I think bringing these type of issues up right now is only going to hurt Obama's chances for being elected. There really are bigger issues to tackle at this point. I think it is pertinent to note that abortion wasn't legalized because of a President but rather a lawsuit. I think we need to choose the President who is going to help bale us out of this huge deficit mess Bush got us into! And at this point, it looks to me like (and to most of us on this site, according to poles) that would be Obama.

You wouldn't be here if the doctor did his job right. Don't blame Obama, you need to talk to your MD who failed.

This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have heard so far. I am curious to know who is funding these ads?

I watched the video twice and didn't find a single distortion in it. He did vote against the bill four times. And the woman in the video was aborted at seven and a half months. At seven and a half months, you're aborting a BABY.

Ouch, wade.

this is nuts. clearly no one should be aborting a baby at 7.5 months unless it's for health reasons, but is this all obama's fault? everyone, on both sides, knows that the way a candidate votes in congress cannot be boiled down to one single YES or NO. it's complicated, particularly when you're dealing with a delicate issue like abortion.

Wade has a point. But I'm a baby-eating liberal feminist, what do I know...

Accusing someone of supporting infanticide is just f-in offensive.

haha, me too, em. babies are delicious! especially ones that obama leaves to die on the operating room floor.

"You wouldn't be here if the doctor did his job right. Don't blame Obama, you need to talk to your MD who failed."

What?

I don't think you can say you didn't find a distortion in it unless the full bill and all of its extrapolations and implications are right in front of you, IMO. If he voted the way he voted because of something relating to Roe v. Wade, then I don't think people can make the huge leap to basically calling him an infant killer...

Wade has absolutely no point. She's just lashing out at a person who doesn't like Obama.

I can see people from the Born Alive group being angry, however they should be angry at the parents ( mother and father) who are truly to blame for the ultimate decision to have an abortion. The fact that abortion is legal doesn't mean everyone is going to get one, it's just makes the option as safe ( safest thing is to stop/ not having sex if you don't want kids duh!) as possible.

The bill is not about abortion. Its about equal protection for the child that is born alive. Obama's argument was that to intervene on behalf of the child would interfere with a woman's choice. What?! The woman had already made the choice to abort the child and as a result of that choice the child was aborted. This bill provides protection to the child, not the mother.

Well in that case there needs to be something better than "Oopsies, we messed up! Sorry about that!"

We need to make sure that no child slips through the cracks and is left behind to live after being aborted. I think we can all agree that a mother can abort a baby at any point during the child's development, especially after a particuarily bad report card, after a meal, or after an argument. She'll know when the time is right.

further more I'm pro a womans right to choose, however personally I would never even think it was "moral" unless for medical resons to abort a "BABY" at 7 7/2 months, I also think that Obama would would probably be someone who thinks in a similar fashion, and I'm sure that what he voted for was way more complex than " killing babies" than we all can know and that there was a lot of nuance in the legistation.

Don't just say there's "a lot of nuance in the legislation" if you haven't read it.

I did make a point. What is she angry at him for. She needs to talk to her mother the person that wanted her aborted and the doctor didn't his job right. I don't feel anyway about this lady I don't know her.

Wade, I think she's angry at Barack Obama because he voted against bills that would have protected people in her situation. If you watched the ad, she states that pretty clearly.

I think it's at least a little safe to say the bill didn't read "DO YOU WANT TO KILL BABIES? CHECK YES OR NO". Just sayin'.

Furthermore, why would she be mad at the doctor who didn't manage to kill her?

Well she's alive isn't she. Her ad is false anyway.

She's alive no thanks to Obama's vote. What about her ad is false?

So, is it a distortion if Obama voted against this bill? I'd like to hear his explanation as to why he voted against it. I'm betting there is a good reason, even though at face value it looks like this is a bad thing.

Short of calling Obama a proponent of infanticide? The over-simplification of everything, IMO.

Alright I'm out of this discussion. Can't talk about this without getting too emotional.

"hey were attempting to undermine Roe v. Wade"

There is a lot of nuance in the legislation I said it again because I haven't read this legislation but I have read others and most people would agree that in most if not all legislation there is a lot of nuance. Thanks!

You people act like he throws babies in the garbage can.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

I figured I'd try to find some facts about the issue before posting. (Gotta love factcheck.org.) Obama did vote against the bill 4 times. He says he voted against it because he thought it would interfere with a woman's right to choose. I disagree. I think the only intent was to give an aborted baby that somehow came out alive the opportunity to live. The mother doesn't have to take care of the baby. She had her abortion and can go on her way. To leave the baby to die is, in my opinion, inhumane.

WOW, talk about biased voting, sugar readers! It's an emotional subject, so why shouldn't the ad reflect that? I think the ad brings light to an Obama tidbit that doesn't get much attention.

I really wish the right to choose would mean choosing if you would want to have a kid in your current circumstances and then choosing on having sex or not, because, we know, poop happens.

I posted a link to factcheck.org on this issue. It was flagged but hopefully will be up soon.

"You people act like he throws babies in the garbage can."

That's a conservative for ya

Wade, you never answered me about which part of this ad is false.

Yeah, dream, because lord knows you'd have to be some crazy, maniacal, liberal-hating Conservative to want to know more about Obama's views on babies and their rights. Cue eye rolling.

Yeah, how dare the conservatives try to prevent baby death?

"You people act like he throws babies in the garbage can."

Well, that's kind of what we're talking about here. No protection for a baby born alive who has to wait and die in a maintenance room. -- Just sayin'.

The death of a loved one in war is an emotional issue, losing your retirement fund or your home or a child to inadequate health care are emotional issues - do you think we should be barraged by hysterical claims as we try to determine who best should become our next president?
The only reason anyone's banging away on this issue is the hope that it will draw single issue pro-life voters to the polls. The Republicans haven't been knocking themselves out to do anything about this for the past 8 years.

The ads are emotionally manipulative.

UGH, there you go with the weak, tired "Let's ignore issue A because issues B and C are more important!" We should look at ALL aspects of a potential president, and the fact that people like you are so scared of examining "minor" issues really throws up red flags.

foxie -- I don't get it.

It makes me sad when people manipulate people's emotions to get votes. Like prochoice/gay marriage issue voters -- Just sayin'.

What about politics ISN'T emotional?? Is that really your key argument here, dream?

"The Republicans haven't been knocking themselves out to do anything about this for the past 8 years."

EXACTLY!

We all know the Democrats have never appealed to emotion to sway voters. Heavens, no.

Foxie, good points.

The facts are that Obama did vote against the bill 4 times. What seems to be at issue is the reasoning why he voted against it. As stated earlier by a poster, he said that he was against it because it was an attack on Roe vs. Wade. He also said that he would support a state bill if it was worded like the federal bill that did pass which included a statement that the law couldn't be used to go against Roe vs. Wade. One of the bills he voted against DID include that kind of language. But he still voted against it.

I'm getting all this from the factcheck site.

The point of the ad is quit fair the target of the ad is not. There is a reason I am always skeptical of critics who criticise another for not voting on a bill. Bills can be laden with amendments and ad on's which would give any legislator good reason to vote against it in spite of the fact that there are good things about it.

The problem with this ad is that it reports an act that is a fact but it says nothing about why Sen. Obama voted against the bill. Instead it presents an emotional testimonial to suggest something reason for his vote that simply is not true.

I swear sometimes I just want to line up these campaign strategists get in their face and say you think I'm stupid, you really think I'm that stupid. News flash! NOT.

I don't think I studded -- it's an emotionally manipulative Ad. That was the question.

Oh really? Republicans haven't been working to pass this bill or fighting against certain Senators who tried to vote it down? Really?

At issue is Obama's opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."