions of this section and may provide for appropriate penalties.

Sure, the public sector, aka, your government will ’seek to ensure’ participation, competition and value for the consumer in a role in which it has never succeeded. But you can bet they will come up with penalties. After all, what a better way to raise more revenue from the private sector to waste on more governmet interference. It’s like you paying a thief to rob you.

On the issue of more bureaucracy and more waste comes another

‘‘(d) MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT DATA CENTERS.— ‘‘(1) FUNCTIONS.—A center established under
subsection (c)(1)(C) shall— ‘‘(A) develop fee schedules and other database tools that fairly and accurately reflect market rates for medical services and the geographic differences in those rates;

The devil’s in the details…..

‘‘(B) use the best available statistical methods and data processing technology to develop such fee schedules and other database tools; ‘‘(C) regularly update such fee schedules and other database tools to reflect changes in charges for medical services;
‘‘(D) make health care cost information readily available to the public through an Internet website that allows consumers to understand the amounts that health care providers in their area charge for particular medical services; and ‘‘(E) regularly publish information concerning the statistical methodologies used by the center to analyze health charge data and make such data available to researchers and policy makers.
‘‘(2) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—A center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) shall adopt by laws that ensures that the center (and all members of the governing board of the center) is independent and free from all conflicts of interest. Such bylaws shall ensure that the center is not controlled or influenced by, and does not have any corporate relation to, any individual or entity that may make or receive payments for health care services based on the center’s analysis of health care costs.
‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit a center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) to compel health insurance issuers to provide data to the center.’’.

And one tiny example of how YOUR government will raise costs not only on established transactions but new ones.

‘‘(e) STANDARD HOSPITAL CHARGES.—Each hospital operating within the United States shall for each year establish (and update) and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided
by the hospital, including for diagnosisrelated groups established under section 886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.’’.

And that is after less than an hour reviewing Harry Reid’s manager’s amendment. Which brings to mind the often stated criticism that few if any in Congress have read the bill or anything related to it. Yet they are content to pass it with sixty liberal Senate votes. You have to ask yourself why?

It’s all about money and power and has nothing to do with reform of anything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Much has been made of Senator Ben Nelson ‘holding up’ the Dems on passing scam health reform. Could it be that Senator Nelson simply wants stuff for his vote? Is this any different than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid buying Senator Mary Landrieu’s vote or Obama buying Cao’s vote? That includes the bogus Stupak Amendment in the House. So what does Senator Ben Nelson say in his own press release on the topic?

NELSON COMMENTS ON ABORTION COMPROMISE

December 17, 2009 – Today, Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson praised provisions in an abortion compromise adding new teen pregnancy initiatives and tax credits for adoption, while saying that the language working to ban public funding of abortion is not sufficient at this point.

Senator Nelson said today a proposed compromise he’s studied does not yet ensure that a longstanding federal standard barring public funding of abortion would be maintained in the Senate health care bill the Senate has been debating this month.

Nelson said without further improvements the compromise is not sufficient.

“The compromise adds important new initiatives addressing teen pregnancy and tax credits to help with adoptions,” Senator Nelson said. “These are valuable improvements that will make a positive difference and promote life. But as it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient.”

Senator Nelson reiterated that he will not be able to support a cloture motion needing 60 votes to end debate on the underlying Senate bill if certain language in the bill remains. The existing language allows public funds to pay for abortion, thus relaxing the longstanding Hyde amendment.

He said today that he is open to looking at additional attempts to maintain the federal restriction on public funding of abortion.

###

If Ben Nelson is so concerned about abortion, where is his concern, outrage or even mention of the following:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT: Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.” The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become known as the “Mexico City Policy” directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand this limitation and withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available. The Mexico City Policy was in effect from 1985 until 1993, when it was rescinded by President Clinton. President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to “voluntary population planning” assistance provided by the Department of State.

These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), the Presidential memorandum of March 28, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), and the Presidential memorandum of August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of State (Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning). In addition, I direct the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to take the following actions with respect to conditions in voluntary population planning assistance and USAID grants that were imposed pursuant to either the 2001 or 2003 memoranda and that are not required by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law: (1) immediately waive such conditions in any current grants, and (2) notify current grantees, as soon as possible, that these conditions have been waived. I further direct that the Department of State and USAID immediately cease imposing these conditions in any future grants.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 23, 2009.

That’s right! With each successive change in presidential administration in the US the abortion tennis match continues. When a Republican occupies the White House the Mexico City Policy is reinstated. When a Democrat occupies the White House it is rescinded. So where’s your concern about that Mr Nelson?

Another item related to the never ending abortion debate is the Hyde Amendment. It captures the conservative compromise on the topic. Agreeing to certain limited uses of abortion for circumstances that do not demonstrate abortion’s usage as contraception for dummies.

reference to The Hyde Amendment…..

H.AMDT.185 (A008)
Amends: H.R.2518
Sponsor: Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] (offered 6/30/1993)AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated in the bill for any abortion except, when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

POPULAR TITLE(S):
Hyde Amendment (identified by CRS)

STATUS:

6/30/1993 3:00pm:

Amendment (A008) offered by Mr. Hyde.

6/30/1993 3:26pm:

On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by recorded vote: 255 - 178 (Roll no. 307).

6/30/1993 3:28pm:

Mr. Armey demanded a separate vote on the Hyde amendment (A008).

6/30/1993 4:00pm:

On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 256 - 171 (Roll no. 309).

And even though one could make a reasonable argument in support of the Hyde Amendment there are othe equally reasonable arguments to the contrary. Meaning those who face the above challenges still have other choices albeit problematic ones.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another sneaky Saturday in the Senate — and Teddy K’s ghost rises again (Michelle Malkin) 

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

Issues become layered with rhetoric.  Often times we do not notice and that is by design.  Maybe the same people who produce marketing strategies for consumer goods have a hand in managing special interest talking points.  Words can be powerful tools.  And those with talent and skill for manipulating the message can and do influence our impression of the debate.  In the case of abortion ‘reproductive rights’ fits the pro-choice agenda.  Even the word pro-choice as well as pro-life are carefully chosen for the impact they will have on debate participants.

But murder is murder.  If you are responsible for the death of another and it does not fall under the category of self-defense or a similar exception you are guilty of murder. The conflict between the number of issues labeled ‘human rights’ and those who support the protection of individuals threatened or in fact harmed by others versus the number of people or babies killed by one or both of their parents via abortion is our times most provocative contradiction.

Conservative minds typically cherish freedom, individual liberty and accept the fact that with such things come individual responsibility.  Heterosexual sex has many consequences not the least of which is pregnancy.  It is generally accepted that traditional sex between consenting adults is a freedom of choice or even a right. Like every other right, and as stated earlier, there are consequences.  If the two consenting adults or even minors choose to have sex and a pregnancy occurs the obvious result dictates a responsible action by both parties.  Again, personal responsibility for the personal freedom requires accommodating the life the act has commissioned by providing for the life until that life is able to provide for itself independently.  Besides the obvious humanitarian benefit no further problems arise from the result of the freedom of choice with successful discharge of the inherent responsibility.  And it deems moot the need for laws, etc., supporting ‘reproductive rights’ as a substitute for responsibility.

If you believe the cavalier attitude toward life that results from casual sex or flagrant disregard for one’s responsibility for one’s actions renders abortion reasonable consider the following information.

Numbers play an important role in our decision making processes.  Government, business, social and many other issues are characterized by ‘how many’ are affected and what can we do to accommodate those involved.  It is easy to discount the unborn or some other constituency that has been reduced to some vague entity as described earlier with mention of the talking points crowd.  The numbers provided in this post are not talking points.  They are real and under the worst circumstances demonstrate how the role of abortion in society is the stealth serial killer.  And we are all guilty. Those who are directly involved as well as those of us who sit idly by and allow it to continue.  Check this out.

1. There are nearly seven billion people on the planet.

2. Of the top 19 countries by rank in number of abortions per year the total reaches nearly 6 million (equaling the Holocaust)

3. The average number of abortions in those same countries equals 4.2 per 1000 in population.

4. Even back in 1995 total abortions worldwide was approximately 46 MILLION !!

5. Abortion and partial-birth abortion is one sinister and disgusting practice.

6. And US politics contributes to the problem when it should resolve it.

The cries for human rights fall on deaf ears for many issues and abortion victims are no exception.  Using Darfur as an example much angst and discomfort was generated by the world’s refusal to take timely action on this travesty.  But no such outcry exists for abortion.  As a species, how truly depraved we are.  As witnesses to this macabre practice and based on common statutes related to ‘death’ we are by default all guilty of depraved indifference and 2nd degree murder.  Punishable in many situations by 25 years to life.  Connect that with your casual sex and disregard for personal responsibility.  Exceptions may exist but not to the tune of millions of deaths per year.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Selected notes on ‘depraved indifference’ or ‘indifference’:

Depraved Indifference

and…..

Under certain circumstances a person may be sentenced to death for a murder even if the person was an accomplice and not the “trigger person.” An accomplice may be sentenced to death if he or she played a major role in the murder and if he or she acted with reckless indifference to human life.

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

Hillary Clinton and other pro-choice liberals carefully use the words ‘family planning’ to describe what they view as a right to have an abortion. More often it seems they prefer to call abortion by the words, women’s reproductive rights. The report from AFP states Hillary ‘defended the right to abortion worldwide’ and the Obama Administration’s approval to pay for it with taxpayer money.

“We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health and reproductive health includes access to abortion, that I believe should be safe, legal and rare,” Clinton added.

You will notice that Clinton carefully words her response like most other pro-choice advocates who apparently feel the need to make killing babies sound better. Funny how the same liberals who have spat on returning US troops and called them baby killers have no such problem with those who really do kill babies.

First Clinton uses the phrase, ‘family planning’ and then the word women’s and reproductive both having the word health added to each phrase. Gee, family, planning, health, reproductive, all such natural sounding words when it comes to childbirth. But make sure you never speak about ending someone’s life or killing them by using abortion. No, no, no that would make it sound bad. Well it is bad. It is wrong and it is bad. It is not the way to solve any problem Clinton or those who agree with her on this topic can present. It is not about planning and it is not about planning reproduction. If it were sincerely about health then a proactive couple would have avoided the pregnancy.

Certainly when a woman becomes pregnant against her will such as in rape you can make the case she could do little or nothing about it. But even then there are other options. Stats indicate pregnancies from rape represent a tiny number of abortion requests compared to other reasons. The leading statistic for most women having an abortion in any given year indicates it is not their first one. Abortion is primarily used as contraception for dummies. Choices have consequences which the pro-choice crowd prefers to ignore.

Abortion solves nothing since the desire for them by some continues. It is the death penalty for babies who had no say in any of it. How many liberals are opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of a capital crime? Do those same liberals oppose abortion?

And the current President of the United States said he doesn’t want his daughters to be burdened with a baby for making a mistake. What does this say about his other statements suggesting people have to take responsibility for their actions? It is just another lie from Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton.

This was just a little warm up post for the coming week. The rather impractical key performance measure for Presidents will likely dominate political discussions for some time. President Obama’s first 100 days in office ends mid-week. The relative merits of this analysis are subject to debate. But it has become something of a ritual fair or not.

In advance of what will probably bring as much criticism of the President as praise and not serve any useful purpose it is what there is. So, kindly refrain from regarding those who oppose the current President’s agenda and actions as racists. Many describe Mr Obama as the first African-American President. Are you forgetting his mother was white? Simple math would suggest Mr Obama is as much black as he is white and the reverse is true. So if there is some discrimination going on it is forgetting his whiteness and focusing on his blackness. Perhaps as he said when asked if race was an issue after taking office that it only lasted about an hour and a half and we are fast approaching 100 days.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sure, let’s have a pro-choice Governor as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. How can it be considered healthy or a human service to kill babies. A few reminders include the fact that more than half of all abortions performed each year are not the woman’s first. Obama supported infanticide in Illinois more than once. And the new president also stated he did not want his daughters to be ‘punished’ for a mistake with a baby. How’s that for leadership?

Sebelius lowers volume on abortion
Boston Globe -
When Kathleen Sebelius faces the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee this morning, perhaps the biggest hurdle to her confirmation as secretary of health and human services — the abortion issue — will very likely be muted, ...

Sebelius confirmation hearings to be televised Tuesday and Thursday
Lawrence Journal World -
Kathleen Sebelius is the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services in Obama’s Cabinet. She has served as Kansas’ governor since 2002 and before that was insurance commissioner and a state representative. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who has …

C-SPAN will be broadcasting both hearings on the Sebelius confirmation.

FRC Action Joins Coalition Effort Opposing Sebelius Nomination
FOXBusiness -
WASHINGTON, March 30, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ —-Family Research Council Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky, along with twenty-nine other pro-family leaders, sent the following letter today to the US Senate urging opposition to …

You can always help out the folks above by contacting your senator and oppose the Sebelius confirmation. After all, it’s not like the Obama Administration is unfamiliar with failed nominations or people withdrawing from consideration.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Screw the UN

Another in a long list of additions to the Obama Administration reinforces the concern that while Hillary Rodham Clinton was unsuccessful in becoming President she succeeded in establishing a third Clinton term in spite of the loss. Susan Rice is US Ambassador to the United Nations and was a member of the Obama Biden Transition Team as well as senior foreign policy adviser for their 2008 campaign.

It has been said of Obama that filling vacancies from the previous administration demonstrates a preference for persons with impressive resumes’ in both education and experience. This selection was no departure from that criteria or strategy. A Wikipedia account of Dr Rice states her father told her to ‘never use race as an excuse or advantage’ and that she was concerned her accomplishments would be viewed as the result of affirmative action. Her personal success is impressive. It is possible she hails from a family with above average means so affirmative action should be a moot point. But what if any is the role of nepotism?

Madeleine Albright is described in the same account as a family friend and mentor to Rice. She urged Clinton to appoint Rice as an Assistant Secretary of State in 1997. While she impressed many and certainly enough to be confirmed others felt she was inexperienced and inflexible. A few years in the Clinton Administration and then to the Brookings Institution. A common career path for unemployed public servants similar to former Congressman becoming lobbyists. Next up the Clinton Obama Wars and filling the Administration with former staff to appease the Clinton clan before the convention. Oh there’s no nepotism here. And this is not a criticism directed at Rice for it is the case with most if not all Obama selections. So how is that working or shaping up for the average citizen?

Regarding President Obama’s election UN Sec Gen Ban Ki Moon expressed ‘Our goals are shared. Together, the United States of America and the United Nations can look forward to a new era of strong and effective partnership, delivering results and the change we need.’ If you take that statement at face value avoid persons selling infrastructure in Brooklyn or vacant land in Florida. Moon had more to say. Earlier this week, he welcomed Mr. Obama’s election “with great optimism,” noting that the UN and US have many common goals. By his own admission and that of Obama and Clinton these goals include but are not limited to the following:

United Nations reform (which will never happen)

Climate Change (or the promotion of more gloom and doom)

The Darfur Peace Process ( which does not exist, resembles the climate change item and is as likely to fail as that in the Middle East )

Global Economic Crisis (his words, and something these spendthrifts no nothing about )

But what Ban Ki Moon and the rest of the posse at the UN were really interested in was this.

UN Launches $613 Million Appeal for Gaza
By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
29 January 2009

The United Nations is appealing for $613 million to help tens of thousands of people in Gaza recover from the three-week Israeli military offensive in the Palestinian territory. The money will provide life-saving assistance over the next six to nine months. The U.N. appeal was launched at the annual World Economic Forum in the Swiss alpine village of Davos.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is the first world leader to enter Gaza since Israel imposed a blockade on the Palestinian territory in June 2007. He describes his distress at what he saw.

And how does Moon qualify for the designation in the report above as a ‘world leader’? More to the point is what does the UN do besides make headlines and statements when they’re not collecting money and using it for who knows what? Could it be that aside from all the other conspiracy theories about the UN that they are quite happy with the Middle East conflict as another venue to work their craft of separating people from their money and giving it to their friends? If you object to that suggestion please explain why none of their ‘programs’ end in success or just end? Sustaining conflict in the world would be of benefit to them given their methods of operation.

So what does Dr Rice bring to the party?

26 January 2009 – There is no more important forum for effective cooperation among States that the United Nations, the new ambassador of the United States to the United Nations stressed today, following her first meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

“I am looking very much forward to engaging in a cooperative, constructive fashion with my colleagues here in New York. I will listen, I will engage and I will work to advance United States interests, recognizing that in many, many instances, our national interests are best advanced when we are working hand in hand with that of others,” Susan Rice told reporters at UN Headquarters in New York.

Ms. Rice said she had an “excellent meeting” with the Secretary-General, covering a range of issues including climate change, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), UN peacekeeping, non-proliferation, Sudan and the situation in the Middle East.

“The United Nations is a vitally important institution. It has great potential. It still has room for great improvement,” she said, adding that she and Mr. Ban also touched on the challenge of making the Organization more effective and more efficient.

She recalled that President Barack Obama had wanted to place the US at the centre of the fight against poverty, and had stated that the MDGs – the globally agreed targets to slash poverty and other development challenges by 2015 – were now US goals.

Based on President Obama rescinding The Mexico City Policy, the liberal thirst for abortion and a press conference by the executive director of the UN population fund the crew must be drunk with sadistic pleasure over the spoils of a political victory. Here’s the damming evidence from the UN press conference in their own words.

“President Obama’s actions sent a strong message about his leadership and strategic vision to support causes that will promote peace and development, equity and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic empowerment of the poor in all regions of the world,” she said. With the resumption of United States funding, UNFPA would be able to maintain recent gains during the current financial crisis and provide support to women in the poorest countries of the world. United Nations Member States had repeatedly said that progress for all would not happen without progress for women. That meant making women’s health, rights and equality an international priority.

She also welcomed the decision of the new United States administration to revoke the Mexico City policy, which paved the way for a restored United States partnership with some of the world’s leading non-governmental organizations that provide family planning services around the world. Access to safe and effective voluntary family planning, as Mr. Obama had said, was one of the most effective ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies and empowering women and men to plan their families. If a woman could not take decisions about her own fertility, she could not make decisions about anything else in her life.

And the final expression of support for ’safe’ abortions as ‘family planning’.

To a question about family planning, she said that its importance was demonstrated by the fact that unsafe abortion was considered the second leading cause of death for African women. Women who did not have access to family planning would go to have unsafe abortions, which often led to death.

Translation:: The money is used to pay for abortions the ‘patient’ cannot afford which would lead to back alley practitioners who care less about the patient than the liberals care about the unborn child. And ‘family planning’ is liberal-speak for abortion. The only reason they support contraception is political. It gives them another pork item to support in legislation and lets them believe they have convinced you they are trying to do things the right way. Could it be any more pathetic?

So Dr Susan Rice will be doing the bidding of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Keep in mind both Clinton and Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy. Also notable is Obama’s weakness for ACORN and voter and campaign finance fraud as well as the Clintons’ scandal history including illegal transfers of sensitive technology via Chinagate. The perils of international politics grow larger. And the threat is not always from without but within.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

The debate and/or division among opponents and supporters of abortion may never end. That supposition is based partly on the near equal division in US politics demonstrated in the back and forth restoring and rescinding of the Mexico City Policy initiated in the Reagan years and named after the location of a UN conference on population where it was announced.

From the standpoint of ‘rights’ those who approve of abortion typically refer to it as a ‘woman’s right to choose’ and those reject it defend the rights of the child to live. In the Mexico City Policy debate those who oppose the policy say it not only denies money to NGOs who provide abortion but other contraceptive methods as well. And of course opponents of abortion who favor the policy typically indicate pro-choice advocates support abortion as a barbaric after-the-fact solution for irresponsible behavior and a failure to accept the consequences of their actions.

About the only thing the two sides agree on is encouraging a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies. Pro-life advocates maintain that better alternatives for unintended pregnancies include abstinence and adoption. Many pro-choice advocates would likely support the notion expressed by Barack Obama during the presidential campaign. ‘Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,’ he said. ‘I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.’

Below is a brief review excerpt from USAID on President Bush restoring the policy in 2001 shortly after taking office. After that is a link to President Obama rescinding the policy shortly after he took office. After President Reagan initiated it in 1984 President Clinton rescinded it in 1993, again, shortly after taking office. The trend is painfully clear.

Restoration of the Mexico City Policy Concerning Family Planning

“This policy recognizes our country’s long history of providing international health care services, including voluntary family planning to couples around the world who want to make free and responsible decisions about the number and spacing of their children.”

The White House
January 22, 2001

On January 22, 2001, President George W. Bush announced reinstatement of the so-called Mexico City policy that required non-governmental organizations to “agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” The President is committed to maintaining the $425 million funding level provided for in the FY 2001 appropriation because he knows that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing quality voluntary family planning services.

President (Obama) rescinds “Mexico City Policy” on Abortion

If one searches data on abortion recurring statistics may shed some light on the problem. A significant percentage of the abortions performed each year are not the patient’s first. As many as one out of five abortions in given years were the patient’s second or third. A not so surprising number of women reported inconsistent use of contraception as the reason for the unintended pregnancy.

Wikipedia history, etc., of Mexico City Policy

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate roll call vote: Taxpayer funding of overseas abortions reinstated (Michelle Malkin) 

from the SF Chronicle and Tammy Bruce, author of ‘The New American Revolution’ comes the following excerpt. ‘ Make no mistake - the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party’s increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That’s why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.

They are deciding women’s rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.’

The comments of Tammy Bruce on the Democratic Party and women in politics may or may not be true. But her comments about voting on gender for a candidate of a political party not your own certainly has some merit. If your gender magnifies or amplifies your feelings on related issues and the only woman candidate is on the opposing party’s ticket, you stand a better chance of your issues receiving attention at least if not solutions. In any case, the more candidates you elect from your gender the greater the chance your issues will be in play.

Tammy Bruce as a former president of the LA Chapter of NOW, an advocate for pro-choice as well as other liberal issues does hint at a takeover the world mentality. Pursuit of personal wealth, power and political influence sounds much like other self-centered, self-righteous, selfish, egotistical idealogues that litter the landscape. This was to be a post celebrating the fact that even fringe left wing liberals may make the move to the GOP ticket because of Sarah Palin. But upon reflection, having persons with agendas so foreign to those in the right, conservative right voting for a conservative ticket seems somehow, I dunno, WRONG.

But that is politics. Even as a voter far removed from the day to day activities within party politics enduring the stigma of far left liberals voting for conservative candidates while they are forming their next play to advance initiatives from Kookville is just the price you have to pay in a potentially tight race down to the wire. Now the average conservative American voter can feel as dirty as the lesser politicians among us. You know, like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and oh, did I forget to mention, Hillary Clinton? I will forget to mention Bill cuz that would be sexist

Infanticide anyone?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is one report on speculation about Sarah Palin’s effect on voters or more correctly, asks a question on what her effect will be. Specifically from the standpoint of those who supported Hillary Clinton and perhaps the gender vote. As an aside, while preparing this post other sources of this AP report were viewed with an interesting result. The links to the sources are offered below the AP report excerpt. KGET in ‘the Bay Area’ and KRON have what can only be a truncated or edited version of the AP report. The content they provided along with the original AP report title convey a much different idea than the original. And the MSM wonders why they are being criticized. (more on that later)

Reference to an ABC News Poll suggests Palin attracts 6% to McCain while Biden attracts 12% to Obama. That information, on its own, is of limited usefulness except to say that shortly after her appearance on the national political stage, Sarah Palin is already drawing half as many voters to McCain as Biden is to Obama. And Biden is a much more known quantity in US politics. Another interesting poll result from Gallup suggests 8/10 Clinton supporters will vote for Obama but that information was gathered after the McCain VP announcement. Number one, things may have changed since then. Number two, where is the information about the other 20%? Are we to assume they are voting for McCain/Palin? Or are there intentions something different than voting for either major party ticket?

If there are the now famous 18 million Clinton voters from the primary elections and 20%, or 3.6 million are not voting for Obama, that could mean McCain/Palin had close to 4 million of Obama’s party voting for them simply by announcing the selection of Palin or even without her on the ticket. But that is the problem with bits and pieces of polling data. It always leaves you needing more information about the data and it is hard to tell what significance, if any, is demonstrated by polling data.

A repeat or additional set of comments by or from Gloria Steinem and Ellen Moran from Emily’s List present some generalizations that may play or be rejected by anyone reading the report. The concern on this blog is that their sort of ’sound bites’ may play and influence unsuspecting voters. The disaffected Clinton vote, gender vote or whatever subgroup Steinem or Moran are talking about is not likely a 100% up or down vote on either major ticket. For either commenter to suggest that there are very few or no liberal voters selecting McCain/Palin this year is as much hogwash as saying no conservatives are voting for the Democratic party ticket. The more compelling question is which ticket will succeed in drawing the largest segment of voters from the other ticket’s core voters or base? Even after the election we may not really know based on how skimpy the MSM is with real facts and data that can be validated. Ya, I know, another shot at the fourth estate or whatever the artist formerly known as journalism calls itself these days.

Which brings to mind one of the fine examples of the few remaining journalistic practitioners on the planet; George Will. If you already read columns by George Will you need no prodding by this blog to continue. If you are not familiar or have not read his material, you should. The style of writing alone is enough to bring back readers. Combine that with inspiring viewpoints, apparent knowledge and historical references provided, George Will is a must read. In these days with an abundance of media hacks, it suggests there may be hope for journalism yet. (Okay, enough uncompensated plugging for George Will)

The last comment in the AP piece is especially telling about people’s viewpoints and how twisted they can get in politics as well as other parts of life on the planet. A woman not fond of Palin suggests that the ‘18 million cracks’ in the glass ceiling did not include Sarah Palin. Oh, I get it, some die-hard liberals don’t really believe their own Kook Aid about championing the cause for the people and apparently if you don’t share their viewpoints you do not qualify as a ‘people’.

If Hillary Clinton’s challenge for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee furthered the cause for women and the ‘glass ceiling’ issue, it applies to Sarah Palin as well as any other woman. Or do liberals apply their own sniff test as to whether or not any person qualifies to be treated fairly? You know, you only get rights if you submit to the Liberal Kool Aid Acid Test and pass as a certified kook fringe far left liberal.

Rant concluded. The central point for offering this post besides a few shots at the MSM and liberals was to suggest that polling data is of limited usefulness and it is just as reasonble to suggest that McCain/Palin is benefiting from the Democratic party division more than the liberal commentary may be willing to admit.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Most Clinton backers say Palin’s too far a stretch
By JOCELYN NOVECK – 21 hours ago

Sandy Goodman was deeply disappointed when Hillary Rodham Clinton didn’t get the Democratic nomination, then again when she was bypassed for the VP spot. So Goodman, a longtime Florida Democrat, flirted with thoughts of shunning Barack Obama, and perhaps even voting Republican.

Then John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, and suddenly things became clear to Goodman: The Republicans had no place for her.

“Boy, you are sure not talking to ME!” Goodman, 61, says she thought when she heard Palin’s views on issues like abortion rights. Now, Goodman is volunteering for Obama.

But then there’s Chrissie Peters. The 37-year-old librarian from Bristol, Tenn. has always voted Democratic and supported Clinton. She assumed she’d vote for Obama — until she saw Palin speak. Now she’s voting Republican.

“She was so down-to-earth, a regular person,” says Peters. “She hasn’t been in politics her whole life, so she isn’t jaded or tainted. And I love that she’s a mom. Yes, I disagree with some of her positions, but that’s what this country is about.”

One of the most intriguing questions about the Alaska governor’s sudden arrival on the national scene has been what impact it’ll have on women voters — especially those who supported Clinton.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYQV5v00aLCnUUTZpVfPejgbPeZQD930Q53G0
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/most-clinton-backers-say-palins-too-far-a-stretch/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_el_pr/from_clinton_to_palin

http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=8961814
http://www.kget.com/political/story.aspx?content_id=e5886927-8f3c-4d73-b0dc-7f1ab051eb02

Palin’s name was largely ignored by the MSM as being on McCain’s short list for VP but it was out there. For the NYT (and others) to claim her selection was such a shocker and that Obama’s staff was not smart enough to prepare for her is simply an excuse. To deflect criticism that the media dropped the ball on this one as well as the Obama campaign. The same campaign staff Obama has to chastise regularly for mistakes caused by the annointed one’s inability to manage them. And he wants to be President.

Campaigns Shift as McCain Choice Alters the Race

A day after Mr. McCain announced his decision, catching almost everyone but his inner circle by surprise, both sides were trying to gauge the risks and opportunities of having a young, relatively inexperienced, socially conservative woman on the Republican ticket.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic Party had prepared advertisements and lines of attack directed at the two men who had been most prominently mentioned as vice-presidential possibilities for Mr. McCain former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota but had not considered Ms. Palin a likely enough choice to do the same for her. A new advertisement linking President Bush to Mr. McCain was quickly put together, but it contained only a fleeting mention of Ms. Palin.

Another piece from the NYT that defies logic. They tell of changing times in Connecticut going from Democrat to Republican since the Reagan years and almost in the same breath report the area went solidly for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. That may be Republican where the NYT is from (no Clinton bias there) but anywhere else that is called Democrat or lost liberal. No wonder the NYT gets punked all the time.

Diner Poll Finds a Need for More Than a Speech

Once reliably and fiercely Democratic, it’s now home to many of the conservative Democrats who became Republicans in the Reagan years and have not come back. Even the names of the Democratic Town Committee members, Dugatto-Coscia, Chudoba, D’Onofrio, Gorzelany, Kurtyka, Murphy, Piscioneri, Varsanik, hark back to the old ethnic Democratic base.

While Connecticut’s big cities like Hartford and New Haven and high-dollar suburbs in Litchfield and Fairfield Counties voted for Mr. Obama in the February Democratic primary, the valley went solidly for Hillary Rodham Clinton. As such it’s the New York area’s closest stand-in for the blue-collar precincts in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan that could decide the election.

Do you really think liberal pro-choice women will vote for a gun-toting, pro-life conservative? The NYT may be trying to get Republicans all a twitter like the Kleenex clutching, teary-eyed supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton the Felonious. Oh but they cannot vote for Obama cuz he’s not good for women and they are throwing a tantrum about Emily’s List betraying them. Once the tears dry and the hangover clears after a day of anger shopping these lost liberal souls will vote for Obama cuz the after effects of the Kook-Aid will redirect them.

Can You Cross Out ‘Hillary’ and Write ‘Sarah’?

Democrats, who make up the party that has long claimed the bigger pool of up-and-coming women, were quick to dismiss Ms. Palin as not experienced enough to be a heartbeat from the presidency. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters will never back her, they insisted, because she is against abortion rights.

To go against Hillary is not easy for us, Ms. Hackney said. We don’t take that lightly. We just don’t think he has a message. We don’t think he’s good for women.

It’s not about being bitter for Hillary, she said. Still, I think the Democratic Party took women for granted in the primary, they didn’t step on sexism when they should have, and I can’t support them.

And just so the NYT can attempt to look objective there is a pieece by a self-proclaimed fan of McCain/Palin who, whether you agree with him or not, offers a really well written op-ed. It’s worth the time to read. But this excerpt sums up the flavor of the writing.

The Audacity of Hype

A stern editor could have improved the 4,500-word acceptance by cutting a thousand words of populist boilerplate and partisan-pleasing shots that offend centrists. But the die was cast before the writing began. The pretension of the fake Grecian temple setting clashed with the high-decibel, rock-star format and overwhelmed the history implicit in the event. Ancient Greeks had a word for it: hubris.

Let’s just say the NYT never fails to deliver. From the days of charges of treason by the right for hiding behind the 1st Amendment while they publish items that jeopardize national security to the daily left leaning opinion on everything sprinkled with rare bouts of reality the NYT should have their own Greek columns to advertise their hubris.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If directed by party leaders or simply as a tactic to avoid taking a stand on issues Senator Barack Obama tends to vote ‘present’. From abortion to porn sales to treating children as adults in the criminal justice system Obama may say one thing on the stump and fail to back up his ‘words’ with action. Even on legislation viewed as bipartisan, the Senator from Illinois boasts his power to bring people together yet only votes ‘present’. Voting ‘present’ on abortion bills while publicly criticizing abortion legislation in South Dakota gives credence to the allegation that Obama changes his stand depending on the audience.

For a man who makes all the claims he does on his own qualifications and ability to be President, Obama has a peculiar record when it comes to voting. In many instances with the GOP and Dems choosing to vote the same on a measure, Obama does not vote. You can see for yourself at WaPo’s Votes Database page. It is easier to navigate for most than similar resources from Congress. Lately and again Mr Obama has used the lame criticism that McCain is four more years of Bush and that the Arizona Senator voted with Bush more than 90% of the time. Number one, McCain is a Republican and is likely to vote with a Republican President. Just as Obama has voted 96% of the time with his Democratic party.

As the excerpt below suggests, Obama likes to sidestep issues by voting ‘present’. He also likes to sidestep issues like why he has a relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and used his connections to get started in politics.

It’s Not Just ‘Ayes’ and ‘Nays’: Obama’s Votes in Illinois Echo

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: December 20, 2007

In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.

On a mainstream liberal issue Obama draws fire from NOW, Clinton and others for swaying voters with varying positions on issues. Say one thing, do another and hope no one notices. You can only wonder if his foreign policy would work the same way.

NOW Again Attacks Obama’s Illinois Voting Record on Abortion Bills

By Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 5, 2008; Page A08

A national women’s rights group supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) distributed an e-mail yesterday accusing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of being soft on abortion rights, revisiting an eleventh-hour attack that some analysts credited with swaying female voters in New Hampshire.

The e-mail from Rosemary J. Dempsey, president of the Connecticut National Organization for Women, told members that Obama’s record during his time in the Illinois Senate included several instances in which he voted “present” instead of yes or no on abortion-related legislation.

There is a claim made in a fact check presented at WaPo indicating ‘present’ votes are viewed as ‘no’ votes in Illinois to give politicians cover against there voting record being used against them. Be that as it may, changing his present votes to no may still indicate he is not who he says he is and to use such a tactic for political cover says a lot about his choices also. Vote yes if that is your choice or no for the same reason. Have the courage of your convictions and let the voters decide based on the truth. If your philosophy does not match the voting public you will be outta here. Have the courage some attribute to you and say what you mean and vote accordingly. Hiding behind ‘present’ votes or not voting is simply wrong.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

From his policy on energy to avoiding any discussion on the book Obama Nation to infanticide or tax cut fables suggested in his campaign ads, Barack Obama is losing ground as his campaign fails to measure up to the hype. Once described as a disciplined staff careful not to stray from the campaign plan, the facts are becoming burdensome as his party worries about victory and maintaining party unity at their upcoming convention.

Obama’s silly suggestion about saving 4 cents on the dollar at the pump….

Corsi on Fox and Obama’s idea of refuting its content….

Obama cannot escape his preference for infanticide…..

Obama’s claim about tax cuts is inaccurate at best….

The Democratic party elite is worried that Barack Obama is ‘vulnerable’. He now abandons his world leader image from the failed celebrity pursuit of his world tour. He finally begins to move to domestic issues based on McCain’s lead and has been reported by AP as mirroring the failed strategy of Clinton in the last days of the Democratic primary. His only challenge to those seeking the truth about him is expressed in ‘cute’ stories and campaign rhetoric that resolve nothing. He was in lock stop with the far left from the beginning and is trying to appear as someone he is not.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Obama Cover-up Unravels: Obama Tells CBN-CNN That NRLC is ‘Lying,’ but His Campaign Confirms the NRLC Charge the Next Day

Contact: Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, Susan Muskett, J.D., Legislative Counsel, 202- 626-8820, Legfederal@aol.com; NRLC Department of Media Relations, 202-626-8825, mediarelations@nrlc.org

WASHINGTON, August 18 /Christian Newswire/ — Senator Barack Obama’s four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel.

In the most recent developments, Senator Obama himself, in a videorecorded interview Saturday night with David Brody of CBN News (subsequently broadcast on both CBN and CNN), said three times that National Right to Life was “lying” in asserting that he had voted against a state bill virtually identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. He did not directly address newly uncovered documents that had been released by NRLC on August 11 — documents that proved that he had done exactly that, contradicting four years of the Obama cover story.

In response, on Sunday, August 17th, we issued a challenge to Obama to either declare the newly discovered documents to be forgeries and call for an investigation of the forgery, or admit that he had misrepresented his record on the live-born infants legislation (not just once, but for four years), and apologize to those he’s called liars.

We don’t have an apology yet. But now there is this, in a news story posted on the New York Sun website on the evening of August 17th: “Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday . . . [Obama’s] campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate . . .”

NY Sun: Obama Facing Attacks from All Sides Over Abortion

Here is a summary of what came before:

In Congress, from 2000-2002, while Barack Obama was still a state senator in Illinois, we here in Washington, D.C., were dealing with the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), a project in which I was deeply involved. The original bill was a simple two-paragraph proposal — it established in black-letter law that for all federal law purposes, any baby who was entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who showed any of the specified signs of life, was to be regarded as a legal person for however long he or she lived, and that this applied whether or not the birth was the result of an abortion or of spontaneous premature labor. NARAL immediately attacked the bill as an assault on Roe v. Wade: “The Act would effectively grant legal personhood to a pre-viable fetus — in direct conflict with Roe. . . . In proposing this bill, anti-choice lawmakers are seeking to ascribe rights to fetuses ‘at any stage of development,’ thereby directly contradicting one of Roe’s basic tenets.”

See http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/NARALonlive-born.pdf

Nevertheless, the vast majority of “pro-choice” House members — including hard-core pro-abortion leaders such as Jerrold Nadler — were unwilling to extend the principles of Roe to living babies entirely separate from their mothers. They rejected the NARAL claim and voted for the bill; it passed the House 380-15. (Nothing like that had ever happened to NARAL before.) But the bill was killed in the Senate by an objection to unanimous consent.

In 2001, in Illinois, a bill was introduced in the state Senate that was closely patterned on the federal BAIPA, to govern constructions of state law. It contained an additional sentence, which read, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” (We’ll call this the “immediate protection clause.” It really just repeated the substantive effect of the other paragraphs.)

Obama voted against this bill in committee. On the floor he gave a speech attacking it and a couple of other related bills (the only such speech by any senator). Although the speech was technically made during consideration of another bill, SB 1093, Obama said that his reasons applied to SB 1095 (the BAIPA) as well. He then voted “present.” Voting “present” was a tactic recommended by the local Planned Parenthood lobbyist; under an Illinois constitutional provision a bill is deemed passed only if it receives an absolute majority of the sworn members of the House or Senate, so the operative effect of a “present” vote is the same as a “no” vote.

The core of Obama’s speech was the same as the 2000 NARAL attack at the federal level — the bill violated Roe v. Wade because it applied to “a pre-viable fetus.” Here is what he said:

“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.”

It did not seem to matter to Obama in 2001 (or to NARAL, in 2000) that the “fetuses” (sic) in question were entirely born and alive. Because, you see, they were “pre-viable,” and these were abortions.

The 2001 bill passed the Illinois Senate despite Obama’s objections, but died in a House committee.

In Illinois, pretty much the same events repeated in 2002, although this time Obama voted “no” on the floor. Meanwhile, in Washington, an additional clause was added to the federal bill, which we call “the neutrality clause.” (The “neutrality” clause read, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.”) We saw this clause as no substantive change — it merely made explicit the original scope of the bill. Nevertheless, with the change, the bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress, and was signed into law in 2002. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, click here. To view a chronology of events pertaining to the federal BAIPA, click here.)

But in Illinois, Obama kept fighting, now from a chairman’s chair. In 2003, the state bill was reintroduced in its original form, but the chief sponsor also introduced “Senate Amendment No. 1,” an amendment to remove the “immediate protection clause” and insert the exact language of the new “neutrality clause” from the federal bill. Adoption of “Senate Amendment No. 1″ would transform the state bill into a virtual clone of the now-enacted final federal bill/law. Both the bill and the amendment were referred to a committee of which Obama had just become chairman (the Democrats had taken majority control of the Illinois Senate in January, 2003).

On March 12-13, 2003, Obama chaired a meeting of the committee at which Senate Amendment No. 1 was adopted (with his support, 10-0). This transformed the state bill into a virtual clone of the federal bill; see them side-by-side here. Obama then led all of the committee’s Democrats in voting to kill the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4. (We didn’t know about this meeting until about two weeks ago.)

The very next year, the cover up began.

When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting “infanticide.” Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill. As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, “Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. . . . The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.”

Obama’s explanation was false, but the local newspapers did not uncover the March 13, 2003 records, and they accepted the explanation uncritically. The Obama campaign has been quoting the resulting stories ever since.

During Obama’s 2008 run for President, his campaign and his defenders have asserted repeatedly and forcefully that it is a distortion, or even a smear and a lie, to suggest that Obama opposed a state born-alive bill that was the same as the federal bill. See, for example, this June 30, 2008 “factcheck” issued by the Obama campaign, in the form that it still appeared on the Obama website on August 7, 2008. The Obama “cover story” has often been repeated as fact, or at least without challenge, in major organs of the news media. (Two recent examples: CNN reported on June 30, 2008, “Senator Obama says if he had been in the U.S. Senate in 2002, he, too, would have voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because unlike the Illinois bill, it included language protecting Roe v. Wade.” The New York Times reported in a story on August 7, 2008 that Obama “said he had opposed the bill because it was poorly drafted and would have threatened the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established abortion as a constitutional right. He said he would have voted for a similar bill that passed the United States Senate because it did not have the same constitutional flaw as the Illinois bill.”)

On August 11, 2008, we (the National Right to Life Committee) released recently uncovered legislative documents demonstrating that Obama had, in fact, presided over the meeting at which the bill was transformed into a clone of the federal bill, and then voted down. Although these documents contradicted numerous emphatic statements by Obama and his campaign, only some of which are referenced above, so far they have been virtually ignored by mainstream news media.

On or about August 14, the Obama campaign submitted to Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune a “defense,” which on August 14 was posted on Zorn’s blog, which mostly repeated the old Obama line and which did not specifically reference the documents released by NRLC, but which did contain a new element: a purported side-by-side comparison of the state and federal BAIPAs. The comparison asserted that the “immediate protection clause” was still part of the bill that Obama voted against (it was not — but why would that clause bother him?), and asserted that the “neutrality clause” was merely a “failed amendment, not included in final legislation” (false - it was adopted 10-0). The posting also contained many ersionary provisions — references to an entirely different bill, misleading characterizations of an old, loophole-ridden Illinois law, etc…

On August 16, in a short interview with CBN News’s David Brody, Obama was asked about the growing controversy surrounding the National Right to Life release. In his response, Obama asserted three times that we were “lying.” See it here: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429328.aspx

Late on August 17, the New York Sun posted a story by staff political reporter Russell Berman, which said in part: “Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported ‘was not the bill that was presented at the state level.’ His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate . . .”

The campaign then tried to shift to a new objection to the “identical bill” — that it “could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.” Given the language of the final state bill, this claim is absurd, unless Obama believed that “existing Illinois abortion law” allowed for “abortions” to be carried to a lethal conclusion even after a live birth. The newest line is also not consistent with Obama’s oft-stated excuse for opposing the state legislation, and fails to explain his four years of misrepresentation.

Nor does the Sun story indicate that the Obama campaign has issued any apology to NRLC, Bill Bennett, or the others who Senator Obama and his campaign have been calling liars for saying what they now admit was the truth.

How to make sense of all this? All of Obama’s misrepresentations and contradictions on this issue have one common goal: to obscure the position he actually articulated and acted on in 2001 through 2003. Obama explained in 2001 that he opposed the state bill to protect born-alive infants because it would apply before the point of long-term survivability — so-called ‘viability.’ This is the same objection that NARAL originally voiced to the federal bill, in 2000. But that was exactly the point of the bill — to make it clear that a live-born baby was a legally protected person for as long as he or she lived, whether for a day, an hour, or a minute.

Neither the original version of the legislation, nor the final state version that Obama killed in 2003, contained any language to protect babies before the point of live birth. On the 2001 and 2002 state bills, Obama took to a position that already had been rejected by the U.S. House 380-15 (in 2000). In 2003, Obama took a position on the abortion-survivor legislation that was more extreme than any member of Congress of either party.

The Obama campaign and its apologists are now asserting that the state Born-Alive Infants Protection bill was part of a “package” of bills. This is an obvious attempt to change the subject and avoid prolonged scrutiny of Obama’s record on the sole bill that has been the focus of the national debate, that being the bill that was copied from the federal bill. In 2001-2003, there were various bills in the Illinois Senate that dealt with the procedures to be followed during very late abortions, but those bills each had separate numbers, were each subject to separate amending processes, and were (of course) each voted on separately. The 2003 Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill (SB 1082) could have been passed regardless of what happened to the various abortion bills — and SB 1082 would have passed the Illinois Senate in 2003, if Chairman Obama had not killed it in his committee.

The Obama of 2001-2003 really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public.

Additional Resources:

Index of Documents Regarding Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill (will be updated as new items come in)

“Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill” (August 11, 2008 NRLC release of newly discovered legislative documents)

Timeline of important events in the history of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

NRLC archive on the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

NARAL press release, July 20, 2000, expressing strong opposition to the original federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 4292).

The official report of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, explaining the intent of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 2175), and explaining why such legislation was necessary (August 2, 2001)

SEE ALSO: Third World County, The Obamassiah Changes Name to Joseph Goebbels

If you don’t see a problem with Hillary Rodham Clinton courting votes from a religious conference on AIDS then you are not looking hard enough. And it could be said you are intentionally ignoring headlines like the one below suggesting Clinton, AIDS and evangelicals make an unusual trio. And a ‘pastor’ named Rich Warren associated with what is described as a Mega Church and a bestselling non-fiction book to the tune of $23 million dollars should appear on your radar.

Some say there are those in the religious right migrating to the left based on issues other than abortion. With the left being firmly entrenched in surrender, gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans gender agendas and partial birth abortions as well as the ACLU and removing religion from American life, you have to ask yourself what’s wrong with this picture?

Clinton, Democrats find religion, court evangelical voters
Clinton vows to fight AIDS
Hillary presses for more fund to combat AIDS
Clinton woos evangelicals at AIDS conference
Clinton Urges Sweeping Action on AIDS
Clinton, AIDS and evangelicals make unusual trio
Third Annual Saddleback Global Summit on AIDS & The Church Focuses
Clinton Announces AIDS Plan

And the obvious political quid pro quo of gimme your votes and I’ll secure public funds for your private agenda should send up flags for voters. Of the candidates in the 2008 Presidential campaign, Giuliani and Clinton are at the bottom of the list of those viewed as religious. While not a surprise it appears Hillary Rodham Clinton is getting religion to pander for votes.

Funny how the ACLU and other liberal organizations like the Democratic party pounce at every opportunity to use the separation of church and state to remove religion from American life but now in the middle of Presidential campaign another scam HRC wants you to believe is that she’s got religion. The only reason she is getting religion is for votes.

If the evangelicals described in this story are willing to abandon what are perceived as core religious values to secure funding for an AIDS campaign this would not be a match made in heaven. For years evangelical values have been compared with conservative values and most often characterized as compatible. The partnership being considered at the Mega Church is beginning to resemble US foreign policy over time where alliances between friend and foe become blurred.

But Clinton told the audience of about 1,700 people that action goes hand in hand with faith. She won applause when she proposed $50 billion for AIDS treatment and prevention and promised to “set a goal of ending all deaths from malaria in Africa” - where 1 million die annually from the disease - by the end of a second term.

The Democratic candidate did not shy away from more controversial ground, telling congregants “it is long past time that we do everything we can to stand up for the proposition that women’s rights are human rights.”

“Girls denied their human rights are girls at risk for AIDS. … Even in our own country today, women are now the face of AIDS,” she said, arguing that world and church leaders must address the sexual trafficking of girls worldwide.

Apparently Hillary Rodham Clinton is borrowing from her old speeches as First Lady that are still available. She made speeches at UN events on women’s rights while she was in the White House with Bill. Most other docs she is keeping from the public until after the election. The quote above seems to be a near verbatim repeat of those earlier speeches. But AIDS is not solely a women’s issue. In case she has forgotten, there are two sexes in the human species. But the applause she received would indicate these evangelicals are on board for $50 billion for their votes. And Clinton is happy to postpone her other promise to a requested second term at which time it will no longer matter if she does not deliver aside from your $50 billion.

If you cannot see the obscene scam being perpetrated by Hillary Rodham Clinton you have chosen to close your eyes and ignore it.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke’s, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.