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.
Forth trimester, eh?
By George, I hope you are being sarcastic! LOL
I think dolphins might have a twelve-month gestation period.
I misplaced them. Due to the 5th sitting to my right. ;>
You mean the infants born alive bill, right?
When you get them, I want to see them. So, are we all in the fourth trimester?
I heard Rush use that term today, thought it quite appropriate.
Oh yeah, I’ve been there!
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.
I am sure you can fill us in on all the relevant facts here.
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.
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?
LOL ... so I’m right .........right? LOL
Dang, using that math I am in my 180th trimester.
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.
This is very informative:
Great article from NRO by David Freddoso
August 17, 2008, 1:45 p.m.
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 Obamas 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.
Obamas 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 CBNs 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 ones 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 legislatures 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
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 Obamas 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 heres 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.