Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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

Reproductive Justice and Gender

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

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.

Digg!

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 Reproductive Justice and Gender! 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