Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

They'd be angry at Obama if he was caught saying the N-word. Supporting InfanticideŚNot so much.

Posted on 08/21/2008 1:46:46 PM PDT by cpforlife.org

“Just words! Just Speeches!”

I’d like Freeper thoughts on this: Obama would be in serious trouble with the media and his party if a video was released of him saying the N-word. But infanticide? They’re angrier at the people bringing the facts to light than Obama for being such an evil beast.

Hypocrisy doesn’t begin to describe it.

Barack Obama’s words and speeches from the floor of the Illinois State Senate are not “Just words!” they are not “Just Speeches!” They directly affected the outcome of the rule of law. Laws that were dealing with life and death situations.

Rush asked Monday: “What did Obama do when he saw this evil? (Infanticide) Did he confront it as one of God's soldiers, or did he facilitate it? He facilitated it. He facilitated the evil.”

Can we imagine what Barack Obama would facilitate as president?

He would almost certainly facilitate the return of the “fairness” doctrine. He’d probably apply criminal penalties to “words” and “speeches” deemed offensive by his morally superior liberal brethren.

And he would definitely advance the culture of death with more abortion more infanticide and more euthanasia.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; abortion; election; electionpresident; elections; infanticide; murder; obama

1 posted on 08/21/2008 1:47:20 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

It is so ironic that people get more upset about the “n-word” than the brutal massacre of 50 million babies...


2 posted on 08/21/2008 1:51:01 PM PDT by wk4bush2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Audio Found - Obama arguing against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act . . . .

(Hear Audio) . . . .
http://www.blogsforjohnmccain.com/explosive-audio-found-obama-arguing-against-born-alive-infant-protection-act

Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf

More transcripts and details:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html

3 posted on 08/21/2008 1:51:11 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Oops. This is the text that corresponds to the audio:

Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf

4 posted on 08/21/2008 1:52:53 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

And it sadly proves how sick they are.

Obama and his party are so morally dead that they can no longer see the evil that they do.


5 posted on 08/21/2008 1:56:20 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
“What political issue could possibly outweigh this human devastation” of 40 million deaths through abortion? “The answer, of course, is that there is none. … It is time to put away the arguments of political spin masters that only serve to justify abortion killing. We have heard a great deal this year about the need for change. But at the same time we are told that one thing cannot change – namely, the abortion regime of Roe vs. Wade.

“It is time that we demand real change, and real change means the end of Roe vs. Wade.”

Carl Anderson, Knights of Columbus - Annual Report

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

6 posted on 08/21/2008 1:57:43 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

“Obama and his party are so morally dead that they can no longer see the evil that they do.”

Exactly! They justify abortion by conveniently saying that “a fetus is not a baby and so a woman can do what she wants.”


7 posted on 08/21/2008 2:00:20 PM PDT by wk4bush2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

“It is time that we demand real change, and real change means the end of Roe vs. Wade.”

AMEN!!! The holocaust (and yes, abortion is a holocaust) must end! There are many people across the nation (including myself) praying for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the ending of abortion in America! It will happen, in Jesus’ Name!


8 posted on 08/21/2008 2:03:00 PM PDT by wk4bush2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

In the words of James Carville, “He smokes cigarettes and wants to kill your baby”.


9 posted on 08/21/2008 2:04:50 PM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

“Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives”

www.lifecyclebooks.com

http://www.amazon.com/Dehumanizing-Vulnerable-When-Games-Lives/dp/0919225195


10 posted on 08/21/2008 2:06:27 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

And rank and file democrats justify voting for them because

THEY don’t support infanticide, so they know that their candidate can’t either,

and THEY don’t like socialism, so they know that their candidate doesn’t either.


11 posted on 08/21/2008 2:06:29 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Could the worldview that humans are nothing more than evolved apes have anything to do with it?


12 posted on 08/21/2008 2:07:24 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
He's completely unacceptable. So unacceptable, that although I vowed never to vote for McCain, I now plan to do exactly that.
13 posted on 08/21/2008 2:11:43 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“Could the worldview that humans are nothing more than evolved apes have anything to do with it?”

I think it does. I heard someone say that evolution kills people because since people have been taught that we are nothing more than evolved apes/fungi, etc, they place a lesser value on human life. That’s why we have abortion, school shootings, etc....


14 posted on 08/21/2008 2:11:56 PM PDT by wk4bush2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: trisham

exactly me too.


15 posted on 08/21/2008 2:20:34 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrB

I am certain the connection is there!

The children are being taught that life is an accident


16 posted on 08/21/2008 2:24:29 PM PDT by Bigmouthbass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

“It is so ironic that people get more upset about the “n-word” than the brutal massacre of 50 million babies...”

Classic example of symbolism over substance.


17 posted on 08/21/2008 2:27:47 PM PDT by GWMcClintock (The last thing the US needs is B.O.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrB
“THEY don’t support infanticide, so they know that their candidate can’t either,”

Bingo. I watched Obama defend his spin and lies. Something like can you imagine that I'd want them to actually kill a born baby!! It's ridiculous!! It defies imagination! Then I watched Alan Colmes parrot that tune almost verbatim.

And apparently it works on unthinking people. But it is near impossible to believe. It also highlights how Obama and libs have such a distorted view of evil.

18 posted on 08/21/2008 2:28:05 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Forgot to ping you, Marvin.


19 posted on 08/21/2008 2:28:51 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

You know what pisses me off more than BHO himself?

He said in a speech that under Bush, a pro-life president, that abortions hadn’t declined.

2 things wrong with that.

A) It’s a lie
B) Doesn’t CONGRESS pass the laws?

How long did we have a majority congress, before the whackos cheated themselves back into the majority?


20 posted on 08/21/2008 2:29:53 PM PDT by Weya (Barack Hussein Obama hates the United States of America. No question about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Pro-life bump!


21 posted on 08/21/2008 2:32:25 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
I'm currently studying the documents from the March 30, 2001 IL Senate Session, pages 84-87. I think we pro-lifers have passed too quickly over this session. There is some very revealing material in Obama's efforts to defeat the protection bill and O'Malley's response to Obama regarding the personhood of the born child. Obama's effrort appears to clearly be aimed at preventing the born child from having personhood defining that survivor of the abortion attempt.

Obama approach defeating the bill from the direction of claiming that defining a 'pre-viable' fetus or child as a person would effectively end the legality of killing these persons. He directed his argument to misdirecting attention to the pre-born, and O'Malley redirects the focus to the already born to whom the bill was designed for protection.

Obama goes on to assert that the bill contains things which would cause it to not pass constitutional review, but the important thing to note in his words is the rhetorical effort to prevent personhood from being conveyed to these 'fetuses or children' --his words, so we know he is more than wiulling to defend the killing of ALIVE CHILDREN SO LONG AS THEY ARE IN A WOMB.

I now have the pdf transcript on my laptop as word doc so I could post the relevant passages if you wish?

22 posted on 08/21/2008 3:12:58 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
Abort this: Federal funding for abortions!
23 posted on 08/21/2008 3:22:10 PM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

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. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. citizen, and we

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


24 posted on 08/21/2008 3:56:39 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Thank you! I have copied and pasted that into a file.

Obama has a stone cold heart.


25 posted on 08/21/2008 7:24:13 PM PDT by auboy (Men who cannot deceive others are very often successful at deceiving themselves. Samuel Johnson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org
CP as much as I am opposed to abortion, some in America accept it. Infanticide is a whole different ball game.

It is a deal breaker for Americans.

This is not going to go away.

On Tuesday night after scripture study a group of us were talking. From past conversations I knew most of them to be democrats supporting Hillary.

We talked about the "pay grade" comment of Obamas and McCains answer to the same question. There was not a person in the room who is now supporting Obama.

26 posted on 08/21/2008 7:33:54 PM PDT by mware (F-R-E-E. That spells free. freerepublic.com baby)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: auboy

He is what the democrat party has become after decades of defending the indefensible even to partial birth abortion.


27 posted on 08/21/2008 7:51:24 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: auboy
The following is what Obama wanted to be sure was inserted to the bill, to protect oe ... but it obviously betrays his sick disregard for the aliveness, individuality, and awareness of the unborn: 1 AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1082
2 AMENDMENT NO. . Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by
3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:
4 "(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to
5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal
6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at
7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this
8 Section
.".

28 posted on 08/21/2008 8:08:59 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; BlackElk

Just got back to the PC and am catching up here.

Yes, thanks for posting that transcript.
Keep in mind Marvin the Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35 is the one the new audio that’s been around for the last day or so is from. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf

I downloaded a free program to convert pdf to word but cannot get it to work. If you could post the April 4, 2002, pages 28-35 as well I’d appreciate it. Hopefully more folks will read it?

RE: “Obama’s effrort appears to clearly be aimed at preventing the born child from having personhood defining that survivor of the abortion attempt.” “Obama approach defeating the bill from the direction of claiming that defining a ‘pre-viable’ fetus or child as a person would effectively end the legality of killing these persons.”

I think there actually might be some truth there that it could possibly ban certain abortions. My friend at the Holocaust Memorial has worked w several pro-Life attorneys over the years trying to get mills shut down and has mentioned something similar. I’ll look into it.

BlackElk any thoughts?


29 posted on 08/21/2008 9:40:52 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mware

“”It is a deal breaker for Americans.

This is not going to go away.””

Agreed. If America is still the great Country we have always been, and I believe she is, the voters should reject this “man” in a huge landslide.


30 posted on 08/21/2008 9:49:50 PM PDT by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available FREE at CpForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

Pages 31 through 33 are the relevant texts. I’ll convert them and post it in a few minutes. BBL


31 posted on 08/21/2008 9:56:05 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org

82nd Legislative Day

April 4, 2002

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

The question is, shall Senate Bill 1655 pass. All those in

favor, vote Aye. Opposed, vote No. The voting is open. Have all

voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who

wish? ...the record. On that question, there's 15 voting Yes, 36

voting No, 4 voting Present. Senate Bill 1655, having failed to

receive the constitutional majority, fails. Senate Bill 1661.

Senator O'Malley. Madam Secretary, please read the bill.

ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:

Senate Bill 1661.

(Secretary reads title of bill)

3rd Reading of the bill.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Thank you, Madam President -- or, Mr. President. Excuse me.

The -- the package that is before you, this is the first bill,

28

1661. It's associated with 1662 and 1663 that follow. This

package is known -- has become known as the "Born Alive" package.

1661 creates the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act, creates a

cause of action where medical care, as provided for in Senate Bill

1663, is not provided. I'd be happy to answer any questions there

may be.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion? If not,

the question is, shall Senate Bill 1661 pass. All those in favor,

vote Aye. Opposed, vote No. The voting is open. Have all voted

who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish?

Take the record. On that question, 31 voting Yes, 11 voting No, 10

voting Present. Senate Bill 1661, having received the required

constitutional majority, is declared passed. Senate Bill 1662.

Senator O'Malley. Madam Secretary, please read the bill.

ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:

Senate Bill 1662.

(Secretary reads title of bill)

3rd Reading of the bill.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. 1662 is the second component of the

"Born Alive" package, and it defines a born-alive infant in order

to resecure the rights of children who are born under any

circumstances to equal protection under the law. Be -- again, I'd

be happy to answer any questions there may be.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion? If not,

the question is, shall Senate Bill 1662 pass. All those in favor,

vote Aye. Opposed, vote No. The voting is open. Have all voted

who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish?

29

Take the record. On that question, there's 30 voting Yes, 12

voting No, 10 voting Present. Senate Bill 1662, having received

the required constitutional majority, is declared passed. Senate

Bill 1663. Senator O'Malley. Madam Secretary, please read the

bill.

ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:

Senate Bill 1663.

(Secretary reads title of bill)

3rd Reading of the bill.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Mr. President, again, thank you. This is the third component

of the "Born Alive" package, and what it provides is that a child

born under any circumstances would receive all reasonable measures

consistent with good medical practice. Also requires a second

physician to give an opinion of viability and to deliver such

reasonable measures of care as are defined in 1663. Again, I'd be

happy to answer any questions there may be.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Is there any discussion? Senator Cullerton.

SENATOR CULLERTON:

Would the sponsor yield?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Sponsor indicates he'll yield.

SENATOR CULLERTON:

Senator O'Malley, which one of these bills was the Medical

Society -- did they testify against? Was it all three of 'em or

just this one?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

30

You know, I -- I really can't speak for them, but I suspect

their major issue was with 1661.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Any further discussion? Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA:

Thank you, Mr. President. Will the sponsor yield for a

question?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Sponsor indicates he'll yield.

SENATOR OBAMA:

Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously this is an issue

that we've debated extensively both in committee and on the Floor,

so I -- you know, I don't want to belabor it. But I did want to

point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion

in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or

at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this

would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and

the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this

situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this

legislation, what's going to be required for a doctor to meet the

requirements that you've set forth?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Senator Obama, first of all, there is established, under this

legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would

receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical

practice, and that's as defined, of course, by the -- you know,

the practice of medicine in the community where this would occur.

It also requires, in two instances, that -- that an attending

physician be -- be brought in to assist and advise with respect to

the issue of viability and, in particular, where there's a --

31

there's a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child --

may -- may be -- may be viable - that there's a suspicion - so

that the attending physician would make that decision as to

whether that would be the case. The other one is where the child

is actually born alive and then is -- is -- is actually born

alive, in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as

practically possible for a second physician to come in and

determine the viability.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA:

So -- and again, I'm -- I'm not going to prolong this, but I

just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the

objections of the Medical Society. 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. Is that

correct?

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator O'Malley.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

In -- in the first instance, obviously the physician that is

performing the procedure would make the determination. The second

situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and

then there's an assessment -- an independent assessment of

viability by -- by -- by another physician at the soonest

32

practical date -- or, time.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA:

Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I

think, as -- as this emerged during debate and during committee,

the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation

would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending

physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable

fetus and that, let's say for the purposes of the mother's health,

is being -- that -- that labor is being induced, that that

physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the

physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in

fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that

this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that

that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try

to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would

be involved in saving that child. Now, if -- if you think that

there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe

this bill makes sense, but I -- I suspect and my impression is, is

that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that

they would be under that obligation, that they would already be

making these determinations and that, essentially, adding 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. Now, if that's

the case - and -- and I know that some of us feel very strongly

one way or another on that issue - that's fine, but I think it's

important to understand that this issue ultimately is about

abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who

are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor

33

who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked

after. Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)

Is there any further discussion? Any further discussion? If

not, Senator O'Malley, to close.

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the comments from the

previous speaker, but I can assure you that the interests of

everybody, I think, in -- in this State would be to protect the

life of a child, including the physicians who are involved there.

And I believe that the second-opinion physician would actually, in

many ways, protect not only the interests of that child, which is

its primary responsibility, but to make sure that if there -- was

any error in judgment of any kind by the -- the primary physician,

that -- that -- the -- the -- the burden association -- associated

with -- with that failure and decision would be minimized. And

so, I would request your support of this legislation so that this

package can move to the Illinois House, where it can be given some

serious consideration. Thank you.


32 posted on 08/21/2008 10:50:34 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson