Although I disagree with the more times than I can count, one thing I can usually rely on most conservatives to do in an adult political discussion is to be reasonably well-informed.
Too bad Jill Stanek and Sean Hannity don’t fall into that category, although frankly, I’m hardly shocked.
Case in point:
As a staunch pro-lifer, former nurse and current WorldNutDaily columnist/blogger Stanek often writes of her hatred of all things abortion (and gay marriage, but that's another story).
Yet in this election year, one particular war drum Ms. Stanek has been beating for months over Barack Obama’s presidential run is her claim that in 2003 he voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act which would have required by law any babies born in Illinois as a result of a botched abortion to receive full medical care by a doctor.
The problem, however, is that Illinois statute (720 ILCS 510/6) already made this requirement law prior to 2003.
And I quote:
"No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; in such a case, the physician shall describe the basis of this judgment on the form prescribed by Section 10 of this Act. Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony."
When guest Bob Beckel raised this very fact during this evening’s “Hannity & Colmes,” Hannity ignorantly denied the statute even existed.
Well, dickhead. Guess what? It does.
And anyone like yourself and Jill Stanek who falsely go after Obama for rejecting a law in ’03 that was already on the books are (at best) not doing their due diligence, and (at worst) are being deceptive.