Abortion

Latest news on abortion

Levin: "It's not the National Organization of Liberal Women. It's the National Organization of Ugly Women"

On the September 4 broadcast of Sean Hannity's nationally syndicated radio show, syndicated radio host Mark Levin -- who had called into the show -- said of the National Organization for Women, "It's not the National Organization of Liberal Women. It's the National Organization of Ugly Women." Hannity replied, "Now, be nice." Moments later, after Hannity stated, "[a]pparently [Sen. Barack] Obama took a shot at me again. So I'm glad -- I guess obviously he's not too happy with the Stop Obama Express," Levin said, "Obama's obsessed with you." Hannity replied, "It's kind of weird, isn't it?" to which Levin said, "Maybe he's attracted to you." As Media Matters for America has noted, on the September 3 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, co-host Jim Quinn referred to the National Organization for Women as "the National Organization for Whores." From the September 4 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show: HANNITY: By the way, I have what has to be -- and I have warned you that these attacks are only, only going to get worse, although they're not going to work and it's all going to backfire. And this has got to be the most hysterical reaction to Sarah Palin's home-run speech. Get this. The National Organization of Liberal Women is charging that Sarah Palin -- now, you better sit down for this -- Sarah Palin is really a man. I'm -- this report in the Politico, spokesman for the National Organization for Women, "noting Palin's opposition to abortion rights and" her "support of other parts of the social conservative agenda," told the Politico, quote, "She's more a conservative man than she is a woman on women's issues. Very disappointing." So that's the official liberal feminist position. Sarah Palin is not a woman. She's a man. Now, folks, these people are just -- they're not connecting. You know, Gloria Steinem -- well, the only thing she shares with Hillary is a chromosome. You know, folks, fear has now literally taken over the Democratic Party. Someone needs to start -- you know what? There's Happy Housewives, they were quoted in The New York Times, we're going to have -- maybe we'll have them on tomorrow to counter this nonsense. But anyway, let's get to our phones. I see Mark is in Washington, D.C. Uh-oh. Is this him? Is that -- LEVIN: Dr. Hannity? HANNITY: Dr. Levin. Thank me. How am I? LEVIN: It's not the National Organization of Liberal Women. It's the National Organization of Ugly Women. HANNITY: Now, be nice. LEVIN: Not only that -- HANNITY: Be nice. LEVIN: -- if they think Sarah Palin is a man, these women definitely need to get out more. Nobody, nobody would even suggest that. I mean, she -- HANNITY: That's pretty vicious. LEVIN: -- let me tell you something else. She does have more strength and more courage than many men I've seen, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden. So, that point, there's no -- by the way, where's Dick Morris? [...] HANNITY: And let me tell you something, Mark. And you were very consistent in this, in that you said that the vice-presidential choice was going to be very key for your support, and I know that -- I heard a little bit of your show yesterday. I can't listen as much as I want, obviously, because I'm here. But -- and you were slamming away. They have tried to destroy this woman. They have assassinated her character. They have asked her harder questions about her 17-year-old daughter in five days than they have about Barack Apollo Obama in 19 months. Apparently Obama took a shot at me again. So I'm glad -- I guess obviously he's not too happy with the Stop Obama Express. He did it earlier today. We haven't gotten a copy of the audio yet. LEVIN: Obama's obsessed with you. HANNITY: It's kind of weird, isn't it? LEVIN: Maybe he's attracted to you. HANNITY: [laughs]

Without refuting it, AP, Bloomberg report Palin accusation that Obama "wants to raise" taxes

On September 4, both the Associated Press and Bloomberg uncritically reported Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion in her September 3 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, that Sen. Barack Obama wants to raise taxes. Both articles quoted Palin's assertion that "taxes are too high. [Obama] wants to raise them." Neither noted that, in fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families and raising taxes only on households earning more than $250,000 per year. Nor did either note that McCain's own chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes," as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted. The Tax Policy Center has analyzed Obama's and Sen. John McCain's tax proposals and concluded that "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households." From the September 4 AP article: The No. 2 on the GOP ticket clearly impressed the party faithful Wednesday as she smoothly moved from lavishing praise on McCain -- "a true profile in courage" who has "determination, resolve, and sheer guts" -- to throwing punches at Democratic rival Barack Obama. "Victory in Iraq is finally in sight. He wants to forfeit," Palin said in her vice presidential acceptance speech. "Government is too big. He wants to grow it. Congress spends too much. He promises more. Taxes are too high. He wants to raise them." Even as controversy swirled around the Alaska governor, there was little doubt that loyalists loved this mother of five, churchgoer, abortion opponent and moose hunter. They erupted at every mention of her name before she took the stage. And they gave her a thunderous welcome when she emerged. From the September 4 Bloomberg article: The next presidential administration will have to grapple with challenges such as taxes, reining in federal spending and the loss of manufacturing jobs abroad. "Taxes are too high," Palin said in her acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Democratic nominee Barack Obama "wants to raise them."

Bizarre anti-gay comic book from 1980s

Ethan Persoff scanned this insane homophobic comic book from 1986 called Homosexuality: Legitimate, Alternative, Deathstyle. Equipped with a style that could have played well in Mad or even Playboy, Hafer was the right-wing's Jack Davis: a man who could, and did, lampoon any chosen target of what one could tent together as "Republican Interests". Gays, Hippies, Abortion, Ted Kennedy, the National Education Association, all sorts of terrible demons. But for everything he hated, he sure seemed fixated on talking -at length- about the nasty stuff. What would a psychologist say? We decided to jump right off with his most offensive work. But it's great reading too, obsessed with sodomy, urine, masturbation, all the x-rated ideas. But be forewarned: These comics were not intended for you. No. In the world of pitching and catching, this is something intended for the other team. Reading these pages is like jumping into a bizarro world of bent pent-up pop-culture where the wrong is right, the shirt and haircut doesn't match, and most of the food shopping is done in bulk through QVC. Full of religious radio, weekly gun rallies, dittoheads, the 700 club, casserole potlucks ... There are tops and bottoms to this discussion, clearly, and this comic was intended for the humans over the homos. We can't even type the title of what we're about to present without laughing a bit. But that's what Hafer fans lovingly refer to as "the ol' dick magic". Dick Hafer really was that sort of an asshole. Homosexuality: Legitimate, Alternative, Deathstyle...

Boehlert: The Denver media migraine

I had to chuckle when I read about the newsroom-wide email New York Times executive editor Bill Keller sent out to his staff last week on the eve of his political team deploying to Denver, and then St. Paul, to cover the political conventions. In his electronic memo, Keller praised the newspaper's coverage of the just-completed Beijing Olympics ("dazzling"), and, like any good newsroom manager, challenged the rest of the newspaper to match that excellence. Specifically, he called on his political team to reach the same journalistic heights at the conventions that the Times' sports department had achieved in Beijing. I laughed not because I thought the Times' coverage of the Olympics didn't deserve a pat on the back. Indeed, the Times crew seemed to cover the Olympics with uniform skill and grace. Its pages were filled with often brilliant deadline writing, insightful analysis, gripping human interest stories, and eye-popping photography. (And the Times' Internet-based coverage was just as impressive.) My caustic chuckle sprang from the fact that Keller actually thought the Times' upcoming convention coverage was going to achieve some kind of greatness. That the Times team was going to gumshoe Denver like no other news team, drill down to the issues that were driving the campaign, break away from the news pack to uncover fresh angles, and set some kind of news standard for political reporting. The sad truth was that the coverage, not just from the Times but from virtually every traditional outlet I sampled, was a fiasco. And it made my head hurt. How 15,000 credentialed journalists could descend on Denver and produce such unvaryingly weak and shoddy coverage of a staged news event -- and do it with coverage that celebrated sameness and shallowness -- was a sad spectacle that newsrooms nationwide ought to ponder. What we saw beamed out of Beijing, both in print and video form, was often memorable journalism. What we saw seep out of Denver was a farce. Not content to simply cover what was, by every standard, an historic and fascinating political gathering, the press felt the need to embellish the storylines (when not completely inventing them), tell news consumers what to think and how to feel, and to hog the spotlight by turning themselves into the topic of news reports. The media hordes "got in the way of the story, because they made themselves the story," noted Brooke Gladstone at NPR. (Exhibit A.) Note that approximately 20,000 journalists covered the sprawling Beijing Olympics, and think about the wonderful journalism they produced for news consumers all around the world relaying headlines and capturing the emotions of that two-week epic event. By contrast, in Denver, 15,000 pros camped out and pretty much embarrassed their profession for nearly four days straight. First of all, why on earth would 15,000 journalists cover any convention? And why do major American outlets, as confirmed by Keller's email, view the staged political events to be as newsworthy as a global phenomenon such as the Olympics? Note that for this year's conventions, USA Today sent 34 journalists, compared to the 41 staffers the paper assigned to cover the Olympics. (The Washington Post sent 38 journalists to the convention, plus an undisclosed number from its website, for a total of more than 50.) I'm guessing the Times sent roughly the same number as USA Today to both the convention and to Beijing. Yet look how badly the Denver team underperformed as compared to the Times' Olympics reporting and commentary. Or did Times execs consider Maureen Dowd's Denver column to be an example of journalistic insight? That was the one where the first person she quoted to capture the "vibe" of the Democratic convention was a Republican consultant. (Naturally, the partisan pro claimed "submerged hate" permeated the event.) And what about Patrick Healy's August 28, page one article about Hillary's address to the convention where Healy reported, in the second paragraph, that she "took steps on Tuesday -- deliberate steps, aides said -- to keep the door open to a future bid for the presidency." As the Daily Howler noted, there wasn't a single fact or quote in the entire article to back up Healy's fictitious claim that bolstered the "ill will" theme of the article's opening. Was that the kind of Denver gold Keller was hoping for? Imagine if a Times reporter filed a front-page story from Beijing about Michael Phelps and inserted a completely unsupported claim up high in the article that made Phelps look petty and selfish. Think Times editors would have printed it? And what about Times heavy hitter Jill Abramson, who wrote matter-of-factly on Friday that the Monday-through-Wednesday portion of the convention had a theme, and "its narrative was [the Clinton] soap opera." And specifically, the "narrative" was whether Bill and Hillary would "behave themselves" and "embrace Barack Obama." She wrote that after the convention had concluded, after Bill and Hillary Clinton had enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama and after Democrats ended the convention on an historic and united front. Even then, the Times was still pushing the media's beloved narrative of a Clinton "soap opera" and how the two nearly ripped the party in two inside the Pepsi Center. Question for Abramson: Who pre-selected that "soap opera" narrative? Answer: The press. What actual proof did the press have to support it? Almost none. (Hillary Clinton had already publicly, and formally, endorsed Obama months prior to the convention.) I suspect if a truth serum poll could have been conducted in Denver to find out how many professional pol watchers within the press corps actually thought that Bill or Hillary Clinton would refuse to "embrace" Obama at the convention, the answer would have been zero. But how many within the press pretended for days that that was a possibility? Almost all of them. Indeed, there was lots of pretending going on in Denver, like when Politico suggested Hillary Clinton might be booed by Obama delegates during her address. And when, prior to Bill Clinton's taking the Denver stage, MSNBC's Chris Matthews raised the possibility that he might get a Bronx cheer. (Apparently because they're such divisive figures within the Democratic Party.) Viewers who saw the rapturous welcome both Clinton's received will recall that those predictions were inaccurate. The Newark Star-Ledger was just one of many news outlets that pretended about Hillary Clinton's speech, claiming it "was the most anxiously awaited moment of the convention." Really? Twelve million more viewers tuned in to Obama's speech than watched Clinton's address. Yet the press, confusing themselves for actual voters, told us all week that Americans were fixated on the runner-up. And all week long, that passed as insight. What was behind that type of half-baked Times/Politico/Matthews convention analysis? The answer is that it was based on nothing. The concocted Clinton storylines simply reflected what some journalists wanted to see happen, which then made it slightly plausible, and therefore news. (Speculating now trumps reporting.) To suggest that approach demolishes decades' worth of American journalism standards would be an understatement. It's impossible to escape the conclusion that journalists for much of the week in Denver weren't informing news consumers about the unfolding event, they were purposefully misinforming people. (Bill and Hill might snub Obama!) Think about where journalism is heading when an entire industry knowingly adopts a false narrative and pushes it for days simply because it likes it; because it gives journalists a good storyline. Fifteen thousand journalists in Denver and they couldn't even report what actually happened there. Instead, they invented a storyline of their liking. And (surprise!) it was one that demeaned Democrats. And that's where the real harm came, because Denver wasn't simply a case of too many journalists chasing too few stories and having to fill up too much air time (i.e., being boring). It was a case of too many journalists embracing manufactured stories in order to fill up airtime. Like the insipid, day-long media boomlet, propagated by the GOP, about whether or not the columns constructed for the stage Obama appeared on Thursday night at Invesco Field would somehow take away from his speech or distract viewers. Or the incessant media mentions about the long-debunked myth that Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey Sr. was denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic convention because he opposed abortion rights. And guess what? All the bogus convention storylines poked Democrats. Do you think the same press trend will continue in St. Paul this week? Will journalists attach themselves to flimsy narratives that make Republicans look weak and divided? I have my doubts. What's so curious about the effusive, often breathless, convention coverage we see today is that not that long ago there was growing media momentum to shun the events. Remember back in 1996 when ABC's Ted Koppel famously packed up his Nightline crew after two days at the GOP convention in San Diego and went home, complaining there was no news to report at the tightly scripted pageants? (Koppel still feels that way, making the inarguable point on NBC last week that the conventions could easily be covered by 1,000 journalists instead of 15,000.) There was a growing feeling that took root in the late 1990s that the overscripted conventions were a joke in terms of news, that they insulted the intelligence of serious journalists, and that something needed to be done to change them (i.e., shorten them) because it was becoming increasingly difficult to justify lavishing so much time and attention on the quadrennial confabs. Fast forward to 2008 and ask yourselves: Have the national conventions become any less scripted? No. If anything, the conventions have become more controlled. But boy, the media's attitude towards them has completely reversed. Rather than pulling the cameras back as Koppel suggested, the amount of TV time devoted to conventions (well, the amount of TV time devoted to talking about the conventions on-site) has absolutely exploded. Thanks to cable television's nearly around-the-clock coverage, there were easily 150 hours set aside last week for the Democratic convention. Television's eruption of convention interest mirrors the widespread enthusiasm throughout the press corps for the political events. No longer seen as insulting, artificial events that had to be covered for tradition's sake, the press now revels in the conventions -- celebrates them! -- and treats them as wildly important, entertaining, and newsworthy. To me, that 180-degree shift from "Conventions are fake!" to "Conventions are awesome!" captures the disappearing standards within political journalism and how a new breed of shallowness has been embraced and become a hallmark trait. Prior to Denver's opening gavel, Slate's Jack Shafer, bemoaning the obvious press excesses surrounding the non-news conventions, wrote, "If the political press corps were honest, they'd start every convention story with the finding that nothing important happened that day and that your attention is not needed." His take was dead-on. And that was before we knew what kind of leaky journalism was going to ooze out of Denver.

Mexico's Supreme Court upholds abortion law

The controversial case has been watched closely by the rest of the country, and may push other states to liberalize their own abortion laws.

AP misrepresents McCain's positions on same-sex marriage, civil unions, abortion

On August 27, the Associated Press, in an article headlined "GOP takes hard line on abortion for its platform," reported that "[Sen. John] McCain opposes gay marriage but also is against a constitutional amendment against it. He has expressed limited support for the rights accorded couples in same-sex civil unions." The article also stated, "Apart from opposing a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, [McCain] is against most abortion rights and says he would favor overturning the Supreme Court decision affirming those rights." In fact, McCain has expressed support for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions and for a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion in most cases. In contrast with the AP's claims that McCain "is against a constitutional amendment against" same-sex marriage and that "[h]e has expressed limited support for the rights accorded couples in same-sex civil unions," McCain supported Arizona's Proposition 107, a constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage and civil unions. Further, as Media Matters for America has documented, McCain has said he would support a constitutional amendment if the Supreme Court required states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. McCain said on the March 13 edition of Hannity & Colmes: "I believe that states like mine and other states ... should amend our state constitutions. And I will stick to that position until such time, if ever, a higher court says that my state or another state has to recognize the other stat -- another status of marriage." He added, "I'm committed to maintaining the unique status of marriage between man and woman. I think it can best be accomplished, and in keeping with my federalist philosophy that states should do as much as possible to have that done at the state level. ... But if it is overturned by a superior court, I will then obviously support the other path." The AP has previously misrepresented McCain's position on same-sex marriage, as Media Matters has documented. Additionally, contrary to the AP's claim that "[a]part from opposing a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, [McCain] is against most abortion rights and says he would favor overturning the Supreme Court decision affirming those rights," McCain has previously asserted that he supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion. As Media Matters documented, on the November 19, 2006, edition of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos said to McCain: "You're for a constitutional amendment banning abortion with some exceptions for life and rape and incest." McCain replied: "Rape, incest, and the life of the mother, yes." Stephanopoulos then asked: "So is President Bush, yet that hasn't advanced in the six years he's been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn't done?" McCain said: "I don't think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it's very likely or possible that a Supreme Court should -- could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support. ... I'm a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade returned to the states." From the August 27 Associated Press article: Sharp disagreements still exist in the party on social issues, but there appeared to be little taste for complicating McCain's chances by mounting a symbolic platform fight as the document is hashed out in Minneapolis. The platform will be adopted at the Republican National Convention next week in St. Paul, Minn., after the committee finishes with it Wednesday at the Minneapolis Convention Center. McCain opposes gay marriage but also is against a constitutional amendment against it. He has expressed limited support for the rights accorded couples in same-sex civil unions. Apart from opposing a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, he is against most abortion rights and says he would favor overturning the Supreme Court decision affirming those rights.

O'Reilly falsely suggested no abortion laws prohibit abortions in cases of rape and incest

During the August 26 broadcast of his radio program, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly claimed that "no law is going to prevent a woman from giving birth [sic] when she's raped or has incest. No law. Ever. It's the same thing with the parental notification. Every bill has an abuse clause in it. Every bill has. If you're afraid to tell your parents, if there's incest, if there's violence in your home, you can go to the courts and they'll decide whether you can have the abortion, not your parents, OK? Every law says it." He added: "But the crazies, the pro-abortion people, the people who worship at the altar of reproductive rights, don't care. They want abortion on demand, any kind of abortion at any time." In fact, at least two states have passed laws to take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned that prohibit abortions even in cases of rape and incest: In 2005, South Dakota passed an abortion ban that would take effect "on the date that the states are recognized by the United States Supreme Court to have the authority to prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy." The legislation allows an "[e]xception to preserve life of pregnant female" but no exceptions in cases of rape or incest. In June 2006, Louisiana passed a law to take effect if the "Supreme Court ... reverses, in whole or in part, Roe v. Wade," that "[p]rohibits abortion, except when necessary to save the life of the mother." The bill removed clauses to the existing Louisiana abortion law that provided an exception for women to obtain an abortion in cases of rape or incest. O'Reilly made his comments after an interview with Cliff Schecter, author of The Real McCain (PoliPointPress, May 2008), who said of women voters, "I think they're gonna look at the Republican platform and see the opposite side of the zealotry and see that, you know, when you've got a platform telling women that they have no control over their bodies when they're the victims of rape or incest, that they have absolutely no choices even early on in their pregnancy, I think that that is going to, you know, we're one justice away from that potentially becoming the law." Following the interview, a caller said, "I just called about Schecter's comment about abortion and sort of your reaction to it when he mentioned rape and incest being a huge issue for women in the suburbs. ... I find that to be a red herring issue that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion as an issue." From the August 26 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly: O'REILLY: If you have a changing society, OK? SCHECTER: Yep. O'REILLY: If you have a society that's not the same in 2008 that it was in 2000 -- and let's take the abortion issue. More and more and more, Planned Parenthood and the abortion zealots have made inroads. Now, 12-year-olds can have abortions and then their parents are not told. Now, a guy in Kansas, George Tiller, OK, can kill a baby -- kill a baby -- a half-hour before the baby's supposed to be birthed for no reason whatsoever other than the mother has a pain in her foot. OK? Mother's health: pain in the foot, migraine headache, whatever it may be. So, anybody looking at this says, "You know, the spectrum has gone too far to the left and I'm gonna readjust my opinion to try to get it under control." SCHECTER: Right. O'REILLY: So, that's why I don't have that much problem with McCain's changing of positions. SCHECTER: Well, here's what I would say to that. I think a lot of women -- particularly in the suburbs. I'm here in the suburbs of Columbus, Ohio, and you see some of the changing demographics here. You see in a lot of places -- I think they're gonna look at the Republican platform and see the opposite side of the zealotry and see that, you know, when you've got a platform telling women that they have no control over their bodies when they're the victims of rape or incest, that they have absolutely no choices even early on in their pregnancy, I think that that is going to, you know, we're one justice away from that potentially becoming the law. A lot of women are frightened by that and -- OREILLY: Yeah, but they're mostly liberal women. Because if you saw the debate with Warren, McCain clearly won that because Obama waffled -- SCHECTER: Well, that's why -- O'REILLY: -- on when a person is a person. And McCain didn't. [...] O'REILLY: 1-877-9-NOSPIN. I'm gonna zip right to the phones and go to Elizabeth in St. Louis. What's going on, Elizabeth? CALLER: Hey, Bill, I just called about Schecter's comment about abortion -- O'REILLY: Hmm-mm. CALLER: -- and sort of your reaction to it when he mentioned rape and incest being a huge issue with women in the suburbs. First of all, I'm a woman in the suburbs. Second of all, I find that to be a red herring issue that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion as an issue. Women, when they're raped, can go to the hospital and get their uterus scraped. That's not anything to do with abortion at all. I mean, that -- rape and incest have -- are such a small percentage of any abortions in this country that I find that even giving it credence drives me insane. O'REILLY: Listen, you're absolutely right that the abortion issue is very rarely honestly discussed. It's demagogue all over the place by both sides, but doctors will tell you -- look, first of all, very few American doctors will perform abortions, OK? I think it's less than 10 percent. CALLER: Thank God. O'REILLY: So that tells you something. OK. The second thing is, partial-birth abortion is never necessary with all the technology they have now -- never necessary. Thirdly, as you pointed out, when there's a disaster, no law is going to prevent a woman from giving birth when she's raped or has incest. No law. Ever. It's the same thing with the parental notification. Every bill has an abuse clause in it. Every bill has. If you're afraid to tell your parents, if there's incest, if there's violence in your home, you can go to the courts and they'll decide whether you can have the abortion, not your parents, OK? Every law says it. But the crazies, the pro-abortion people, the people who worship at the altar of reproductive rights, don't care. They want abortion on demand, any kind of abortion at any time.

Hannity paraphrased passage from Corsi's book that gets Obama's speech on abortion bill wrong

On the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity paraphrased a passage from Jerome Corsi's debunked and discredited book The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality (Threshold Editions, August 2008) that misrepresents a March 2001 speech Sen. Barack Obama gave in the Illinois state Senate opposing a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. In the passage, Corsi claims Obama said that if the bill passed, and "a nine-month-old fetus" that survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was defined as "a person who had a right to live," that it would essentially "forbid abortions to take place." But the book misstates Obama's argument; Obama was not referring to "a nine-month-old fetus"; he was specifically talking about a "previable fetus." On August 15, Hannity paraphrased Corsi's claim, telling his guest, anti-abortion activist and WorldNetDaily columnist Jill Stanek, that Obama "said that if the bill passed and a nine-month-old fetus survived this late-term abortion and was deemed to be a person who had a right to live and a right to medical care that the law would forbid abortions to take place, which is just, you know, medically false." Here is the passage from Corsi's book that Hannity was paraphrasing: On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survive late-term labor-induced abortions. A transcript of the Illinois Senate Session has been archived on the Internet, complete with Obama's comments as he made them that day on the Senate floor. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." [p. 238] But according to a transcript archived on the Illinois General Assembly website, Obama specifically addressed the status of "a previable fetus," not a "nine-month-old fetus": "And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. 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. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional." [Emphasis added] From the August 15 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show: STANEK: And he brags on his website that he strategized with Planned Parenthood to vote present on the Senate floor, which was the same as a no vote, in order to lure Democrats who might have been squeamy about voting against a bill opposing infanticide and lure them to vote present so they would overcome the bill that way. He's -- it's on his website. HANNITY: Well, Corsi actually chronicled in his book that a transcript of the Illinois Senate session had been archived on the Internet, complete with Obama's comments that he made that day on the Senate floor. And he was the only senator who rose to speak against this bill that would have protected these babies who, in fact, survive these late-term labor-induced abortions. And he said that if the bill passed and a 9-month-old fetus survived this late-term abortion and was deemed to be a person who had a right to live and a right to medical care, that the law would forbid abortions to take place, which is just, you know, medically false. STANEK: Yes, that's exactly what he said. I'm reading the testimony along with you. And he said on the Senate floor that he thought that this -- and this is a constitutional scholar, you know, by the way, that he calls himself. He said that he thought that this bill was going to be found unconstitutional. And he went on in 2002 to do the same thing, voted against it in committee. This time, he voted against it on the Senate floor, was the sole person to speak against it on the Senate floor again, ever.

Media cite anti-abortion activist and Obama critic Jill Stanek as though she's credible

Several media outlets have quoted or cited criticism of Sen. Barack Obama by anti-abortion activist and WorldNetDaily columnist Jill Stanek over Obama's opposition to certain bills amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 while he was in the Illinois state Senate -- without citing relevant facts that undermine her credibility. These facts include her suggestion that domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions, her support of billboards in Tanzania with the words "Faithful Condom User" next to a picture of a large skeleton, which aimed to discourage condom use there in favor of abstinence and "be[ing] faithful," and her citation of a report that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening." The New York Times, The Associated Press, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, The New York Sun and The Hill have all quoted Stanek or referred to her in news reports about Obama's opposition to the bills, which Obama said posed a threat to abortion rights and has said were unnecessary because Illinois law already prohibited the conduct being addressed. News reports variously identified Stanek as a nurse, as an anti-abortion activist, as a WorldNetDaily columnist, as someone who "spearheaded" the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, and as a nurse who testified before the Illinois state Senate's Health and Human Services Committee chaired by Obama "after witnessing a live infant discarded and left to die at the hospital where she worked." But in none of these cases did they cite any of the following: In a March 31 post to her website, titled "Faithful Condom Users Die," Stanek urged her readers to fund Human Life International's (HLI) efforts to post billboards in Tanzania with the words "Faithful Condom Users" next to a picture of a large skeleton, stating, "HLI needs donations to keep the billboards up. Donate here." HLI describes itself as a "pro-life, pro-family, pro-woman organization" that claims as its mission to "fight the evils of abortion, contraception, sex education and family breakdown." In an March 1, 2007, WorldNetDaily column, during a discussion of a scene in the film The Godfather: Part II in which Al Pacino's character hits his wife after she told him she aborted their child, Stanek wrote: "That spontaneous slap was the reaction of a real man who a woman had just told she aborted his baby. Compare that to the modern day cowardly male response, 'It's your choice. Whatever you decide, I'll support you.' " In an April 9, 2007, posts to her website and the Illinois Review blog, Stanek wrote: "The following, if true, is what abortion and the dehumanization of preborn babies has wrought. It is the most despicable outcome of abortion I have ever seen or reported. Yet, if one is 'pro-choice' and denies that preborn humans are human, there is nothing wrong with this whatsoever. It can't even be considered cannibalism." She then cited a March 29, 2007, Epoch Times article, which reported: "The Next Magazine, a weekly publication from Hong Kong, reported that infant corpses and fetuses have become the newest supplements for health and beauty in China. Not only is the placenta considered a beauty remedy, but also aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies. In Guangdong, gourmet body parts are in high demand and can even be purchased through hospitals..." After a reader questioned the truth of the claims, Stanek wrote: "[A]ccording to Wikipedia, The Epoch Times is an anti-Chinese-government newspaper. Wikipedia compares The Next Magazine, from whence Epoch got its information, to a sensationalist type paper. That said, Wikipedia is accessible by all to skew, including the Chinese government. And there are good sensationalist news organizations, like Drudge (and even the Enquirer these days), and bad sensationalist rags that boast alien abductions on their front page. But I've read legitimate news stories of the Chinese doing strange things with embryos. So I think this stuff is happening. And that last photo in particular looks real" [emphasis added]. In a June 30, 2007, post to her website about the National Education Association's "inexplicable support of abortion," Stanek wrote: "Teachers certainly see abused kids, hungry kids, neglected kids, poor kids. So the NEA's logic is to help kill these problem kids before they're born? That's the same logic of many pro-aborts, both self-serving and lazy." In her November 7, 2007, WorldNetDaily column, Stanek wrote that Barbara Bush, wife of former President George H.W. Bush, was "a pro-abort," adding that her "platform as first lady was illiteracy, so she obviously thought abortion was a solution to illiteracy. In actuality, then, she was a eugenicist, because it is poor people who are illiterate, not rich people." In a February 6, 2007, Illinois Review post called "Debbie Does...??" Stanek noted that Illinois state Senate majority leader Debbie Halvorson had disclosed her human papillomavirus (HPV) status, stated that "you would think she'd focus on her behavior that caused her to contract that sexually transmitted disease" [underline in original], then criticized Halvorson for not disclosing the "number of sex partners she has had," "whether it was her husband who passed HPV on to her after sleeping with other women," or "if Halvorson contracted HPV through rape, [in which case] she could discuss ways to avoid rape." In a February 20, 2007, Illinois Review post discussing Illinois state Rep. John Fritchey's introduction of a bill that would allow a judicial exception to the state's law requiring parental notification before a minor obtains an abortion, Stanek wrote that Fritchey "is now working toward his Teen Genocide Promotion award." Blogger Larry Handlin noted several of Stanek's controversial statements on Archpundit.com. Stanek has also repeatedly made the false claim that Sen. Barack Obama "supports infanticide." Additionally, Hannity & Colmes and The New York Sun each referred to Stanek's allegations that babies that were born despite attempted abortions were abandoned without treatment in the Illinois hospital where she worked -- including in a soiled utility room -- without noting that the Illinois Department of Public Health reportedly said that the alleged conduct, if proved, would have constituted "violations of existing law" but that it could not substantiate the allegation. From the August 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: HANNITY: The abortion issue continues to hamper Barack Obama months after Democratic rival Hillary Clinton challenged his support for Roe v. Wade. Now, according to the New York Sun, pro-life advocates are calling his abortion stance extremism. At issue is Senator Obama's vote against an Illinois law that would have protected infants born alive after a botched abortion procedure. Joining us now, syndicated columnist Ann Coulter, radio show talk show host -- he's nationally syndicated -- Dennis Prager; and former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell. Ann Coulter, I'll start with you. The Born Alive Infant Protection Acts. They induce these abortions. I -- COULTER: Right. HANNITY: I interviewed Jill Stanek. She's a nurse. Illinois. COULTER: Right. HANNITY: Testified before Obama's committee. A baby with Down syndrome aborted, thrown in a soiled utility room. She cradles this baby that's breathing for 45 minutes, and Barack Obama was the only senator to speak out against a bill that would have protected babies in that situation. Is that the -- COULTER: Right. HANNITY: Is that infanticide? COULTER: It's shocking. HANNITY: It is. COULTER: It's -- of course it's infanticide. Yeah, he's for a woman's right to choose through the fourth trimester. And even Barbara Boxer, whom until now was the most staunchly pro-abortion senator, even she spoke in favor of this bill. I mean, this is a child that is not bothering the woman anymore, is not going to make her depressed or affect her health. It's out of the woman's body. They tried to kill it, but somehow the baby made it out alive. From the August 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: HANNITY: Andrea, here's the point. Jill Stanek, who I interviewed, testified before his committee these babies are born alive. She found one in a soiled utility room in the hospital, a Down syndrome baby that was aborted. She cradled and rocked this baby for 45 minutes. He was unfazed, she says, by the testimony when she gave it to him before his committee. How could -- this is so -- this is infanticide.

Gov't Takes Controversial Abortion Stance

325,000 sign petition against administration's women's health proposal.