National Right to Life's Douglas Johnson sums up Obama'sbrazen lies about his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act:
"All of Obama's misrepresentations and contradictions on this issue have one common goal: to obscure the position he actually articulated and acted on in 2001 through 2003. Obama explained in 2001 that he opposed the state bill to protect born-alive infants because it would apply before the point of long-term survivability -- so-called 'viability.' This is the same objection that NARAL originally voiced to the federal bill, in 2000. But that was exactly the point of the bill -- to make it clear that a live-born baby was a legally protected person for as long as he or she lived, whether for a day, an hour, or a minute.
"Neither the original version of the legislation, nor the final state version that Obama killed in 2003, contained any language to protect babies before the point of live birth. On the 2001 and 2002 state bills, Obama took to a position that already had been rejected by the U.S. House 380-15 (in 2000). In 2003, Obama took a position on the abortion-survivor legislation that was more extreme than any member of Congress of either party. ...
"The Obama of 2001-2003 really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, 'A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.' And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public."
RELATED: An Israeli baby revives after doctors declared it dead and put it in a hospital's freezer. Her parents demand answers while hospital staff, egg on their faces, sniff that "even if she lives, she will have significant brain damage."
Is the baby, born at 26 weeks, a human being, however "damaged" it may be? Does it deserve a shot a life, however long it may live—as Johnson says, "whether for a day, an hour, a minute"?
Don't ask Obama? That question's above his pay grade.