| Why can't they just say.. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 4 2012, 11:21 AM (312 Views) | |
| Joan Foster | Sep 4 2012, 11:21 AM Post #1 |
|
Why can't they admit....That Obama voted 4 times to permit aborted babies who were born alive to be murdered for their Mothers convenience. That is his position. Just own it. Club them, suffocate them, poison them to death. Obama sees them as waste product that feel no pain. FOUR TIMES he voted for this. Obama voted 4 times to deny those babies...the right to live. JUST ADMIT IT , DEMS. And now they want all abortions and murders of born alive babies to be paid by our taxes. Read the plank in their convention. Edited by Joan Foster, Sep 4 2012, 11:28 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Sep 4 2012, 11:53 AM Post #2 |
|
TOP 10 REASONS OBAMA VOTED AGAINST THE ILLINOIS BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT by Jill Stanek Here are the top 10 reasons Barack Obama has variously stated why he voted against Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act when state senator. 10. Babies who survive their abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Speaking against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act on the IL Senate floor on March 30, 2001, Obama, the sole verbal opponent to the bill stated: ... I just want to suggest... 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 - 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. 9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to their mothers. She alone should decide whether her baby lives or dies. Before voting "no" for a 2nd time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated: What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that. During a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, that "the decision concerning a baby should be left to a woman, but that he does not see himself as supportive of abortion." 8. Wanting to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was all about politics. During that same speech at Benedictine University, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, "the bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons." 7. There was no proof. Also during the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, that "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee." 6. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative. An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against Born Alive because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable." 5. Anyway, doctors don't do that. Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed Born Alive because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions." 4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue. During their U.S. Senate competition Alan Keyes famously said: Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died.... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved. Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' rationale for condemning Obama by implying Keyes was simply making a statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes pointedly stated he was condemning Obama for his support of infanticide. Nevertheless, live birth abortion must be included in the list of procedures Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes by saying, as quoted in his July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed: ... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another. 3. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle. In the same USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it: ... But my opponent's accusations nagged at me.... If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. 2. Sinking Born Alive was simply about political oneupsmanship. Obama has this quote on his website: Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats...." And the #1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was: 1. The IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a ploy to undercut Roe v. Wade. During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated: Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade.... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill. This was an out-and-out lie. The definition of "born alive" in the federal and Illinois versions were identical. The only difference came in paragraph (c), which was originally identical in both versions but changed on the federal level. Illinois' paragraph (c): 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. Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section. When the senator sponsoring the IL bill tried to amend IL's paragraph (c), Amendment 1 below, to be the same as the federal paragraph (c), Barack Obama himself, as chairman of the committee hearing the bill, refused, and he then also killed the bill (click to enlarge). |
![]() |
|
| Concerned | Sep 4 2012, 12:11 PM Post #3 |
|
When a democrat calls a Republican an "extremist," the Republican should bring up partial-birth abortion. If that's not extreme I don't know what is. The dems don't even want to outlaw gender "selective" abortions. They accuse us of having a War on Women; we should accuse them of having a War on Babies. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Sep 4 2012, 12:32 PM Post #4 |
|
"Dems War on Babies" .....BRAVO, Concerned! Well said. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Sep 4 2012, 01:07 PM Post #5 |
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292204/obama-s-infanticide-votes-patrick-brennan In last Wednesday’s debate, when the Republican candidates were asked about their positions on birth control, Newt Gingrich parried with one of his usual tactics, a fusillade against the mainstream media. He told CNN’s John King, “You did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If we’re going to have a debate about who is the extremist on these issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.” Two points of Gingrich’s barrage warrant assessment. First, did Barack Obama, as a state senator, vote “in favor of legalizing infanticide,” by voting “to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion”? And second, has no one in the elite media ever discussed his record on the issue? Yes; and no, but essentially yes. Advertisement Gingrich’s assertion rests on then–State Senator Obama’s opposition, in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to successive versions of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that was meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions. The bill gave them protection as legal persons and required physicians to provide them with care, rather than allowing doctors to deal with them as they would, literally, with medical waste. In 2008, Obama’s campaign repeatedly claimed that he opposed the bill because it was unnecessary, since Illinois law already provided protection for infants born alive. However, as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on NRO at the time, this extended only to babies whom physicians deemed to have “sustainable survivability.” Thus infants who were not expected to survive could be killed or left unattended to die. Obama, Ponnuru wrote, “did not want the gap filled.” (The National Right to Life Committee has a report on Obama, Illinois’s legal loophole, and its horrific consequences here.) Obama maintained at the time, with support from Planned Parenthood of Illinois, that the bill wasn’t really about protecting infants’ lives or mitigating their suffering, but was in fact a backdoor attempt to restrict abortion. The argument (which is constitutionally dubious, anyway) goes that, by providing legal protection and “recognition as a human person” for a pre-viable infant, the law could be used to threaten Roe v. Wade. Thus, in his 2004 Senate campaign, and then during the course of the 2008 campaign, Obama claimed that he would have supported a law like the 2002 federal born-alive statute, which stated explicitly that it could not be used to dispute the legal status of fetuses prior to their birth. In committee in 2003, however, Obama voted against a version of the Illinois bill that contained the same protection included in the federal bill (which passed 98–0 in the U.S. Senate). Thus, Obama’s tenuous constitutional argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. One other excuse for Obama’s opposition to the Illinois bill has been proffered: that the final version of the bill was coupled with another piece of legislation that imposed criminal or civil consequences for doctors who did not properly treat infants who were covered by the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Obama and others deemed this second bill unacceptable. However, this doesn’t begin to defend Obama’s vote on the first bill. As Ponnuru pointed out back in 2008, FactCheck.org and PolitiFact admitted the above facts as such, but have disputed whether they constitute “legalizing infanticide”; FactCheck argued that that question remains a value judgment. Since the Illinois bill would have provided legal protection for born-alive infants who had not been protected before, by opposing it, Obama voted to continue to make it legal to kill them. Thus, the only question remaining in order to determine whether it was “infanticide” is: Were the subjects of the bill fetuses or were they infants? In order for them not to be considered infants, one would have to contend that an unviable prematurely born baby is not an infant — a claim few would be willing to make. And yet, Obama’s votes, three times over the course of three years, indicate that he believes that fetuses who have been born alive, but have not yet reached the age of viability, are not human persons worthy of protection by our laws. Such a position on abortion is, to say the least, extreme, and deserves attention. Which leads to the second question Gingrich raised: Have the media questioned Obama’s position on the Illinois infanticide bill? Washington Post blogger Erik Wemple has turned up a few media references to President Obama’s extreme abortion stances from the 2008 campaign: two CNN segments discussing his record, including the Illinois legislation specifically; one instance in a debate, where John McCain raised the question of Obama’s record, and he defended his position on the Illinois bill; and one interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, in which Obama was queried on partial-birth abortion, though not the Illinois legislation specifically. The attention was most intense in August of 2008, after the NRLC managed to generate national debate about Obama’s position on the Illinois bill. Obama was asked about it during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, where he offered a thoroughly deceptive response to the question, saying, “Here’s a situation where folks are lying” about his position. However, Obama was the one lying: He told the interviewer, David Brody, that he opposed the bill because of its threat to Roe v. Wade, and that existing Illinois law already protected infants who were born alive. As we have seen, the first assertion is implausible; the second is just plain false. This seems to be the one instance in which a journalist asked candidate Obama directly about his support for the bill, and he was unfortunately let off, even by a conservative reporter, with his mendacious explanation. Both the Washington Post and the New York Times reported on the controversy, noting the points the NRLC had raised about Obama’s inconsistent and extreme positions. The Times, citing sources on both sides, explored Obama’s claim that he opposed the final Illinois bill because of its unacceptable companion bill. However, Obama’s claim has no solid legal basis: Two different bills are two different bills. Thus, while one cannot say, as Gingrich did, that the media have literally never questioned Obama’s extreme record on abortion, we can certainly say that there has not been a sufficiently revealing discussion of his views. An honest appraisal would depict him as having voted repeatedly to protect a form of infanticide. Instead, the media have willingly accepted explanations that don’t stand up to scrutiny. And they deserve scrutiny, for two reasons. First, as explained above, Obama has offered deceptive explanations of his own pro-abortion legislative work, while simultaneously accusing his pro-life opponents of being dishonest. More important, Obama’s record as a state senator was not merely pro-choice, but radically pro-abortion. His voting record indicates that he does not believe infants deserve protection even once they have emerged from the womb if they are deemed to be below the age of viability, and he did in fact, three times, vote to keep a form of infanticide legal. Edited by Joan Foster, Sep 4 2012, 01:09 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Sep 4 2012, 01:12 PM Post #6 |
|
Dear Leader decides what babies are snuff-worthy. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Sep 4 2012, 01:14 PM Post #7 |
|
http://www.jillstanek.com/2008/02/links-to-barack-obamas-votes-on-illinois-born-alive-infant-protection-act/ Below is a listing of then-state Senator Barack Obama’s votes and state senate floor speeches on IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act. (At right is a political cartoon by Jack Higgins, printed in the Chicago Sun-Times on August 25, 2004, during his U.S. Senate campaign.) A package of Born Alive bills was introduced three times during Obama’s tenure. The cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, aka “Born Alive Infant Defined,” which defined legal personhood to include born alive infants any time the words “person,” “human being,” “child,” or “individual” was stated in IL law. This definition was identical to the federal BAIPA which was drafted from the definition of “live birth” created by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955. Following are Obama’s actions and votes on Born Alive. The bill number changed every year it was reintroduced. 2001 Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act Obama’s “no” vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committee here, March 28, 2001 Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90 Obama’s “present” vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001 2002 Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act Transcript of Obama taking credit for Christ Hospital’s Comfort Room in the IL Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, March 5, 2002 Obama’s “no” vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committee, March 6, 2002 Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35 Obama’s “no” vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002 Listen to audio from Obama’s 2002 IL Senate floor debate wherein he argued that while babies might be aborted alive, it would be a “burden” to a mother’s “original decision” to assess and treat them. Meanwhile, the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act with a “neutrality clause” added passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, the U.S. House overwhelmingly, and was signed into law August 5, 2002. The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the bill. 2003 Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. This year Born Alive was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama. As can be seen on the vote docket, Obama first voted to amend SB1082 to add the “neutrality clause” from the federal version of Born Alive to the IL version to make them absolutely identical. (DP#1 means “Do Pass Amendment #1.) Then Obama voted against the identical version. (DPA means, “Do Pass as Amended.) Additional corroboration of Obama’s vote: IL State Senate Republican Staff Analysis of SB 1082, March 12-13, 2003, bottom of page 2 For 4 years following his 2003 vote Obama misrepresented it, stating the wording of the IL version of Born Alive was not the same as the federal version, and he would have voted for it if so. As recently as August 16, 2008, Obama made this false assertion. But when evidence presented was irrefutable, Obama’s campaign on August 18, 2008, admitted the truth to the New York Sun. The nonpartison group FactCheck.org has since corroborated Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote. Edited by Joan Foster, Sep 4 2012, 01:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Sep 4 2012, 01:33 PM Post #8 |
|
Jill Stanek's Story My name is Jill Stanek. In 1999, I discovered that Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, where I worked as a labor and delivery nurse, was leaving babies who survived induced labor abortions to die in the soiled utility room. I personally held one of these infants 45 minutes until he gasped his last breath. When I explained my experience to hospital administrators, they refused to stop their horrific treatment of these infants. After going public, my story immediately grabbed the attention of legislators and media, which resulted in the introduction of the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Christ Hospital fired me in August 2001 for reasons related to my public statements. I testified before Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee and Health and Human Services Committee as well as the US House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Sep 4 2012, 01:37 PM Post #9 |
|
Like they don't try and pigeon-hole Republicans with their questions about exclusions for rape and incest? Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. Joan: thanks for posting this information! Like you've indicated, we need to work hard to get this information out to the general public. |
![]() |
|
| Toast | Sep 4 2012, 07:55 PM Post #10 |
|
I was born prematurely at 30 weeks gestation. I weighed 2 lbs and 12 oz. End of any argument, as far as I am concerned. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 4 2012, 08:15 PM Post #11 |
|
We're glad you made it! |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Sep 4 2012, 08:22 PM Post #12 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
You weren't toasted enough... |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 4 2012, 08:30 PM Post #13 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Toast | Sep 4 2012, 08:32 PM Post #14 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |







9:51 AM Jul 11