NYT trashing truth-tellers on Obama's abortion record

By Ed Lasky

The New York Times published an editorial "The Right to Smear" praising a federal judge in Virginia who has blocked a group from running ads on Barack Obama's positions on abortion.

The Times disparages this groups ad and claims it:

...trashes the candidate's nuanced position.

It even employs an Obama-like voice pledging to make taxpayers pay for abortions, help minors conceal abortions from their parents, and legalize late-term abortions.

"Nuanced"- I guess that is an intellectual way to describe and cover "lying". The Times editorial board are well-versed in such "nuance" for they are lying about Barack Obama (and Joe Biden's) record on policy proposals.

Barack Obama would allow taxpayer's funding for abortion, would help minors conceal abortions from their parents and legalize late-term abortions.

Fact-checking the Times:

... in 2007, Biden voted in favor of taxpayer funding for abortions. According to the National Right to Life Committee, Biden has not voted to restrict funding for abortion since 1999. Barack Obama has said that that the Freedom of Choice Act is the first bill he would sign upon entering the White House. That bill would strike down all federal and state restrictions on abortion, including the Hyde Amendment which prevents federal tax dollars from paying for abortions.

In a 2004 Zogby poll commissioned by the NRLC, voters opposed taxpayer funding for abortion 74 percent to 22 percent. I'm willing to bet that most voters don't know that an Obama-Biden administration plans on spending their taxes on abortions. The McCain campaign might want to inform them.

More on The Freedom of Choice Act: here is Obama in his own words promising to sign the act as the first step he will take as President.

David Freddoso (The Case Against Barack Obama) elaborates on what this bill entails:

This bill would effectively cancel every state, federal, and local regulation of abortion, no matter how modest or reasonable. It would even, according to the National Organization of Women, abolish all state restrictions on government funding for abortions. If Obama becomes president and lives up to this promise, then everyone who pays income tax will be paying an abortionist to perform an abortion.

In making this promise, Freddoso writes, Obama is promising:

...to abolish state laws that protect doctors and nurses from losing their jobs if they refuse to participate in abortions

to abolish requirements for parental notification and informed consent for mothers who consider the procedure

Freddoso also notes:

Obama is one of the very few pro-choice advocates who accepts no restrictions on late-term abortions, or any kind of abortions. I could find no instance in his entire career in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion.

The Times clearly has an agenda: elect Barack Obama even at the cost of violating basic journalism 101: print the objective truth. Even editorial page writers should abide by this basic tenet of journalism and public responsibility.