The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) both in the Illinois and Federal legislatures was meant to make illegal death by neglect of born but unwanted infants. These bills were opposed by the bulk of the Democrat Party because of the fact that the original bills could have been construed to say that a pre-birth fetus was a "person" that was protected by law. So, the bill in Congress was altered to address that concern by adding a "neutrality clause" that made it clear that the bill would not protect a fetus in utero.
As Obama continues to tell the tale, as a State Senator he said he voted against the Illinois bill because the Federal "neutrality clause" was not included and that therefore he could not support the Illinois bill. Turns out he is not telling the truth about this fact. Even worse, he knows better because he was part of the legislative committee that added that very "neutrality clause" to the very bill he voted against in 2003.
As Stanek found, Obama not only was part of that committee adding the Federal "neutrality clause" to the Illinois bill, he was the chairman of that committee.
The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the IL state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.
It strains credulity to believe that Obama was unaware that the "neutrality clause" was added to the bill if he was the chairman of the committee that put it in there, doesn't it? So we are forced to realize that Obama knows the truth but is trying to rewrite history and with the willing accomplices in the Old Media he has succeeded in doing so thus far.
Stanek points out that only two years after his "no" vote, Obama had developed his "change" version of history.
Less than two years after this meeting, Obama began to publicly claim that he opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the "neutrality" clause, and that he would have supported the federal version (had he been a member of Congress) because it contained the "neutrality" clause.
Stanek has the whole sordid history on this affair, with links to the actual bills and umpteen news stories and legislative resources to prove her case. Go on over and take a look at her extensive research.
Now, this story is no matter of mere opinion. There is no possibility that Obama just has a different opinion on a controversial national issue than we do. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said, one is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. What we have here is Obama simply telling a lie and knowingly doing so. Will the Old Media continue to cover up for him like they have done for the last four years?
