This week the Democratic party made clear its total support of abortion on demand.

Gone is the “safe, legal and rare” rhetoric of the past few years and in is this:

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, clearly ultra liberal on the abortion issue — look at his Senate record — is surely pleased.

Less clear is whether the conflicted electorate will be.

And now, as of three days ago, we have new charges from the National Right to Life organization about candidate Obama’s  abortion obfuscation as well as his well known abortion extremism.

NRL accuses Barack Obama of being a whole lot less than truthful when he defends his opposition — three times as an Illinois state senator — to a proposed Illinois state version of the popular federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act  :

New documents just obtained by NRLC, and linked below, prove that Senator Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.

Summary and comment by NRLC spokesman Douglas Johnson: “Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion — even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion.

Obama’s legislative actions in 2003 — denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions — were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.”

…..The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style. To see the language of the two bills side by side, click here.

As you delve into the history of Mr. Obama’s “reasoning” for refusing to protect these dying infants, you might become weary, as I do, of the minced words and split hairs that so often accompany his rhetoric.  Nuancing this is not.

And if you have the stomach for it, listen to Jill Stanek, R.N. — also from Illinois — as she recounts watching these abandoned little ones left to die.