Posted on 08/21/2008 10:23:34 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Editorial Note: People forget this issue came up more than once in Illinois. In 2001, Obama was concerned about abortion rights and the impact the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would have on abortion rights. In 2002, those concerns were addressed and fixed in the legislation. Now Obama's concerns were more clear. His views on life had no where else to hide.
What has Barack Obama said about his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?
Obama has made several points, which we should recount.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Obama the aider and abettor to murder of the unborn.
This will not phase liberals as they could care less.
bump.
bookmark for later
Well to be fair, in the Saddlebrook forum Barrack did say he did favor some restrictions on late-term abortions. Little did we know he meant six weeks after birth.
Obama is one sick person.
Obama fights for abortionist’s rights to throw live babies in the dumpsters.
In a sane world, this issue would sink Obama. His actions here are indefensible.
A “nonviable fetus” with movement?
You're preaching to the choir here. We already know this.
Rush playing the audio now.
Yes, these are the kinds of things you read about and think.....this is not a ‘humane society’ anymore.......its more like a roving pack of hyenas...... :o
You can listen to it here:
“Obama lied and babies died.”
You’re statement is right and it’s true. But, when I read that, I’m not sure that I could use it as a mantra. Not because it’s wrong, but because it makes me sick to my stomach thinking about it, much less trying to use it in a political conversation.
Then, contrast that the leftist who chant “Bush lied, people died”. Points out who sick these people really are; that is a mantra that not one leftist would bat an eye about. And the mantra is a lie. I just don’t understand how these people look at themselves in the mirror.
I’m listening. Obama sounds so flat and unemotional. He’s talking about a PRECIOUS BABY!
I’m with Rush, he sends chills down my spine!
Sounds like Obambi doesn’t believe in the Bill of Rights.
Doc told him that under no circumstances would she do abortions even if it meant she had to quit being a doctor.
Recently the Supreme Court of California said , doctors could not refuse to treat a patient because of religious beliefs.
I believe that ruling is one more step at forcing docs everywhere into performing abortions on demand.
If I understand correctly, Obambi is saying that if the Dr. made a mistake by not really killing the baby and it comes out alive and it’s showing signs of life, that same Dr. (if you want to call it that) would do anything in his/her power to save the life he/she just tried to terminate? I have never heard of a case like that in the media or anywhere else. I have never heard of a “Dr.” saving the life of a baby who was being aborted and had the AUDACITY of living.
I’m sure this feeling is mutual: This makes me sick!
Obama — the PROTECTOR of ABORTIONISTS, but not babies who are born alive!!
A package of Born Alive bills was introduced three times during Obama’s tenure.
The cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which defined legal personhood. This definition was identical to the federal BAIPA (1) which was drafted from the definition of “live birth” created by the World Health Organization in 1950 (2) and adopted by the United Nations in 1955 (3)....
Here I will only post links to Obama’s actions and votes on the cornerstone bill, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The bill number changed every year it was reintroduced.
2001
Senate Bill 1095 (4), Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Go here to view Obama’s “no” vote (5) in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 28, 2001.
Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor (6), March 30, 2001, pages 84-90
Obama’s verbal oppostion to Born alive, (7) “And if we’re 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 we’re probably crossing the lines in terms of unconstitutionality.” March 30, 2001
Obama’s “present” vote on the IL Senate floor ( 8 ), March 30, 2001
2002
Senate Bill 1662 ( 9 ), Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Go here to view Obama’s “no” vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee (10) on March 6, 2002. (ABC inadvertently coped bill #1663, a companion bill. The vote for the Born Alive bill, #1662, was identical.)
Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor (11), April 4, 2002, pages 28-35
Obama’s “no” vote on the IL Senate floor (12), April 4, 2002
2003
Senate Bill 1082 (13), Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. They sent Born Alive to the infamously liberal Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama (14).
As can be seen on the Actions docket (15), Obama held Born Alive on March 6, 2003, from even being voted on in committee. It is also important to note from the docket that on March 13, 2003, Obama stopped the senate sponsor from adding the lately discussed clarification paragraph (16) from the federal BAIPA, to make the bills absolutely identical.
1. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2175
2. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/indunder5mortality/en/
3. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/natality/natmethods.htm
4. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1095.html
5. http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_32701.pdf
6. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
7. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
8. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1095_03302001_030000T.PDF
9. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1662.html
10. http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_3502.pdf
11. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf
12. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1662_04042002_014000T.pdf
14. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?GA=93&committeeID=85
The info and links I provided do no good if left here, copy and spread the word.
Icky.
bfl
I can make absolutely no sense of this statement.
It can't be any clearer: to Obama, the highest priority is not saving a born life. It is to keep as sacred the wishes of the mother.
Key to pinning Obama down on this point is to know what he feels should be done if a mother, having just given birth in an alley, decided to leave her baby in the dumpster.
“in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead”
that’s pretty clinical for a senator, isn’t it?
Good on you, doc.
It’s pathetic. Perhaps this country and definitely parts of this country the modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah...probably worse.
Folks, he’s not the only one.
Barb Boxer is on record in the Senate as stating that the baby doesn’t deserve rights until you take it home from the hospital.
I have a feeling that a lot more dhimmirats have this core belief than would publicly admit it.
I don’t think you can say enough about this Obama fellow to turn the Americans stomach!
I have him on youtube telling about baby that survived the abortion and the Christians are still willing to vote for evil.
We are living in a sick society and this is proof.
Obama has lied so many times it is hard to keep the record straight and the Christians are still willing to vote for him.
According to the latest polls, Obama won the debate as far as Christians goes because John McCain lost points with the Christians. Very sick!
And, since they ARE indefensible,
the leftist Obama supporters will just simply deny his position on this.
Just like
“I don’t support socialism, so Democrats aren’t socialist”
“Key to pinning Obama down on this point is to know what he feels should be done if a mother, having just given birth in an alley, decided to leave her baby in the dumpster.”
He has already answered that question and he answered it for his own daughters: he wouldn’t want them punished with an unwanted baby.
The callousness of his statements should disturb most “normal” people (note: leftists are not normal people).
He is the liberator -
the woman would experience too much burden on her decision if the botched abortion resulted in a live child.
After all, she was told it was no big deal, it’s not a baby, it’s just a punishment for having sex.
Which would explain why that nurse who had testified before Mr. Obama had to go into that disposal area and cradle the aborted infant untill it died. Right. Disgusting.
Obama is garbage.
“Obama the aider and abettor to murder of the unborn”...
and the BORN........
Someone needs to buy an ad in the major newspapers of the nation and show the country what Obama has said. Maybe someone should post this on all forums on the net—make a video and post on YouTube. Letters should be sent to all the papers in the land with this data.
They should be posted in their entirety on FR so EVERYONE can see he's not telling the truth.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
92ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY
REGULAR SESSION
SENATE TRANSCRIPT
20th Legislative Day March 30, 2001
law that allows for the court to still have discretion.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Further discussion? If not, the question is, shall Senate Bill
1080 pass. Those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed, vote Nay. The
voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who
wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Madam Secretary.
On this question, there are 53 voting Aye, none voting Nay, none
voting Present. And Senate Bill 1080, having received the -- the
required constitutional majority, is declared passed. Senate Bill
1081. Senator Clayborne. Senate Bill 1089. Senator Burzynski.
Senate Bill 1093. Senator O'Malley. Read the bill, Madam
Secretary.
ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:
Senate Bill 1093.
(Secretary reads title of bill)
3rd Reading of the bill.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Thank you, Madam President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Senate. Senate Bill 1093, as amended, provides that no abortion
procedure which, 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 assess the child's viability and provide
medical care for the child. The bill further provides that if
there is a medical emergency, a physician inducing or performing
an abortion which results in a live born child shall provide for
the soonest practical 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
84
child. The bill additionally provides that a live child born as a
result of an -- of -- of an abortion procedure shall be fully
recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection
under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good
medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical
records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the
child. I'd be pleased to answer any questions there may be.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Any discussion? Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor yield for
questions?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
He indicates he will.
SENATOR OBAMA:
This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary
Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just
make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is
about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during
the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is
that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where
the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is
still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns
that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not
being properly cared for during that brief period of time that
they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate
sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the
way children are treated following their birth under these
85
circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my
opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that
appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of
the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it
deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of
members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an
abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that
your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the
testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to
craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect
to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this
fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and
so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much
difference with respect to how we vote, 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 -- 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. The
second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is
that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide
86
treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to
describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the
Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or
cannot take place. And if we're 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 try to keep that child alive, then we're probably
crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said
before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the
last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of
here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it
was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh
Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I
-- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important
to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we
might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt
with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child
was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're
going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I
think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we
often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting
Present.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Further discussion? If not, Senator O'Malley, to close.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Thank you, Madam President and Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Senate. The one thing the previous speaker did say is that this
is a passionate issue. And -- however, I don't think it's
challengeable on constitutional grounds in the manner that was
described. This is essentially very simple. The Constitution
does not say that a child born must be viable in order to live and
be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be
87
born.
need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinois and,
frankly, in the other forty-nine states and in the halls of
Washington, D.C., to make sure that we secure and protect those
rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, resecure
and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in
America, so be it, and it is constitutional. I would appreciate
your support
"as some might describe it"???!!!
What an ass!
The full text should probably be posted on a separate thread:
"Obama's 'Born Alive' Infanticide Comments: In His Own Words"
The liberal’s need to maintain the ruse that the unborn are not living persons is intense, as shown with Obama’s phrasing, but the reality is democrats don’t really give a damn if these ‘things’ being slaughtered are human persons. Protecting ALL rites of slaughtering the alive unborn are the empowerment scheme for the demcorat party and more important to democrap voters than the children being slaughtered, as black people prove every election cycle that returns democrats to office under the ‘awning’ of the massive number of alive unborn black children slaughtered every day because democrats oppose ending this evil.
Sean Hannity allowed on air a black woman who tried to make the case that Obama was more accurate than McCain in his response to the ‘dealing with evil’ question because evil can only be defeated by God. I was screaming at the radio for Sean to ask this poor buffoon how black people continuing to promote the evil of aborting their posterity and empowering the demon democrats to remain the defenders of this evil was not aiding evil! Poor gentleman Sean dropped the ball.
There is no other way to read this. He did not want children "born alive" from botched abortions protected as children and legal persons with constitutional rights. Talk about Solomonic Justice!
The child is alive, outside the womb. How could it not be a "child"???
He followed the talking points from Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby.
He couldn't vote to protect these children because that might mean "equal protection" for children in the womb! Just...WOW!
Great piece of data organization by the way. Thanks so much for that referencing list of links to pdf files.
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.