Yesterday Barack Obama accused the National Right to Life Committee of forgery. The charge , if true, is an appalling blot on the NRLC’s scutcheon. If false, it suggests that the Democratic nominee-presumptive is audacious about more than just hope.
The background: In 2003, when Mr. Obama was an Illinois state senator, he chaired a committee that killed a bill to require that medical care be given to infants who survive attempted abortions. Essentially identical federal legislation had passed both Houses by unanimous votes, with the endorsement, astonishingly enough, of the National Abortion Rights League. Senator Obama has in the past explained his opposition by stating that the Illinois measure omitted a clause, included in the federal one, explicitly disclaiming any intention of contradicting Roe v. Wade. He has also said that he would have supported a bill with that disclaimer.
A week ago, the National Right to Life Committee found and reproduced records of the committee meeting, showing that the disclaimer was in fact added, after which Senator Obama still proceeded to vote nay. (For more details, vide, Kevin Vance, “Obama’s Abortion Distortion”.)
Questioned by David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network last night, after his joint appearance with Senator McCain at Saddleback Church, Senator Obama heatedly declared, in response to a question about whether the NRLC was right to assert that “you misrepresented your position on that bill”:
[T]hey have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.
That statement can’t be read as anything but a claim that the documents brought forward by the NRLC are not authentic.
If Senator Obama is correct, if the NRLC has produced forgeries à la the notorious Rathergate papers, it has a duty to apologize, fire the personnel responsible and make full amends. At the very least, it should refrain from further intervention in the Presidential race.
If, on the other hand, the candidate is bearing false witness, it hard to see how he has any honorable alternative to withdrawing his candidacy. Groundless accusations of quasi-criminal conduct are utterly inconsistent with fitness for the world’s most important political office.
Update (8/18/08): The Obama campaign has conceded that the NRLC is substantively correct, but instead of withdrawing and apologizing for its forgery accusation has substituted a hitherto unvoiced and rather far-fetched rationale for the candidate’s opposition to the state bill. Toujours l'audace! (Thanx to Jill Stanek.)
Comments