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

Skip to comments.

Sources for Obama's fourth trimester abortion positions Thanks

Posted on 09/03/2008 4:01:59 PM PDT by tired1

First Vanity Post: Folks, I need actual sources for Obama's fourth trimester abortion positions to present to a doubting lib.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abortion; baipa; bornalive; infanticide; obama

1 posted on 09/03/2008 4:03:04 PM PDT by tired1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tired1

Forth trimester, eh?


2 posted on 09/03/2008 4:04:28 PM PDT by jennyjenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

...


3 posted on 09/03/2008 4:04:51 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired1

By George, I hope you are being sarcastic! LOL


4 posted on 09/03/2008 4:05:12 PM PDT by dynachrome (Henry Bowman is right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyjenny

I think dolphins might have a twelve-month gestation period.


5 posted on 09/03/2008 4:07:25 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jennyjenny

I misplaced them. Due to the 5th sitting to my right. ;>


6 posted on 09/03/2008 4:07:45 PM PDT by combat_boots (She lives! 22 weeks, 9.5 inches. Go, baby, go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jennyjenny
If you've ever been pregnant .....toward the end, it seems like four trimesters. ;-D
7 posted on 09/03/2008 4:08:16 PM PDT by Daffynition ("A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not why the ship is built." ~Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: tired1

You mean the infants born alive bill, right?


9 posted on 09/03/2008 4:08:21 PM PDT by luckymom (Forget the baby whales, save the baby humans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired1

When you get them, I want to see them. So, are we all in the fourth trimester?


10 posted on 09/03/2008 4:09:26 PM PDT by me1og
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: me1og

I heard Rush use that term today, thought it quite appropriate.


11 posted on 09/03/2008 4:11:12 PM PDT by tired1 (responsibility without authority is slavery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

Oh yeah, I’ve been there!


12 posted on 09/03/2008 4:11:17 PM PDT by jennyjenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tired1

When Obama was in the Illinois legislature the subcommittee he CHAIRED bottled up a bill which would have forced doctors to give care to babies who had survived an abortion attempt. This bill had overwhelming support because of a huge scandal resulting from just such an event and the reaction of a nurse at the hospital where it was being performed. This is the basis of the charge that he supports infanticide as well as abortion.

The baby obviously damaged and dying was abandoned in a utility room where the nurse discovered her? and stayed with it. This hideous fraud prevented a law from protecting/comforting/easing such babies.


13 posted on 09/03/2008 4:13:14 PM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob; billybob

I am sure you can fill us in on all the relevant facts here.


14 posted on 09/03/2008 4:14:38 PM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome

I could not answer that but I do know pro-abortion people that believe the mother should have until the baby is ten days old to decide whether they live or not.
Their reasoning is the baby is dependent on the mother so therefore the mother should be able to decide.
Interesting because with my kids they were pretty much totally dependent until about five and by the time they were in the twenties not so much.


15 posted on 09/03/2008 4:15:14 PM PDT by svcw (http://baskettastic.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tired1

are you talking about the abortion survivors, or the vague answers about how “life” begins at conception, but “personhood” doesn’t begin until sometime he doesn’t get around to saying?


16 posted on 09/03/2008 4:15:41 PM PDT by Operation_Shock_N_Awe (I'd rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyjenny

LOL ... so I’m right .........right? LOL


17 posted on 09/03/2008 4:17:24 PM PDT by Daffynition ("A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not why the ship is built." ~Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tired1

Here ya go!

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm


18 posted on 09/03/2008 4:30:35 PM PDT by guinnessman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired1

Dang, using that math I am in my 180th trimester.


19 posted on 09/03/2008 4:38:10 PM PDT by yazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired1

there is no such thing as the fourth trimester, it is a play on words because obama did not support a bill where if a baby survived an abortion a doctor would be called in to save or care for the baby it was called:

Born Alive Infant protection act

On March 30, 2001, Barack Obama stood on the Illinois Senate floor as the only opponent to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Essentially the bill stated that if a child were born alive due to a botched abortion, a doctor would be called in to care for the child. It was a straightforward bill, allowing doctors the opportunity to take a viable baby into care and give the child the opportunity at life.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407882,00.html


20 posted on 09/03/2008 4:41:34 PM PDT by edzo4 (Vote McCain, Keep Your Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired1

This is very informative:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4681001833201689846&ei=him_SNPeOoOe-QGqmqT-CQ&q=obama+cnn+abortion&vt=lf&hl=en


21 posted on 09/03/2008 5:22:14 PM PDT by Diago (The Truth About Margaret Sanger at http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tired1

Great article from NRO by David Freddoso
[http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZTBkYTYzZDNjNDgyMWJmMzMxYzljYjYxNmEwMTdhYWE=]

August 17, 2008, 1:45 p.m.

Life Lies
Barack Obama and Born-Alive.

By David Freddoso

In 2001, Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons.” The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted “present” on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.

In 2003, a similar bill came before Obama’s health committee. He voted against it. But this time, the legislation was slightly different. This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush.

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.

Obama’s work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one — so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.

At the end of last week, Obama gave an interview to CBN’s David Brody in which he repeated the false claim that the born-alive bills he worked, spoke, and voted against on this topic between 2001 and 2003 would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. This has always been untrue, but, until last week, it appeared to be a debatable point that depended on one’s interpretation of the bill language. Every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb.

But in 2003, in the health committee which he chaired, Obama voted against a version of the bill that contained the specific “neutrality” language — redundant language affirming that the bill only applied to infants already born and granted no rights to the unborn. You can visit the Illinois legislature’s website here to see the language of the “Senate Amendment 1,” which was added in a unanimous 10-0 vote in the committee before Obama helped kill it. This is the so-called “neutrality clause” on Roe that everyone is talking about:

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.”.

The addition of this amendment made the bill identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
This Committee Action Report, dug up in Springfield by the National Right to Life Committee and revealed last week, shows two different votes. In the left column, under the heading “DP#1”(or “Do Pass” Amendment 1), we see that Obama’s committee voted 10-0 to add this neutrality language to the bill. In the right column, we see that the committee then voted 6-4 to kill the bill. Obama was among the six “No” votes.

A write-up from the time by a Republican staffer on the committee further explains:

CA #1 was adopted on a “Be Adopted” motion (Righter/Syverson) by an attendance roll call (10-0-0).

CA #1 (Winkel) to SB 1082 (Winkel) adds to the underlying bill.

Deletes language, which states that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Inserts language, which states that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or right applicable to any member of the homo sapien species at any point prior to being born alive as defined under this legislation.

So again: after the above amendment was added to change the original bill, making it identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama and five other Democrats voted to kill it. They killed the same bill that the U.S. Senate had passed unanimously. Here is the interview in which Sen. Obama offers his false explanation once again, which is contradicted not only by eyewitnesses but also by the records of his own committee:

...I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

The senator is right. Someone is lying.

— David Freddoso is a National Review Online staff reporter and author of The Case Against Barack Obama.


22 posted on 09/03/2008 5:29:43 PM PDT by HaplessToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HaplessToad
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


23 posted on 09/03/2008 7:48:45 PM PDT by ncfool (Making Obama look patriotic is above my pay grade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | 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