If you haven’t seen this yet ... ker-ping
Senator Obama: "As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved."
"...And if were placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as as is necessary to keep that child alive, then were probably crossing the lines in terms of unconstitutionality."
"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."
Obama is saying there is a problem granting a child "born alive" in a botched abortion the same rights to protection and medical care as a "nine-month-old" child. This has to be the most absurd and extreme abortionist argumentation ever. This goes WAY beyond Roe vs. Wade.