ABC Censors Pro-Life Ad Exposing Barack Obama's Pro-Abortion Record

[darrels joy]

ABC Censors Pro-Life Ad Exposing Barack Obama's Pro-Abortion Record by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor October 10, 2008 New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- The ABC television network is coming under fire from a leading pro-life group for censoring a political radio ad that criticizes Barack Obama's pro-abortion voting record. National Right to Life hoped to run the ad during the nationally syndicated Sean Hannity radio program. The ad asks Obama when he will apologize for calling the group "liars" for pointing out how he misrepresented his votes in the Illinois legislature against bills that would require medical care for babies who survive failed abortions. Two nonpartisan groups, FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com have verified NRLC's claims as true -- leading the pro-life group to produce the ad. On Friday, NRLC received notice from ABC Radio Network that it would not air the ad during Hannity's radio program. In an email to National Right to Life, ABC Radio Network executives claimed the ad, "while supporting aspects of a Pro-Life position, weighs more heavily toward electioneering." However, the ad is paid for by the NRLC political action committee, which is which is allowed to do "electioneering" under federal law. "ABC's rejection smacks of being a politically motivated gag order," NRLC communications director Derrick Jones told LifeNews.com. "It seems that the pro-Obama leanings of the mainstream media have overflowed into their sales departments as well. To reject a political action committee's ad because they think it is too political, borders on the absurd." Jones pointed out that, four years ago, the group ran similar radio ads on the ABC network without any censorship from its executives. "Four years ago, NRL PAC ran electioneering ads supporting George W. Bush. ABC's lame excuse this year fails to hide their true motivation of helping Barack Obama conceal his extreme pro-abortion position from the American public," Jones added. Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the group, points to a recent analysis showing the mainstream media have barely touched Barack Obama's abortion position. He calls the ABC rejection of the ad another part of the media campaign for him. "The ABC gag rule is part of a broader pattern of behavior in which the mainstream news media filter out or distort the extremes of Obama's pro-abortion record," he told LifeNews.com. He accused the media of not wanting to discuss "his actions to block legislation to protect infants born alive following abortions in Illinois, his commitment to enact the so-called 'Freedom of Choice Act,' which would make partial-birth abortion legal again and nullify all parental notification laws, and his support for requiring taxpayer funding of abortion." At issue is the bill that Obama opposed that would provide medical care for newborn infants who survive abortions. Obama says he voted against the bill because it didn't mirror a national version that had language making it neutral on Roe v. Wade -- even though Obama voted for language in committee to make the state legislation conform. The National Right to Life Committee released documents exposing Obama's misrepresentation and the pro-abortion presidential candidate later accused the group of "lying" in a terse interview. "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," FactCheck indicated after reviewing the documents.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4432.html

[darrels joy]

Bambi's Promised 1st Act: Wipe Out Abortion Restrictions

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

The Freedom of Choice Act will be perhaps Bambi’s first major public face. He promises to make it his first act as president. See the video below for his position:
...

http://myaisling.blogspot.com/2008/1...-wipe-out.html

You can track the bill through Congress here.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1173

My personal problem: The "right" to an abortion will be expanded to the point that catholic (I don't know how jewish hospitals and others feel about this) hospitals (yeh, ask me about how well this is going in Yakima ) will be sold, doctors will be forced to perform abortions or quit, and aborted late term babies will be left to die in hospital closets all over this country.

[SuperScout]

Isn't it amazing how we have allowed particular interest groups to massage, manipulate and obfuscate our language? For example, years ago, 'gay' meant 'happy, joyful, carefree.' Now, it's supposed to refer to the homosexual crowd, as I suspect, a bit of realistic and moralistic camoflage of who they really are, what they really do, and what the really represent. Most of the homosexuals that I know are anything but 'gay' in the more traditional sense of the word, and instead are miserable, full of self-loathing people.

Next in this parade of lingusitic charades is the 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' dance. Think about it folks - the opposite of 'life' is 'death,' so the opposite of 'pro-life' must be 'pro-death.' But 'pro-death' is not politically palatable, so the whiners and snivelers brigade trot out another verbal smokescreen to disguise their true intent, taking an innocent life.

Barack the Bastard has long had a position of pro-death. It is one of those sacred cows deeply embedded within the Democrat party as if it is some god-given privilege to terminate an innocent life. Constitutionally speaking, there is NO 'right to privacy' as dreamed up by the liberal wing of the Supreme Court.

And my all-time favorite: the marvelous distinctions between 'pro' and 'con.' If the opposite of 'progress' is 'congress,' then I think we have a solution to most of life's problems.

[darrels joy]

Most people don't think that this abortion question will have an impact on them. They are wrong. It will continue to affect each of us.

In the early 70s, rules were changed so that all hospitals that provided services for giving birth were required to perform abortions! My son, Chris, was born at the hospital across town instead of at the one where his grandmother worked that was 1 block from her house.

It was a 100 year old Catholic hospital that has gone way downhill since it was sold. A couple of years ago, the hospital fired all 11 (yes that's eleven) emergency room doctors. Then it was sold again because "not for profit" hospitals need to make lots of money for somebody.

Bush sneaks through host of laws to undermine Obama

Abortion rights are hit by allowing healthcare workers to cite religious or moral grounds for opting out of carrying out certain medical procedures.

This could have meant that catholic, jewish, etc hospitals and doctors won't be forced out of business unless they perform abortions. Obama has stated that he wants no limits on abortions as part of his universal health care.

What other items in his universal health care will have unintended consequences? I'm sure that the rule change back then was to force more access to abortions while the result was less access to health care.

[darrels joy]

...
After taking it all in, one is tempted to invoke the hackneyed warning about the road to hell being paved with good intentions. To be sure, many of these activists sincerely wanted to help other people, and thought that fitting them with diaphragms or sterilizing them was the way to do it. But one of the consistent themes that emerges from Connelly's book is just how many of the people intent on controlling others' reproductive lives actually had less elevated intentions. Many of them simply wanted to prevent the wrong sort of people from ever being born. "Population control presented itself as a charity like any other, helping less fortunate people," Connelly writes, "But it was the only one that promised to make them go away."

Today, population control is discussed as a global environmental problem or a women's rights issue. Activists argue about "population stabilization" and the optimum number of people the planet can support. The message is deceptively simple: have fewer children, invest more resources in them, and modernity will soon follow. Yet the population control movement's slogan—"every child a wanted child"—proves hollow in a context where its target audience of women often lack access to education and medical care. As Connelly's history shows, individual reproductive practices are extraordinarily difficult to control—not just technically, but culturally and socially. Throughout the book, he challenges us to look not only at the motivations of the activists who sought to control population, but at their actions. "When people set out to save the world," he reminds us, "the devil is in the details."

Connelly's book stands as a warning about the dangers of seeing people as nameless numbers. The movement's conceit grew out of an unwillingness to recognize the intrinsic humanity and rights of the individual; a readiness to act—and compel—in the name of an amorphous global social conscience; and an eagerness to invoke science and technology to treat problems that are, at root, political. In the end, as Connelly writes, "The great tragedy of population control, the fatal misconception, was to think that one could know other people's interests better than they knew it themselves."

http://www.claremont.org/publication...pub_detail.asp

Let's all go out and save the world.

Joy

[darrels joy]

Obama has released 44 documents to the Federal Register. Included is this statement...

I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America.

from

Proclamation 8339--National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009

[Federal Register: January 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 12)]
[Presidential Documents]

http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi...ction=retrieve