BlargenBlog

This blog is not known for virtually any kind of citizen journalism. This week I’ll be going over the Journal Star YouTube debates and fact-checking each side.

I’ll do my best to keep it clean, but will provide my own typical style of analysis below the fold. Since my own performance was an epic failure, I figured I ought to contribute to the project in some meaningful way. Just pretend you’re reading the Peoria Pundit, but with fewer typos.

Issue #1: Abortion Part 1.

Lee Newcom

Claim: Senator McCain has taken a reasonable position by saying he personally opposes abortion but supports the law in the way it’s working today.

FALSE - From John McCain’s website:

” Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”"

Claim: Senator Obama used his political influence to block a bill that would seek to give medical care to unwanted babies who were born alive.

QUESTIONABLE - The committee he’s referring to in the clip is the Health and Human Services Committee, of which he became chairman in 2003. The tone is pejorative and seems to suggest that power was improperly used to block a bill. There is no evidence suggesting Obama used his position to deny people the chance to give testimony, though the bill did not make it to the floor under the committee.

Jeffrey Hall

Claim: Obama’s goal with abortion is to keep it the way it is.

TRUE - From barackobama.com:

“Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.”

There is no language to suggest otherwise. His voting record in the U.S. Senate seems to corroborate this, as well as his claim that he seeks to reduce the number of abortions through legislation.

Claim: McCain flipped on the issue of abortion, first supporting, now supporting an overturn of Roe v. Wade.

TRUE - McCain has been consistently opposed to partial birth abortions, as indicated by his voting record. While he has chosen not to vote on a bill expressing Congressional support of Roe v. Wade, there’s no indication he supported overturning it prior to his 2008 campaign. This does not technically constitute a flip.

However, McCain said in 2000 that he thinks abortion should be allowed in special cases, then reaffirmed his position in 2007. Now, however, he is siding with his party’s policy and seeking a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade. My friends, that is a flipflop.

Issue #1: Abortion Part 2.

Lee Newcom

Claim: People maintain the right to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy.

TRUE - In most cases, an abortion can be performed at any time during the pregnancy. What is not mentioned is that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 prohibits partial-birth abortions.

Claim: Mr. Hall disagrees with Barack Obama by saying if an abortion fails and there’s a chance for survival, the baby deserves medical care.

FALSE - According to Jill Stanek, which Newcom cites for support, Barack Obama has supported the federal version of BAIPA since at least 2005. The problem according to Senator Obama was not with providing care to those who survive an attempted abortion, but with the protection of abortion rights in Illinois, as outlined on his website (scroll to the bottom to see the chart). Mr. Hall and Senator Obama are in perfect agreement.

Claim: The language in both state born alive acts and federal born alive acts is identical, so there’s no reasonable explanation for opposing it.

FALSE - According to factcheck.org:

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term “born-alive infant” as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

The bill which passed in 2005 includes the following language:

(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect
existing federal or State law regarding abortion.

(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter
generally accepted medical standards.

Claim: Barack Obama supports killing babies who a born alive as a result of a failed abortion procedure.

FALSE - This is part of a smear commonly known as the infanticide claim. The facts: there were already laws on the books granting the protections described by the bill in question which, if violated (if what Mr. Newcom describes is true), would be punishable as a Class 3 felony. (source: factcheck.org) The bill was eventually passed (after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate) which contained the language claims he was looking for.

In Obama’s own words:

“Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, we’re saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to term…That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.”

Claim: Jill Stanek held babies in laundry room until they died.

FALSE - This claim is often repeated in response to Senator Obama’s record on abortion in the Illinois legislature. However, this is an unsupported claim that has only one source, that being Jill Stanek. In response to her claims, the Office of the Attorney General sent a letter in response which stated:

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.

Jeffrey Hall

Jeff didn’t really make any claims in this section. Most of it was defending against or expressing incredulity at what Mr. Newcom was saying.

Analysis below the fold.

“It’s a usual Obama half-truth.”

Somebody call the kettle!

Lee Newcom came out swinging, repeatedly using the word “reasonable” to try to dictate the center position on this issue. This sets up his attack on Obama by calling his the most radical position a human being could have.

I didn’t see him using any notes which made him appear remarkably well prepared. On the other hand, the vast majority of his statements were so patently false, notes may have not been necessary. Apparently he was also trying to dictate reality.

Judging by McCain’s voting record, he’s remained mostly centrist on the issue of abortion. He has been staunchly against partial birth abortions, as well as providing funding for abortion procedures. The platform he’s currently running on seeks to eliminate abortion completely, even in cases of rape, incest, severe deformities or when the woman’s life is at risk. Go to his campaign website and see for yourself.

His second claim is questionable. He appears to be insinuating that because Barack Obama was chair of the committee that blocked this bill, he must have done something improper to block it. Since he already identified Obama as the scum of the earth, it’s no surprise to find such overtones. There is no data to suggest this was the case, and I would challenge him to provide it from a neutral source, as I have done with my own.

Jeff Hall responded with a substantiated claim to counter the suggestion that Obama is a baby killer. Then he called McCain out on his support of Roe v. Wade, which I thought was excellent. At first I wasn’t sure how to judge this one, but all in all, McCain has not been in step with his party on this issue. Now that he’s the nominee, all that went out the window.

Sorry Lee, Barack Obama is the one with the reasonable position here: keep things as they were. McCain has taken the fringe position in stating he wants to make it illegal.

The rest of the debate was simply mind-boggling. In typical Republican fashion, facts were being conjured out of thin air. The first big mistake was using that nutbag Jill Stanek as a source.

Obviously, her agenda undermines her credibility, but it doesn’t stop there. Imagine you’re hearing the theme music from the Twilight Zone. Got it?

As pointed out previously, her initial claim has been dismissed by the Attorney General for over 8 years now. She thinks it’s okay for a woman to face domestic abuse for having an abortion. She’s also convinced that the Chinese eat babies as a delicacy.

Don’t take it from me. visit her website and find out. It’s http://www.jillstanek.com/. I’ve mentally added the name “Jill Stanek” to my list of people who are batshit insane, right up there with Ann Coulter.

Personally, I find it appalling that people resort to spineless, shameful lies to support their weak opinions. Congratulations on being part of the Republican hate machine.

Kudos to Mr. Hall for rightfully calling him out on these claims:

Jeff - “I find that’s pretty hard to believe.”
Lee - “It is pretty hard to believe.”

And yet, you still believe it. Hey Lee, I’ve got some sub-prime loans I’d like to sell you.

Tags: 2008 General Election, Journal Star, PJStar, Politics

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm and is filed under Peoria, Politics, wingnuttery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.