Posted on 02/14/2008 7:58:12 PM PST by Anti-Hillary
Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.
He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."
"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.
In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.
State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.
Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.
"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."
In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"
Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.
On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."
"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."
That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."
On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.
That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."
In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.
A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."
In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.
Thanks for the link Mike.
Obama is the conservative choice in 2008.
I suspect that these facts, along with others, will come out in the general election. The MSM will try to protect him but there are other ways of getting out his extreme voting record.
Stem Cells?
“..we define a pre-viable fetus as a person...”
The minute anyone uses the term “pre-viable fetus” they are able to disconnect their conscious, but NOT completely. He can talk and talk, abortion is killing an innocent child in the womb, period.
Perhaps he is the Anti-Christ?
Don’t worry, I will never vote for Obama, but McCain and I still need to come to terms.
Or, in Obama’s case, out of the womb!
——”Persons,” of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.-——
One would think that a black person would be a little more aware of how important being a full “person” is. Back in the slave days they were counted as 3/5’s of a person when it came time for the census and taxes.
Also - one would think that a black person, given our history of slavery, would be even more in tune with that whole “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” thing.
It’s ironic isn’t it? Obama supports a position that was originated to cull the negro race? That’s the truth that no one wants to discuss (on either side).
Hes just a muslim pretending to be a Christain.
My thoughts exactly.
“It’s ironic isn’t it? Obama supports a position that was originated to cull the negro race? That’s the truth that no one wants to discuss (on either side).
So true. Politics at its self-serving worst.
Plus, “Obama for Eugenics 2008” isn’t as appealing as the whole “Time for change” rubish.
The world is a numbers game.
http://blog.balder.org/?p=343
Bump.
It’s hard for me to believe that a human being could hold such a position, but there are such people.
None of the 3 candidates make me feel reassured. McCain still says he would sign the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, which means that if congress does McCain’s bidding, with the addition of millions of new votes via amnesty, eventually Dems would overwhelmingly control both houses and the presidency. That would be the end of pro-life members on the SCOTUS, after the current members step down.
I remember in the 1980s a cover of National Review in which Reagan had a tear in his eye when he thought of the power Dems would get from rapidly increasing immigration.
I am hoping that McCain will have an epiphany, and will see what his policies will lead to. The total end of legal protection of newborns and the unborn would be unthinkable to me, but firm Dem control of congress, POTUS, and SCOTUS would cost us even more than that.
The U.S. is so unbelievably barbaric in so many ways, yet somehow the country is producing the fantastic soldiers whose stories somehow leak out of Iraq—the incredible courage, and kindness, and faith. I think there are three groups keeping this country from being destroyed with fire and brimstone: cloistered monks and nuns, praying for all of us, pro-lifers, and our soldiers who daily perform incredible acts of kindness for so many in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The ones inviting fire and brimstone are the millions who have killed 50 million of their own babies, the campaigners against marriage, and the political pro-abortion Communicants and the bishops (Wuerl of Washington, Mahony of Los Angeles, etc., etc.) who are too chicken to stop them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.