Obama Supports Infanticide?

[Shady]

Barack Obama and Born-Alive

In 2001, Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons.” The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted “present” on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.

In 2003, a similar bill came before Obama’s health committee. He voted against it. But this time, the legislation was slightly different. This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush.

Link

Looks like Barack has some explaining to do. Because on the surface, this is pretty disgusting, and I hope for his sake, he has a reasonable defense for this lapse in judgement.

[M.Dancer]

[GostHacked]

One votes with a Yay or Nay .. not a 'present'. To me this indicated he was present during the voting,

At the end of your articleit Quotes Barak

...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.

So because it was not the same as the Federal Bill he voted against it. If he voted yes for the Federal Bill and No for the State Bill, it might be because the two bills are different in some way.

EDIT

Alright .. so he voted against it after the amendmants were put in to match the Federal Bill. There has to be something more here.

Edited August 19, 2008 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

EDIT

Alright .. so he voted against it after the amendmants were put in to match the Federal Bill. There has to be something more here.

The amendments didn't "match" the federal bill; the latter version was not identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. "There are MAJOR differences in state and federal bills, including the fact that the federal bill included a“Neutrality Clause:" This link clarifies the facts from the claims. Scroll down and you will see the differences between the federal and proposed state laws. Obama voted against it because as it stood it could have undermined Roe vs Wade. Furthermore,

Furthermore: 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.

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.

Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]

So Illinois law already stated that any child born alive as a result of an abortion should be provided with medical care, so it makes one wonder why the new law was being introduced. It certainly looks as if the intent very well could have been as a challenge to Roe vs Wade.

But since these babies were already getting the needed medical care by law, Obama most certainly was not "supporting infanticide" by his vote(s). He was supporting a woman's right to choose, and he made that very clear when he "spoke against the bill."

The "Obama supports infanticide" claim/accusation is nothing short of a smear campaign.

Edited August 19, 2008 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

So I suppose the Question is, why did he vote against a bill that would have strengthened an existing law?

Maybe abortion survivors don't grow up to be democrats...

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe abortion survivors don't grow up to be democrats...

[GostHacked]

But since these babies were already getting the needed medical care by law, Obama most certainly was not "supporting infanticide" by his vote(s). He was supporting a woman's right to choose, and he made that very clear when he "spoke against the bill."

The "Obama supports infanticide" claim/accusation is nothing short of a smear campaign.

That does clear it up to me. So often a bill's language will be misleading and confusing for many. If he is standing on a Pro-Choice platform, then I support that.

[Guest American Woman]

That does clear it up to me. So often a bill's language will be misleading and confusing for many. If he is standing on a Pro-Choice platform, then I support that.

I do too. As I pointed out previously, there's already a law to protect babies who are born alive after an abortion attempt, making it a felony not to give them care and do everything possible to help in their survival. It seems as if this law just changed the language to make it more ambiguous; ie: a possible challenge of Roe vs Wade. It's not "identical" to the federal bill, as had been stated in the opening post.

[Peter F]

I think its because Obama likes killing babies.

[Stephen Best]

How is it possible for anyone to take seriously that Barack Obama--or anyone for that matter --supports infanticide? It is truly astounding what right wing dogmatists and religious extremists can be suckered into believing and spouting.

If anyone would like to know the truth about this issue, see Is Obama "Pro-Infanticide"? Analyzing a Vote in the Illinois Senate and The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide".

Obama's votes were not about supporting infanticide, they were about opposing bad laws. Does anyone really think that doctors are letting babies born alive die?

And by the way, just how many aborted babies are born alive every year? Is the number around zero? If it's not zero how many of those babies have doctors simply let die? Is that number around zero, too?

[M.Dancer]

How is it possible for anyone to take seriously that Barack Obama--or anyone for that matter --supports infanticide? It is truly astounding what right wing dogmatists and religious extremists can be suckered into believing and spouting.

If anyone would like to know the truth about this issue, see Is Obama "Pro-Infanticide"? Analyzing a Vote in the Illinois Senate and The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide".

Obama's votes were not about supporting infanticide, they were about opposing bad laws. Does anyone really think that doctors are letting babies born alive die?

I can understand Barry's decision perfectly.

The right to terminate a pregnancy is not based, in other words, on an interest in procuring the death of an unwanted fetus, even though prior to viability, it is impossible to separate termination from fetal death. The definition of “viability,” as articulated in Roe v. Wade, is the time at which the removal of a fetus from its mother’s womb is potentially consistent with its survival. And it is at viability, under Roe, that abortion loses its constitutional protection (other than to avert threats to the mother’s life or health

In otherwords it is vitaly important to kill the baby before it is born...and that's why he opposed giving the fetus a second chance to grow up and live and vote against abortion.

Makes perect sense.

And by the way, just how many aborted babies are born alive every year? Is the number around zero? If it's not zero how many of those babies have doctors simply let die? Is that number around zero, too?

Umm...just this week in Israel. The baby, aborted for health reason was found alive in the morgue refrigerator.

Given that the population of the US is 42 times the pop of Israel, and Israel has an abortion rate 1/2 that of the US....I guess the answer might be much greater than zero

[Stephen Best]

Umm...just this week in Israel. The baby, aborted for health reason was found alive in the morgue refrigerator.

Given that the population of the US is 42 times the pop of Israel, and Israel has an abortion rate 1/2 that of the US....I guess the answer might be much greater than zero

You found one report in the world. Assuming that the unprecedented event in Israel of doctors making a mistake is a statistically relevant sample for the rest of the world is nonsense. As I say, you found one example. So are you suggesting that the doctors knew the baby was alive and just disposed of her? Also, read the story here. The abortion occurred because "doctors at Western Galilee hospital in northern Israel were forced to abort [the] pregnancy because internal bleeding had occurred."

Let's not abuse a exceedingly rare and tragic event, by making it into something it was not.

[M.Dancer]

Also, read the story here. The abortion occurred because "doctors at Western Galilee hospital in northern Israel were forced to abort [the] pregnancy because internal bleeding had occurred."

That what I said.

The baby, aborted for health reason

Let's not abuse a exceedingly rare and tragic event, by making it into something it was not

So in otherwords if murder was exceedingly rare, there would be no need to make it a crime?

Apparently some abortions do survive....

http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/giannajessen.asp

http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/amy.asp

http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.HTML

Can't imagine how many infants are aborted, left to die. Lucky for them Barry will make sure they are terminated (a wonderful euphemism for killing) before they are born....DILATION AND EXTRACTION FOR EVERYONE!!!!

[Drea]

That what I said.

So in otherwords if murder was exceedingly rare, there would be no need to make it a crime?

Apparently some abortions do survive....

http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/giannajessen.asp

http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/amy.asp

http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.HTML

Can't imagine how many infants are aborted, left to die. Lucky for them Barry will make sure they are terminated (a wonderful euphemism for killing) before they are born....DILATION AND EXTRACTION FOR EVERYONE!!!!

So it's a good thing that we counsel women to make the decision early in pregnancy right? Instead of hounding them with gory pictures right? Better she make the decision right away than wait six months right?

A 2 or 3 month old fetus doesn't have much chance of surviving outside the womb as it is not "complete" so an abortion early in pregancy guarantees that the fetus is actually dead.

Abortions for convenience sake should be done within the first three months. After that there should be restrictions IMO. Of course I haven't had the chance to read the article, so there may have been circumstances beyond "minor internal bleeding" that led the woman and her doctors to choose to abort the fetus.

And Dancer, there will be no dilation and extraction for you -- this club is for womb-holders only. *sings* sooo sorrrry.

[Stephen Best]

So in other words if murder was exceedingly rare, there would be no need to make it a crime?

That, of course, was not my argument, and I'm sure you are aware of that. Which suggests a deliberate distortion of my position in order to make a point. This is what extremists are doing to Obama. Clearly, it is ludicrous to make the charge that Obama supports infanticide. It is idiotic to believe such a charge. And malicious to spread it. Moreover, in my view, those who oppose Obama's and the majority of people's position on abortion do themselves and their case harm when they resort to such antics.

[M.Dancer]

That, of course, was not my argument, and I'm sure you are aware of that. Which suggests a deliberate distortion of my position in order to make a point. This is what extremists are doing to Obama. Clearly, it is ludicrous to make the charge that Obama supports infanticide. It is idiotic to believe such a charge. And malicious to spread it. Moreover, in my view, those who oppose Obama's and the majority of people's position on abortion do themselves and their case harm when they resort to such antics.

Then your statements regarding its supposed rarity were merely filler? No need to have them..just adding colour commentary? In the future could you colour your colour commentary red....makes it easier so no one will mistake your arguments with the arguments you make

I don't thinks Obama supports infanticide....no, he supports fetuscide. Kill them before they have rights.

Anyway, barring pictures of McCain eating dead babies, Obama's positions are moot.

Edited August 20, 2008 by M.Dancer

[AngusThermopyle]

I think its because Obama likes killing babies.

Does he eat Kittens too?

[Shady]

Obama's pathetic defense of his vote.

Audio

[Guest American Woman]

How is it possible for anyone to take seriously that Barack Obama--or anyone for that matter --supports infanticide? It is truly astounding what right wing dogmatists and religious extremists can be suckered into believing and spouting.

What's even more amazing is that they continue to spout it even after it's been clearly pointed out that Illinois has already had a law for over 20 years making it a felony not to provide all medical means possible to save these babies who survive abortion attempts. I won't say that they continue to be suckered into believing i,t because I can't believe people are that stupid, although I could be wrong. Mostly I think people will say anything, and continue to say it even after it's been clearly refuted, just to keep pushing their agenda.

If anyone would like to know the truth about this issue, see Is Obama "Pro-Infanticide"? Analyzing a Vote in the Illinois Senate and The Next Smear Against Obama: "Infanticide".

I already posted a link to the truth about the issue, yet here are the same people still spouting lies.

Obama's votes were not about supporting infanticide, they were about opposing bad laws. Does anyone really think that doctors are letting babies born alive die?

Once again for those who keep repeating the lie: it's a felony to let babies born alive die in Illionois and it has been for over 20 years. The law Obama voted against would have done nothing more for these babies than is already done. All it did was make the language more ambiguous so it could perhaps challenge Wade vs. Roe.

Edited August 21, 2008 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

More amazing is Obama's support for abortion on a viable fetus. Clearly the fetus must be liquidated in the womb so there is no chance it is born and rescued.

[Guest American Woman]

You found one report in the world. Assuming that the unprecedented event in Israel of doctors making a mistake is a statistically relevant sample for the rest of the world is nonsense. As I say, you found one example. So are you suggesting that the doctors knew the baby was alive and just disposed of her? Also, read the story here. The abortion occurred because "doctors at Western Galilee hospital in northern Israel were forced to abort [the] pregnancy because internal bleeding had occurred."

Let's not abuse a exceedingly rare and tragic event, by making it into something it was not.

That says it all, and because the lies keep getting repeated, is worth repeating: Let's not abuse a exceedingly rare and tragic event, by making it into something it was not.

This situation has nothing to do with this issue; again, in Illinois it's already a law to knowingly let babies such as this one die. A doctor must, by law, be on hand for the sole purpose of giving the baby medical care in an effort to save the baby's life. This happened in Israel, not the United States, much less Illinois, so I repeat: it has nothing at all to do with this issue.

So are you suggesting that the doctors knew the baby was alive and just disposed of her?

It sounds as if that's exactly what's being suggested, which is totally and completely bizarre. But even if they had, it would still have nothing to do with Obama and Illinois since it would have been a felony to have knowingly acted in such a way there. But I can't believe anyone is dense enough to believe the doctors in Israel deliberately disposed of this baby.

Edited August 21, 2008 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

I'm amazed with all the lies people keep spreading about Obama not supporting the killing of viable fetuses....I suppose that nothing could blacken the imnage of the messaih in their eyes.

Sad really....

[M.Dancer]

But I can't believe anyone is dense enough to believe the doctors in Israel deliberately disposed of this baby.

I can't and will not believe that someone is dishonest enough to put force that the above was the case.

Therefore I must conclude there are severe cognitive issues at hand.

[Shady]

it's a felony to let babies born alive die in Illionois and it has been for over 20 years.

You can keep repeating that mantra, but it doesn't make it true, or at the very least, true in the case of Christ Hospital. And Obama doesn't refer to it at all in his defense of his vote. It's the "burden" of having another physician actually have to care for the abortion surviving baby. Damn those burdens. :angry:

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=American Woman: "it's a felony to let babies born alive die in Illionois and it has been for over 20 years."

You can keep repeating that mantra, but it doesn't make it true, or at the very least, true in the case of Christ Hospital.

Of course it's true. Are you paying attention at all?? I cited the law that makes it true. I don't know what your reference to Christ Hospital is about, but there are no exemptions to the law. It's as I stated: It's a felony not to attend to babies born alive after an abortion attempt in Illinois. That's a fact.