Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Anti-Abortion Group Tries to Swiftboat Obama

By Bill Berkowitz, Media Transparency. Posted October 13, 2008.


BornAliveTruth.org plays loose with the facts in an ad targeting Obama.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Two weeks ago, BornAliveTruth.org, an anti-abortion group headed by Jill Stanek, launched a major attack on Sen. Barack Obama with a very personal and heart-wrenching television advertisement aimed at the voters in the toss-up states of New Mexico and Ohio. The ad, which according to Stanek cost the organization $338,000 to run -- in addition to what it is paying its public relations firm, CRC Public Relations -- was titled "The Gianna ad," and features Gianna Jesson, who is identified as an "Abortion Survivor."

"My name is Gianna Jesson, born 31 years ago after a failed abortion," Jesson states in the ad. "But if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here. Four times Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to protect babies left to die after failed abortions. Senator Obama, please support Born Alive Infant Protection. I'm living proof these babies have a right to live."

The ad, paid for by conservative philanthropist Raymond Ruddy, "singles out Obama's efforts while in the Illinois Senate to defeat the Born Alive Infants Protection Act," according to the Associated Press' Jim Kuhnhein. The AP story reported that "Obama and abortion rights forces in Illinois have said the bill would have undermined the landmark Supreme Court case on abortion, Roe v. Wade."

The BornAliveTruth spot has garnered a great deal of media attention for both Jesson and Stanek. In a late-September telephone interview, Stanek told Media Transparency that both she and Jesson have made a number of television and radio appearances. According to Stanek, in its first two weeks, the ad garnered more than 200,000 hits on YouTube and other websites that have made it available.
Jesson recently appeared on the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program -- the video of which is featured at the BornAliveTruth website. In addition to coverage in the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Times and the Associated Press, the organization's launch received blanket coverage from such like-minded sites as Conservative Grapevine, Catholic News Service, LifeSiteNews, LifeNews, Stop the ACLU, OneNewsNow, WorldMag.com and many more.

The Mokena, Illinois-based BornAliveTruth.org's "Mission Statement" declares that it is "a 527 political organization whose mission is to educate the public on the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act and Barack Obama's record opposing this act."

According to a "Description Statement" on its website, the organization maintains that it is a "non-partisan issues advocacy organization dedicated to the proposition that any infant born alive is entitled to receive medical attention and be treated as a human being. We work to inform the public of the importance of this issue, legislative efforts to protect born alive infants, and how our elected officials have voted on born alive protections. BornAliveTruth.org is your best source for information about this issue and our activities."

In the "Know the Facts" section of Barackobama.com the Obama campaign provided a lengthy point-by-point rebuttal of BornAliveTruth.org's charges as well as charges by other anti-abortion groups (see "The Truth Behind False, Outrageous Lies about Obama and ''Born Alive.'')

In late August, FactCheck.org, a well-respected project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which describes itself as "a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics," looked closely at the issue after the National Right to Life Committee claimed that Obama had conducted "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions":
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."
FactCheck.org also pointed out that while in the ad Jessen says that "'if Senator Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here,' She's wrong. Anyone born in Illinois under the same circumstances as Jessen (who was actually born in California) would have been protected under the state's law as it stood, with or without the legislation that Obama opposed."

Jill Stanek's Crusade

BornAliveTruth.org was founded in July of this year and is headed by Stanek, a former Chicago-area nurse who in January 2003 was named by World magazine as one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years.

Stanek, who blogs at Pro-life Pulse, tells her story on the group's website:
In 1999, I discovered that Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, where I worked as a labor and delivery nurse, was leaving babies who survived induced labor abortions to die in the soiled utility room.
I personally held one of these infants 45 minutes until he gasped his last breath.
When I explained my experience to hospital administrators, they refused to stop their horrific treatment of these infants.
After going public, my story immediately grabbed the attention of legislators and media, which resulted in the introduction of the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
Christ Hospital fired me in August 2001 for reasons related to my public statements.
I testified before Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee and Health and Human Services Committee as well as the US House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

On August 5, 2002, I joined President George W. Bush for his signing of the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
When asked if she thought the BornAliveTruth ads were examples of "Swiftboating," Stanek said that she thought that the term Swiftboating "has taken on an unpleasant and inaccurate meaning." After all, she noted, "The swiftboating ads were proven to be true."

Stanek said that she didn't "mind being considered an organization that is negatively impacting Barrack Obama. I don't mind that our publicist [CRC Public Relations] was a publicist for the Swift Boaters. It is a badge of honor. I am happy to be associated with a publicist that has proved to be very successful in a 527 endeavor."

Stanek recently told LifeNews.com that "We're hearing from the media Obama's people are telling them they have no comment on the Gianna ad, that Obama didn't vote for Born Alive because it would undermine Roe. Even if that were true, which it is not, am I hearing Obama admit he supports infanticide if it would otherwise interfere with legalized abortion?"

The major donor to BornAliveTruth -- a 527 allowed to raise money from individuals in unlimited amounts -- is Raymond Ruddy, who is described by the AP as "a prominent anti-abortion philanthropist in Massachusetts who supported Mitt Romney for president in the GOP primary."

In 2004 Ruddy, who sits on the board of the Reston, Virginia-based Maximus, a giant government services provider that is heavily involved in welfare privatization, donated nearly $400,000 to Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family Action's anti-gay marriage campaigns. He also gave $117,916 to the anti-abortion Your Catholic Vote, a group that mounted an anti-Kerry campaign attacking the Massachusetts Senator in newspaper ads that ran across the country. For the 2006 midterms Ruddy and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth financier Carl Lindner kicked $847,000 into Common Sense Ohio that ran push polls and deceptive ad campaigns in seven states.

Publicity for BornAliveTruth is being handled by CRC Public Relations. Founded in 1989 by a group led by CRC's current chairman, Leif Noren, the company, headed by its current president, Greg Mueller, provides "strategic counsel" for "designing ... media program to tactical implementation, [and] ... delivers a full range of media relations services in today's 24 hour news cycle."

According to its website, "CRC clients include some of the world's largest corporations, industry groups, non-profit organizations, associations and legislative & public policy initiatives. Whether you are launching a new product, facing an imminent crisis, or looking to educate the public, CRC helps you achieve your objectives through customized public relations programs."

CRC's client list includes conservative advocacy groups, think tanks, links to the Republican Party, conservative philanthropy funded organizations, and media outfits such as Americans for Fair Taxation, Americans for Hope, Growth & Opportunity, the Discovery Institute, the Federalist Society, the Manhattan Institute, the Media Research Center, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Parents Television Council, Regnery Publishing, and Walden Media.

SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, has reported that earlier this year the Alexandria, Virginia-based CRC was involved "in an attempt to hold Senator Charles Schumer responsible" for the collapse of California's IndyMac Bank. SourceWatch reported that in late June Schumer, the chair of Congress' Joint Economic Committee, "went public with his concerns about the bank." A number of former bank employees -- with the assistance of CRC -- claimed that the Senator's negative assessments of IndyMac led to a run on the bank, "with depositors taking out a net $1.3 billion in the following two weeks," according to the Los Angeles Times.
The former employees accused Schumer of "a malicious, politically motivated act." CRC circulated a letter from the employees to California Attorney General Jerry Brown to major media. "The letter, signed mostly by former staffers at IndyMac's now-shuttered mortgage operation, asks Brown to investigate Schumer and to prosecute him under a state law making it a misdemeanor to spread false and damaging statements or rumors about a bank," the Los Angeles Times reported.
CRC was also a major player in the Jerome Corsi's best-selling book, "Unfit for Command," William Triplet reported in Variety, in February of 2006.

BornAliveTruth is not the only anti-abortion group in play against Obama. According to FEC filings, the National Right to Life Political Action Committee has spent slightly over $154,000 thus far this year, while the Life and Liberty PAC has spent $978,000 to defeat Obama. CQ MoneyLine recently reported that the Susan B. Anthony List, which opposes abortion, "has given $175,000 to candidates and political committees opposed to abortion this election ... [and] has also spent over $100,000 running ads against Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and other abortion rights candidates."

Stanek also told Media Transparency that although she had been contacted by the McCain campaign in July for information about Obama, she hadn't heard from them since that time. At this point, it is unclear whether BornAliveTruth will continue to exist beyond November. For now, she is making media appearances, continuing to raise money for "educational endeavors in general," and is dedicated to defeating Barack Obama.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, abortion, obama, attack ads, swiftboad

Bill Berkowitz is a freelance writer covering right-wing groups and movements.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Whats the line?
Posted by: Karl.Ben on Oct 14, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama voted against that bill??..That is pretty low. Early term abortions is one thing but this is pretty close to murder!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Whats the line? Posted by: Lilly
RKThunder
Posted by: Jarhead on Oct 14, 2008 2:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bottom line: Obama does not believe in preventing the killing of an unborn fetus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not the bottom line.... Posted by: AuntBec
the Bible supports abortion rights
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 14, 2008 3:37 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time. This was positive proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.

Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as:

"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."

Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life". The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life, it gains full human status after birth only.

Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.

The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.

This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother: One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.

Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.

Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance. Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.

The New Testament is more permissive than the Old. Paul claims Jesus told him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9), and Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring Jesus' and Paul's other teachings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

These are not unwanted pregnancies we're talking about
Posted by: AuntBec on Oct 17, 2008 7:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those of you who feel comfortable placing your values on the rest of the world, consider this when discussing second trimester abortions: these are WANTED pregnancies. These families and their doctors are not making these decisions lightly and without thought. However, not only were these pregnancies wanted, they were/are also doomed. In other words, the mother can carry this pregnancy until the fetus actually dies in utero and then deliver a dead fetus or have an actual miscarriage. Either one of those options is dangerous for the mother. The option left, with the ban Ms. Stenek fought so hard for, is for labor to be induced and the mother delivers a fetus, normally within two or three DAYS, which will die with utmost certainty.
We do not know, just because Ms. Stenek says, that she ever held an aborted fetus for any length of time before it died. From reports on womens enews, families who do choose to induce labor, do so so that they are able to have closure with the dead or dying infant. (thus, leaving one to doubt if there ever would, in fact, be a dying "alone" infant) Regardless, this may not be the way other families are able to cope with such a distress. Meaning, they should have other options of terminating the pregnancy. It is not up to us, we who know nothing about these circumstances, to pass any laws against, nor any bans which make this time in this family's life any more burdensome.
Thank you, Senator Obama, for choosing to protect the family, over protecting your "image".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nascent nescience
Posted by: StirMan on Oct 18, 2008 12:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is THE AGE OF INCURIOUS . . . Celebrating nescience . . . (Often Proudly.) I find the existence of CRC as upsetting as the discovery of foulbrood in one of my beehives. Thank you AuntBec for expressing so reasoned a comment. I'm with you . . . AND OBAMA. Unlike the MacBeth doppelganger and pathological liar McCain, Obama has a wonderful record of social and intellectual achievement and offers HOPE of a return to reason before America dies of ignorance and the cult of the golden calf of capitalism. Yes I am aware that the unbounded corruption of our congress is the only bipartisan aspect of it. Reminds me of Old Jack's comment in McKinley Kantor's book OLD JACK—"Settle for the half-assed and then, by God, admire it." Hope was the word I used, OK? The remark in the article that the "swift boat ads" were "proven to be true" ("RIGHT"), considered as dressing on the goulash of her other opinions forces me to say that I believe that I understand where Stanek is coming from but do not want to go there. The currently attractive notion that ANYONE has the right to decree "right" thinking and action and adjudge and compel others based on creed based notions of being the very elect strikes me as frightening philosophy at best. Why not turn that unfettered empathy to the ongoing mass slaughter of actual children in, say Iraq?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nascent nescience Posted by: shd1230
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement