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.
Pro-life bump!
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?
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
Thank you! I have copied and pasted that into a file.
Obama has a stone cold heart.
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.
He is what the democrat party has become after decades of defending the indefensible even to partial birth abortion.
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?
“”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.
Pages 31 through 33 are the relevant texts. I’ll convert them and post it in a few minutes. BBL
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.
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.