E-mail Scott
Links to
other sites


Letters to
the editor

Blog Archives:
2003 - 2004
2005 - 2006
2007 - 2008

Update, August 26, 2008: This post contains errors regarding the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act, which was not the bill that prohibited infanticide and was not the bill that Barack Obama was speaking about in the quoted text below. Because of these factual errors, I retract the entire post and I apologize for misleading my readers. Please see explanation of the error and corrections in my posts on August 24, 2008 and August 25, 2008. I have kept the full text available for the purpose of transparency.

Baron Hill's supporters flail on infanticide

By Scott Tibbs, August 22, 2008

Scott Fluhr of The Hoosier Pundit posted the audio of my exchange with Baron Hill and added graphics.

See the video below:

First: I need to slow down when I call into the radio. My point can be lost if people listening cannot understand what I am saying because am talking too fast. Take a deep breath, slow down and enunciate.

With that out of the way, that Baron Hill dismissed infanticide as "one issue" is disturbing. Opposing a law that would make it illegal to kill a baby that survives an abortion and is born is more than "one issue": it is a window into the soul of an extremist ideologue who has little respect for basic human rights. Baron Hill endorsed that ideologue. That Hill did not bother to even express disagreement with Barack Obama's defense of infanticide leads one to believe that Hill considers it acceptable for his party's nominee to take such an extreme stance.

To address some of the continuing criticism of my letter. The title of the bill Obama opposed is the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act, not the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. I simply got it wrong - but getting the title of the bill wrong is not a "lie" and does not in any way undermine my criticism of Barack Obama for defending infanticide.

Some Leftists have accused me of "backpedaling" because I said the IBILA does not endanger the right to kill a child in utero - that it does not endanger abortion rights. I did not back off the statement that the bill would have made it illegal to kill a child after that child has been born, and my Leftist critics know it.

Once again, the bill Barack Obama opposed - the IBILA - prohibited killing a baby that survives an abortion and is born alive. See the following clause from the IBILA:

The General Assembly finds that all children who are born alive are entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of the circumstances surrounding the birth

As I demonstrated on August 13, Barack Obama came to the same conclusion I did in his speech against the bill. Are my critics willing to call Obama a liar? If I lied about the bill, so did Barack Obama. It is just that simple. So I offer an open challenge to any Leftist who wishes to claim that I "lied" about what the IBILA does:

  1. Call Barack Obama a liar.
  2. Retract your claim that I lied.
  3. Prove yourself to be a hypocrite.

Those are your only three choices. Obama and I both have publicly stated that the IBILA prohibits killing a baby that survives an abortion and is born. Therefore, if my statement is a lie, then Obama's identical statement is a lie. There is simply no intellectually honest way to call me a liar without also calling Barack Obama a liar.

It is not surprising that those who support a candidate who voted to defend infanticide would embrace such intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps it is a guilty conscience that drives this dishonesty? Perhaps it is knowledge that voting against a bill that would close a loophole and ban all infanticide is politically harmful to Obama? Perhaps it is knowledge that Baron Hill's endorsement of a candidate who has defended infanticide is a major liability in Indiana's Ninth District? Perhaps it is all three - with some personal animosity mixed in.

Previous articles on Obama's defense of infanticide and Baron Hill's enthusiastic support of Obama:

Obama's abortion extremism was reinforced in his televised interview with Pastor Rick Warren. When Warren asked Obama when a baby gets human rights, Obama said "answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade." Couldn't Obama have at least said "birth"? Well, maybe he could not say "birth", because that would conflict with his voting record. Maybe one month after birth? One year old? Five years old? Is Barack Obama really unable to answer this question? Is he completely lacking in convictions? How can someone who claims to be a "Christian" be completely unable to define some point where a baby should have human rights?