By Scott Tibbs, March 24, 2010
In Duncan Currie's article at National Review Online, he describes Baron Hill as "avowedly pro-life." This is simply not true. It is nowhere close to true.
Baron Hill was pro-life when he was a state legislator, but then he ran for U.S. Senate. He knew that the Democratic Party establishment would not support him if he continued to hold his pro-life views, so he sold his soul, and traded the lives of the unborn for political gain. To this day, Baron Hill proudly campaigns as a supporter of abortion rights.
Baron Hill voted to force pro-life medical professionals to participate in abortion when he opposed HR 4691 in September 2002. This bill, passed by the House, bars the federal government, or any state or local government that receives federal assistance, from discriminating against a health care provider for refusing to participate in abortion. Hill's vote was not only not pro-life, it was aggressively pro-abortion.
How could anyone who is "pro-life" support radical pro-abortion extremist Barack Obama, who defended infanticide on the floor of the Illinois state legislature? Baron Hill did just that. When I challenged Baron Hill on the radio to defend his endorsement of Obama, he said that he would never endorse or not endorse based on "one issue." That's right - defending infanticide is just "one issue" to Baron Hill.
National Review is generally an excellent news source. But on this issue, the author simply got his facts wrong, and NRO needs to retract this egregious factual error.