He supports Roe v. Wade, and he has no problem with a ban on D@E if there are provisions in place to protect the health of the mother. If you had watched wednesday's debate, you could have heard it straight from the horse's mouth.
Well, it apparently worked with 2CentsWorth, a wavering McCain supporter who has previously expressed am ambivalence with voting for him. This is a strategy to get out the base, which is obviously going to be demoralized if they think McCain is going to lose.
he's already on record as saying a baby is punishment for those who don't want them. maybe a women's right to terminate a child supersedes everything else. Her intent was to end the pregnancy, so why not grant her wish.
It makes sense if you're pro-choice.
Last edited by 2centsworth; 10-17-2008 at 09:55 PM.
you see, you think we're on different teams and you treat it as if we have rooting interests. I'm more concerned with the direction of my country and this is a serious accusation that warrants discussion.
Obama wants to extend abortion rights into the 60th trimester.
It's true, I read it on the internets.
Yes, Obama is the Mavericks and McCain is the SpursI won't call you names, but that is just an incredibly insulting and ing stupid thing to say.
I'm voting for Obama because I TOO am concerned with the direction of my country. I don't want my government starting any more dumb ing wars. I don't want my president appointing a ing horse jockey to FEMA and doing nothing while New Orleans drowns. I don't want my government to torture terrorism suspects and run a gulag down at Guantanamo. I don't want my government putting the regulatory agencies in the very hands of the people it's supposed to regulate. I don't want my government enacting economic policies that squeeze the middle class and widen the gap between the haves and haves not.I'm more concerned with the direction of my country
The Republicans have failed. They have failed in economic management, they have failed in foreign affairs, they have even failed in the basic maintenance of things like bridges and levees. They have FAILED. And you want to pull some self-righteous bull about how this is nothing more than the NBA transferred to politics for me. That's just so very insulting and stupid.
A cursory google search would give you all the answers you need.this is a serious accusation that warrants discussion.
You would think someone worrying about would also worry about spreading false rumors, or maybe that doesn't fall under the ten commandments because of some technicality.
Bearing False Witness is apparently not a sin.
McCain is now using the same Robocall firm that Bush/Rove used to smear him and his family in 2000. I'd rather talk about that.
Too bad he was talking about sex education and contraception -- not abortion.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...bortion-record
Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune deserves a Pulitzer Prize for this: Jill Stanek told him she was mistaken in her blog posts this earlier year about what Sen. Obama did in the Illinois Legislature on the "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act."
so a baby is punishment when you don't use contraception. no comprende.
Of course you don't understand.
You don't want to.
In fairness, here's Obama's stated position on the matter. I'll check the record later. appreciate everyone chiming in.
The Truth Behind False, Outrageous Lies about Obama and ''Born Alive'' Legislation
August 19, 2008
STATEMENT
"Senator Obama strongly supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. He believes that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue, and he believes that women do not make these decisions casually, but wrestle with them in consultation with their doctors, pastors and family. Senator Obama understands that some will disagree with him and choose not to support him, and he respects those with different opinions. But the recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama -- the proud father of two little girls -- and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign. What Senator Obama’s attackers don’t tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions. They will not tell you that Obama voted against these laws in Illinois because they were clear attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade. They will not tell you that these laws were also opposed by pro-choice Republicans and the Illinois Medical Society -- a leading association of doctors in the state. And they will not tell you that Obama has always maintained that he would have voted for the federal version of this bill, which did not pose such a threat. The bills Senator Obama voted against in Illinois were crafted to undermine Roe v. Wade or pre-existing Illinois state law regulating reproductive healthcare and medical practice, which is why Senator Obama objected to them."
2001 and 2002: OBAMA JOINED MORE THAN 40% OF THE ILLINOIS SENATE—INCLUDING NUMEROUS REPUBLICANS—IN OPPOSING “BORN ALIVE” BILLS
Obama Voted Against Two Born Alive Bills, With Almost a Quarter of the Senate, Saying They Would Be Struck Down. In 2002, Obama voted against a bill to create the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act to provide that if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent or public guardian of the child may recover damages for costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney’s fees against a hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after it is born. Obama voted against a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Further defines “born alive” to mean “the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that 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 of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.” Obama predicted the bills would be struck down by a federal court were they to become law. Obama said, “Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Cons ution, we’re saying they are persons en led to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to term…That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.” [92nd GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N); 92nd GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R P; 30-12-10 (BO: N); Sun-Times, 3/31/01]
• 21 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1661. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican), Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shaw, Smith, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1661. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Shadid voted no on Senate Bill 1661. [92nd GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N)]
• 22 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1662. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican), Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Shaw, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1662. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Klemm (Republican), Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Smith voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R P; 30-12-10 (BO: N)]
• Six Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican Senator Kathleen Parker voted no Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Christine Radogno voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Adeline Geo-Karis voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Klemm voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1093, SB 1094, SB 1095, SB 1661, SB 1662]
Obama Voted Present On “Born Alive” Bills. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, providing that no abortion procedure that, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall address the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child and provides that a physician inducing an abortion that results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practicable attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child. Also provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Obama voted present on a bill to create the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act states that it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect the life of a child born alive as 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. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]
• 17 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1093. Senators Bowles, Del Valle, Halvorson, Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid and Viverito voted present on Senate Bill 1093. Senators Link, Madigan, Parker (Republican), Ronen, Silverstein and Welch voted no on Senate Bill 1093. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12]
• 18 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1094. Senators Bowles, Clayborne, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Myers (Republican), Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Viverito, Weaver (Republican) and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1094. Senators Del Valle, Link, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Silverstein voted no on Senate Bill 1094. [92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13]
• 18 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1095. Senators Bowles, Clayborne, Del Valle, Halvorson, Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1095. Senators Link, Madigan, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Silverstein voted no on Senate Bill 1095. [92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-5-13]
• Four Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican Senator Radogno voted present and Republican Parker voted no on Senate Bill 1093. Republican Senators Myers, Radogno, and Weaver voted present on Senate Bill 1094 and Republican Senator Parker voted against. Radogno voted present and Parker voted against Senate Bill 1095. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]
OBAMA SUPPORTED AND NARAL DIDN’T OPPOSE 2002’s FEDERAL BAIPA
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 Didn’t Oppose Federal BAIPA For 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: “In the statement, NARAL says, "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]
2003 BORN ALIVE LEGISLATION OBAMA OPPOSED IN COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE SAME IMPACT AS FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Planned Parenthood: “Although The Definition Is Similar To The Proposed Federal Legislation, Its Application Would Have A Different Impact On State Abortion Law.” Planned Parenthood wrote in a fact sheet, “SB 1082 & SB 1083 are NOT the same as the so-called “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” which was recently passed in the U. S. House. The federal legislation is considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. It does not amend or change current Illinois law. Federal law does not regulate abortion practice. That is left to the states. Therefore, it is state legislation that would affect abortion practice in Illinois. The package of SB 1082 & SB 1083 creates new provisions in Illinois law. Although the definition is similar to the proposed federal legislation, its application would have a different impact on state abortion law.” [Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet, 2/28/03]
Illinois State Medical Society Opposed SB 1082. Robert Kane, legal counsel to the Illinois State Medical Society, filed a committee witness slip stating the Medical Society opposition to Senate Bill 1082. [Committee Witness Slip, SB 1082]
2005 BILL THAT PASSED AFTER OBAMA LEFT THE SENATE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT OBAMA DEALT WITH IN HIS COMMITTEE IN 2003, WASN’T OPPOSED BY PRO-CHOICE GROUPS
2005 Bill: “Unlike Earlier Versions That Failed, This Bill Does Not Spell Out What Medical Care Doctors Must Provide When An Abortion Procedure Ends In A Live Birth. The Legislation Also Specifically Says It Has No Impact On Illinois Abortion Laws.” “Activists on both sides of the abortion debate found a rare patch of common ground Wednesday: legislation that says any live birth - even one that occurs during an abortion - is a person with legal rights. The measure was unanimously approved by the House civil law committee and now moves to the House floor. Unlike earlier versions that failed, this bill does not spell out what medical care doctors must provide when an abortion procedure ends in a live birth. The legislation also specifically says it has no impact on Illinois abortion laws. Still, anti-abortion groups are pleased. ‘What it does is support the legal principle that infants that are born alive, regardless of their stage of development or the cir stances of their birth, are persons and deserve protection under the law,’ said Dawn Behnke, an attorney who lobbies for the Illinois Federation for Right to Life. Abortion rights supporters said they were satisfied that this legislation is not an attempt to restrict abortion. Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said the legislation will simply ensure babies get the medical care their doctors and parents think is appropriate.” [AP, 5/9/05]
The Born Alive Bill That Passed Into Law In IL—In Addition to Including the Language from the Failed 2003 Legislation and Federal Law—Stated That “Nothing In This Section Shall Be Construed To Affect Existing Federal Or State Law Regarding Abortion” or “Generally Accepted Medical Standards.” 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 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 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 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. [94th GA, HB 984, PA 94-0559, 8/12/05]
BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS
Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should “Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “‘For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when ‘there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,’ an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes ‘it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’ And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique ‘most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus’ and perform the abortion in the presence of ‘a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.’” [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]
• Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes cons uted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]
READ PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S HISTORY OF "BORN ALIVE" LEGISLATION IN ILLINOIS
Download file
SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT "BORN ALIVE" BILLS--WHY OBAMA OPPOSED SOME AND SUPPORTED OTHERS
Language
Clearly Threatening RoeSo
Called "Neutrality Clause"Language
Explicitly Indicating No Effect on IL Abortion Law(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under
the law.
(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under
the law.(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 sapiens at any point prior to being "born
alive" as defined in this section.(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under
the law.
REMOVED BY AMENDMENT(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 sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as
defined in this Section.
ADDED BY AMENDMENT
(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 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.
Basically, the new bill wouldn't have allowed exceptions for partial birth abortions if the mother's health were in danger. Obama saw this as a way for the pro-life contingent to begin to chip away at RvW.
This boils down to a pro-life or pro-choice issue. Giving the "health" exemption is making it a free for all because every doctor can find a health issue to sign off on.
I'm not going to say Obama is radically pro-choice ... but he's pretty damn close.
opposing view of Obama's above stated position
Obama and 'Infanticide'
August 25, 2008
The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois.
Summary
Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he's conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they're "lying."
At issue is Obama's opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" en led to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.
Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.
We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.
Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
Analysis
NRLC posted do ents – which are so far undisputed – showing that Amendment 001 was adopted in committee and added the following text: "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 sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section." That wording matches exactly the comparable provision in the federal law.Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes attacked Barack Obama over this legislation during their 2004 race for the U.S. Senate, repeatedly accusing him of favoring "infanticide." Because of this, Keyes said, "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." Nevertheless, 70 percent of Illinois voters did vote for Obama, but now the issue has bubbled up again.
The National Right to Life Committee released a statement Aug. 11 saying it had obtained proof that Obama was misrepresenting his 2003 vote by stating that the Illinois "born alive" bill that he voted against in committee lacked a provision, contained in the 2002 federal law, that foreclosed any effect on abortion rights. Obama, in an Aug. 16 interview, then said critics of his "born alive" stance were "not telling the truth" and "lying." On Aug. 18, the NRLC updated its white paper and continued to accuse Obama of dissembling.
As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term "born-alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.
Earlier versions of the bill, in 2001 and 2002, had met with opposition from abortion-rights groups, which contended that they would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion. Obama stated this objection on the Senate floor in discussion of both bills.
However, Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion. On Aug. 16, the candidate repeated that again to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He also prefaced his remarks with an attack on those who said he had misrepresented his position on the state bills, saying they were "lying."
CBN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that's the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it's just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they're trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.
Obama: Let me clarify this right now.
Brody: Because it's getting a lot of play.
Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.
Who's "Lying?"
NRLC objects. They point to evidence that SB 1082, the bill Obama voted against in committee, was amended to contain a "neutrality clause" that is identical to one contained in the federal law. (The Illinois government's legislative information Web site shows the proposed amendment, but doesn't give results for votes in committee. NRLC's do ents show that the amendment was adopted.) Since he voted against the state bill, NRLC says, his claimed worry about Roe v. Wade is a smokescreen, intended to cover up his unconcern with the protection of infant lives.
In the NRLC white paper, Legislative Director Douglas Johnson writes that Obama "really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, 'A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.' And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public."
The do ents NRLC put out are a "Senate Republican's staff analysis" and a handwritten roll call confirming that the amendment was adopted. We contacted Patty Schuh, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Republicans, who stated that both do ents are genuine. We also contacted Brock Willeford, who was the staff aide whose name appears on the "staff analysis." He stated that he wrote the do ent immediately after the committee meeting and that he was in the room at the time of the votes. We asked Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Democrats, about this. She declined to answer our questions but did not dispute Willeford's firsthand account.
A June 30 Obama campaign statement responding to similar claims by conservative commentator William J. Bennett says that SB 1082 did not contain the same language as the federal BAIPA.
Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "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 sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]
The statement was still on Obama's Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of "lying." But Obama's claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.
Same Words, Different Effect?Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.
And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor says that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time.
But whether or not one accepts those arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition. He told Brody that the federal bill "was not the bill that was presented at the state level." That's technically true; though the "neutrality clause" was identical in the federal and state bills, there were other minor wording differences elsewhere. But the Obama campaign statement says that "Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language." That's true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against. In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, it’s false.
A Matter of DefinitionThe do ents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?
In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."
On the Record
While we don't have a record of Obama's 2003 comments on SB 1082, he did express his objection to the 2001 and 2002 bills.
Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.
Obama, Senate floor, 2001: 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 Cons ution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are en led to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – 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.
-by Jess Henig
If quotes have to be mined this deeply to try to prove a position, it's not going to be a campaign issue.
you're insulted because you probably know it's true.Yes, Obama is the Mavericks and McCain is the Spurs
so you agree 100% with every single liberal talking point and you claim to be a free thinker. you just proved you're a team member.I'm voting for Obama because I TOO am concerned with the direction of my country. I don't want my government starting any more dumb ing wars. I don't want my president appointing a ing horse jockey to FEMA and doing nothing while New Orleans drowns. I don't want my government to torture terrorism suspects and run a gulag down at Guantanamo. I don't want my government putting the regulatory agencies in the very hands of the people it's supposed to regulate. I don't want my government enacting economic policies that squeeze the middle class and widen the gap between the haves and haves not.
The Republicans have failed. They have failed in economic management, they have failed in foreign affairs, they have even failed in the basic maintenance of things like bridges and levees. They have FAILED. And you want to pull some self-righteous bull about how this is nothing more than the NBA transferred to politics for me. That's just so very insulting and stupid.
better than the you're a liar, Jill whats-her-face support domestic abuse, michael j fox is a cannibal responses I'm getting from you. Then you have the nerve to talk about lowest common denominator.A cursory google search would give you all the answers you need.
I don't give a about abortion one way or the other but Obama is lying to you all. He's got quite a history on this one topic alone that can't be simply shrugged off in a 30 second slyly chosen group of just words, just speeches.
What is pro-choice? That's basically pro-abortion. That's like Jefferson being pro-choice=pro-slavery because as bad as it was it was keeping the economy going
PROFESSOR GEORGE: Yeah, the prosecutors couldn't prosecute, they said, because the attorney general said there wasn't a law available that was adequate for a prosecution, to sustain a prosecution. There are technical reasons for that. I could go into it. So the legislature took up a bill that would fix that, that would provide a basis. It's called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. And if it had been enacted in Illinois -- eventually it was enacted at the federal level and signed into law by President Bush. But without it babies could continue to be discarded in this way and without it they would at least be given basic comfort care. And those who were capable of surviving would be given full medical care so that they would be able to continue with their lives. A few people opposed this and the only person in the Illinois legislature to actually speak out against it and try to stop it was Barack Obama. He then made up a series of stories when he was confronted with what he had done for why he had done it. He said, for example, at one point that, well, he would have supported the bill but he was afraid that the bill would cut back on the availability of abortion itself because there was not a so-called abortion neutrality clause as there was in the federal bill. He accused people who criticized him on that of being liars. Well, then those people there at the national committee produced, Glenn, the do entary evidence showing, proving that Barack Obama had in fact voted against a bill with a neutrality clause. So the people he called liars showed that he was lying. He then shifted his story and said that the only reason that he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was that there was already legislation on the book protecting those babies. So the trouble with that was that the attorney general was declining to prosecute precisely because there was not a law on the books adequate to the task. So Senator Obama is simply making up stories here to cover really a de able decision that he made. He should simply admit that what he did was wrong. He was overzealous in trying to protect abortion and had gotten so overzealous that he was actually protecting a form of infanticide and that he's sorry, that people make mistakes. But he is not doing that. He is making up stories and those stories are very easily then proven to be false by anyone who looks into the facts.
Last edited by Anti.Hero; 10-17-2008 at 11:50 PM.
Hypothetically, if your wife was pregnant with a child, and the doctor says there is a complication with pregnancy a week before the child is to be born. They tell you that either your wife can abort the baby to save her life, or she can try and have the baby and probably die and have a small chance the baby will live.
You want to give this decsion to someone else?
Because the way they write up these bills have no protection for the mother. The baby is supposed to live no matter what. I'm sorry but I'd choose my wife over a baby in a heartbeat, without a second thought. That's just me though.
It baffles my mind how people can continue to be single issue voters with so many pressing issues facing our nation. I'm particularly peeved at those who consistently vote for candidates based solely on their abortion positions.
I would ask those of you who are strongly pro-life the following question. What has George W. Bush done to stop abortions in this country? The answer is, not much and this is with full Republican control of the Congress and the nomination of two Supreme Court justices. He and the Republican Party have absolutely no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade. If it hasn't happened by now it will likely never happen, the Republicans won't sniff an overwhelming majority of power like that for quite some time. Abortion is a wedge issue, and the Republican Party cannot win elections without them. Gay marriage, abortion, gun rights, etc.
If you want to cut down the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies we have got to teach comprehensive sex education to teenagers. Use condoms and get your facts straight about birth control, STD's, etc. It's the only responsible way to do this. Abstinence only education has been a resounding failure for obvious reasons.
Furthermore, I'm alarmed to find so many supposed "pro-lifers" are in favor of the death penalty.
I'd wager to see the vast majority of Christians in this country are super-market Christians. They pick and choose what they like. It's the ultimate hypocrisy.
Agreed. I made this exact point in another thread. People don't realize that these are just topics that get the "gimmie" votes. They say they are against something, but they do absolutely nothing to change it when they have the chance.
This is the United States of America. People can vote for whatever reason they see most important. Who are you to tell anyone differently?
Did you hurt yourself making that stretch?
@ comparing unborn human life to a murderer or child rapist.
In other words, it isn't so much a pro-life thing as it is a pro-innocence thing... right?Did you hurt yourself making that stretch?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote