[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Woman with walker, 69, fatally shot in face on New York City street:

Paul Joseph Watson: Bournemouth 1980 Vs 2025

FDA Revokes Emergency Authorization For COVID-19 Vaccines

NATO’s Worst Nightmare Is Happening Right Now in Ukraine - Odessa is Next To Fall?

Why do men lose it when their chicky-poo dies?

Christopher Caldwell: How Immigration Is Erasing Whites, Christians, and the Middle Class

SSRI Connection? Another Trans Shooter, Another Massacre – And They Erased His Video

Something 1/2 THE SIZE of the SUN has Entered our Solar System, and We Have NO CLUE What it is...

Massive Property Tax Fraud Exposed - $5.1 Trillion Bond Scam Will Crash System

Israel Sold American Weapons to Azerbaijan to Kill Armenian Christians

Daily MEMES YouTube Hates | YouTube is Fighting ME all the Way | Making ME Remove Memes | Part 188

New fear unlocked while stuck in highway traffic - Indian truck driver on his phone smashes into

RFK Jr. says the largest tech companies will permit Americans to access their personal health data

I just researched this, and it’s true—MUST SEE!!

Savage invader is disturbed that English people exist in an area he thought had been conquered

Jackson Hole's Parting Advice: Accept Even More Migrants To Offset Demographic Collapse, Or Else

Ecuador Angered! China-built Massive Dam is Tofu-Dreg, Ecuador Demands $400 Million Compensation

UK economy on brink of collapse (Needs IMF Bailout)

How Red Light Unlocks Your Body’s Hidden Fat-Burning Switch

The Mar-a-Lago Accord Confirmed: Miran Brings Trump's Reset To The Fed ($8,000 Gold)

This taboo sex act could save your relationship, expert insists: ‘Catalyst for conversations’

LA Police Bust Burglary Crew Suspected In 92 Residential Heists

Top 10 Jobs AI is Going to Wipe Out

It’s REALLY Happening! The Australian Continent Is Drifting Towards Asia

Broken Germany Discovers BRUTAL Reality

Nuclear War, Trump's New $500 dollar note: Armstrong says gold is going much higher

Scientists unlock 30-year mystery: Rare micronutrient holds key to brain health and cancer defense

City of Fort Wayne proposing changes to food, alcohol requirements for Riverfront Liquor Licenses

Cash Jordan: Migrant MOB BLOCKS Whitehouse… Demands ‘11 Million Illegals’ Stay

Not much going on that I can find today


Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: Obama Voted Against Born Alive Infant Protection Acts
Source: CNSNews
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 15, 2008
Author: Terence P. Jeffrey
Post Date: 2008-02-15 14:45:37 by Vitamin Z
Keywords: None
Views: 878
Comments: 24

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.

State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable 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 -- a child, a 9-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 anti-abortion statute."

That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "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."

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."

In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.

A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Vitamin Z (#0)

But, but, but I just read the Catholics are stumbling over themselves to vote for this messiah? Mark my words, when the Klintons get finished beating the tar out of this fraud, he'll be lucky if he still has his Senate seat. He is the man of the moment, a media creation, a testimony to how far people place color over content (quite a perversion of MLKs famous remarks.)

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-02-15   15:00:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Jethro Tull (#1)

Obama has content or substance?

All I see are vague references to "hope" and nothing under the hood when you peek to see what the engine is.

Either Clinton or McCain will make mincemeat of him. Probably both.

McCain can do it easily. "Let's have a little straight talk from you, Senator. What exactly is your plan and how will it work?" - and Obama is finished right there on the spot.

America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.

mirage  posted on  2008-02-15   15:03:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Jethro Tull (#1)

But, but, but I just read the Catholics are stumbling over themselves to vote for this messiah? Mark my words, when the Klintons get finished beating the tar out of this fraud, he'll be lucky if he still has his Senate seat. He is the man of the moment, a media creation, a testimony to how far people place color over content (quite a perversion of MLKs famous remarks.)

My thoughts exactly.

Vitamin Z  posted on  2008-02-15   15:17:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: mirage (#2)

What exactly is your plan and how will it work?" - and Obama is finished right there on the spot.

Yes, Mclame is a master of the simple plan .... 100 years of war.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things ... T. S. Eliot

iconoclast  posted on  2008-02-15   15:20:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: iconoclast (#4)

Yes, Mclame is a master of the simple plan .... 100 years of war.

McLame and Obama should have their own little debate: Which candidate is able to cause more death?

Vitamin Z  posted on  2008-02-15   15:22:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: mirage (#2)

Either Clinton or McCain will make mincemeat of him. Probably both.

McCain can do it easily. "Let's have a little straight talk from you, Senator. What exactly is your plan and how will it work?" - and Obama is finished right there on the spot.

The McCain thing is an especially scary thought. He's certifiable, and if Obama continues on to the nomination, unvetted, we just might have a true Dr Strangelove in the Oval office. Egad, what a thought.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-02-15   15:26:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Jethro Tull (#6)

It is very scary. The really frightening thing is that nobody is looking under the hood of ANY of these guys.

Barring Ron Paul, my picks were (in order) Edwards (!) then Romney.

Edwards I could live with because you knew that whatever he said, he would do so there would be no surprises.

Romney was busy signing documents -- thereby doing similarly.

Its time for America to be rebooted.

America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.

mirage  posted on  2008-02-15   15:53:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: All (#0)

OOPS. Not sure why this auto-classified under "Resistance".

Vitamin Z  posted on  2008-02-15   15:55:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: mirage (#2)

All I see are vague references to "hope" and nothing under the hood when you peek to see what the engine is.

Most voters won't bother looking under the hood. People prefer vague, feelgood soundbites about "change" and "hope for the future" - if the packaging is good, it doesn't matter that the box is empty. Makes me wonder why Fred Thompson never took off.

Rupert_Pupkin  posted on  2008-02-15   16:24:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vitamin Z (#0)

This is very troubling and upsetting to me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'll look for more on this subject, just to rule out any bias.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised!
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson

robin  posted on  2008-02-15   16:54:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: robin (#10)

NOW & Obama's "present" abortion votes. NOW and Emily's List have supported Clinton over Obama, ostensibly because of his repeated "present" votes on abortion issues in the Illinois Senate.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-02-15   17:07:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Jethro Tull (#6)

we just might have a true Dr Strangelove in the Oval office. Egad, what a thought.

Only if deep seated prejudices cannot be put aside.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things ... T. S. Eliot

iconoclast  posted on  2008-02-15   17:14:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: aristeides (#11)

Thank you, if NOW prefers Hillary that is telling.

McCain is against abortion but quite eager to bomb children and pregnant women. So I'm not impressed.

Unfortunately, my pro-life vote over the decades has not stopped any abortions.

Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! The Revolution will not be televised!
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.-T Jefferson

robin  posted on  2008-02-15   17:18:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: aristeides (#11)

NOW & Obama's "present" abortion votes. NOW and Emily's List have supported Clinton over Obama, ostensibly because of his repeated "present" votes on abortion issues in the Illinois Senate.

Sometimes you can't win for losing.

Ron Paul's right as usual ... put this issue back to the states and get it out of national politics.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things ... T. S. Eliot

iconoclast  posted on  2008-02-15   17:18:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: mirage (#7)

Barring Ron Paul, my picks were (in order) Edwards (!) then Romney.

A tort lawyer and an empty suit.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things ... T. S. Eliot

iconoclast  posted on  2008-02-15   17:21:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: mirage (#2)

Obama has content or substance?

Obama opposed the tragic folly of the Iraq invasion when your typical politicians cowered except for Ron Paul and a handful of others.

That's a damned good cornerstone for me.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things ... T. S. Eliot

iconoclast  posted on  2008-02-15   17:32:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: iconoclast (#15)

A tort lawyer and an empty suit.

True, but look at the rest of the field. Edwards had one thing going for him that the others did not. He spoke up about what he intended to do and HOW he intended to do it.

I don't know about you, but openness and being straightforward goes a long way here at Chez Mirage. We would rather know up-front how badly we're going to be screwed than have to guess about it.

America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.

mirage  posted on  2008-02-15   17:42:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: robin (#13)

Unfortunately, my pro-life vote over the decades has not stopped any abortions.

Indeed, Republicans would lose much of their base if they actually worked to make good on their pro-life promises.

Vitamin Z  posted on  2008-02-15   17:52:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: All (#18)

Indeed, Republicans would lose much of their base if they actually worked to make good on their pro-life promises.

...because if abortion were limited or outlawed, how would the GOP scare the Christians and grannies into voting for them? I guess they would still have terrorism.

Vitamin Z  posted on  2008-02-15   17:57:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: aristeides (#11)

Obama's rationale for voting 'present', lacking plausibility, is probably more simple:

Obama's friend Link offered another reason for the strategy: to protect those with plans for higher office. A "present" vote helped "if you have aspirations of doing something else in politics," Link said, "and I think [Obama] looked at it in that regard."

So Obama declined to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Acts because of his presidential ambitions.

That says a lot about his character, IMO. Same old, same old...just another politician.

Vitamin Z  posted on  2008-02-15   18:08:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vitamin Z (#3)

There are a few posters here at 4um that are in need of a Obamobotomy.

Mark

If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower

Kamala  posted on  2008-02-15   18:45:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vitamin Z (#20) (Edited)

No politician is perfect. Obama does, however, seem to be the least bellicose and war-minded of the three who are still contenders.

And the claim in this thread was that Obama is a pro-abortion fanatic. NOW and Emily's List seem not to agree.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-02-15   18:46:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: mirage (#17)

True, but look at the rest of the field. Edwards had one thing going for him that the others did not. He spoke up about what he intended to do and HOW he intended to do it.

I hear yuh ... but:

1) so did Bush and he did just the opposite. (except for SC judges .. and the juries still out, no pun intended) and

2) Executives don't legislate. (and you wouldn't like his legislation anyhow).

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things ... T. S. Eliot

iconoclast  posted on  2008-02-16   17:06:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: iconoclast (#23)

2) Executives don't legislate. (and you wouldn't like his legislation anyhow).

I'm going to call "bullshit" on that one simply because the Parties tend to fall in line behind the President if Congress and the White House are held by the same party.

Methinks we may have to vote for gridlock and make that an "as usual" circumstance.

During the Clinton Era, that seemed to work out pretty well with the Republicans in the Congress and Clinton in the White House.

Alas, we don't have any moderates on the Dem side in the Presidential Race unless they do a brokered convention and track one down from within the ranks.

America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.

mirage  posted on  2008-02-16   19:41:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]