Obama opposed a law that would protect children who survive Abortion

[mikenold]

This is an article with quotes from Barak Obama and the link at bottom to the original Article:

Top 10 reasons Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act

by Jill Stanek

Here are the top 10 reasons Barack Obama has variously stated why he voted against Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act when state senator.

10. Babies who survive their abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Speaking against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act on the IL Senate floor on March 30, 2001, Obama, the sole verbal opponent to the bill stated:

... I just want to suggest... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to their mothers. She alone should decide whether her baby lives or dies. Before voting "no" for a 2nd time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:

What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that.

During a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, that "the decision concerning a baby should be left to a woman, but that he does not see himself as supportive of abortion."

8. Wanting to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was all about politics. During that same speech at Benedictine University, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, "the bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons."

obama%20and%20baby.jpg7. There was no proof. Also during the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, that "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee."

6. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative. An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against Born Alive because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."

5. Anyway, doctors don't do that. Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed Born Alive because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions."

4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue. During their U.S. Senate competition Alan Keyes famously said:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died.... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.

Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' rationale for condemning Obama by implying Keyes was simply making a statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes pointedly stated he was condemning Obama for his support of infanticide.

Nevertheless, live birth abortion must be included in the list of procedures Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes by saying, as quoted in his July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:

... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another.

obama%20family.jpg3. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle. In the same USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it:

... But my opponent's accusations nagged at me.... If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

2. Sinking Born Alive was simply about political oneupsmanship. Obama has this quote on his website:

Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats...."

And the #1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. The IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a ploy to undercut Roe v. Wade. During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade.... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was an out-and-out lie. The definition of "born alive" in the federal and Illinois versions were identical. The only difference came in paragraph (c), which was originally identical in both versions but changed on the federal level.

Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.

When the senator sponsoring the IL bill tried to amend IL's paragraph (c), Amendment 1 below, to be the same as the federal paragraph (c), Barack Obama himself, as chairman of the committee hearing the bill, refused, and he then also killed the bill (click to enlarge).

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/il...0-reasons.html

Do we really want this guy to be Pesident?

[CSense]

Do we really want this guy to be Pesident?

Over McLame?, YES

[Sylvan]

How in the hell is surviving an abortion even possible?
You're either aborted, or you are NOT aborted.
There is no "surviving".

[mikenold]

How in the hell is surviving an abortion even possible?
You're either aborted, or you are NOT aborted.
There is no "surviving".

When the Doctor rips the baby from the womb they sometimes are still alive. They then put them in a dish and they starve to death in said dish. I apologize to anyone that is squeamish reading this thread, but sometimes things need to be said that are graphic in detail in order to answer a question.

[Bannister]

Do we really want this guy to be Pesident?

Abortion is an issue that the Supreme Court is going to deal with, not the president.

What we should be asking is do we really want Obama appointing the next supreme court justices.

From what I hear the next two justices to go will likely be liberals. If Obama appoints liberals again to replace them the balance on the courts will stay the way it is currently. After Bush's appointments the court leans conservative already.

Although we can't be certain of the future, the court leans conservative today, will lean conservative under McCain and will likely lean conservative over Obama.

[CAugust]

sorry its disgusting, its the same thing as putting a baby in a bag and throwing it into a dumpster...........it makes me want to puke as so many people want to adopt children

I respect peoples right to chose what they want to chose. I don't believe in abortion, but if someone else does then that's up to them -

this is even worse than abortion.................... and it's sad and imho anyone who can work in a clinic or hospital and do this when a baby (because if its born alive then its alive right? and no longer a fetus) is breathing, has no conscience, how do they sleep at night?

[run4it]

Obama seems to have stated the exact reasons I'm pro choice. It should be a decision a woman makes with her doctor, consider all aspects, including health. I don't believe that this decision should involve anyone but the parents and the physician, period.

Why can't you accept that someone who is against abortion for their own religious/spiritual reasons can also recognize that a pluralistic government still has no business imposing those spiritual motivations on other people? I understand that YOU think they should be imposed...but you're not coming down on someone for their views on abortion, you're essentially coming down on someone for their views on church/state separation.

But in answer to your final question, yes I do want Obama as president.

[Foot Fungus]

Hey! You put religion in my politics!

Hey! You put politics in my religion!

Wait, let's give this a try......




Nope...doesn't work.

This country needs leaders who act on the issues of the country, not a belief of a religion. The abortion vote has helped to put this country in the mess that it's in. Vote the issues, not the church teachings.

An attempt to divide a country further, nothing more, nothing less. I guess the religious voters aren't jumping aboard the McCain campaign the way the handlers would like.

...and the flock (of sheep) will follow.

Note: I don't like abortion either, but it will not make me vote one way or the other (just thought I'd make that clear).

[Sylvan]

Its suspicious how the religious have always supported war/genocide for spreading their idiology and increasing their ecconomy, and capital punishment for those who oppose them. But then they are against taking proceedures like birth control and abortion for helping to cut back on the amount of dysfunction and incompetence in society.

Seems very hypocritical to me.

[mikenold]

Its suspicious how the religious have always supported war/genocide for spreading their idiology and increasing their ecconomy, and capital punishment for those who oppose them. But then they are against taking proceedures like birth control and abortion for helping to cut back on the amount of dysfunction and incompetence in society.

Seems very hypocritical to me.

Do you liken the killing of a soldier or a murderer with the killing of a baby?

[Foot Fungus]

Originally Posted by mikenold

Do you liken the killing of a soldier or a murderer with the killing of a baby?

Do babies die as a result of wars?

Originally Posted by Sylvan

Seems very hypocritical to me.

That's because it is.

[mikenold]

[QUOTE=Foot Fungus]Do babies die as a result of wars?[QUOTE]

I think you misunderstood what I posted.

I Posted:

Do you liken the killing of a soldier or a murderer with the killing of a baby?

And you ask if babies die as a result of wars? What is that supposed to mean? What is hypocritical about my question? I guess some babies do die as a result of wars. Is that OK with you?

[Foot Fungus]

Put in the context of the following, it makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by Sylvan

Its suspicious how the religious have always supported war/genocide for spreading their idiology and increasing their ecconomy, and capital punishment for those who oppose them. But then they are against taking proceedures like birth control and abortion for helping to cut back on the amount of dysfunction and incompetence in society.

__________________________________________________ ________

Originally Posted by mikenold

I guess some babies do die as a result of wars. Is that OK with you?

Nope. Again see above.

Hence, the hypocrisy.

[CSense]

Put in the context of the following, it makes perfect sense.
Nope. Again see above.

Hence, the hypocrisy.

Oh, you mean how we can kill for oil so you keep it at 3 bucks a gallon or deposing of a "dictator" because he's a bad guy or my favorite for not being the same sect of a religion.

But killing the unborn is a sin.

Depends on what and why you're killing I guess.

[mikenold]

Put in the context of the following, it makes perfect sense.

__________________________________________________ ________

Nope. Again see above.

Hence, the hypocrisy.

I did not say that I supported any killing, I asked if the three were the same?
A soldier, A murderer, A baby? Same thing? Yes or No