CNN co-anchor Don Lemon, during a brief report on Tuesday’s Newsroom program about a pro-life measure on the ballot in South Dakota that would greatly restrict abortion, gave only the pro-choice side of the debate over the proposed law. He also oversimplified Barack Obama’s stance on the abortion issue.
Lemon stated how the Great Plains state "is becoming a new focal point in the abortion debate" due to the measure, which is called Initiated Measure 11. He then introduced the sole sound bite from a Planned Parenthood official: "Opponents say it would be one of the most rigid and inflexible bans in the country. They worry about the impact it could have on Roe vs. Wade."
During the sound bite, Sarah Stoesz, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota argued, "Nowhere in America is abortion harder to access than in the state of South Dakota, and while South Dakota accounts for only 0.1 percent of abortions nationwide, it has a potentially disproportionate, powerful effect on public policy in our country, because of the attempts in South Dakota to create a vehicle to overturn Roe vs. Wade."
After reporting how "South Dakotans rejected a stricter law banning abortions in their state" in the 2006 election, Lemon devoted the second half of the report to an all-too-brief outline of the positions of Barack Obama and John McCain on "abortion rights" (as the graphic at right put it):
LEMON: The abortion issue isn't at the top of the list of voter concerns this year, but it’s still a big emotional issue that matters to a lot of Americans. Here's where the two major presidential candidates stand on this issue.
Democrat Barack Obama is against any constitutional amendment to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Now, Republican John McCain says it must be overturned.
Obama disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. McCain supports the high court's decision.
Lemon omitted one key component to Obama’s plank on abortion -- his extreme position during his time in the Illinois State Senate concerning a proposal which would have protected infants who were born alive after surviving abortion attempts. During four votes on the Illinois Born-Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001 and 2002, Obama voted against the legislation three times. He voted "present" the other time. CNN’s Carol Costello omitted two of these votes by Obama during a report in July.
During that report, Costello repeated how Obama claimed at the time that "the Illinois Born-Alive Infant Protection Act would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child.’ In other words, Obama says now it ‘lacked the federal language clarifying the act would not be used to undermine Roe v. Wade.’" On Monday, the National Right-to-Life Committee released documentation that demonstrated that Obama had in fact voted against a Illinois state measure that had this "federal language" when it came before the health committee he chaired in 2003 (a detail that had gone largely unnoticed before). The NRLC release was picked up by Jill Stanek, a central figure to this issue, on her blog, and it spread like wildfire all over the conservative blogs. So far, only a fews mainstream media outlets, such as The Politico, have picked up on the story. One wonders when CNN will get around to mentioning these details.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
→ Couple of points
August 12, 2008 - 17:02 ET by Cool ArrowI ♣ my seal
Amen!
August 12, 2008 - 17:14 ET by c5thenThe day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
The truth is -
August 12, 2008 - 17:16 ET by cocodrieThe truth is - Barack Hussein is pro death, McCain is pro life. Barack Hussein even wants to kill babies after they're born.
I don't think it's that
August 12, 2008 - 20:25 ET by balboaI don't think it's that simple. Whenever someone states a vote on a bill by a politician means one thing, invariably there are factors that aren't mentioned.
It is that simple bal
August 12, 2008 - 20:33 ET by Cool ArrowObama's successful spearheading of efforts to shelf the BAIPA bill in the Illinois Legislature is a matter of record, totally devoid of riders and caveats.
It's really the only piece of legislation he's ever taken an active role in killing or passing.
Your argument doesn't hold up in this instance.
I ♣ my seal
I have a hard time that
August 12, 2008 - 20:39 ET by balboaI have a hard time that Barack "wants to kill babies" after they're born, as if it's something he relishes.
Barack Hussein voted against
August 12, 2008 - 20:45 ET by cocodrieBarack Hussein voted against the bill in the Illinoise legislature that would have made it a crime to kill a baby born alive during an abortion. That is plain to me he favors killing babies, Either you are pro-life or pro-death. abortion causes death to babies.
That's relevant bal
August 12, 2008 - 20:52 ET by Cool ArrowDoes the medicine go down better if it's described thus?
What level of complicity is acceptable?
I ♣ my seal
It matters not
August 13, 2008 - 11:53 ET by lotrIt matters not whether he "relishes" in it or not -- the fact is he voted against protecting live newborn infants from a slow death by neglect (I can't imagine many worse ways of dying), and he voted thus on more than one occasion. It's utterly despicable and indefensible. If there were ever a sin that cries out to God for vengeance, this would be it.
The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. -- Gen. 4:10
It is that simple
August 12, 2008 - 22:09 ET by WingletDriverAll the BAIPA would have required is that a baby that survived abortion was to receive the full benefit of the law. Jill Stanek was a nurse who discovered that babies who survived abortions were just left to die. This would be criminal neglect if you treated a dog this way. But BHO did all he could to ensure that abortionists would be allowed to neglect a living baby until death.
You can't argue that the child is a fetus anymore. You can't argue that the baby is a threat to the life or health of the mother. But to BHO, it still MUST die.
NARAL did not oppose this bill. It passed unanimously in the US Senate (including HRC & Feinstein) and 380-15 in the House. Strident pro-abortion politicians pointed out how reprehensible the acts of infanticide were that this bill was meant to stop. It was two paragraphs long (with a third paragraph added later to prevent its application to babies still in the womb).
And BHO (in his ONLY meaningful legislative act) killed an identical bill in the Illinois State Senate.
Sorry about the facts. Calling BHO pro-infanticide is accurate. It is that simple.
Thank you Winglet
August 13, 2008 - 01:14 ET by Cool ArrowIt's tough on Liberals when they're forced to look back on the barbarity they have embraced.
Speaking of barbaric, you can find Robert Byrd condemning Michael Vick from the Well of the Senate on youtube.
Coincidence that Byrd is an old klansman and Vick is Black?
Certainly I'm not saying Dems are more compassionate to dogs than babies.
I ♣ my seal
Gutsy South Dakotans risk nasty and sometimes violent tactics
August 12, 2008 - 17:17 ET by nkviking75In 2006 the South Dakota legislature passed a strong pro-life measure. Pro-choice advocates used a constitutional provision to gather signatures and force a referrendum. The vote narrowly overturned the law after an intense campaign of scare tactics and, in some cases, thuggery. To get a feel of what it was like, and what is likely to happen again, read this article from the American Life League written just a couple of weeks before the referrendum.
On an unrelated note, South Dakotans recently voted to approve construction of a new oil refinery in extreme southeast SD. How much of that story made the national press?
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.