Parenthood

Latest news on parenthood

ABC's Jaffe uncritically reported Cardinal Stafford's false claims about Obama and abortion

In a November 19 blog post on ABCNews.com, reporter Matt Jaffe uncritically reported that in a November 13 speech at Catholic University of America, Cardinal J. Francis Stafford "railed against a speech [President-elect Barack] Obama gave July 17, 2007, to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America when the Illinois lawmaker reiterated his support of Roe v. Wade, saying he didn't want his two daughters, Malia and Sasha, to be 'punished by a pregnancy.' " But Stafford's assertion contains several falsehoods, none of which Jaffe corrected or otherwise noted. Obama did not say the word "punished" - or refer to being "punished" with "a pregnancy" or otherwise -- at any point during his July 17, 2007, Planned Parenthood speech. Obama did use the phrase "punished with a baby" during a March 29, 2008, campaign event in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, but as Media Matters for America has previously documented, Obama was referring to sex education -- not Roe v. Wade or abortion generally -- when he said during that event: "I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." According to audio posted by Catholic University of America's The Tower, during the November 13 speech, Stafford claimed of Obama: His clenched jaw was seen at his talk before the Planned Parenthood supporters July 17, 2007. There he asserted, quote, and I'm quoting, somewhat out of context but not out of his meaning, "We are not only going to win this election, but also we are going to transform this nation. The first thing I will do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act -- FOCA. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. I don't want my daughters punished -- punished by a pregnancy." "On this issue," he continued, "I will not yield on the issues that we're going to [inaudible]." End of quote. Note the way the president-elect wished to describe the killing of his unborn grandchild. His daughters must not be quote, "punished - punished," by pregnancy. But contrary to Stafford's claim, Obama did not use the phrase "punished by a pregnancy" or even the word "punished" at any point during the July 17, 2007, Planned Parenthood speech. During the March 29, 2008, campaign event in Pennsylvania, while discussing sex education - not abortion -- Obama said: So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. From the March 29 edition of CNN's Ballot Bowl 2008: MARY SNOW (CNN correspondent): Welcome back to CNN's edition of Ballot Bowl. This is a chance for you to hear directly from the candidates. I'm Mary Snow in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where Senator Barack Obama is holding a town hall meeting right now, taking questions from the audience. Let's go straight to Senator Barack Obama; he just was asked a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls. Here's Senator Barack Obama. OBAMA: -- or we give them really expensive surgery and we don't spend money on the front end keeping people healthy in the first place. So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible. But we should also provide better treatment. And we should focus on those sectors where it's prevalent and we've got to get over the stigma because understand that the fastest growth in HIV/AIDS is in heterosexuals, not gays. And so, we've got to get out of that stigma that we still have around it. It's connected also to drug use. So, one of the things we have to do is to start thinking about better substance abuse treatment programs around drugs and not just treat it as a criminal justice issue. Treat it as a public health issue as well. From Jaffe's November 19 ABCNews.com post: Stafford, who has worked at the Vatican for 12 years and heads the Apostolic Penitentiary, said that, on Nov. 4, "a cultural earthquake hit America" when Obama was elected, after campaigning on an "extremist anti-life platform. "He appears to be a relaxed, smiling man. His rhetorical skills, as I mentioned, are very highly developed," Stafford noted. "But under all of that grace and charm, there is a tautness of will, a clenched jaw, a state of constant alertness, to attack and resist any external influence that might affect his will." Specifically, Stafford railed against a speech Obama gave July 17, 2007, to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America when the Illinois lawmaker reiterated his support of Roe v. Wade, saying he didn't want his two daughters, Malia and Sasha, to be "punished by a pregnancy." Also last week, as reported here, a South Carolina priest was repudiated for saying Catholic Obama supporters need penance before taking communion, "lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

Gary Younge: Obama's army of supporters must maintain their level of activism

Steve Thompson is heading home. Over the last year he has travelled the country volunteering for President-elect Barack Obama. Thompson, 68, volunteered for Obama in Maryland, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Virginia during the primaries. Since mid-June he has been living with a local family in Roanoke, Virginia, working 12 hours a day, seven days a week on the campaign. When I called him late on Saturday afternoon, Thompson, who is retired, was in the soon-to-be vacated Obama office, cleaning the windows, before heading home to Washington DC early this week.Brian Corr has been working for Obama for between 10 and 15 hours a week since January 2007 from his home in Boston, on top of his full-time job. Occasionally he goes to New Hampshire, but otherwise he does what he can in the local area or from his computer.Meghan Schertz, 29, has been volunteering for Obama for about 30 hours a week in Roanoke since Hillary Clinton, whom she supported in the primaries, dropped out. Schertz, a Roanoke native, often went straight from work to the Obama office most week nights and all day on the weekend. The day I met her she was out canvassing when a Ralph Nader supporter threatened to shoot her for being on his property.The army of tens of thousands of volunteers who gave huge amounts of time and often small amounts of money for Obama are about to become civilians again. Given the length, intensity and outcome of the campaign they are demob happy and a little weary. Thompson may travel before returning to the third edition of his book on Spanish verb conjugations. Corr is getting married. Schertz says she wants to "sit on my arse and watch reality TV for a while".But it was great while it lasted. Their time in the service gave them a sense of purpose, camaraderie and a fairly unique experience of what America could be and do. A friend who phone-banked for Obama in east Los Angeles wrote to me just before polling day with the following note. "The office was jam-packed - full of people of every colour and there did seem to be a class differential, too ... It just lifted me to see everyone working together ... Food, childcare, it was all there. And to see old black women screaming Si, se puede [Yes we can] was all I need to face the week."What happens to that energy now? Notwithstanding his oratorical skills and interesting personal biography, the most interesting thing about Obama has always been his base. In a period of economic and global upheaval he united the black, the young, the Latino and the poor, bonding their hopes and turning them into a potent electoral force. A quick look at the results tells us how central they were to Tuesday's result. Obama won Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Indiana - which between them total 73 electoral votes - with just 51% of the vote or less. It is difficult to see how he would have achieved that without his much vaunted ground game, and that game consisted of people like Schertz, Thompson and Corr, knocking, dialling and entering data. That gives them leverage. If Obama wants a second term he will need them. And if he needs them he will have to please them.But the very fact of them also challenges a major misconception about American political life. The notion of a lazy, contented people who do not vote, care or really understand what is being done in their name - leaving governance to big business, and lobbyists and Europeans feeling smug."Fully 60% of registered voters said they were following campaign news very closely, while 28% said they were following fairly closely," wrote the Pew research centre of the past week of the campaign. That's the highest level since it started tracking campaign interest 20 years ago. Active political involvement has also seen a steep rise, both on the right and the left, in the past decade. In short, as Europeans become more disaffected with their politicians and less likely to engage with their politics, Americans have been moving in the other direction. But for all their independence of spirit, they were nonetheless dependent. Until last Tuesday their priority was his: to get him elected. For almost two years they have done what he asked. They called and canvassed where the campaign directed them. With no democratic input, they promoted the agenda the campaign had outlined. It was Obama's show. They funded it and promoted it. But they did not own it. But since Wednesday all of that changed. They won. Now we'll see whether this electoral base has the will and wherewithal to transform itself into a political movement that might both support and challenge him. "The president can't do a lot without public opinion," says Thompson. "They need consensus and they can't create that on their own. Sometimes people have to put their feet to the fire."Given the specific tasks of this moment this is no empty rhetoric. When Obama takes office in January he will have to choose the degree to which he bails out banks or people, what weight he gives to the military establishment against his overwhelmingly anti-war supporters, and whether he wants to take on the oil industry or environmentalists. This will not just depend on his campaign promises but the balance of political forces at the time. One of the problems with the American left's cries of betrayal when Democratic presidents drift to the right is that it has all too rarely provided a left for them to turn to.This time might be different. "People have been excited by Obama's candidacy but also by working together," says Corr. "Organised people are more powerful than organised money ... we need to make sure that all that hope that we have talked about and seen is channelled in a progressive way."As Corr concedes, this is not only far easier said than done, it is often said and rarely done. Everyone I met who campaigned for Obama says they vow to keep on campaigning for something. But most will be working for different things, dissipating the pooled energy that erupted in this election.Thompson wants to carry on working on issues of the environment and the Middle East. Schertz is thinking of volunteering for Planned Parenthood. "You can't just leave it up to the president. You have to take ownership of it as a citizen. Obama kept saying: it's not about me. It's about you." At a meeting of the New York City people's convention 2009 on Saturday this was the central theme. In a moving contribution a young black man got up to declare that he supported Obama and wanted to get involved before he got bought off and cynical."Are you a member of an organisation?" the chairwoman asked. "I don't even know what organisation I would join," he replied. "We have a list of several you can choose from," said someone from the audience.And in that brief exchange, you could see the possibility for both change and confusion, for energy to be channelled and diluted, for the potential of this moment to be seized or squandered. The first act is over. The question now is who will write act two? The protagonists should not cede the stage, lest the powerful shape the narrative.g.younge@guardian.co.ukBarack ObamaObama White HouseDemocratsUnited Statesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Cunningham guest Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson: "[M]ost black people today are racist"

On the October 20 edition of Clear Channel's The Big Show with Bill Cunningham, guest Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson said of former Secretary of State Colin Powell's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama: "[H]e's clearly for the color of the man and not the character." Cunningham replied, "Great comments, and if Obama was white as chalk, do you think that Powell would be endorsing the Democrat? He didn't endorse [Al] Gore, he didn't endorse [Sen. John] Kerry. I think color trumps everything in his mind." Peterson responded: "That's right, because if it was about what Barack Obama stood for, then he would have endorsed Gore and all those guys, but he did not. You know, it's so sad, my friend, that most black people today are racist. Not all, not all -- but most of them are racist." Later in the discussion, Peterson said: "Most black people are -- have a socialist mentality. They depend on the government, they don't get married, most of them don't work hard, they look to the government to take care of them, and if we allow the socialist Barack Obama to get in, our country would become that way, and we will be in real trouble." In previous media appearances, Peterson has called the NAACP "a hate group," claimed the organization is "a tool of the liberal elite socialist wing of the Democratic Party," and stated that "crime and out-of-wedlock birth, black folks having babies without being married, and stuff like that is out of control." According to Peterson, "Not all ... but most of them lack moral character. Look what they did to the [Louisiana Super]dome. In three days, they turned the Dome into a ghetto." Additionally, Cunningham said to Peterson: "Another sad thing about this whole thing is that Planned Parenthood has thrown all of its resources behind Obama." Cunningham went on to assert: "And there has been no institution in America that's killed more black babies than Planned Parenthood. And Planned Parenthood endorses Obama, who, of course, claims to be black, although his mother's white. And you have the circumstance where Planned Parenthood is in the business of killing black babies in the black community, and so many African-Americans can't figure it out." Peterson said of abortion: "It's a -- it's a genocide upon the black community, and yet you have Barack Obama and Colin Powell who support abortion." He added: "As a matter of fact, Barack Obama supports abortion at any point -- whether it's partial-birth abortion or if a baby should come out alive after the woman has a botched abortion -- Barack Obama wants the baby to die on the table, do not give the baby medical care, but let it die." Peterson's claim was based on Obama's opposition to a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, which, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama and other opponents said posed a threat to abortion rights and was, they said, unnecessary because Illinois law already prohibited the conduct being addressed by the bill. Indeed, as Media Matters noted, when tasked by the Illinois attorney general's office with investigating allegations that fetuses born alive at an Illinois hospital were abandoned without treatment, the Illinois Department of Public Health reportedly said it was unable to substantiate the allegations but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of existing Illinois law. From the October 20 broadcast of Clear Channel's The Big Show with Bill Cunningham: CUNNINGHAM: All right now, Billy Cunningham. My friend from BOND, B-O-N-D, the honorable Jesse Lee Peterson, said that "Secretary Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama is disappointing but not surprising. Republicans know that Colin Powell is a moderate to liberal Republican, but for him to endorse a socialist like Barack Obama in such a critical election is an act of betrayal to the Republican Party and to the nation. Mr. Powell says he's not supporting Obama because of his race, but he did not identify a single substantive policy issue that they agree on. Therefore, I have to believe that Powell's decision to endorse was partly motivated by race. It appears that Colin Powell, like 96 percent of black Americans, is blindly following a charismatic, socialist 'transformational figure' without substance. It's unfortunate." That's my buddy, the Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson. The Reverend Jesse Lee, welcome again to the Bill Cunningham show. PETERSON: How're you doing, man? CUNNINGHAM: Well, I mean, recently the endorsement by your friend Colin Powell I thought was bad for two reasons. One is that every elected, or shall I say, appointed office he has held, he held because of either Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43; plus the Bushes appointed his son to be chairman of the FCC. And secondly, while he and McCain were serving so well in Vietnam, Obama's good friend Bill Ayers blew up the Pentagon and tried to kill American soldiers during the Vietnam War. Yet one of them is endorsing his buddy Obama. What is your read, and what impact will it have on the black community, Jesse Lee? PETERSON: Well, you know, as I said in my -- in my press release today, that Secretary Powell's endorsement of Senator Barack Obama is disappointing but not surprising. I believe Republicans know that Powell is a moderate liberal. He supports affirmative action, he supports abortion, and I think that they're not really surprised that he would endorse a socialist liberal like Barack Obama. And I think that, without a doubt, he's doing it because Obama first is a black liberal, so it's about the color of the man and not the character of the man, that Colin Powell is endorsing this guy. And, you know, it's not going to have a great impact. Barack Obama already have -- has 96 percent of black people voting for him, and I have to add that -- add to that is that there's no -- and 85 percent of these black people say that they believe in God, but I have to say that there's no way, no way, no way you could believe in God or be a child of God and support a far-left liberal such as Barack Obama. And, so, disappointing in Colin Powell but not surprised. I think it's a betrayal to the Republican Party and to our nation for Colin to do this, because he knows that Barack Obama's a weak man, he knows that Barack is going to cater to our enemies, try to appease them and that -- and put our country at risk. But he's clearly for the color of the man and not the character. CUNNINGHAM: Great comments, and if Obama was white as chalk, do you think that Powell would be endorsing the Democrat? He didn't endorse Gore, he didn't endorse Kerry. I think color trumps everything in his mind. PETERSON: That's right, because if it was about what Barack Obama stood for, then he would have endorsed Gore and all those guys, but he did not. You know, it's so sad, my friend, that most black people today are racist. Not all, not all -- but most of them are racist. That's why they can't get away from the race issue and focus on the character. And there are many black Republicans, and I've been saying for the last 18 years is that they are in the party not because they agree with the platform of the party, but because they've been told that there should be blacks in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, and so they want to influence the Republican Party with their liberal ideas, and we're starting to see that coming out now with the support of Barack Obama. CUNNINGHAM: Another sad thing about this whole thing is that Planned Parenthood has thrown all of its resources behind Obama. Eighty-nine percent of the clinics of Planned Parenthood are located in the black community. And there's been calls made from California -- California college kids to Planned Parenthood clinics, promising donations on condition that the donations go to abort black babies. And there has been no institution in America that's killed more black babies than Planned Parenthood. And Planned Parenthood endorses Obama, who, of course, claims to be black, although his mother's white. And you have the circumstance where Planned Parenthood is in the business of killing black babies in the black community, and so many African-Americans can't figure it out. PETERSON: Every day. Every day. Every day, over 1,500 black babies are aborted, every day. And since the early '70s, according to the Census Bureau, over 15 million black babies have been aborted. It's about the money and not the babies. It's a -- it's a genocide upon the black community, and yet you have Barack Obama and Colin Powell who support abortion. As a matter of fact, Barack Obama supports abortion at any point -- whether it's partial-birth abortion or if a baby should come out alive after the woman has a botched abortion -- Barack Obama wants the baby to die on the table, do not give the baby medical care, but let it die. And you know, the unfortunate thing is that -- and I've often said this, too -- is that most of the black preachers are not called by God, but by their mama, and as a result of this you don't see an outcry from the black community. I mean, yeah, from the black preachers about Barack Obama's support of abortion or the fact that most of Planned Parenthood abortion mills are located within the black communities, and that is because -- again, it's not about the character -- it's about the color, it's about money and power. They care about that more than anything else. CUNNINGHAM: You know, on the abortion thing, McCain missed some great openings during last week's debate. When Obama talked about abortion, he should have said, "Look, Senator Obama, you think the federal government should fund abortions. Most Americans, even who agree with abortions, say that shouldn't happen." And he also should have said, "Look, you're against parental notification if your under-aged daughter is gonna have an abortion." Obama is so extreme he doesn't think parents should be notified. This guy is on the left side of NARAL. He's left of Planned Parenthood, which is not much political space to occupy. But McCain is incapable of calling him on it. PETERSON: Well, you know what it is, for the last 50 years or so, white Americans have allowed themselves to be intimidated by the so-called black leadership -- Jesse Jackson and the NAACP and others -- and they are afraid of being called a racist. And I am sure that that's the primary reason that Senator McCain will not deal with Barack Obama in the way that he would deal with him if he was a white Democrat running. CUNNINGHAM: Right. PETERSON: He would be on this guy, but because he's afraid of being called a racist, he is letting this guy fly by, and we could possibly end up -- God forbid -- but we could end up with a far-left liberal socialist running our country. And you can -- if you doubt what socialism will do for you, just look at the urban areas around the country. Most black people are -- have a socialist mentality. They depend on the government, they don't get married, most of them don't work hard, they look to the government to take care of them, and if we allow the socialist Barack Obama to get in, our country would become that way, and we will be in real trouble. CUNNINGHAM: Well, Jesse Lee, if Obama is such a great leader and such an agent of change and such a great reformer, how's his work been on the mean streets of south Chicago the past 12 years? Has he succeeded there? PETERSON: Not at all. As a matter of fact, it's worse. It is worse today than it was before he got there.

Contemplating Parenthood? Brooke Shields May Change Your Mind

At left is the baby I made with Johnny Depp, courtesy of the Routan Babymaker3000.

How to give your child a better start in life: delay parenthood

Children of young, poorly educated mothers more likely to face health and educational problems

Oct. 16, 1916: Sanger Stakes Everything on Birth Control

1916: The first birth control clinic in the United States opens for business in New York City . Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League (now Planned Parenthood), established her clinic in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn at 46 Amboy St. It took the cops nine days to figure out what was going on before they raided the joint and arrested her. Sanger, whose activism was well known from her column, "What Every Girl Should Know" in the New York Call, was charged with maintaining a public nuisance and jailed for a month. Released, Sanger reopened her clinic and got jugged again. Sanger's clinic stood in defiance of the Comstock Act, passed in 1873, which banned birth control outright and made it a crime to send contraceptives through the mail. Sanger's defiance brought the legal system down on her head, forcing her to flee the country at one point to avoid prosecution. (Happily, she fled to Europe, where she learned a whole lot more about contraception and the politics of sexuality.) Sanger saw birth control not only as a woman's issue but as a class issue. Although contraception was technically illegal for everyone, it was widely known that wealthy Americans practiced it freely, obtaining their devices — condoms and spermicidal jelly, mostly — from abroad. In 1938, with Sanger once again forcing the issue in court, a judge lifted the federal ban on birth control devices. This, in effect, ended the Comstock era. Almost immediately, the diaphragm became a popular method of contraception. Nevertheless, the United States remained shackled to its Puritan heritage and didn't get around to completely legalizing birth control methods for married couples until 1965. A year before Sanger's death, the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law banning the practice, citing a couple's right to privacy. It would take another seven years for that right to be extended to unmarried sex partners. Source: Various

O'Reilly claimed "women's privacy" is "the new mantra" which allows for "infanticide"

During the September 29 broadcast of his radio program, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly aired the following remark made by actress Ashley Judd during an interview with CNSNews.com at the Clinton Global Initiative: "With regard to women, who I think do make such an important constituency in this upcoming election, [Sen. John] McCain has a zero record on voting against women's privacy and reproductive health. Senator [Barack] Obama has a 100 percent voting record for women's privacy and reproductive health." O'Reilly then stated, "Now notice 'women's privacy' and 'reproductive health.' Notice that. That's the new mantra: Women's privacy. So, if a woman wants to abort a fetus at any time, even after it's birthed -- after it's a baby -- 'women's privacy.' " Moments later, he added: "So, if you want to have an abortion or even infanticide, it's privacy." Neither Obama, nor NARAL Pro-Choice America -- which gave Obama a score of 100 percent and McCain a score of 0 percent based on five votes in 2007 -- advocate amending federal law to permit the killing of a baby "after it's birthed." O'Reilly's remarks echo false accusations -- documented by Media Matters for America -- that Obama's opposition to a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 demonstrates his support for infanticide. In fact, Obama and other opponents of the bill said they did not support it because it threatened abortion rights and was unnecessary given that the law already protects fetuses born alive during abortions. From the September 29 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly: JUDD [audio clip]: With regard to women, who I think do make such an important constituency in this upcoming election, McCain has a zero record on voting against women's privacy and reproductive health. Senator Obama has a 100 percent voting record for women's privacy and reproductive health. And the only reason that McCain has a zero is organizations like Planned Parenthood couldn't find a lower number. And a woman voting for McCain and Palin is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. O'REILLY: OK, somebody wrote that for her. Now notice "women's privacy" and "reproductive health." Notice that. That's the new mantra: Women's privacy. So, if a woman wants to abort a fetus at any time, even after it's birthed -- after it's a baby -- women's privacy. Notice that. Very interesting new description. Reproductive health. That could be anything. Anything at all. Migraine headache. Panic attack. But "women's privacy" is the key there. So, if you want to have an abortion or even infanticide, it's privacy.

Letters to the Editor

Readers write about parenthood and political campaigning.

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.

Myths and falsehoods regarding Obama's votes on "born alive" bills

In reporting on abortion-rights opponents' criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's opposition as an Illinois state senator to bills seeking to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, the media have promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the legislation. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations -- or made the accusations themselves -- that Obama's opposition amounted to support for infanticide. For example, on the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that "[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion," and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama's opposition was "enabling infanticide." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill. Other myths and falsehoods that the media have promoted include the following: MYTH: IL attorney general's letter contradicts Obama's explanation for opposing the legislation Media figures have misrepresented findings by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and the office of Illinois' then-Attorney General Jim Ryan to claim that Obama's assertion that Illinois law already "mandate[d] lifesaving measures for premature babies" was false. But the attorney general's letter in no way undermines Obama's statement. Moreover, tasked by the state attorney general with investigating allegations that fetuses surviving abortions at an Illinois hospital were not receiving medical care, the IDPH reportedly said, consistent with Obama's statement, that had the allegations proved true, the alleged conduct would have been illegal. In his book The Case Against Barack Obama, author David Freddoso writes that a July 2000 letter from Ryan's office refutes Obama's statement. The letter was a response to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. Under Ryan's letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote, in part: On December 6, 1999, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not indicate a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act. No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution. [...] While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time. From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that "[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois." But the state's conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims; IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law. In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: "[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. ... We took (the allegations) very seriously." Zorn wrote further: "Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, 'The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.' " From Zorn's 2004 blog post: As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker. Why? "Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law," IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. "We took (the allegations) very seriously." Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone." Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations. In other words, the IDPH's reported position supported Obama's explanation: Current law already "mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies." Freddoso writes of Obama's explanation: "This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan" [emphasis in original]. But the letter does not, as Freddoso claims, assert that "[s]uch measures were not already the law in Illinois." Nor does the IDPH; indeed, Zorn quoted the IDPH spokesman saying that the actions alleged by Stanek would have violated the law at the time. Myth: Jill Stanek is a credible source for media outlets to cite In addition to Freddoso, several media outlets, including The New York Times, the Associated Press, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, The New York Sun and The Hill have quoted or cited criticism of Obama by Stanek over his opposition to bills to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 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 that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili and displays a large skeleton and 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." Media Matters has laid out several of these statements by Stanek. MYTH: A 2003 bill Obama voted against in committee would have had same effect as 2002 federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which even abortion-rights advocates did not oppose Media figures including Freddoso and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund have reported that the 2003 bill to amend the Illinois Abortion Law that Obama voted against was identical in its language to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (BAIPA), which Obama has said he would have supported. In reporting what they have characterized as an inconsistency in Obama's position, these media figures have advanced the false suggestion that the bills would have had the same effect. In fact, although both bills included language providing that the bills would not impinge on Roe v. Wade, Obama and abortion-rights advocates noted that Illinois law, unlike federal law at the time, includes statutory provisions specifically regulating abortion. Abortion-rights advocates said that in order for the Illinois bill to avoid restricting abortion rights in any way, it would also have to make explicit reference to Illinois law and make clear that it would not affect access to abortion under Illinois law. In an August 15 Wall Street Journal column, Fund wrote that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) supported the federal BAIPA and later added: "But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it." Similarly, in an August 13 National Review Online article, Freddoso wrote that "Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his [Obama's] position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born." He continued: "But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired." But abortion-rights advocates in Illinois opposed the 2003 state bill because, they said, the language of the federal bill in Illinois would not sufficiently protect abortion rights in Illinois. Specifically, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has said: Finally, perhaps the most significant difference between the federal and state versions of the legislation is the fact that the federal version applied to federal law while the state version applied to Illinois law. The federal legislation was considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act did not amend or change Illinois law. At the time, there were no federal laws regulating abortion in any way. Therefore, the federal law did not limit access to abortion services or threaten legal action against physicians. But, Illinois law does regulate abortion and medical practice. Therefore, it is the state legislation that would have affected abortion practice in Illinois, not federal law. While these differences between the federal and state legislation may appear to be just legal technicalities, when it came to medical care for pregnant women the actual impact would have been significant. The group goes on to explain that that this affected the 2003 state legislation that Obama opposed: On March 12, 2003 both bills [in a 2003 state package] were posted for consideration in the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee which was chaired by Senator Barack Obama. The bills' sponsor, Senator Rick Winkel first presented SB 1082. He requested that an amendment be adopted to the bill which would change it to mirror the federal legislation passed in 2002. The amendment was adopted in a procedural move called "leave for attendance roll call" which is a courtesy that is afforded to bill sponsors in order to move committee hearings along in a timely fashion. Despite the fact that the bill then contained the same language as the federal law, it remained problematic because it still amended Illinois statutes regulating abortion, and it still was part of a package that included SB 1083. Senator Winkel presented SB 1082 to the committee and it failed on a vote of six members voting no (including Senator Obama) and four members voting yes. Chairman Obama asked Senator Winkel if he wished to present SB 1083. He declined. Senator Winkel did not present the bill because, due to the failure of SB 1082, SB 1083 lacked a definition of a "live born" fetus and, thus, was structurally flawed. SB 1082 and SB 1083 were not considered again that session. Planned Parenthood states of the 2005 "compromise" bill that included legislative language making clear that the bill did not affect state abortion or medical practice law: "The enactment of HB 984 did not negatively impact access to abortion services in Illinois and medical care for pregnant women remains protected." From Fund's column: It turns out that while in the Illinois legislature, he [Obama] voted against a bill that would have defined a fully born baby who survived an abortion as a "person." The concept isn't that controversial even among liberal Democrats. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the Senate's leading pro-choice champion, urged her fellow Democrats to vote for a federal version of the same concept back in 2001, saying such a provision did not impinge on the rights enshrined in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. The Born Alive Infants bill eventually passed the U.S. Senate by 98 to 0. But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it. From Freddoso's article: Obama would speak against the born-alive protection bill once again when it was proposed in 2002, and he would kill the bill when it came before the committee he chaired in 2003, after Democrats had taken control of the Illinois General Assembly. His is a radical position that most abortion-choice advocates do not share. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born. But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired. Obama's work to kill the bill in 2003 has always been attested to by witnesses (committee records are poorly kept in Springfield), but yesterday the National Right to Life Committee found and revealed the document showing definitively that Obama had voted against it in committee -- against the exact same bill he is now falsely claiming on his own campaign website that he would have supported. MYTH: Obama voted "present" on IL bill to avoid being the only senator to vote "no" In The Obama Nation, Corsi falsely asserted that on March 30, 2001, Obama voted "present" on a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 that opponents said posed a threat to abortion rights because he didn't want to be the only state senator to vote against the bill. In fact, according to the transcript of the Senate's proceedings on the bill that day -- which Corsi himself cited -- the roll call for the vote was 34 voting aye, 6 voting no, and 12 voting present. In The Obama Nation, Corsi wrote: Not wanting to be the only Illinois state senator to vote against the bill, a move that Obama realized would be politically unpopular with his constituency, he took the easy way out and voted "Present." [Page 238]. [citing "State of Illinois, 92nd General Assembly, Regular Session, Senate Transcript, 20th Legislative Day, March 30, 2001, at http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf pp. 86-87"] Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, has reportedly said that Obama's "present" votes on "born alive" bills were part of a legislative strategy. MYTH: Obama argued that protections for "a nine-month old fetus" would essentially "forbid abortions from taking place" In his book, Corsi also falsely claimed that during the debate on the March 30, 2001, bill, "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" [Page 238]. In fact, Obama was not describing a "nine-month-old fetus," but rather specifically referring to "a previable fetus," asserting that defining it as a "person" under the law would "essentially bar abortions." Fox News' Sean Hannity uncritically echoed Corsi's false claim on the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show.