Roe v. Wade

Latest news on roe v. wade

Fox News graphic falsely claimed "Obama campaign disse[d] Palin for small town origins"

A Fox News on-screen graphic purporting to describe the response by Sen. Barack Obama's campaign to Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate falsely stated: "Obama Campaign Disses Palin for Small Town Origins." The graphic appeared on the August 29 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, just as Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron stated that "the McCain campaign is suggesting" that the Obama campaign's response to the Palin pick "appear[ed] to sound dismissive of middle-American, small-town voters." In fact, responding to McCain's selection of Palin, the Obama campaign challenged Palin's experience, not her "small town origins." According to MSNBC blog First Read, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said: "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."

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.

ABC, NBC reported on ad of Clinton supporter backing McCain without noting her false suggestion that McCain supports abortion rights

During the August 25 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O'Donnell reported that Sen. John McCain was "[a]ggressively pursu[ing] Hillary Clinton voters" before airing a McCain campaign ad showing Clinton supporter Debra Bartoshevich saying, "I'm supporting a Republican, John McCain." On the August 25 broadcast of ABC's World News, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper aired the same clip of Bartoshevich from the ad. However, neither O'Donnell nor Tapper noted that earlier that day at a Republican press conference, Bartoshevich reportedly falsely suggested that McCain does not support overturning Roe v. Wade. In fact, McCain's campaign website currently says: "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned." Moreover, according to Michael Scherer of Time magazine, a Republican National Committee spokesman contradicted Bartoshevich after the press conference. In an August 25 post on Time's Swampland blog, Scherer reported that Bartoshevich said at the press conference: "Going back to 1999, John McCain did an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle saying that overturning Roe v. Wade would not make any sense, because then women would have to have illegal abortions." Scherer reported that "[a]fter the event, an RNC spokesman reiterated that McCain has been very clear about his position on abortion this campaign cycle. And he has. He speaks about the life issue at almost every campaign event, and his campaign has aggressively courted evangelical voters by highlighting McCain's consistent pro-life voting record, and his stated determination to appoint Supreme Court justices like [Samuel] Alito and [John] Roberts." On August 20, 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that during an interview with the paper's editorial board that McCain did say: "I'd love to see a point where it (Roe v. Wade) is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations." But on August 23, 1999, according to the Chronicle, McCain issued what the Chronicle called a "clarification," stating: "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal. ... But that ... must take place in conjunction with a sustained effort to reduce the number of abortions performed in America" [ellipses in original]. As Media Matters for America has noted, McCain has previously made other inconsistent statements about his position on Roe and abortion rights. From Scherer's post: Midway through the event, Bartoschevich was asked if she was concerned about McCain's pro-life voting record. At a podium paid for by the Republican National Committee, with McCain aide Carly Fiorina standing nearby, Bartoschevich said this: Going back to 1999, John McCain did an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle saying that overturning Roe v. Wade would not make any sense, because then women would have to have illegal abortions. Was she going off message? Or are Republicans engaging in some cagey multi-messaging? After the event, an RNC spokesman reiterated that McCain has been very clear about his position on abortion this campaign cycle. And he has. He speaks about the life issue at almost every campaign event, and his campaign has aggressively courted evangelical voters by highlighting McCain's consistent pro-life voting record, and his stated determination to appoint Supreme Court justices like Alito and Roberts. Just last week, in his weekly radio address, McCain hammered Obama on abortion. "I can assure you that if I am president, advancing the cause of life will not be above my pay grade," he said. From the August 25 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams: WILLIAMS: The news media and political types, especially everybody in here, still chatting about Obama's choice of Joe Biden as a running mate. And as one theory goes, the Biden choice might change or alter or influence John McCain's choice of a running mate. Kelly O'Donnell covers that campaign for us. She's in Arizona tonight. [begin video clip] O'DONNELL: The McCain strategy? Rule one: Do not give the week away to the Democrats. So John McCain is staying visible. Today at wife Cindy's high school alma mater in Phoenix: McCAIN: I have a very honorable opponent and one who will receive the nomination of his party this week in Denver. O'DONNELL: Rule two: Keep the media guessing. What reporters thought would be a press conference turned out to be a surprise endorsement from a Latin Grammy-winning star. McCAIN: Here he is, Daddy Yankee. O'DONNELL: The teenagers shrieked. McCAIN: I just want to say thank you, Daddy Yankee. O'DONNELL: Rule three: Aggressively pursue Hillary Clinton voters. Today, another Hillary-inspired ad. BARTOSHEVICH: She had the experience and judgment to be president. Now, in a first for me, I'm supporting a Republican, John McCain. O'DONNELL: And hanging in the air, the biggest unknown: Who will join McCain on the GOP ticket to counter Biden, who brings experience and blue collar roots that connect with voters in big industrial states? From the August 25 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson: TAPPER: But while Obama was reaching outside his party, in Denver, the unity of the Democratic Party was under the spotlight. For many supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton still bitter about her loss in the primaries -- GROUP: Eighteen million. TAPPER: -- Obama's hope for victory this fall is not a priority. This morning, Clinton gave them a pep talk. CLINTON: Good morning. We're not the fall-in-line party. We're diverse. Many voices. TAPPER: Obama today downplayed any tension, but acknowledged he had some work to do. OBAMA: There are going to be some of Senator Clinton's supporters who we're going to have to work hard to persuade to come on board. TAPPER: Last week, Clinton's brother, Tony Rodham, met with some campaign officials for Senator John McCain, and former President Clinton recently praised McCain for his leadership on global warming -- fissures in the party that McCain and the Republicans are hoping to exploit in a glut of new TV ads reminding voters of what Clinton said about Obama just a few weeks ago. CLINTON: You never hear the specifics. Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience. And Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002. TAPPER: Another ad features a former Democratic delegate for Clinton. BARTOSHEVICH: She had the experience and judgment to be president. Now, in a first for me, I'm supporting a Republican, John McCain. CLINTON: Let me state what I think about their tactics and these ads. I'm Hillary Clinton, and I do not approve that message.

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.

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.

Print reports ignore tension between McCain's assertion that human rights begin at conception and support for stem cell research

In articles following August 16 appearances by Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain at a forum at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, numerous print media outlets, including the Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and three separate articles in The Washington Post, reported McCain's assertion at the forum that he believes "a baby [is] entitled to human rights" "[a]t the moment of conception." But in none of the articles did the reporters raise the question of how McCain reconciles his position that human rights begin at conception with his support for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and support of exemptions for cases of rape or incest in a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Nor did they point out that McCain did not note whether his position that "a baby [is] entitled to human rights" "[a]t the moment of conception" means that he would support making illegal in vitro fertilization in which not all embryos are then implanted, intrauterine devices (IUDs), the morning-after pill, or the birth control pill. By contrast, in an August 17 Time.com article, Nancy Gibbs wrote of McCain's statement at Saddleback Church: Consider the obvious implications if rights attain the moment the egg and sperm meet: all kinds of embryo research become questionable, starting with the stem-cell research McCain says he favors. Couples who undergo in vitro fertilization and then choose not to implant all the embryos are surely violating the rights of those that are discarded or frozen. Some forms of contraception, such as IUDs and the morning-after pill, would presumably be illegal if they affect the ability of an egg to implant. Abortion opponents contend that the birth control pill itself, while designed to prevent ovulation so no egg is fertilized in the first place, may also have the effect of blocking implantation of any egg that sneaks through. Suddenly, a whole range of reproductive choices comes into question. Similarly, in an August 18 USA Today article, Cathy Lynn Grossman reported that R. Alta Charo, the Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law and Bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, "said McCain's view on conception was inconsistent with his support of embryonic stem cell research," and quoted her assertion: "If he believes in human rights at the moment of conception, then he ought to be against embryonic stem cell research." During the August 16 forum, McCain had the following exchange with Warren: WARREN: Let's deal with abortion. I, as a pastor, have to deal with this all the time, every different angle, every different pain, all the decisions on all of that; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people, people who believe that life begins at conception, would say that's a holocaust for many people. What point is a baby entitled to human rights? McCAIN: At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record, in the Congress, in the Senate; and as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment -- that's my commitment to you. Moments later, McCain stated that he has "come down on the side of stem cell research": WARREN: Another issue, stem cells. We've had the scientific breakthrough of creating pluripotent stem cells through adult stem cells. McCAIN: Yes. WARREN: So would you favor or oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research since we had this other breakthrough? McCAIN: For those of us in the pro-life community this has been a great struggle and a terrible dilemma because we're also taught other obligations that we have as well. I've come down on the side of stem cell research. But I am wildly optimistic that skin cell research, which is coming more and more into focus and practicability, will make this debate an academic one. Indeed, McCain voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which would "Amend[] the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo." The legislation passed both houses of Congress but was vetoed by President Bush. As Media Matters for America has noted, 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." The following articles quoted McCain's statement that human rights begin "at the moment of conception" without noting his stated support for embryonic stem-cell research or the right of a woman to obtain an abortion in cases of rape or incest: An August 17 New York Times article, in which Katharine Q. Seelye and John Broder reported: "Mr. Obama skirted a question about when life begins, saying that determining such a thing was above his pay grade and sending murmurs throughout the audience. Mr. McCain said simply, 'At the moment of conception.' " An August 17 Washington Post article, in which staff writers Shailagh Murray and Perry Bacon Jr. reported: "In his interview with Warren, McCain received loud applause from the crowd of more than 2,000 when he declared his view that unborn children deserve rights 'at the moment of conception,' and offered one of the most emphatic declarations of his opposition to abortion in his presidential campaign." An August 17 Associated Press article in which Charles Babington and Beth Fouhy reported: "Presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain differed sharply on abortion Saturday, with McCain saying a baby's human rights begin 'at conception,' while Obama restated his support for legalized abortion." An August 18 Wall Street Journal article, in which Laura Meckler wrote: "The contrast between the two men may have been sharpest on abortion. Mr. Warren asked at what point a 'baby' is 'entitled to human rights.' Sen. McCain gave the answer most in the crowd wanted to hear: 'At the moment of conception.' " An August 20 Washington Post article, in which staff writers Perry Bacon Jr. and Michael Shear wrote: "Over the weekend, McCain emerged from a forum at the Saddleback evangelical church with high praise from conservatives for his answer to the question about when life begins. He said simply, 'At conception.' " An August 20 Washington Post article, in which staff writer Jonathan Weisman reported: "At Saddleback, McCain won plaudits from conservatives when he said that life begins 'at the moment of conception,' especially after Obama deflected the question."