David Freddoso’s excellent piece yesterday on Sen. Obama’s position on the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act reveals the calculating callousness of Obama’s approach to life issues. I continue to submit that polls showing any appreciable support for Obama among pro-life voters are largely a function of Obama’s Born-Alive votes not having been widely reported by mainstream media.

Another revealing aspect of the issue is Obama’s mendacity in claiming that his vote reflected the the purported absence of “neutrality language” in the Illinois state version of the Born Alive Act. It’s been six years since his vote, there’s irrefutable evidence that the state version was the same as the federal version, yet Obama persists in peddling his false explanation. He’s probably judged correctly that the media won’t call him on it.

Also revealing is the rationale for Obama’s vote quoted in Freddoso’s piece. Obama insists on calling living, breathing babies no longer in the womb fetuses; he refuses to call them persons. Sen. Obama, the lecturer in constitutional law, would have a difficult time explaining to his students why his rationale isn’t compatible with – or at least isn’t the obverse of — Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Finally, Obama’s intellectual integrity in this matter is in inverse proportion to Jill Stanek’s fortitude and perseverance. And for this she’s been dismissed by Obama supporters as a “disgruntled employee.” When did liberals and the media (pardon the redundancy) stop lionizing whistleblowers?