Friday, October 24, 2008

Yet Another "Pro Life" Anti-Obama Flowers Fraud

After reading her latest screed in the Philadelphia Daily News today, I must say that I almost feel sorry for columnist Christine Flowers.


You have to be pretty messed up to take the wonderful occasion of the birth of a child and use it as an excuse for attacking a politician you don’t like.

Basically, her dreck today is the typical freeper agit-prop of “you’re not a real Catholic if you support Barack Obama, that pro-choice NARAL darling,” or whatever (and by the way, if you have a feeling of déjà vu over this, you’re not imagining it; she also peddled this fertilizer here).

And Flowers could merely dismissed as a rabid partisan in her column today, were it not for this…

(Obama) voted to block legislation to mandate medical care for babies who survived botched abortions because he felt it infringed on the right to choose. He's also promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act if elected. Among other things, FOCA would let tax dollars be used for abortions, gutting the Hyde Amendment.
I, for one, would not consider it a big loss if the Hyde Amendment was relegated to the legislative dustbin, given the hypocrisy of the amendment’s namesake, a philandering spouse who, somehow later in life, felt it was his duty to tell women how to control their bodies.

And here’s a thought; as noted here, maybe the Freedom of Choice Act wouldn’t even be necessary if it weren’t for the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court of Hangin’ Judge J.R., Scalito and Thomas decided to uphold the odious “Partial-Birth Abortion” Ban of 2003 here (and it bears repeating that “partial-birth abortion” is a political term, not a medical one).

More than that, though, Flowers’ charge against Obama here is positively slanderous; as noted here…

Accusing a loving father of two beautiful little girls of wanting to kill babies isn’t just wrong on the facts, it’s the most disgusting and manipulative kind of hate politics around. But anti-abortion ideologues with a long history of partisan attacks are still launching unconscionable ads smearing Barack Obama.

The attackers torture and twist logic and history by willfully misinterpreting votes by Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate to come up with their wild accusation.

Here’s the truth about Barack Obama and the bill:

• At the time Barack voted against a bill containing language designed to protect infants who were “born alive,” such protection was already on the books as Illinois state law.[1]
• The accusations against Barack are so reckless that not even the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill will support them. In fact, he freely admits that “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.”[2]
• The bill was opposed by many legislators and groups like the Illinois Medical Society because of the unintended impact it would have had on other laws and legal precedents in Illinois.[3]
• Barack is on the record[3] saying that he would have supported a similar bill that came up in Congress -- but that didn’t pose a threat to a woman’s right to choose the way the Illinois bill did.[4]
And believe it or not, there’s actually more from Flowers…

Catholics can't pretend to be in good standing when they cast a vote for a man who has been so devoted to abortion rights that he'd deny a child the right to medical care if it compromised a woman's right to an abortion. (And if you think that's hyperbole, go to www.ilga. gov/ senate/ transcripts/ strans92/ST033001.pdf.)
This is the link that Flowers is referring to. As you can see, it is a .pdf of minutes from the Illinois General Assembly dated March 2001 in which (by all appearances) the so-called “Born Alive” bill was debated.

The document is approximately 103 pages long; I think it’s humorous that Flowers, a lawyer, doesn’t even know how to properly cite the reference in question. And I, for one, am not going to bother doing her research for her.

But on a happier note, please allow me to welcome into the world young Alexander Christian, the “tiny vote for McCain” that Flowers is referring to. I personally wish only good things for him and his parents; this is a time of what you might call “bleary-eyed wonder” for the adults in the household.

There are many reasons why his young life should be celebrated, but I can think of one immediately; he already possesses more tolerance and a deeper understanding of life than his aunt ever will.

No comments: