Once again, “fact-checkers” mangle the facts. CNN claims that McCain was “misleading” on the born-alive bill: Obama wasn’t “vot[ing] against caring for the children” because a law already on the books required such care. CNN has it badly wrong.
CNN’s claims make well-known features of this story incomprehensible. For example, nobody disputes that Obama repeatedly claimed that the born-alive bill would threaten Roe. How could that possibly be the case if it merely restated existing law?
Once again: Obama objected to the bill because it provided protections for infants that abortionists deemed pre-viable. He objected in principle to providing legal protection to such infants. Existing law did not so protect them, as the attorney general of the state said in declining to bring prosecutions under it for the mistreatment of these infants.
Thanks to reader T.S. for passing the link along.