TIME Magazine recently accused the McCain-Palin campaign of focusing on "emotional, hot button issues" like abortion and saying that Obama "had once opposed providing medical care for certain newborn babies, who later died. Without any clear context, [Palin's] statements seemed to suggest that Obama supported a form of infanticide."
The author then attempts to defend Obama's record by providing excruciatinglylame semantics. He writes: "Obama repeatedly voted to oppose bills in the Illinois senate that would have declared, simply, that any child "born alive" as a result of an abortion shall be protected as a "human person" under the law.
The bills broadly defined a live birth as any child outside the mother who shows voluntary movement, breathes or has a beating heart, among other attributes."
How is that defining "human person" broadly? Why doesn't a beating heart, breathing, and movement not constitute being "alive"? What does Obama expect? A baby to be born with a sign around it's neck saying "I have reasonable likelihood of sustained survival"? If you have been around any newborns lately you know that
no baby can take care of itself and needs to be cared for to provide every basic need, from nourishment to diaper changing, and leaving the decision of keeping the baby alive in the hands of a doctor who already attempted to abort the baby and failed is sickening.
Challenging Obama on his views on abortion, on the fact that signing the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first thing he would do as president, IS valid no matter what word games TIME tries to use.