Speaking of history, you have an interesting one for posting, Zero-loving troll.
Posted on 02/24/2012 11:23:02 AM PST by NEOhio
In a fact check of Wednesday's Republican presidential debate on CNN, Associated Press reporters Calvin Woodward and Tom Raum take Newt Gingrich to task for stating:
"If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama, who as a state senator voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion."
Citing the above statement in a list of what they call "head-scratching claims," Woodward and Raum challenge it as follows:
"THE FACTS: As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted against legislation promoted by anti-abortion activists that would have conferred protection to fetuses showing any signs of life after an abortion, even if doctors did not believe the fetus was viable. Obama pointed to an existing Illinois law requiring doctors to protect fetuses they believed were likely to survive after an abortion, and said he was concerned the proposed new law was so broad it could interfere with routine abortions. Obama said he would have supported federal legislation President George W. Bush signed in 2002 that would protect a viable fetus but reaffirmed a woman’s right to an abortion."
These assertions miss the truth in three key respects, which are covered in Just Facts' research on abortion in the sections dealing with live births and terminology.
(Excerpt) Read more at justfactsdaily.com ...
Double-speak and double negatives aside, how is this explanation even a teeny, teeny bit different from what Newt said?
And from Doug Ross:
Fact Checking National Journal’s “Fact Check”: Yes, Obama Voted to Legalize Infanticide. Not Once, But Twice.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/02/fact-checking-national-journals-fact.html
Speaking of history, you have an interesting one for posting, Zero-loving troll.
Something smells here...
I haven’t been IBTZ in a while.
Aww.. somebody insulted Barry BigEars, and here comes someone to defend him!
Attaboy!
Hmmmmmmmmm... I thought Barack Obama was the key sponsor of the Illinois bill to kill born alive newborns but still finish the abortion job?
Something smells here... I bet if I do some looking, I’ll find these guys aren’t telling the truth.
So it seems you agree with this article and don't think Obama supports infanticide....
I say, IBTZ!
Look what we have here boys!! An Obuggery loving troll!
IBTZ!! Calling all Kitties!!
It is unfair for the article to give Newt and the AP equal culpability on the matter.
The AP’s “fact check” is a bold lie. It uses purposeful distortions (calling a born child a “fetus”), ignores facts (Obama voted to kill legislation that Obama claimed he voted for), and parrots Obama’s distorted position on the matter
Newt’s so-called “distortion” of
killing = leaving nonviable newborns to suffer and die without care
is a matter of what can be explained under the time constraints of a debate.
You have made exactly three posts on FR in three years and ALL OF THEM have been defending Zero's abortion record.
IBTZ!
Are you going to try to defend yourself, you Zero-butt-kissing libtard?
IBTZ
You’re still here...but not for long.
How is a child outside of the womb a “fetus”?
Hmmm?
IBTZ!!!
How are you enjoying your Zero-induced 40% unemployment up there in NE Ohio, libtard?
Newt said that Obama voted to “protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.” The preexisting law already prohibited this. The law Obama voted against required doctors to provide palliative care to such babies even if they had no chance of long-term survival. That’s the difference.
Wow, this is the first response you’ve ever posted.
You previously posted and ran.
That's exactly why the Obama-loving libtards are wanting to make 2012 a social issue election. They simply cannot defend this economy.
Do you know what palliative care is? It’s keeping the child as comfortable as possible....warmth, holding, etc as opposed to throwing in the soiled laundry which was being done.
The man is inhumane, evil!!!
You’re lucky, mods a little slow on the draw today.
IBTZ
I wouldn’t bother doing any work on my profile page if I were you.
Is that your deodorant falling or did you step in something?
The fact is that the Federal bill Obama says he would have supported is essentially identical to the state bill he opposed, which was simply to provide protection to infants born alive after a failed abortion. Even Hillary! supported the Federal bill. Obama opposed protecting infants born alive. IOW, he supported legal infanticide.
But what do you expect from a person with absolutely no moral compass?
IATZ!
You hid here for four years just so you could defend infanticide?
I went to Justfactsdaily to check out the OP's facts. On the sidebar, there is a column for "Global Warming: Just the Facts."
If you can believe it, they are actually using Michael Mann's hockey stick graph as evidence for global warming!!!!!!!
Ha ha ha ha ha!
IBTZ, you lying putz!
No. Read it again.
“Obama pointed to an existing Illinois law requiring doctors to protect fetuses they believed were likely to survive after an abortion, and said he was concerned the proposed new law was so broad it could interfere with routine abortions.” He wanted the abortion to through even if it happened to be botched by a doc who managed to birth a live baby.
“Obama said he WOULD HAVE supported federal legislation President George W. Bush signed in 2002 that would protect a viable fetus but reaffirmed a woman’s right to an abortion.” But that was NOT the law in front of him.
bingo.
Gianna Jessen’s speech in Australia should be required viewing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ
Both Parts.
Nice title change. :-O
That is a very cool pic
Guess I’m IATZ
In sum, Obama voted against three bills stating that anyone “born alive at any stage of development” is considered a “person” under Illinois state law including those born as a result of “abortion.” He did this in the face of sworn testimony from Illinois nurses who witnessed aborted newborns living and being neglected for up to eight hours after birth. These are the straightforward and unadorned facts of the matte.
The title - Newt and the Associated Press distort Obama’s born-alive abortion record
The difference is the distortion. It's the other way around. The author here by his headline and writings was to distort the issue. To make Gingrich look bad and by obscuring the facts to make Obama look good.
Here's Jill Stanek with LINKS to the bills and 0bama's actions and actual commments at the time. Newt has defined 0 dead on.
Newt said that Obama voted to “protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.” The preexisting law already prohibited this. The law Obama voted against required doctors to provide palliative care to such babies even if they had no chance of long-term survival. That’s the difference.
24 posted on February 24, 2012 2:42:21 PM EST by NEOhio
Too funny. Go, kitty. he/she’s mad about all of the lies being spread in his backyard.
Yeah, it is factual but leaves a whole lot out of his record and is therefore, by omission, an out right lie which seeks to deceive through further obfuscation of the factual history of the won.
GFY
Your attempt to defend murdering the most innocent of the human race is even more insidous than those who defended the practice of slavery. I find it amazing that the same party that tries to equate homosexuals with the history of slavery are also the ones that defend murdering completely innocent human beings.
Moral equivelancy at its best....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.