See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama's Abortion Extremism
Source:
Washington Post
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... 008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html
Published: Apr 11, 2008
Author: Michael Gerson
Post Date: 2008-04-11 12:44:31 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 534
Comments: 37
Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr.'s endorsement of Barack Obama last week -- "I believe in this guy like I've never believed in a candidate in my life" -- recalled another dramatic moment in Democratic politics. In the summer of 1992, as Bill Clinton solidified his control over the Democratic Party, Robert P. Casey Sr., the senator's father, was banned from speaking to the Democratic convention for the heresy of being pro-life. The elder Casey (now deceased) was then the governor of Pennsylvania -- one of the most prominent elected Democrats in the country. He was an economic progressive in the Roosevelt tradition. But his Irish Catholic conscience led him to oppose abortion. So the Clintons chose to humiliate him. It was a sign and a warning of much mean-spirited pettiness to come. The younger Casey, no doubt, is a sincere fan of Obama. He also must have found it satisfying to help along the cycle of political justice. But by Casey's father's standard of social justice for the unborn, Obama is badly lacking. Obama has not made abortion rights the shouted refrain of his campaign, as other Democrats have done. He seems to realize that pro-choice enthusiasm is inconsistent with a reputation for post-partisanship. But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life. For decades, most Democrats and many Republicans have hoped the political debate on abortion would simply go away. But it is the issue that does not die. Recent polls have shown that young people are more likely than their elders to support abortion restrictions. Few Americans oppose abortion under every circumstance, but a majority oppose most of the abortions that actually take place -- generally supporting the procedure only in the case of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother. Perhaps this is a revolt against a culture of disposability. Perhaps it reflects the continuing revolution of ultrasound technology -- what might be called the "Juno" effect. In the delightful movie by that name, the protagonist, a pregnant teen seeking an abortion, is confronted by a classmate who informs her that the unborn child already has fingernails -- which causes second thoughts. A worthless part of its mother's body -- a clump of protoplasmic rubbish -- doesn't have fingernails. Abortion is an unavoidable moral issue. It also has broader political significance. Democrats of a past generation -- the generation of Hubert Humphrey and Martin Luther King Jr. -- spoke about building a beloved community that cared especially for the elderly, the weak, the disadvantaged and the young. The advance of pro-choice policies imported a different ideology into the Democratic Party -- the absolute triumph of individualism. The rights and choices of adults have become paramount, even at the expense of other, voiceless members of the community. These trends reached their logical culmination during a congressional debate on partial-birth abortion in 1999. When Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer was pressed to affirm that she opposed the medical killing of children after birth, she refused to commit, saying that children deserve legal protection only "when you bring your baby home." It was unclear whether this included the car trip. Having endorsed partial-birth abortion, Obama has little room to maneuver on the broader issue. But he does have some. He could take the wise counsel of evangelical Democrats such as Amy Sullivan and come out strongly for policies that would reduce the number of abortions -- support for pregnant women, abstinence education, the responsible promotion of birth control. An organization called Democrats for Life has proposed the creation of a "95-10 Initiative" in which states and the federal government would work toward the reduction of abortion rates by 95 percent within 10 years. That would be a unifying national goal. Such efforts will not please many pro-lifers, who are waiting on Obama to support any type of legal protection for the unborn. But a real effort to reduce the number of abortions would indicate that Obama's Democratic Party is moving beyond its humiliation of Gov. Casey. And maybe Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr., with his newfound leverage, could insist upon it.
Poster Comment: Christine asked me to research my comment that Barack Obama twice voted to table a resolution that would have made it illegal to incinerate a baby that had survived a partial birth abortion. I found this by Michael Gerson. Gerson is not a conservative. He is a member of the CFR. I have said before that I never vote for or against a candidate based on abortion. What I have said is the the Democratic nomination skews to the far left. They should eliminate caucuses and do 100% primaries to eliminate candidates who will bomb in 32 states when they hear ads informing them that candidate X wants to legalize incinerating babies. People on 4um did not know his rather extreme views so I doubt the voters knew it when they voted for him.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Horse (#0)
(Edited)
He is scum of the Earth. The world would be much better off without assholes like him. Abort Obama, it's the right thing to do. All of his supporters on 4um should be ashamed of themselves. Abortion is murder.
God is always good!
Thanks for the information. This needs to be spread far and wide as well.
Free the Bee in vast's bonnet! Free the Bee! Free the Bee!
It will be and give us Hillary as the next President. If Americans only knew that foreign nations are picking their next President there would be a revolution.
God is always good!
His position on abortion has been posted. And for the "Keep your hands off my body" pro-choice voters, he will not have a problem. As I have posted before, I have voted pro-life my entire life. And for this, nothing has changed. OTOH, the macabre specter of John McCain is "pro-life", he just prefers to bomb babies and pregnant women.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
You think so? You have people here willing for vote for our own suicide, why would a foreign nation agreeing with them bother them?
Free the Bee in vast's bonnet! Free the Bee! Free the Bee!
So you thought Obama was pro-life? Why?
God is always good!
No, that is not at all what I said.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
That's b/c the Agenda is for abortion to be legal. Your vote, and that of millions of others, didn't/doesn't matter. I recall Nixon in '68 being the peace candidate, winning large, only for the V/N war to lag on another 7 years, again, b/c the Agenda so dictated. Same w/Iraq. Oil + MIC investment + Israeli national interests = long term American commitment, despite the will of the people.
Oil + MIC investment + Israeli national interests = long term American commitment, despite the will of the people. it sure looks that way; accidents and unintended consequences can also happen - unexpected external circumstances, etc.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Are you serious??? Just what do you call George W. Bush's chief speechwriter and senior policy advisor from 2000-2006?? Michael J. Gerson Assistant to the President for Policy and Strategic Planning (2005-2006) Author of 2007 book, Heroic Conservatism
Are you serious??? Just what do you call George W. Bush's chief speechwriter and senior policy advisor from 2000-2006?? NOT a Conservative/Constitutionalist, that is for sure.
I second that. Bottom line.
:( ~ i know ~ Look around and see who has pulled their long knives against our land.
Anyone who worked for Bush and is a member of the CFR is a TRAITOR not a conservative. In the Republican party Bush rates as an extreme Zionist and a moderate to liberal on social issues and fails of spending and protecting our borders.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Michael J. Gerson Assistant to the President for Policy and Strategic Planning (2005-2006) Assistant to the President for Speechwriting and Policy Adviser (2002-2005) Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Speechwriting (2001-2002) Chief Speechwriter and Senior Policy Adviser, Bush Presidential Campaign (2000) Senior Editor, Politics, U.S. News and World Report. Author of 2007 book, Heroic Conservatism And guilt by association is the defense by the Ophiles regarding Zbig and son Marc as his foreign policy advisors. Yet, what marches on? A puppet that says what we want to hear, while the world is burned over a turning spit.
I will file that one next to the claim about incinerated babies.
Anyone know how many jobs in this country are tied to supplying the army the tricks of the trade? It's insidious the way the War Party has usurped not only the airwaves, newspapers, and schools, but blue collar labor? That's dirty pool!!!
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
It is complete, utter, total bullshit. That is why you are unable or unwilling to show the ACT in question. It's paragraph 1 states: "AN ACT in relation to civil liabilities." This is the good part:
[Horse] They should eliminate caucuses and do 100% primaries to eliminate candidates who will bomb in 32 states when they hear ads informing them that candidate X wants to legalize incinerating babies. This apparently has its genesis from the Senate campaign of Alan Keyes against Barack Obama in 2004. Dr. Keyes gave an interview to Talon News, the fake news agency that got gay male hooker Jeff Gannon credentialed as a White House reporter. Apparently the attack of Senator Keyes was so successful that there are those who would ride it to victory again this year. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uni...lection_in_Illinois,_2004 The Illinois United States Senate election of 2004 was held on November 2, 2004. Democratic candidate Barack Obama defeated Republican candidate Alan Keyes by 70% to 27%. The 43% margin was the largest in Illinois history in a U.S. Senate election. By Jimmy Moore Talon News Republican Illinois Senate candidate Alan Keyes told supporters that what ultimately drove him to run against Democrat Barack Obama was his opponent's position on abortion. "I received thousands of calls, letters, and emails urging me to accept the Illinois Republican Party's nomination for the United States Senate," Keyes wrote in an e-mail to supporters on Tuesday. "I am humbled and honored by your overwhelming pledges of support in this endeavor. After careful deliberation, and on the strength of deep and contemplative prayer, I have decided to accept this nomination." Keyes added, "But I'm going to need your help now." Keyes admitted that he was "hesitant to agree" to be the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Illinois because he was not a legal resident of the state. "However, when all of these friends of mine sent me information on the unopposed Democrat candidate, Barack Obama, I agreed that it just seemed wrong that somebody with his record should kind of waltz into the United States Senate unopposed," Keyes exclaimed. * * * But Keyes said although those issues are ones he cares a lot about personally, it was Obama's pro-abortion vote in April 2002 when he favored allowing live birth abortions in Illinois that made it an "obligation" that he run against the Democrat. "We are talking about a situation in which, in the course of an abortion procedure, a child has been born alive -- she is out of the womb, breathing and living on her own -- and Obama cast a vote against the idea that that child's life should be spared," Keyes detailed. "Obama's position and his vote would make it legal to condemn that innocent babe to death!" Answering his critics who say abortion is "only an issue of sentiment and emotion," Keyes said this is as important an issue facing Americans today as slavery was when Abraham Lincoln was president. "And those issues of deep principle are actually the only valid reasons for limiting or otherwise tempering our respect for and allegiance to the sovereignty and rights of the states," Keyes said. "In the 19th century, rather than accept a course that would have vitiated and destroyed the principles of our national union, Lincoln opposed Stephen Douglas in debates, in order to maintain a posture for this nation that would produce the extinction of slavery rather than the extinction of our great national creed." Recalling the words of Lincoln, Keyes said the Republican president believed that, "even at the cost of such a terrible struggle [with the Civil War], our allegiance to the principles of our national union must be preserved." "When Barack Obama embraces an extremist position on abortion that countenances even the murder of living young children outside the womb, he abandons the principles of our Declaration, and destroys the foundations of our national union," Keyes suggested. Keyes added, "We must stop Barack Obama from promulgating his extremist positions in the U.S. Senate!" Lauding the "great principles that have been the foundation of our liberty and that have made our nation strong, and great, and free," Keyes said he is "morally obligated to leave the land of my forebears in order to defend the land of my spirit and my conscience and my heart." "And I believe that that land is Illinois -- the Land of Lincoln," Keyes expressed. Promising to "conduct a campaign, a fight of principle, worthy of your support," Keyes said he and his supporters are "confronted with a great challenge ... [and] a great opportunity." "And if you are willing to join me in that fight, to join me with your money, to join me with your work, to join me, especially, with your prayer, then I will promise you a political contest like this nation has not seen for generations," Keyes concluded, asking for donations at KeyesForSenate.com. "The battle is for us," Keyes said. "But I have confidence, because the victory is for God."
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t390435.html Full Version: Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act He often stood alone as an Illinois lawmaker in opposition to protections for babies who survived abortion. Note: This report first appeared in the April issue of Citizen magazine. On Jan. 10, 2005, newly elected U.S. Sen. Barack Obama visited former colleagues and staffers at the Illinois state Capitol, where he had served seven years as state senator. I happened to be at the Capitol that day, too, and a friend and I took the opportunity to speak to Obama, who had not yet achieved rock-star status and was still approachable. We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003. My friend stood in Obama’s path and said, “Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year.” Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, “I think you will,” adding, “I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.” There’s just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording. With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005. First encounter An Illinois lawmaker offered the first draft of the state’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001 after I revealed publicly that Christ Hospital left babies who survived abortion — viable babies whose delivery was induced, and whom the abortionist intended to kill but somehow survived — in a utility room to die. The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Patrick O’Malley of Oak Lawn defined “born alive” using language identical to that of federal legislation introduced in 2000 by Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., who in turn drafted wording developed by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955: The term “born alive,” with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. I first encountered Barack Obama on March 27, 2001, when I testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member. My testimony included my description of holding a premature aborted baby until he died: One night, 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 time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken. Obama questioned whether the born alive legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated Born Alive would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies. Obama opposed Born Alive in committee, but voted “present” — neither “yes” nor “no,” but merely “present” — on the state Senate floor, one of many “present” votes that Hillary Clinton has cited as evidence that Obama lacks leadership skills. Clinton voted for the federal Born Alive bill, putting her on record as more pro-life than Obama. Constitutional blindness A graduate of Harvard Law School, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 10 years. Both schools are listed in the top 10 law schools in the country. But Obama revealed his constitutional blind spot in his book The Audacity of Hope: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created [emphasis added] equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” … (T)he essential idea behind the Declaration — that we are born [emphasis added] into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will — is one that every American understands. Note Obama’s choice of the word “born” over the word “created.” Perhaps that helps explain his support for unrestricted abortion. Also note that our "bundle of rights” can be “taken away” with “just cause.” Obama clearly considers abortion a “just cause.” Here is how he argued against Born Alive during Illinois Senate debate in 2001: … I just want to suggest … that this (legislation) is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, 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 — 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 antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The legislation passed the Senate but did not survive in the House. When Rep. O’Malley reintroduced Born Alive and its companion bills in 2002, they headed again to the same committee, where Obama rewrote history: "Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your dismay at the lack of regard for human life. I agreed with you last year, and we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetuses are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them." Of course, Obama had not agreed with me the year before, and I was the one who had told him about the Comfort Room, which the hospital created in response to my testimony: "We now have this prettily wallpapered room. … There is even a nice wooden rocker in the room to rock live aborted babies to death." The hospital made live birth abortions look nicer, but the end result was still dead babies. “What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that,” Obama concluded, and voted “no” in committee again. The bill went again to the Senate floor, where Obama was the sole speaker against it, claiming that it would impose a “burden” on physicians: [T]his [legislation] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they are performing this procedure, that in fact, this is a nonviable fetus. Troubled conscience? Democrats won control of the state Senate in November 2002, and when Born Alive was reintroduced for the third time in 2003, it was directed to the Obama- chaired, infamously liberal Health and Human Services Committee, where he simply refused to call it for a vote. By this time Obama was running for U.S. Senate. He won his primary in March 2004, and Republicans recruited former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who lived in Maryland, to oppose him. It was Obama’s position against Born Alive that persuaded Keyes to run, as he stated in his announcement speech: "When I was first approached about this possibility… I have to say that my reaction was negative…. What finally caught my eye, however… what finally arrested my attention and forced me to consider whether I not only had the opportunity to oppose him, but the obligation… was when I learned that (Obama) had actually, in April 2002, apparently cast a vote that would continue to allow live birth abortions in the state of Illinois … . "We are talking about a situation in which, in the course of an abortion procedure, a child has been born alive — is out of the womb, breathing and living on its own — and he cast a vote against the idea that we should not stand by and let that child die!" This was why Keyes alleged during their campaign that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, as he explained in an interview with an NBC affiliate: 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 later admitted Keyes’ comment “nagged” him and has written or spoke about it several times, although he always misrepresents Keyes’ rationale as being about abortion support when it was specifically about infanticide support. In a July 2006 opinion piece in USA Today, restated later in The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote: 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. Obama’s faith has come into question on the campaign trail. Accused of being a Muslim, he’s insisted that he’s “rooted in the Christian tradition” and has a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” In fact, Obama has attended the largest church in one of America’s most stridently pro-abortion denominations — the United Church of Christ — for 20 years. His church, Trinity, is located just five miles from Christ Hospital. Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, served on the board of Christ Hospital’s health care system. It’s ironic in the extreme that the most determined opponents of preborn life — and even those who are born — embrace the name of the One who caused John the Baptist to leap in his mother’s womb.
Thanks for researching this. I do wish Obama would step back on this issue. The majority of Americans do not go as far out on a limb as he does (although it is not as far as Keyes would have us believe), but it is simply further than necessary, and is even damaging to his chances.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Top 10 reasons Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act QUOTE 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.
NARAL Statement: "NARAL Does Not Oppose Passage" of BAIPA. In a statement, NARAL said, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [NARAL release, 6/13/01] Not even NARAL opposed the Federal bill. THE FEDERAL BILL Born Alive Infant Protection Act full text Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) --H.R.2175-- H.R.2175 One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two An Act To protect infants who are born alive. Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. FEDERAL LAW CODIFIED 1 USC Chap 1, Sec 8 TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8 § 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (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.
nolu, I'm out of gas tonight, but it would be good to contrast the actions of Obama against the Act itself. First blush appears to be some political gamesmanship... surely this can be clarified somewhere. ~ nite.
factcheck.barackobama.com...n_times_wrong_on_obam.php RHETORIC: "In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion." [Washington Times, 4/2/08] REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation, A Move Pro-Choice Groups Would Not Have Opposed Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04] NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal BAIPA Because of Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That's Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, "We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them." [CNN, 8/5/02] NARAL Statement: "NARAL Does Not Oppose Passage" of BAIPA. In a statement, NARAL said, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [NARAL release, 6/13/01] Major Difference Between State And Federal BAIPA: "The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have Been Used To Challenge" Roe V. Wade. "Perhaps on no other issue is Keyes' rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. Keyes repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring 'infanticide' because of Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The failed measure would have required doctors to provide medical attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of abortion procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed through Congress. But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to hammer Obama with the "infanticide" charge virtually daily on the campaign trial. Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he's "deeply offended" by Keyes' assertion because he knows it's false. Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on late-term abortions that Bush signed - but federal judges since have put on hold - and Keyes would have voted for it." [Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04]
CURRENT ILLINOIS LAW www.ilga.gov/legislation/...sp?DocName=000500700K1.36 Sec. 1.36. Born alive infant. (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (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. (d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion. (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards. (Source: P.A. 94-559, eff. 1-1-06.)
The was no proposed Illinois law entitled "Born Alive Infant Protection Act." Try "The Induced Infant Liability Act." It doesn't quite have the same ring to it. THE INDUCED INFANT LIABILITY ACT http://tinyurl.com/5e6bbh Introduced 2/4/2004, by John O. Jones SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED: New Act Creates the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act. Provides that it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect the life of a child born alive as a the result of an induced labor abortion. Provides that a parent of the child or the public guardian of the county in which a child was born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other abortion has a cause of action against any hospital, health care facility, or health care provider that fails to provide medical care for the child after birth. Establishes the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund. Provides that, if a child does not survive, any remaining proceeds of an action shall be deposited into the Fund. Provides that the moneys in the Fund shall be used, subject to appropriation, for neonatal care or perinatal hospice. Amends the State Finance Act to create the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund. LRB093 18508 LCB 44226 b FISCAL NOTE ACT MAY APPLY ----- A BILL FOR SB2633 LRB093 18508 LCB 44226 b 1 AN ACT in relation to civil liabilities. 2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of 4 Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the 6 Section 5. Findings and intent. The General Assembly finds 18 Section 10. Induced labor abortion; actions. If a child is SB2633 1 paid, shall be deposited into the Neonatal Care and Perinatal 3 Section 20. Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund. The 9 Section 90. The State Finance Act is amended by adding 11 (30 ILCS 105/5.625 new)
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Infants_Protection_Act Nolu... with more scrutiny, we may find that there is a federal act with one name and an Il. Act by another.. From what I'm bumping into, there appears to be some political maneuvering on a state level by Obama... but... I'm out for the nite! later.
[Stanek] The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Patrick O’Malley of Oak Lawn defined “born alive” using language identical to that of federal legislation introduced in 2000 by Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla. Ms. Stanek conveniently "forgets" to mention the language added to the Federal bill, "`(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.'." [Dr. Keyes] "We are talking about a situation in which, in the course of an abortion procedure, a child has been born alive — is out of the womb, breathing and living on its own — and he cast a vote against the idea that we should not stand by and let that child die!" The problem with that hokum is where the medical determination is that there is a non-viable fetus/baby/infant/critter that cannot be saved. The Jill Stanek of this article testified before Congress on July 20, 2000. Her testimony shows that she saw one aborted alive infant and the rest is what she heard about. In the case she personally saw, Well, with the INDUCED INFANT LIABILITY ACT, An Act in Relation to Civil Liabilities, somebody could sue somebody and the State of Illinois could pocket any money left over after expenses. Effectively, it would allow the state of Illinois to simply litigate abortion out of existence. Even if well-intentioned, a law which attempts to eliminate abortion contrary to Roe v. Wade and its progeny gets struck down as unconstitutional. It is a waste of time and taxpayer money. If they want to amend the Constitution, let them do it. Back-door legislation contrary to the Supreme Court does not have a very successful track record. SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION Committee on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on H.R.4292, The "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2000" Thursday, July 20, 2000 10:00 a.m.; 2237 Rayburn House Office Building WITNESS LIST Panel I Hadley Arkes, Edward Ney Professor of Jurisprudence and American Institutions, Amherst College Allison Baker, Charlottesville, Virginia Jill L. Stanek, Mokena, Illinois Matthew G. Hile, Ph.D., St. Louis, Missouri Gianna Jessen, Franklin, Tennessee * * * Testimony of Jill L. Stanek, RN Hearing on H.R. 4292, the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2000" July 20, 2000 I am a Registered Nurse who has worked in the Labor & Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, for the past five years. Christ Hospital performs abortions on women in their second or even third trimesters of pregnancy. Sometimes the babies being aborted are healthy, and sometimes they are not. The method of abortion that Christ Hospital uses is called "induced labor abortion," also now known as "live birth abortion." This type of abortion can be performed different ways, but the goal always is to cause a pregnant woman's cervix to open so that she will deliver a premature baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward. The way that induced abortion is most often executed at my hospital is by the physician inserting a medication called Cytotec into the birth canal close to the cervix. Cytotec irritates the cervix and stimulates it to open. When this occurs, the small, preterm baby drops out of the uterus, oftentimes alive. It is not uncommon for one of these live aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. One of them once lived for almost eight hours. In the event that a baby is aborted alive, he or she receives no medical assessments or care but is only given what my hospital calls "comfort care." "Comfort care" is defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until he or she dies, although even this minimal compassion is not always provided. It is not required that these babies be held during their short lives. One night, 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 time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken. Other co-workers have told me many upsetting stories about live aborted babies whom they have cared for. I was told about an aborted baby who was supposed to have Spina bifida but was delivered with an intact spine. Another nurse is haunted by the memory of an aborted baby who came out weighing much more than expected ~ almost two pounds. She is haunted because she doesn't know if she made a mistake by not getting that baby medical help. A Support Associate told me about a live aborted baby who was left to die on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown into the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor. I was recently told about a situation by a nurse who said, "I can't stop thinking about it." She had a patient who was 23+ weeks pregnant, and it did not look as if her baby would be able to continue to live inside of her. The baby was healthy and had up to a 39% chance of survival, according to national statistics. But the patient chose to abort. The baby was born alive. If the mother had wanted everything done for her baby, there would have been a neonatologist, pediatric resident, neonatal nurse, and respiratory therapist present for the delivery, and the baby would have been taken to our Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for specialized care. Instead, the only personnel present for this delivery were an obstetrical resident and my co-worker. After delivery the baby, who showed early signs of thriving, was merely wrapped in a blanket and kept in the Labor & Delivery Department until she died 2-1/2 hours later. Something is very wrong with a legal system that says doctors are mandated to pronounce babies dead but are not mandated to assess babies for life and chances of survival. In other words, our laws currently say that babies have no rights to medical oversight until they are dead. We look the other way and pretend that these babies aren't human while they're alive but human only after they are dead. We issue these babies both birth and death certificates, but it is really only the death certificate that matters. No other children in America are medically abandoned like this. Abortion is a cancer that is literally killing America. It is killing our children while it is killing our consciences. It began when we took God out of our decision making and proclaimed that the little beings growing inside of women were "products of conception" and not little girls and little boys. Who should be surprised that we keep pushing the envelope so that now we are aborting these "products of conception" alive? I even work at a hospital named "Christ" that does this very thing! It is beyond me to comprehend that we're doing what we're doing now, and so I can't even imagine what horrible ways we will think of next to torture our children. Please help put an end to this by proclaiming infants as American human being homo sapiens with the same legal and medical rights that you and I big people have. Thank you. Added to second-to-last paragraph of Jill's oral testimony: "I am also very uncomfortable with the fact that the very doctors who may be miscalculating due dates and fetal birth weights, or misdiagnosing fetal handicaps, are the same ones deciding that these babies should not be assessed after delivery. Shouldn't these babies be given the simple opportunity for second opinion, just like you and I?" ========== Statement of Allison Baker, RN, BSN Hearing on H.R. 4292, The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act Subcommittee on the Constitution July 20, 2000 In August of 1998 I began working in a high risk labor and delivery unit at Christ Hospital and Medical Center in Oak Lawn, Illinois. When I was hired, I was informed of a procedure called "therapeutic abortion" which was performed in the unit. This procedure was reserved for babies with particular conditions such as Down's Syndrome, Spina Bifida, Potter's Syndrome and many others. It was explained to me that in these cases, the mother would have an induced labor to expel the fetus in order to discontinue growth and life. This was an elective procedure and the patient was to be informed of all the details it involved. Between August of 1998 and August of 1999, I witnessed three particular cases of therapeutic abortions at Christ Hospital first hand. The first occurred on a day shift. I happened to walk into a "soiled utility room" and saw, lying on the metal counter, a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs. The fetus was visibly alive, and was gasping for breath. I left to find the nurse who was caring for the patient and this fetus. When I asked her about the fetus, she said that she was so busy with the mother that she didn't have time to wrap and place the fetus in the warmer, and she asked if I would do that for her. Later I found out that the fetus was 22 weeks old, and had undergone a therapeutic abortion because it had been diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. I did wrap the fetus and place him in a warmer and for 2-1/2 hours he maintained a heartbeat, and then finally expired. The second case involved a couple who had requested a therapeutic abortion for their 20 week fetus with Spina Bifida. My shift started at 11:00 PM, and the patient delivered her fetus about 10 minutes before I took her as a patient. During the time the fetus was alive, the patient kept asking me when the fetus would die. For an hour and 45 minutes the fetus maintained a heartbeat. The parents were frustrated, and obviously not prepared for this long period of time. Since I was the nurse of both the mother and fetus, I held the fetus in my arms until it finally expired. The third case occurred when a nurse with whom I was working was taking care of a mother waiting to deliver her 16 week Down's Syndrome fetus. Again, I walked into the soiled utility room and the fetus was fully exposed, lying on the baby scale. I went to find the nurse who was caring for this mother and fetus, and she asked if I could help her by measuring and weighing the fetus for the charting and death certificate. When I went back into the soiled utility room, the fetus was moving its arms and legs. I then listened for a heartbeat, and found that the fetus still was alive. I wrapped the fetus and in 45 minutes the fetus finally expired.
Hell, the whole issue is political gamesmanship. Abortion, as a constitutional issue, is all a game. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. I am of the opinion that this should not be a Federal issue at all, for lack of jurisdiction.
They were being murdered. Just how many murder indictments were brought or upheld??? http://supreme.justia.com/us/439/379/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Colautti v. Franklin No. 77-891 Argued October 3, 1978 Decided January 9, 1979 439 U.S. 379 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Section 5(a) of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act requires every person who performs an abortion to make a determination, "based on his experience, judgment or professional competence," that the fetus is not viable. If such person determines that the fetus "is viable," or "if there is sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable," then he must exercise the same care to preserve the fetus' life and health as would be required in the case of a fetus intended to be born alive, and must use the abortion technique providing the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive, so long as a different technique is not necessary to preserve the mother's life or health. The Act, in § 5(d), also imposes a penal sanction for a violation of § 5(a). Appellees brought suit claiming, inter alia, that § 5(a) is unconstitutionally vague, and a three-judge District Court upheld their claim. Held: 1. The viability determination requirement of § 5(a) is void for vagueness. P P. 390-397. (a) Though apparently the determination of whether the fetus "is viable" is to rest upon the basis of the attending physician's "experience, judgment or professional competence," it is ambiguous whether that subjective language applies to the second condition that activates the duty to the fetus, viz., "sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable." P P. 391-392. (b) The intended distinction between "is viable" and "may be viable" is elusive. Apparently those phrases refer to distinct conditions, one of which indeterminately differs from the definition of viability set forth in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52. P P. 392-394. (c) The vagueness of the viability determination requirement is compounded by the fact that § 5(d) subjects the physician to potential criminal liability without regard to fault. Because of the absence of a scienter requirement in the provision directing the physician to determine whether the fetus is or may be viable, the Act is little more than "a trap for those who act in good faith," United States v. Ragen, 314 U. S. 513, 524, and the perils of strict criminal liability are particularly Page 439 U. S. 380 acute here because of the uncertainty of the viability determination itself. P P. 390-397. 2. The standard of care provision is likewise impermissibly vague. It is uncertain whether the statute permits the physician to consider his duty to the patient to be paramount to his duty to the fetus, or whether it requires the physician to make a "trade-off" between the patient's health and increased chances of fetal survival. Where conflicting duties of such magnitude are involved, there must be greater statutory precision before a physician may be subjected to possible criminal sanctions. P P. 397-401. Affirmed. BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, P. 401. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. At issue here is the constitutionality of subsection (a) of § 5 [Footnote 1] of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, 1974 Pa.Laws, Page 439 U. S. 381 Act No. 209, Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 35, § 6605(a) (Purdon 1977). This statute subjects a physician who performs an abortion to potential criminal liability if he fails to utilize a statutorily prescribed technique when the fetus "is viable" or when there is "sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable." A three-judge Federal District Court [Footnote 2] declared § 5(a) unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and enjoined its enforcement. App. 239a-244a. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1253, we noted probable jurisdiction sub nom. Beal v. Franklin, 435 U.S. 913 (1978). I The Abortion Control Act was passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature, over the Governor's veto, in the year following this Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (173), and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973). It was a comprehensive statute. Section 1 gave the Act its title. Section 2 defined, among other terms, "informed consent" and "viable." The latter was specified to mean "the capability of a fetus to live outside the Page 439 U. S. 382 mother's womb albeit with artificial aid." See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 160. Section 3(a) proscribed the performance of an abortion "upon any person in the absence of informed consent thereto by such person." Section 3(b)(i) prohibited the performance of an abortion in the absence of the written consent of the woman's spouse, provided that the spouse could be located and notified, and the abortion was not certified by a licensed physician "to be necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother." Section 3(b)(ii), applicable if the woman was unmarried and under the age of 18, forbade the performance of an abortion in the absence of the written consent of "one parent or person in loco parentis" of the woman, unless the abortion was certified by a licensed physician "as necessary in order to preserve the life of the mother." Section 3(e) provided that whoever performed an abortion without such consent was guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. Section 4 provided that whoever, intentionally and willfully, took the life of a premature infant aborted alive, was guilty of murder of the second degree. Section 5(a), set forth in 439 U. S. 1, supra, provided that, if the fetus was determined to be viable, or if there was sufficient reason to believe that the fetus might be viable, the person performing the abortion was required to exercise the same care to preserve the life and health of the fetus as would be required in the case of a fetus intended to be born alive, and was required to adopt the abortion technique providing the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive, so long as a different technique was not necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother. Section 5(d), also set forth in 439 U. S. 1, imposed a penal sanction for a violation of § 5(a). Section 6 specified abortion controls. It prohibited abortion during the stage of pregnancy subsequent to viability, except where necessary, in the judgment of a licensed physician, to preserve the life or health of the mother. No abortion Page 439 U. S. 383 was to be performed except by a licensed physician and in an approved facility. It required that appropriate records be kept, and that quarterly reports be filed with the Commonwealth's Department of Health. And it prohibited solicitation or advertising with respect to abortions. A violation of § 6 was a misdemeanor of the first or third degrees, as specified. Section 7 prohibited the use of public funds for an abortion in the absence of a certificate of a physician stating that the abortion was necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother. Finally, § 8 authorized the Department of Health to make rules and regulations with respect to performance of abortions and the facilities in which abortions were performed. See Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 35, §§ 6601-6608 (Purdon 1977). Prior to the Act's effective date, October 10, 1974, the present suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania challenging, on federal constitutional grounds, nearly all of the Act's provisions. [Footnote 3] Page 439 U. S. 384 The three-judge court, on October 10, issued a preliminary injunction restraining the enforcement of a number of those provisions. [Footnote 4] Each side sought a class action determination; the plaintiffs', but not the defendants', motion to this effect was granted. [Footnote 5] The case went to trial in January, 1975. The court received extensive testimony from expert witnesses on all aspects of abortion procedures. The resulting Judgment declared the Act to be severable, upheld certain of its provisions, and held other provisions unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Fitzpatrick, 401 F.Supp. 554 (1975). [Footnote 6] The court sustained the definition of "informed consent" in § 2; the facility approval requirement and certain of the reporting requirements of § 6; § 8's authorization of rules and regulations; and, by a divided vote, the informed consent requirement of § 3(a). It overturned § 3(b)(i)'s spousal consent requirement Page 439 U. S. 385 and, again by a divided vote, § 3(b)(ii)'s parental consent requirement; § 6's reporting requirements relating to spousal and parental consent; § 6's prohibition of advertising; and § 7's restriction on abortion funding. The definition of "viable" in § 2 was declared void for vagueness and, because of the incorporation of this definition, § 6's proscription of abortions after viability, except to preserve the life or health of the woman, was struck down. Finally, in part because of the incorporation of the definition of "viable," and in part because of the perceived overbreadth of the phrase "may be viable," the court invalidated the viability determination and standard of care provisions of § 5(a). 401 F.Supp. at 594. Both sides appealed to this Court. While the appeals were pending, the Court decided Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748 (1976); Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 (1976); and Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106 (1976). Virginia State Board shed light on the prohibition of advertising for abortion services. Planned Parenthood had direct bearing on the patient, spousal, and parental consent issues, and was instructive on the "definition of viability" issue. Singleton concerned the issue of standing to challenge abortion regulations. Accordingly, that portion of the three-judge court's judgment which was the subject of the plaintiffs' appeal was summarily affirmed. Franklin v. Fitzpatrick, 428 U.S. 901 (1976). And that portion of the judgment which was the subject of the defendants' appeal was vacated and remanded for further consideration in the light of Planned Parenthood, Singleton, and Virginia State Board. Beal v. Franklin, 428 U.S. 901 (1976). On remand, the parties entered into a stipulation which disposed of all issues except the constitutionality of §§ 5(a) and 7. Relying on this Court's supervening decisions in Beal v. Doe, 432 U. S. 438 (1977), and Maher v. Roe, 432 U. S. 464 (1977), the District Court found, contrary to its original view, Page 439 U. S. 386 see 401 F.Supp. at 594, that § 7 did not violate either Tit. XIX of the Social Security Act, as added, 79 Stat. 343, and amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. App. 241a. The court, however, declared: "After reconsideration of section 5(a) in light of the most recent Supreme Court decisions, we adhere to our original view and decision that section 5(a) is unconstitutional." Id. at 240a-214a. Since the plaintiffs-appellees have not appealed from the ruling with respect to § 7, the only issue remaining in this protracted litigation is the validity of § 5(a). II Three cases in the sensitive and earnestly contested abortion area provide essential background for the present controversy. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), this Court concluded that there is a right of privacy, implicit in the liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, that "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Id. at 410 U. S. 153. This right, we said, although fundamental, is not absolute or unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in the health of the pregnant woman and in the potential life of the fetus. "These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes 'compelling.'" Id. at 410 U. S. 162-163. For both logical and biological reasons, we indicated that the State's interest in the potential life of the fetus reaches the compelling point at the stage of viability. Hence, prior to viability, the State may not seek to further this interest by directly restricting a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. [Footnote 7] But after viability, the Page 439 U. S. 387 State, if it chooses, may regulate or even prohibit abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman. Id. at 410 U. S. 163-164. We did not undertake in Roe to examine the various factors that may enter into the determination of viability. We simply observed that, in the medical and scientific communities, a fetus is considered viable if it is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Id. at 410 U. S. 160. We added that there must be a potentiality of "meaningful life," id. at 410 U. S. 163, not merely momentary survival. And we noted that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks), but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." Id. at 410 U. S. 160. We thus left the point flexible for anticipated advancements in medical skill. Roe stressed repeatedly the central role of the physician, both in consulting with the woman about whether or not to have an abortion and in determining how any abortion was to be carried out. We indicated that, up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention, "the abortion decision, in all its aspects, is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision," id. at 410 U. S. 166, and we added that, if this privilege were abused, "the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available." Ibid. Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973), underscored the importance of affording the physician adequate discretion in the exercise of his medical judgment. After the Court there reiterated that "a pregnant woman does not have an absolute constitutional right to an abortion on her demand," id. at 410 U. S. 189, the Court discussed, in a vagueness attack context, the Georgia statute's requirement that a physician's decision to perform an abortion must rest upon "his best clinical judgment." The Court found it critical that that Page 439 U. S. 388 judgment "may be exercised in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the wellbeing of the patient." Id. at 410 U. S. 192. The third case, Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 (1976), stressed similar themes. There a Missouri statute that defined viability was challenged on the ground that it conflicted with the discussion of viability in Roe and that it was, in reality, an attempt to advance the point of viability to an earlier stage in gestation. The Court rejected that argument, repeated the Roe definition of viability, 428 U.S. at 63, and observed again that viability is "a matter of medical judgment, skill, and technical ability, and we preserved [in Roe] the flexibility of the term." Id. at 429 U. S. 64. The Court also rejected a contention that "a specified number of weeks in pregnancy must be fixed by statute as the point of viability." Id. at 428 U. S. 65. It said: "In any event, we agree with the District Court that it is not the proper function of the legislature or the courts to place viability, which essentially is a medical concept, at a specific point in the gestation period. The time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy, and the determination of whether a particular fetus is viable is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the responsible attending physician." Id. at 428 U. S. 64. In these three cases, then, this Court has stressed viability, has declared its determination to be a matter for medical judgment, and has recognized that differing legal consequences ensue upon the near and far sides of that point in the human gestation period. We reaffirm these principles. Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Because this point may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering Page 439 U. S. 389 into the ascertainment of viability -- be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor -- as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus. Viability is the critical point. And we have recognized no attempt to stretch the point of viability one way or the other. With these principles in mind, we turn to the issues presented by the instant controversy. III The attack mounted by the plaintiffs-appellees upon § 5(a) centers on both the viability determination requirement and the stated standard of care. The former provision, requiring the physician to observe the care standard when he determines that the fetus is viable, or when "there is sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable," is asserted to be unconstitutionally vague because it fails to inform the physician when his duty to the fetus arises, and because it does not make the physician's good faith determination of viability conclusive. This provision is also said to be unconstitutionally overbroad because it carves out a new time period prior to the stage of viability, and could have a restrictive effect on a couple who wants to abort a fetus determined by genetic testing to be defective. [Footnote 8] The standard of care, and in particular the requirement that the physician employ the abortion technique "which would provide the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive so long as a different technique would not be necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother," is said to be void for vagueness and to be unconstitutionally restrictive in failing to afford Page 439 U. S. 390 the physician sufficient professional discretion in determining which abortion technique is appropriate. The defendants-appellants, in opposition, assert that the Pennsylvania statute is concerned only with post-viability abortions and with prescribing a standard of care for those abortions. They assert that the terminology "may be viable" correctly describes the statistical probability of fetal survival associated with viability; that the viability determination requirement is otherwise sufficiently definite to be interpreted by the medical community; and that it is for the legislature, not the Judiciary, to determine whether a viable but genetically defective fetus has a right to life. They contend that the standard of care provision preserves the flexibility required for sound medical practice, and that it simply requires that, when a physician has a choice of procedures of equal risk to the woman, he must select the procedure least likely to be fatal to the fetus. IV We agree with plaintiffs-appellees that the viability determination requirement of § 5(a) is ambiguous, and that its uncertainty is aggravated by the absence of a scienter requirement with respect to the finding of viability. Because we conclude that this portion of the statute is void for vagueness, we find it unnecessary to consider appellees' alternative arguments based on the alleged overbreadth of § 5(a). A It is settled that, as a matter of due process, a criminal statute that "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute," United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 617 (1954), or is so indefinite that "it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions," Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 162 (1972), is void for vagueness. See generally Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 108-109 (1972). Page 439 U. S. 391 This appears to be especially true where the uncertainty induced by the statute threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. Id. at 408 U. S. 109; Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566, 573 (1974); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589, 603-604 (1967). Section 5(a) requires every person who performs or induces an abortion to make a determination, "based on his experience, judgment or professional competence," that the fetus is not viable. If such person determines that the fetus is viable, or if "there is sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable," then he must adhere to the prescribed standard of care. See 439 U. S. 1, supra. This requirement contains a double ambiguity. First, it is unclear whether the statute imports a purely subjective standard, or whether it imposes a mixed subjective and objective standard. Second, it is uncertain whether the phrase "may be viable" simply refers to viability, as that term has been defined in Roe and in Planned Parenthood, or whether it refers to an undefined penumbral or "gray" area prior to the stage of viability. The statute requires the physician to conform to the prescribed standard of care if one of two conditions is satisfied: if he determines that the fetus "is viable," or "if there is sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable." Apparently, the determination of whether the fetus "is viable" is to be based on the attending physician's "experience, judgment or professional competence," a subjective point of reference. But it is unclear whether the same phrase applies to the second triggering condition, that is, to "sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable." In other words, it is ambiguous whether there must be "sufficient reason" from the perspective of the judgment, skill, and training of the attending physician, or "sufficient reason" from the perspective of a cross-section of the medical community or a panel of experts. The latter, obviously, portends not an inconsequential hazard for the typical private practitioner who may not Page 439 U. S. 392 have the skills and technology that are readily available at a teaching hospital or large medical center. The intended distinction between the phrases "is viable" and "may be viable" is even more elusive. Appellants argue that no difference is intended, and that the use of the "may be viable" words "simply incorporates the acknowledged medical fact that a fetus is 'viable' if it has that statistical 'chance' of survival recognized by the medical community." Brief for Appellants 28. The statute, however, does not support the contention that "may be viable" is synonymous with, or merely intended to explicate the meaning of, "viable." [Footnote 9] Section 5(a) requires the physician to observe the prescribed standard of care if he determines "that the fetus is viable or if there is sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable" (emphasis supplied). The syntax clearly implies that there are two distinct conditions under which the physician must conform to the standard of care. Appellants' argument that "may be viable" is synonymous with "viable" would make either the first or the second condition redundant or largely superfluous, in violation of the elementary canon of construction that a statute should be interpreted so as not to render one part inoperative. See United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538-539 (1955). Furthermore, the suggestion that "may be viable" is an explication of the meaning of "viable" flies in the face of the fact that the statute, in § 2, already defines "viable." This, presumably, was intended to be the exclusive definition of "viable" throughout the Act. [Footnote 10] In this respect, it is significant Page 439 U. S. 393 that § 6(b) of the Act speaks only of the limited availability of abortion during the stage of a pregnancy "subsequent to viability." The concept of viability is just as important in § 6(b) as it is in § 5(a). Yet, in § 6(b), the legislature found it unnecessary to explain that a "viable" fetus includes one that "may be viable." Since we must reject appellants' theory that "may be viable" means "viable," a second serious ambiguity appears in the statute. On the one hand, as appellees urge and as the District Court found, see 401 F.Supp. at 572, it may be that "may be viable" carves out a new time period during pregnancy when there is a remote possibility of fetal survival outside the womb, but the fetus has not yet attained the reasonable likelihood of survival that physicians associate with viability. On the other hand, although appellants do not argue this, it may be that "may be viable" refers to viability as physicians understand it, and "viable" refers to some undetermined stage later in pregnancy. We need not resolve this question. The crucial point is that "viable" and "may be viable" apparently refer to distinct conditions, and that one of these conditions differs in some indeterminate way from the definition of viability as set forth in Roe and in Planned Parenthood. [Footnote 11] Because of the double ambiguity in the viability determination requirement, this portion of the Pennsylvania statute is readily distinguishable from the requirement that an abortion must be "necessary for the preservation of the mother's life or health," upheld against a vagueness challenge in United Page 439 U. S. 394 States v. Vuitch, 402 U. S. 62, 69-72 (1971), and the requirement that a physician determine, on the basis of his "best clinical judgment," that an abortion is "necessary," upheld against a vagueness attack in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. at 191-192. The contested provisions in those cases had been interpreted to allow the physician to make his determination in the light of all attendant circumstances -- psychological and emotional as well as physical -- that might be relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. The present statute does not afford broad discretion to the physician. Instead, it conditions potential criminal liability on confusing and ambiguous criteria. It therefore presents serious problems of notice, discriminatory application, and chilling effect on the exercise of constitutional rights. B The vagueness of the viability determination requirement of § 5(a) is compounded by the fact that the Act subjects the physician to potential criminal liability without regard to fault. Under § 5(d), see 439 U. S. 1, supra, a physician who fails to abide by the standard of care when there is sufficient reason to believe that the fetus "may be viable" is subject "to such civil or criminal liability as would pertain to him had the fetus been a child who was intended to be born and not aborted." To be sure, the Pennsylvania law of criminal homicide, made applicable to the physician by § 5(d), conditions guilt upon a finding of scienter. See Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 18, §§ 2501-2504 (Purdon 1973 and Supp. 1978). The required mental state, however, is that of "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently caus[ing] the death of another human being." § 2501 (1973). Thus, the Pennsylvania law of criminal homicide requires scienter with respect to whether the physician's actions will result in the death of the fetus. But neither the Pennsylvania law of criminal homicide nor the Abortion Control Act requires that the Page 439 U. S. 395 physician be culpable in failing to find sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable. [Footnote 12] This Court has long recognized that the constitutionality of a vague statutory standard is closely related to whether that standard incorporates a requirement of mens rea. See, for example, United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S. 422, 434-446 (1978); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. at 163; Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U. S. 337, 342 (1952). [Footnote 13] Because of the absence of a scienter requirement in the provision directing the physician to determine whether the fetus is or may be viable, the statute is little more than "a trap for those who act in good faith." United States v. Ragen, 314 U. S. 513, 524 (1942). The perils of strict criminal liability are particularly acute here because of the uncertainty of the viability determination itself. As the record in this case indicates, a physician determines whether or not a fetus is viable after considering a number of variables: the gestational age of the fetus, derived from the reported menstrual history of the woman; fetal weight, based on an inexact estimate of the size and condition of the uterus; the woman's general health and nutrition; the Page 439 U. S. 396 quality of the available medical facilities; and other factors. [Footnote 14] Because of the number and the imprecision of these variables, the probability of any particular fetus' obtaining meaningful life outside the womb can be determined only with difficulty. Moreover, the record indicates that, even if agreement may be reached on the probability of survival, different physicians equate viability with different probabilities of survival, and some physicians refuse to equate viability with any numerical probability at all. [Footnote 15] In the face of these uncertainties, it is not unlikely that experts will disagree over whether a particular fetus in the second trimester has advanced to the stage of viability. The prospect of such disagreement, in conjunction with a statute imposing strict civil and criminal liability for an erroneous determination of viability, could have a profound chilling effect on the willingness of physicians to perform abortions near the point of viability in the manner indicated by their best medical judgment. Because we hold that the viability determination provision of § 5(a) is void on its face, we need not now decide whether, under a properly drafted statute, a finding of bad faith or some other type of scienter would be required before a physician could be held criminally responsible for an erroneous determination of viability. We reaffirm, however, that "the determination of whether a particular fetus is viable is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the responsible attending physician." Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Page 439 U. S. 397 Danforth, 428 U.S. at 64. State regulation that impinges upon this determination, if it is to be constitutional, must allow the attending physician "the room he needs to make his best medical judgment." Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. at 192. V We also conclude that the standard of care provision of § 5(a) is impermissibly vague. [Footnote 16] The standard of care provision, when it applies, requires the physician to "exercise that degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the fetus which such person would be required to exercise in order to preserve the life and health of any fetus intended to be born and not aborted and the abortion technique employed shall be that which would provide the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive so long as a different technique would not be necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother." Plaintiffs-appellees focus their attack on the second part of the standard, requiring the physician to employ the abortion technique offering the greatest possibility of fetal survival, provided some other technique would not be necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother. [Footnote 17] Page 439 U. S. 398 The District Court took extensive testimony from various physicians about their understanding of this requirement. That testimony is illuminating. When asked what method of abortion they would prefer to use in the second trimester in the absence of § 5(a), the plaintiffs' experts said that they thought saline anmio-infusion was the method of choice. [Footnote 18] This was described as a method involving removal of amniotic fluid and injection of a saline or other solution into the amniotic sac. See Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. at 75-79. All physicians agreed, however, that saline anmio-infusion nearly always is fatal to the fetus, [Footnote 19] and it was commonly assumed that this method would be prohibited by the statute. When the plaintiffs' and defendants' physician-experts respectively were asked what would be the method of choice under § 5(a), opinions differed widely. Preferences ranged from no abortion, to prostaglandin infusion, to hysterotomy, to oxytocin induction. [Footnote 20] Each method, it was generally conceded, involved disadvantages from the perspective of the woman. Hysterotomy, a type of Caesarean section procedure, generally was considered to have the highest incidence of fetal survival of any of the abortifacients. Hysterotomy, however, is associated with the risks attendant upon any operative procedure involving anesthesia and incision of Page 439 U. S. 399 tissue. [Footnote 21] And all physicians agreed that future children born to a woman having hysterotomy would have to be delivered by Caesarean section because of the likelihood. of rupture of the scar. [Footnote 22] Few of the testifying physicians had had any direct experience with prostaglandins, described as drugs that stimulate uterine contractibility, inducing premature expulsion of the fetus. See Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. at 77-78. It was generally agreed that the incidence of fetal survival with prostaglandins would be significantly greater than with saline anmio-infusion. [Footnote 23] Several physicians testified, however, that prostaglandins have undesirable side effects, such as nausea, vomiting, headache, and diarrhea, and indicated that they are unsafe with patients having a history of asthma, glaucoma, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or epilepsy. [Footnote 24] See Wynn v. Scott, 449 F.Supp. 132, 1326 (ND Ill.1978). One physician recommended oxytocin induction. He doubted, however, whether the procedure would be fully effective in all cases, and he indicated that the procedure was prolonged and expensive. [Footnote 25] The parties acknowledge that there is disagreement among medical authorities about the relative merits and the safety of different abortion procedures that may be used during the second trimester. See Brief for Appellants 24. The appellants submit, however, that the only legally relevant considerations are that alternatives exist among abortifacients, Page 439 U. S. 400 "and that the physician, mindful of the state's interest in protecting viable life, must make a competent and good faith medical judgment on the feasibility of protecting the fetus' chance of survival in a manner consistent with the life and health of the pregnant woman." Id. at 25. We read § 5(a), however, to be much more problematical. The statute does not clearly specify, as appellants imply, that the woman's life and health must always prevail over the fetus' life and health when they conflict. The woman's life and health are not mentioned in the first part of the stated standard of care, which sets forth the general duty to the viable fetus; they are mentioned only in the second part, which deals with the choice of abortion procedures. Moreover, the second part of the standard directs the physician to employ the abortion technique best suited to fetal survival "so long as a different technique would not be necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother" (emphasis supplied). In this context, the word "necessary" suggests that a particular technique must be indispensable to the woman's life or health -- not merely desirable -- before it may be adopted. And "the life or health of the mother," as used in § 5(a), has not been construed by the courts of the Commonwealth to mean, nor does it necessarily imply, that all factors relevant to the welfare of the woman may be taken into account by the physician in making his decision. Cf. United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. at 71-72; Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. at 191. Consequently, it is uncertain whether the statute permits the physician to consider his duty to the patient to be paramount to his duty to the fetus, or whether it requires the physician to make a "trade-off" between the woman's health and additional percentage points of fetal survival. Serious ethical and constitutional difficulties, that we do not address, lurk behind this ambiguity. We hold only that, where conflicting duties of this magnitude are involved, the Page 439 U. S. 401 State, at the least, must proceed with greater precision before it may subject a physician to possible criminal sanctions. Appellants' further suggestion that § 5(a) requires only that the physician make a good faith selection of the proper abortion procedure finds no support in either the language or an authoritative interpretation of the statute. [Footnote 26] Certainly, there is nothing to suggest a mens rea requirement with respect to a decision whether a particular abortion method is necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the woman. The choice of an appropriate abortion technique, as the record in this case so amply demonstrates, is a complex medical judgment about which experts can -- and do -- disagree. The lack of any scienter requirement exacerbates the uncertainty of the statute. We conclude that the standard of care provision, like the viability determination requirement, is void for vagueness. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. It is so ordered. [Footnote 1] Section 5 reads in pertinent part: "(a) Every person who performs or induces an abortion shall prior thereto have made a determination based on his experience, judgment or professional competence that the fetus is not viable, and if the determination is that the fetus is viable or if there is sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable, shall exercise that degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of tho fetus which such person would be required to exercise in order to preserve the life and health of any fetus intended to be born and not aborted and the abortion technique employed shall be that which would provide the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive so long as a different technique would not be necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother." "* * * *" "(d) Any person who fails to make the determination provided for in subsection (a) of this section, or who fails to exercise the degree of professional skill, care and diligence or to provide the abortion technique as provided for in subsection (a) of this section . . . shall be subject to such civil or criminal liability as would pertain to him had the fetus been a child who was intended to be born and not aborted." [Footnote 2] The three-judge court was designated in September, 1974, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281 (1970 ed.). This statute was repealed by Pub.L. 94-381, § 1, 90 Stat. 1119, but the repeal did not apply to any action commenced on or before August 12, 1976. § 7. [Footnote 3] The plaintiffs named in the complaint, as amended, were Planned Parenthood Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania, Inc., a nonprofit corporation; appellee John Franklin, M.D., a licensed and board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist and medical director of Planned Parenthood; Concern for Health Options: Information, Care and Education, Inc. (CHOICE), a nonprofit corporation; and Clergy Consultation Service of Northeastern Pennsylvania, a voluntary organization. Later, appellee Obstetrical Society of Philadelphia intervened as a party plaintiff. Named as original defendants were F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., District Attorney of Philadelphia County, and Helene Wohlgemuth, the then Secretary of Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Subsequently, the Commonwealth's Attorney General and the Commonwealth itself intervened as parties defendant. The District Court, in a ruling not under challenge here, eventually dismissed Planned Parenthood, CHOICE, and Clergy Consultation as plaintiffs. Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Fitzpatrick, 401 F.Supp. 564, 562, 593-594 (1976). The present posture of the case, as a consequence, is a suit between Dr. Franklin and the Obstetrical Society, as plaintiffs-appellees, and Aldo Colautti, the present Secretary of Welfare, the Attorney General, the Commonwealth, and the District Attorney, as defendants-appellants. We agree with the District Court's ruling in the cited 1975 opinion, 401 F.Supp. at 561-562, 594, that, under Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179, 188 (1973), the plaintiff physicians have standing to challenge § 5(a), and that their claims present a justiciable controversy. See Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 62 (1976). [Footnote 4] The court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the spousal and parental consent requirements, § 3(b); the penal provisions of § 3(e); the requirements of §§ 5(a) and (d); the restriction on abortions subsequent to viability, § 6 (b); the facility-approval requirement, § 6(c); the reporting provisions, § 6(d); most of the penal provisions of § 6(i); the restrictions on funding of abortions, § 7; and the definitions of "viable" and "informed consent" in § 2. Record, Doc. No. 16; see Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Fitzpatrick, 401 F.Supp. at 559. [Footnote 5] The court ruled that "the present action is determined to be a class action on behalf of the class of Pennsylvania physicians who perform abortions and/or counsel their female patients with regard to family planning and pregnancy, including the option of abortion, and the sub-class of members of the Obstetrical Society of Philadelphia who practice in Pennsylvania." Record, Doc. No. 57. [Footnote 6] See also Doe v. Zimmerman, 405 F.Supp. 534 (MD Pa.1975). [Footnote 7] In Maher v. Roe, 432 U. S. 464, 471-477 (1977), the Court ruled that a State may withhold funding to indigent women even though such withholding influences the abortion decision prior to viability. The Court, however, reaffirmed that a State during this period may not impose direct obstacles -- such a criminal penalties -- to further its interest in the potential life of the fetus. [Footnote 8] The plaintiffs-appellees introduced evidence that modern medical technology makes it possible to detect whether a fetus is afflicted with such disorders as Tay-Sachs disease and Down's syndrome (mongolism). Such testing, however, often cannot be completed until after 120 weeks' gestation. App. 53a-56a (testimony of Hope Punnett, Ph. D.). [Footnote 9] Appellants do not argue that federal court abstention is required on this issue, nor is it appropriate, given the extent of the vagueness that afflicts § 5(a), for this Court to abstain sua sponte. See Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U. S. 132, 143 n. 10 (1976). [Footnote 10] The statute says that viable "means," not "includes," the capability of a fetus "to live outside the mother's womb albeit with artificial aid." As a rule, "[a] definition which declares what a term means' . . . exclude any meaning that is not stated." 2A C. Sands, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07 (4th ed. Supp. 1978). [Footnote 11] Since our ruling today is confined to the conclusion that the viability determination requirement of § 5(a) is impermissibly vague, there is no merit in the dissenting opinion's suggestion, post at 439 U. S. 406, that the Court has "tacitly disown[ed]" the definition of viability as set forth in Roe and Planned Parenthood. On the contrary, as noted above, supra at 439 U. S. 388, we reaffirm what was said in those decisions about this critical concept. [Footnote 12] Section 5(a) does provide that the determination of viability is to be based on the physician's "experience, judgment or professional competence." A subjective standard keyed to the physician's individual skill and abilities, however, is different from a requirement that the physician be culpable or blameworthy for his performance under such a standard. Moreover, as noted above, it is ambiguous whether this subjective language applies to the second condition that activates the duty to the fetus, namely, "sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable." [Footnote 13] "[T]he requirement of a specific intent to do a prohibited act may avoid those consequences to the accused which may otherwise render a vague or indefinite statute invalid. . . . The requirement that the act must be willful or purposeful may not render certain, for all purposes, a statutory definition of the crime which is in some respects uncertain. But it does relieve the statute of the objection that it punishes without warning an offense of which the accused was unaware." Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 101-102 (1945) (plurality opinion). [Footnote 14] See App. 5a-6a, 10a, 17a (testimony of Louis Gerstley III, M.D.); id. at 77a-78a, 81a (testimony of Thomas W. Hilgers, M.D.); id. at 93a-101a, 109a, 112a (testimony of William J. Keenan, M.D.). [Footnote 15] See id. at 8a (testimony of Dr. Cierstley) (viability means 5% chance of survival, "certainly at least two to three percent"); id. at 104a (testimony of Dr. Keenan) (10% chance of survival would be viable); id. at 144a (deposition of John Franklin, M.D.) (viability means "ten percent or better" probability of survival); id. at 132a (testimony of Arturo Hervada, M.D.) (it is misleading to be obsessed with a particular percentage figure). [Footnote 16] The dissenting opinion questions whether the alleged vagueness of the standard of care provision is properly before us, since it is said that this issue was not reached by the District Court. That court, however, declared § 5(a) unconstitutional in its entirety, including both the viability determination requirement and the standard of care provision. App. 243a. Appellees, as the prevailing parties, may, of course, assert any ground in support of that judgment, "whether or not that ground was relied upon or even considered by the trial court." Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 475 n. 6 (1970). [Footnote 17] In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 81-84 (1976), the Court struck down a provision similar to the first part of the standard of care provision of § 5(a), on the ground that it applied at all stages of gestation, and not just to the period subsequent to viability. Except to the extent that § 5(a) is also alleged to apply prior to the point of viability, a contention we do not reach, see supra at 439 U. S. 390, appellees do not challenge the standard of care provision on overbreadth grounds. [Footnote 18] App. 11a (testimony of Dr. Gerstley); id. at 28a (testimony of Dr. Franklin) . [Footnote 19] See, e.g., id. at 28a (testimony of Dr. Franklin); id. at 3a (testimony of Fred Mecklenburg, M.D.). [Footnote 20] There was testimony that dilation and curettage and dilation and suction, two of the more common method of abortion in the first trimester, normally are not used in the second trimester. Id. at 39a-40a (testimony of Dr. Mecklenburg). [Footnote 21] Id. at 23a (testimony of Dr. Franklin); id. at 43a (testimony of Dr. Mecklenburg); id. at 73a (testimony of Dr. Hilgers). [Footnote 22] See, e.g., id. at 13a (testimony of Dr. Gerstley); id. at 28a (testimony of Dr. Franklin). [Footnote 23] See, e.g., id. at 11a-12a (testimony of Dr. Gerstley); id. at 28a (testimony of Dr. Franklin). [Footnote 24] See id. at 11a (testimony of Dr. Gerstley); id. at 37a-38a (testimony of Dr. Mecklenburg); id. at 72a (testimony of Dr. Hilgers). [Footnote 25] Id. at 12a (testimony of Dr. Gerstley) . [Footnote 26] Appellants, again, do not argue or suggest that we should abstain from passing on this issue. See 439 U. S. 9, supra.
Abortion is unlikely to play much of a role in this election. The economy and the war will be paramount. The issue did not elect Keyes and will be unlikely to elect McCain. A lot of noise is created but not many votes. Other issues will decide.
As is should be damaging to his chances. Now that you have found out this info and stated before that you wouldn't vote for a pro-choice candidate, I assume this means you won't be voting for Obama if he is the Dems choice, right? I sure hope you don't vote for him knowing this. Even if Obama is the lesser of the evils, which I don't think he is, he is still evil.
God is always good!
It will play a role. McCain will jump on this, and rightfully so, to get the anti-abortion vote. Even democrats that are pro-choice will have a hard time voting for someone that has no problem with killing babies after they are even born. Abortion is a very big issue for me. I would kill myself before voting for anyone supporting it.
God is always good!
I guess you didn't read what I said about McCain, the supposed pro-lifer.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
It will play a role. Abortion will just not play a significant role. Obama and Clinton are very much pro-choice. They will definitely not get a vote from any anti-abortion voters who vote on that issue. About 15% of the voters would like to outlaw abortion. If McCain chose to do something about it, he has had 26 years in Congress to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to get it done. In the past, a GOP President, control of both houses of Congress, and a majority on the Supreme Court has not changed Roe v. Wade. At #27 above, I posted the entire text of the proposed Illinois THE INDUCED INFANT LIABILITY ACT of 2003. There is nothing about "killing" babies or saving them from being "killed." The act was self-described as, "AN ACT in relation to civil liabilities." The Supreme Court has ruled that, "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability." The Supreme Court also stated, "Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." When a birth occurs at a non-viable stage, there is no compelling State interest. The non-viable infant is going to die. That is what it means to be non-viable. Nobody is going to "kill" it. Nobody can save it either. "Killing" a viable infant is a crime. There is no alleged authorization of "killing" babies, whether viable or non-viable. No medical care is given to save the life of the non-viable infant. If there were any known effective medical care to give, the infant would not be non-viable. When an adult on life-support goes beyond the help of medical care, ceasing artificial breathing assistance is not considered murder or "killing" the person. Attacks against Obama and Clinton that they are pro-choice are valid. Assertions that Obama approves of "killing" babies after they are born are as ridiculous as the assertion that he voted to incinerate babies. Alan Keyes tried that type of exaggerated charge. He was rewarded with the worst defeat in the history of Illinois senate elections. McCain will not go where Keyes did. U.S. Supreme Court ----- ... the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. * * * Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. * * * With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like. This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State. With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.
#2. To: Horse (#0)
#3. To: Peppa (#2)
(Edited)
This needs to be spread far and wide as well.
#4. To: Horse (#0)
#5. To: RickyJ (#3)
It will be and give us Hillary as the next President. If Americans only knew that foreign nations are picking their next President there would be a revolution.
#6. To: robin (#4)
As I have posted before, I have voted pro-life my entire life. And for this, nothing has changed.
#7. To: RickyJ (#6)
#8. To: robin (#4)
As I have posted before, I have voted pro-life my entire life. And for this, nothing has changed.
#9. To: Jethro Tull (#8)
Same w/Iraq.
#10. To: Horse (#0)
I found this by Michael Gerson. Gerson is not a conservative. He is a member of the CFR.
Assistant to the President for Speechwriting and Policy Adviser (2002-2005)
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Speechwriting (2001-2002)
Chief Speechwriter and Senior Policy Adviser, Bush Presidential Campaign (2000)
Senior Editor, Politics, U.S. News and World Report.
#11. To: nolu_chan (#10)
He is a member of the CFR.
#12. To: Peppa (#2)
Thanks for the information. This needs to be spread far and wide as well.
We are screwed concerning the next president.
#13. To: honway (#12)
Bottom line. We are screwed concerning the next president.
#14. To: nolu_chan (#10)
#15. To: nolu_chan (#10)
(Edited)
Are you serious??? Just what do you call George W. Bush's chief speechwriter and senior policy advisor from 2000-2006??
#16. To: Horse (#14)
Anyone who worked for Bush and is a member of the CFR is a TRAITOR not a conservative.
#17. To: Horse (#14)
Bush rates as an extreme Zionist and a moderate to liberal on social issues and fails of spending and protecting our borders.
#18. To: Horse, Peppa, robin (#0)
Christine asked me to research my comment that Barack Obama twice voted to table a resolution that would have made it illegal to incinerate a baby that had survived a partial birth abortion.
Section 10. Induced labor abortion; actions. If a child is
Show me the imaginary part about incinerating babies.
born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other
abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian of the
county in which the child was born may maintain an action on
the child's behalf for damages, including all costs of care to
preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child,
punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney's fees against
any hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who
harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to
the child after the child's birth. Any damages recovered shall
be used to pay for the cost of preserving and protecting the
life, health, and safety of the child. If the child does not
survive, the balance remaining after the costs of preserving
and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child are
paid, shall be deposited into the Neonatal Care and Perinatal
Hospice Fund.
#19. To: Horse, robin, peppa (#0)
[Gerson] In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion.
United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004
---------- mensnewsdaily.com/archive...004/0804/081904-keyes.htm
August 19, 2004
#20. To: nolu_chan (#18)
Found something, but not all.
#21. To: nolu_chan (#19)
#22. To: All (#20)
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t390435.html
#23. To: Horse, robin, Peppa (#0)
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.02175:
H.R. 2175
107th Congress, 2nd Session Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT. (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including born-alive infant `(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
`(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
`(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.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
Speaker of the House of Representatives. `8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including born-alive infant.'.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscod..._01_00000008----000-.html
#24. To: nolu_chan (#23)
#25. To: Horse (#0)
Gerson Wrong on Obama and "Born Alive" Legislation
April 02, 2008
#26. To: Horse, robin, Peppa (#0)
(5 ILCS 70/1.36)
#27. To: Peppa, robin, Horse (#22)
Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act
93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY
State of Illinois
2003 and 2004
SB2633
30 ILCS 105/5.625 new
3 Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:
5 Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.
7 that all children who are born alive are entitled to equal
8 protection under the law regardless of the circumstances
9 surrounding the birth. Children who are born alive as the
10 result of an induced labor abortion or any other abortion are
11 in special need of protection due to the fact that the intent
12 of their birth is to cause the death of the born child.
13 Therefore, it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect 14 a child who is born alive as the result of an induced labor 15 abortion or any other abortion and to ensure that the child 16 receives all medical care necessary to preserve and protect the 17 life, health, and safety of the child.
19 born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other
20 abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian of the
21 county in which the child was born may maintain an action on
22 the child's behalf for damages, including all costs of care to
23 preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child,
24 punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney's fees against
25 any hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who
26 harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to
27 the child after the child's birth. Any damages recovered shall
28 be used to pay for the cost of preserving and protecting the
29 life, health, and safety of the child. If the child does not
30 survive, the balance remaining after the costs of preserving
31 and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child are
LRB093 18508 LCB 44226 b
- 2 -
2 Hospice Fund.
4 Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund is created as a
5 special fund in the State treasury. Moneys deposited into the
6 Fund shall, subject to appropriation, be used by the Department
7 of Public Health to make grants for neonatal care or perinatal
8 hospice.
10 Section 5.625 as follows:
12 Sec. 5.625. The Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund.
#28. To: nolu_chan (#27)
#29. To: nolu_chan (#27)
COLUMN: Obama still fooling electorate
University Wire
03-06-2008
(Daily Nebraskan) (UWIRE) LINCOLN, Neb. -- A couple weeks ago, I wrote a column criticizing the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama. To summarize, I felt that the campaign was running almost exclusively on an excessive supply of vague political rhetoric and that far too many of its supporters were falling victim to their own naivety.
I felt that his message of hope, optimism, and inclusiveness was just the latest example of a sneaky politician tricking the electorate into voting for false hope.
I still think this is true.
But critics of this critique have astutely pointed out that it doesn't matter. People are still buying what Obama is selling, and his stock will continue to rise if these are the best attacks that can be levied against him.
And so the time for going after Obama's stage character has come and passed.
Instead, the time has come to shed some light on what goes on behind the curtains of the Obama campaign; behind "hope," behind "change," and behind "bipartisanship." It's time to look beyond the smoke and mirrors, beyond the rhetoric, and see what's really going on. It's time to open your eyes, people, and see what this man really stands for.
It's time to reveal Obama's willingness to engage in infanticide.
In 2002, the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 98-0, passed the Born- Alive Infants Protection Act (this came at a time when Sen. Obama was still serving as an Illinois state senator.) Essentially, it says that any baby born alive is a person and thus protected by the United States Constitution. It was intended to protect infants who had survived abortion attempts - babies who the mother and doctor had tried unsuccessfully to abort, and came out of the womb alive (and human).
During testimony leading up to the passage of the bill, it was documented that babies who had survived abortion attempts and were subsequently living outside of the mother (and therefore no longer a risk to her health) were still being "terminated." They were pre-term babies, not yet 9 months old and presumably in need of medical treatment, but there could be no doubt that they were living human beings.
They were being murdered. Second time's a charm, so says the abortion doctor.
In 2001, the Illinois state legislature debated a bill very similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. In 2003, they discussed a bill that was identical to the Act.
Legislators in Illinois recognized the moral issue here as clearly as did the members of the Senate.
And yet, the Illinois legislature on more than one occasion failed to pass a comparable or identical legislation.
The reason for this failure on the part of the Illinois legislature to pass a law protecting babies from being murdered after failed abortions?
Obama, chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee, made sure that the bill never even made it to the floor of the legislature for a vote. He killed it before it ever had a chance (no pun intended).
This is radical, folks. Barack Obama supports second-chance abortions (my term, not his). He supports the killing of babies living outside the mother's womb - babies that, while admittedly still in dire need of medical attention, are not something less than human life. They aren't merely fetuses. They are human infants, and Obama seems unfazed by their killing.
Perhaps they just didn't have enough hope.
If you support Barack Obama, you need to take a serious look at this issue. Even if you're pro-choice, this is more than Roe v. Wade. This is about more than a woman's right to choose what happens to her body. The infants under question here have already been removed from the women's body. They are on death row, and they have been put there purely out of convenience.
The position taken by Obama on this issue is downright scary. It is an indication of a moral failing on his part, but it also demonstrates the kind of far-left ideologue that he is; an ultra-liberal who has fooled the electorate into thinking he wants moderation.
It demonstrates that, despite campaign speeches built around feel-good language of hope and inclusiveness, the real Obama has no hope for pre-term, unwanted children.
The real Obama doesn't mind if born-alive infants are thrown into a wastebin.
That, in my mind, is indefensible.
I realize abortion is a polarizing topic, and there is oftentimes little room for middle ground. But with the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, conservatives and liberals alike found some middle ground in the Senate. They all decided to step on board, admitting that infants living outside the woman's womb deserved protection under the Constitution.
But Obama is different. He fought against such legislation, and did so on more than one occasion. In doing so, he didn't show moderation; he showed extreme partisanship and a willingness to engage in infanticide.
Obama says he beliefs in hope, but I say he believes in political rhetoric that wins elections.
Here's hoping the American electorate opens their eyes to the truth about Obama, and realizes which one of us is telling the truth.
#30. To: Peppa (#20)
One night, 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 time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about 10 inches long.
She did all she could. She didn't stand by and watch it die. She rocked the 8 ounce baby for 45 minutes. She did not attempt any superhuman medical care, nor did she seek any. Apparently she should have paged Dr. Keyes. He would not stand by and let that child die. Dunno what he could do. Maybe give a speech. http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/stanekbakercongress.htm
#31. To: Peppa (#24)
First blush appears to be some political gamesmanship... surely this can be clarified somewhere.
LINK
Whether its covered by the 9th or the 14th, it must be covered somewhere. The reservation of rights spoken of is to the States or to the People.
#32. To: Jethro Tull (#29)
During testimony leading up to the passage of the bill, it was documented that babies who had survived abortion attempts and were subsequently living outside of the mother (and therefore no longer a risk to her health) were still being "terminated." They were pre-term babies, not yet 9 months old and presumably in need of medical treatment, but there could be no doubt that they were living human beings.
Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979)
#33. To: robin (#21)
Thanks for researching this. I do wish Obama would step back on this issue. The majority of Americans do not go as far out on a limb as he does (although it is not as far as Keyes would have us believe), but it is simply further than necessary, and is even damaging to his chances.
#34. To: robin (#21)
Thanks for researching this. I do wish Obama would step back on this issue. The majority of Americans do not go as far out on a limb as he does (although it is not as far as Keyes would have us believe), but it is simply further than necessary, and is even damaging to his chances.
#35. To: nolu_chan (#33)
Abortion is unlikely to play much of a role in this election. The economy and the war will be paramount.
#36. To: RickyJ (#34)
#37. To: RickyJ (#35)
It will play a role. McCain will jump on this, and rightfully so
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
410 U.S. 113
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest