Topics
Basic (free) Member
|
| | | |
Slim Jim
|
8/15/2008 11:00:27 PM
Obama and "The Born Alive Infant Protection Act"
http://catholicfire.blogspot.com/2008/07/jill-stanek-cnn-obamas-opposition-to.html
"CNN fairly reported then-state Sen. Barack Obama's opposition to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill to protect abortion survivors from being shelved to die in hospital soiled utility rooms.
Obama not only voted against Born Alive, he was the sole senator to speak against it on the senate floor - 2 years in a row.
The federal version of Born Alive passed unanimously 98-0 in the US Senate with Sens. Kennedy and Boxer speaking in support on the senate floor. It passed overwhelmingly by voice vote in the US House. President Bush signed it into law on August 5, 2002.
As chairman of the IL Senate Health & Human Services Committee, Obama singlehandedly stopped the identical wording of the federal bill from being introduced in IL in 2003.
Barack Obama is so radical in his support of abortion, he supports infanticide.
Go read Jill Stanek's post for her commentary on this. In it she states: " Costello's follow-up should be to answer the question she closed with: 'Did Barack Obama reject the opportunity to vote for a bill identical to the federal bill?'"
My Two Cents: Barack Obama has no business running for the office of President he is indeed a baby killer and places no value on human life. Would you entrust him with your life and the life of your family?"
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
8/15/2008 11:07:37 PM
You support the death of Babies if you vote for a war monger for president ... What's the difference ?
(oh shit ... I'm supposed to be retired) ... bad me..
|
|
qelizabeth
|
8/16/2008 6:20:28 AM
Honestly this breaks my heart. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, and the only thing I could find is that he would have voted for it had there been an amendment saying that it didn't violate Roe v. Wade.
In other issues regarding life, he seems to be Pro life in the sense that he votes consistently for health care and education programs, against war.
The biggest contradiction for me is that certain groups overlook that the so-called Pro-Life politicians vote FOR the Death Penalty. That is a contradiction. Catholics for one are against the Death Penalty. Why didn't Catholics refuse to vote for Bush based on that one issue?
Someone called BJN wrote this somewhere and I saved it, regarding abortion... I can see where he/she is coming from to a certain degree. ...
"I am a Christian, and I believe that every woman has the right to chose the journey of her life.
God does not force himself on us, and we should not force our beliefs on anyone.
I believe as a Christian my job is to spread the love of Christ. My responsibility is to be there to help, not be a stumbling block. I can extend my hand to every woman who has had an abortion, just like Christ did with the woman who was caught in adultry.
Instead of protesting in front of abortion clinics, why not be there with a word of encoragement, compassion, and sympathy.
I have never understood how Christians could treat people so badly, and disrepectful and be so judgmental,yet say they are God's ambassadors.
I do not want women, using coat hangers, and going to dirty places or killing themselves. I would rather help educate, and counsel, and love these women, with the love of Christ.
I can not proclaim Christ to a dead person, but I can to one that is alive.
I am sorry about the deaths of those unborn children, but I am also sorry for women finding themselves with such a decision to make.
Christ said" he who is without sin cas the first stone". No one did, they had to walk away."
It just scares me that the issue of abortion, important that it is, can be the only issue for some and gives pro-lifers a carte blanche to disregard the well being of people of all ages, as has been said above, to be a war monger, etc.
Life is an important issue, and this includes but is not isolated to the issue of abortion. I want a president who is pro life in the larger sense of the word.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/16/2008 6:37:03 AM
---- Updated 8/16/2008 6:39:08 AM
It's interesting to note that Obama is the only person who saw this bill as possible threatening Roe vs Wade and no one else. Not Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer or anyone from NARAL but Obama did. It's also interesting to note he stated he would have supported the bill had he been in Washington at the time it was passed based on the different wording of that bill but it is the identical Bill, word for word. So when Obama pulls out this Row Vs Wade excuse he is again being less than honest and how could anyone justify allowing newborn American children to die to allegedly protect the right to abortion when that bill has absolutely nothing to do with abortion?
Allan Keyes explains it better here..
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
8/16/2008 6:55:54 AM
---- Updated 8/16/2008 6:57:40 AM
Elizabeth,
I can appreciate some of the points you are making, However, Abortion is such a sensitive subject and those against it are so passionate in their views your comments will have no effect. I see it as a one way street, those against abortion will rarely change their opinion. On the other hand, those who support it may change their minds as they go through life experiences.
In America, you have many choices......and a multitude of Birth Control methods that prevent conception. Many, unfortunately use Abortion as a Method to control birth. I used to be for a "Womans Right to choose" however as I have matured my views are beginning to soften. When a woman chooses to have sex, she should be aware of the possible consequence of initiating a "Human Life". She should bear some responsibility in this action. Of course Birth control is not 100% effective, but it is pretty close.Yes there are pregnancies that occur when the woman did not consent to the possible "Live consumating" activity, and that is why you hear some argue they support Abortion in cases of Rape and Incest.
As for the Backroom "coat hanger" abortion angle? In an age where there is no shame in Pregnancy outside of marriage, and when Brides routinely wear white as they walk down the aisle nine month's pregnant, the element of shame that caused many to result to drastic measures to terminate a pregnancy have been greatly reduced. Perhaps some may result to these drastic, unsafe measures, but I do not believe the numbers would be great. On the other hand, if people know there is not an easy solution available to fix "the problem" of creating an unwanted human life perhaps they will take a little more responsibility and be careful not to get pregnant in the first place. If someone is not mature enough to make the decision to prevent pregnancy, they certainly are not mature enough to "choose" abortion.
This is a loaded issue, and people are passionate on both sides. Perhaps my views are changing because I am more mature...perhaps it is because I was witness to Human life being born into the world. Perhaps I am softened each time I look into my Sons's eyes. I don't blame those who passionately fight for the rights of the unborn child.Life is an incredible gift......and each life is precious and deserves a chance to live. I just think their should be a little more responsibility on the action of getting Pregnant. This is a tough issue..... I do know this, many people once they feel passionate about it, will not change their minds...Its that important.
Respectfully,
Jeff
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/16/2008 7:08:24 AM
"The Born Alive Infant Protection Act" has nothing to do with abortion, it's about protecting the lives of children who are born alive, not allowing them to die.
That again is what that bill is about. Nothing more, nothing less other than protecting living human beings.
Period.
|
|
qelizabeth
|
8/16/2008 7:28:23 AM
Jeff,
I'm a mom and a person who wouldn't be alive right now if abortion was legal. So I understand this issue and hear you!
And I totally agree that it's a big big issue and heated too.
Sorry Jim for getting of topic.
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
8/16/2008 9:25:49 AM
You can't just scrutinize a vote and read all kinds of implications into it not to mention put words in the candidate's mouth. This is just a dirty cheapshot.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/16/2008 9:42:30 AM
---- Updated 8/16/2008 9:45:18 AM
Qlizabeth, you don't have to apologize for anything, I just want what that bill was really about kept into proper focus. It;s easy to confuse it with other issues but it specifically deals with one matter alone, and that is providing care to every live birth.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/16/2008 9:44:08 AM
From Holo II
"You can't just scrutinize a vote and read all kinds of implications into it not to mention put words in the candidate's mouth. This is just a dirty cheapshot."
Who has put words in the candidates mouth Holo???
Show here where that has been done..
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
8/16/2008 9:53:25 AM
I just watched your YouTube, well as much as I could without being bored, and it's clear that you assign Obama attitudes that have nothing to do with the technical rationale for his vote.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
8/16/2008 11:01:45 AM
Slim it is attached to Abortion because people are afraid once you afford protection of Live births after abortion, it will next extend protection while the baby is still in the womb..... Thus stopping abortions all together..
|
|
qelizabeth
|
8/16/2008 11:33:53 AM
I've read. I've looked. I've wavered. I'm skeptical, but I'm still going with Obama at this point.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/16/2008 12:20:52 PM
---- Updated 8/16/2008 12:22:56 PM
Quote:
"it is attached to Abortion because people are afraid once you afford protection of Live births after abortion, it will next extend protection while the baby is still in the womb..... Thus stopping abortions all together.."
I'm sorry Jeff but the only other person who ever expressed such fears besides Obama is yourself so you're going to have to go into a bit more detail.
Please explain why allowing newborn American children to die by depriving them of the medical care they need is necessary to protect the practice of abortion.
The floor is yours.., go right ahead.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/16/2008 12:56:01 PM
Technical rational Holo??? You mean the one the most left leaning politicians or the most influential pro-abortion lobby can't seem to grasp either Holo?
What is that "technical rationale" Holo.. Why do living, breathing children have to die to protect abortion?
Explain...
|
|
|
8/16/2008 1:17:17 PM
Holo says
You can't just scrutinize a vote and read all kinds of implications into it not to mention put words in the candidate's mouth. This is just a dirty cheapshot.
OK, but how is that any more a cheapshot than you calling McCain (et al) an idiot, a moron, and all the other insults.
Please don't answer with "cuz it's true, so it's ok when I do it".
It's just not an answer.
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
8/16/2008 1:45:46 PM
---- Updated 8/16/2008 1:55:05 PM
Saphire,
Again you fixate on me. If you were paying attention I have plenty of reasons for referring to McCain the way I do. He conducts himself like an incompetent every day of the campaign.
Slim Jim,
I don't care if you're the most hardcore anti-abortionist on earth, the fact is that 59% of Americans want the next Supreme Court justice named to be pro-choice. There are too many unwanted babies already in this world.
Your gripe isn't with Obama, it's with the Democrats and many of the Republicans. Also a great majority of modern women. This is boring. Slim Jim you have singlehandedly taken the political discussion from actual manistream issues to kookooland.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
8/16/2008 2:15:52 PM
Slim,
First of all I don't disagree with you, and second I am just applying a bit of Logic. I doubt Obama is the only one who thinks this way. I don't know why you are taking exception with my opinion on the matter, it is not against your position. I am done arguing politics or religion...It is pointless....
Jeff
|
|
|
8/16/2008 2:46:15 PM
Holo says Again you fixate on me.
I'm posting about 1 or 2 messages a day bud, in someone else's thread. I respond to whatever post incites/interests me enough to want to respond. You have an inflammatory way of posting (coupled with possibly the biggest ego on the face of the earth), so naturally that will incite responses.
That's what's going on, but you can go ahead with your M.O. of throwing a smoke bomb in the room and running out, while people fixate on the smoke bomb - keeps you from having to answer certain questions you don't want/can't answer. Smoke bomb = "you're a stalker, you're a racist cuz you don't vote for Obama" etc.
That's fine, I GET how you operate.
If you were paying attention I have plenty of reasons for referring to McCain the
way I do. He conducts himself like an incompetent every day of the campaign.
It doesn't matter what (you perceive as) facts you put out. We're talking about value judgements (slander really) you're making against these government officials.
There's no facts you can recite - it's your personal opinion/value judgement.
Like I can say Mr. XXXXX is a snotty-nosed, zit-brained snarky puss.
What in there is of any substantial fact? Nothing.
You can give facts to back an assertion that he's not telling the truth, or that he is lacking knowledge in this area, or that area.
But, not provide "facts" that he is a moron or an idiot.
If you were as "intelligent" and "tortured genius" and "well read on everything" and (I'm sure you claim you can fly too) as you've claimed, you would obviously know this.
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
8/16/2008 3:25:56 PM
Here you are demanding more of my time, yet you add nothing to any discussion other than petty attacks on me. Why is John McCain an idiot? Obviously you don't watch the news. I'll answer anyway but you don't really deserve an answer, the way you conduct yourself here.
Start with the dishonest ads he's run about Obama. The issue of Obama not visiting the troops over in Germany and false allegations there which his staff later admitted. His misrepresentation about Obama taxing all those over 24,000, a complete lie. His silly argument using one aspect of Obama's comments re: energy, inflating the tires and saying that's Obama's entire energy plan which he then had to admit is actually useful after Nascar and others agreed with Obama. His ridiculous assertion that most of Obama's support comes from teenage "fans". His ad that actually claimed that Obama personally is the cause for high oil prices.
The fact that he borrowed Obama's Afghanistan policy and even has folded to his timetable for getting out of Iraq all while saying Obama is not fit to lead. His pushing drilling as an answer when it's a known fact that drilling won't amount to anything for 10 years. His haranguing of Congress for taking a vacation even though he's missed over 100 straight votes. His proposal of a gas tax holiday whch the whole economic community says is a total gimmick. Not knowing the difference between the Iraqi factions. Saying he wasn't going to run a negative campaign and then running an almost exclusively negative ad campaign. His own campaign saying that McCain's words don't represent the McCain campaign! The big fuss he made about Obama's policy of "appeasement" when Bush's government has begun the same kind of negotiations they all frowned about with several countries.
His misrepresenation of Obama's decision to not use public funding. His endless purging his campaign of lobbyists but still answering to a foreign policy lobbyist who took a lot of money on behalf of Georgia. He said he doesn't know much about the economy then denied saying it. His top economic advisor who played a big role in the mortgage crisis, he removed him from the campaign but now Gramm is back. McCain acting like he's president and interfering in the Russia/Georgia conflict while our actual government is working on same. Doing this right after criticizing Obama for acting too presidental while speaking to that large crowd in Germany.
That's just off the top of my head. It's endless. The man is senile and foolish and we are all in serious danger if he gets elected. All that has been discussed here on the pipeline but you read nothing, Saphire, the only thing you've taken the time to read since you got here was that some people had issues with me and you wanted to be on that bandwagon perhaps because you're a lonely individual, so now I've got you stalking me. You even threw a baby fit and said you're leaving but you can't pull yourself away from me, you pathetic sociopath.
|
|
|
8/16/2008 4:45:12 PM
What I'm saying is you're using words like "idiot" and "moron" as value judgements which cannot be backed with facts. It's a value judgement.
If you are saying you are using these terms as factual judgements, then what I'm saying is this ....
Moron
Psychology. a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.
Idiot
Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.
-----
Show me McCain's IQ score that supports this definition.
Show me the document stating his IQ has been documented <= 69.
then I will agree you have factually backed up your claim.
|
|
jivewhiteboy
|
8/16/2008 6:00:56 PM
Barack obama isn't evil. He's not killing babies. I'm sure that he values life. He isn't the devil. You're letting political spinsters and news conglomerates manipulate your emotions.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/16/2008 6:13:05 PM
" Thrice in the Illinois legislature, Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Thrice, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.
How can a man who purports to be a Christian justify this? "
----
" Obama says he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. But if Roe v. Wade did allow infanticide or murder, which is what letting a tiny baby die of neglect or killing it outright amounts to, why would he not want that court decision reviewed and amended to outlaw infanticide?
Is the right to an abortion so sacrosanct to Obama that killing by neglect or snuffing out of the life of tiny babies outside the womb must be protected if necessary to preserve that right?
Obama is an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career," writes Freddoso, "in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion."
In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says it would abolish all restrictions on government funding of abortion. "
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/a_catholic_case_against_barack.html
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
8/16/2008 9:48:07 PM
More than half of America is pro-choice. Why don't you just preach about it and not make this just about Obama? Have we ever had a democratic nominee who wasn't in the last 50 years ?
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
8/16/2008 11:22:04 PM
Saphire, have you even seen any of the recent McCain campaign ads, like the one blaming Obama for the price of oil. If that's not moronic, nothing is. I also posted a clip here of him addressing a biker group that clearly shows he's an idiot.
You're arguing with me but you aren't even familiar with these things.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/17/2008 6:41:37 AM
"
8/16/2008 9:48:07 PM
More than half of America is pro-choice. Why don't you just preach about it and not make this just about Obama? Have we ever had a democratic nominee who wasn't in the last 50 years?"
What country are you living in anyway Holo to make such a comment like that?
This subject again has nothing to do with abortion, it's about the failure to protect innocent human life and the incredible lenghts one presidential candidate has gone to stop the bill that everyone agrees is important except Barack Obama.
In November we go to the polls to elect a president who we will entrust to protect the life & liberty of every American born into this country and it's significant to note that at least one candidate has already failed in this task.
That may not matter to you but I can assure you that Catholic & Evangelical voters will speak loudly on this issue on election day as will other people of faith and conscious. This non-issue to you will probably be the deciding factor in the election.
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
8/17/2008 7:08:08 AM
One vote doesn't stop a bill. You mischaracterize Obama, nonstop. The economy, energy, and the war are all more important issues to Americans. You are boring too.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/17/2008 7:18:08 AM
Again, what country do you really live in Holo?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647
"But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.
In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”
“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.
At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”
|
|
Holo Lukaloa
|
8/17/2008 8:08:01 AM
You're stupid. Who cares about some subjective tale with only half the story from 2003 on your special interest issue?
Okay I'm boycotting your threads, your'e a waste of time.
|
|
qelizabeth
|
8/17/2008 9:24:36 AM
In the eyes of the Evangelists, who's worse, a candidate who's not baptised and who will likely choose a pro-choice running mate, or a pro-choice candidate with radical black church ties?
Enquiring minds wanna know.
This is all too much of a sport, celeb gossip if you will.
I can't wait til the elections are over and I'm excited at the possibility of Sen Obama taking an oath, with his own Bible. If I must say so myself.
|
|
Jeff Allen Myers
|
8/17/2008 11:38:45 AM
I will be glad when the election is over, I am tired of all the name calling, bickering, disrespectful banter...Its stoooooooooopid!
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/17/2008 11:40:42 AM
---- Updated 8/17/2008 11:41:39 AM
McCain has made it pretty clear he's the pro-life candidate and if Lieberman is his running mate his pro-choice stance is very well-defined. Abortion may be permissible in the case of rape or incest or to save the life of a mother but he is by no means willing do do away with all restrictions which is clearly different than the other candidates position on the same issue.
You can vote for whoever you want to, that's your right. But ask yourself first Qelizabeth if you could ever deny the weakest and most defenseless of American citizens the same rights you were given at birth. Could you really turn you back on a fellow American is guaranteed the same right the rest of us take for granted. One candidate has done that and the other hasn't. I think that is a defining moment in at least one person's character that would make me thing very long about deciding to cast my vote for him.
|
|
LyinDan
|
8/17/2008 12:10:30 PM
---- Updated 8/17/2008 12:43:08 PM
Factually, the characterization that people who did not support the bill were aiming to kill viable human beings is incorrect.
Here's some discussion of some reasons to oppose the Federal bill. Sorry for the length.
**************************************
The title of the Bill is "To protect infants who are born alive." It does not accomplish this directly. Rather, it defines that any embryo, fetus or newborn who is "born alive" is a human person. Once it is considered a person, it is protected from harm by other, existing, laws.
The bill contains only two main sub-sections:
bullet The first defines the words 'person', 'human being', 'child', and 'individual', as including "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." Although the term "infant" normally refers to a newborn baby, here its meaning is extended to also include a fertilized ovum, pre-embryo, embryo and fetus.
bullet The second explains the term "born alive." As defined for a
"... member of the species homo sapiens, [it] means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion." 3
The second definition was derived from "a model definition of 'live birth' that was promulgated by the World Health Organization in 1950 and is, with minor variations, currently codified in 30 States and the District of Columbia." 4 When the bill became law, it was the first time that the personhood of a "born- alive" member of the human race was codified in federal legislation.
"Embryology textbooks say that the heartbeat begins [in a human embryo] at 18 to 22 days after fertilization." 1 Thus, the law could theoretically apply to an embryo only three weeks after fertilization and a few days into pregnancy: i.e. a few days after the embryo attaches itself to the wall of the uterus. This is only barely into the first trimester.
Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC) expressed concern that the bill was not "studied in a responsible way before being rushed through the Judiciary Committee." Congressional Research Service reported that the bill would amend about 15,000 provisions of the U.S. Code and 57,000 provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations. Apparently, nobody has studied the full affect that the bill would have on existing legislation. Watt commented:
"If we took our roles as lawmakers more seriously, we would examine this bill thoroughly to ensure that it serves only the intended symbolic purpose and does not result in unintended consequences...It is quite apparent that the Majority considered the political objective much more important than the legislative or substantive objective."
bullet Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) had three concerns:
bullet Considering the tremendous impact that the bill would have on tens of thousands of existing laws, Nadler said: "many implications of H.R. 4292 remain unknown. Consequently, it seems unwise to proceed so quickly."
bullet "Because the bill refers to the 'complete extraction or expulsion from its mother' rather than the 'complete extraction or expulsion from the mother's body,' it is unclear whether a fetus that has emerged from the uterus but is still completely or partially in the vaginal canal would fall within the bill's ambit."
bullet "...there is concern that the bill, if passed, would require medical professionals to provide treatment that is not mandated under existing and future applicable standards of care."
bullet One unexpected impact of the bill might be in the area of wills. A woman might leave her estate to be distributed equally among all of her children, with the provision that if a child pre-deceased her, that their share would be given to charity. If she had two live children and two live-birth abortions for genetic reasons, then this law might imply that she had given birth to four persons during her lifetime. Her grown children might then each receive only one quarter of her estate, instead of the half of the estate that she intended. One can imagine other variations on this theme.
bullet On 2000-JUL-20, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) issued a press release criticizing H.R. 4292. They asserted that extending legal personhood to premature infants who are born alive after surviving abortions constitutes an "assault" on Roe v. Wade. By providing legal rights to born-alive infants "at any stage of development," including those who had achieved viability, the supporters of H.R. 4292 are "directly contradicting one of Roe's basic tenets."
bullet Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), testified before the Subcommittee that providing legal personhood to premature infants who survive abortions "is an attempt to do what the U.S. Supreme Court has strictly forbidden over and overit unduly restricts a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy."
***********************************************8
From: ReligiousTolerance.org
|
|
LyinDan
|
8/17/2008 12:25:49 PM
Regardless of reasons to oppose the Federal act, here's what Obama says himself about the Illinois State act he opposed:
|
|
LyinDan
|
8/17/2008 12:41:58 PM
Here is the full text of the U.S. Federal Bill:
*******************************************************
HR 4292 IH
106th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4292
To protect infants who are born alive.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 13, 2000
Mr. CANADY of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To protect infants who are born alive.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including born-alive infant
`(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
`(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including born-alive infant.'.
********************************************************
Here is the full text of the Illinois Bill:
*******************************************************
SB1662 Engrossed LRB9215510REdv
1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.
2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:
4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
5 Section 1.36 as follows:
6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
27 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
28 becoming law.
****************************************************
Section (C) of the Illinois Bill appears to be what Senator Obama was concerned about. Combine it with some of the concerns expressed by people criticizing the Federal Bill, and perhaps you can see why.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/17/2008 3:40:17 PM
To paraphrase Obama, I hate to say he is a liar, but he is a liar. The Federal Bill is states he would have supported was identical to the Ill bill he apposed.
"The Lie"
"The Truth"
http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13543
"“Official legislative documents released this week show that Obama in fact presided over a committee hearing where “neutrality clause” language – identical to the federal language – was added to the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. After voting in support of the “neutrality clause,” Obama then joined fellow Democrats to oppose the bill, killing it by a vote of 6-4, even after the addition of the ‘neutrality clause.’ The bill Obama killed is nearly identical to the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act signed by President Bush in 2002 – legislation Obama has said he supports.”
ChicagoTribune.com quoted the Obama Campaign’s response as:
“There are major differences in state and federal bills, including the fact that the federal bill included a ‘neutrality clause’.”
President of the Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser responded to the article saying, “The Obama campaign thinks if they continue to repeat their flimsy story about Barack Obama's opposition to the common sense Born Alive Infant Protection Act that their thin explanation will become true. The reality is that actual legislative records directly contradict their story.”
|
|
LyinDan
|
8/17/2008 7:16:48 PM
How you can baldfacedly post such clear lies when the bills are posted in their entirety above is beyond me, dingleberry.
|
|
the perfect banana
|
8/17/2008 8:17:41 PM
He's a nonsense-sputtering bot.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/17/2008 8:22:42 PM
---- Updated 8/17/2008 8:26:31 PM
Look freak, anyway you slice it, no one in their right mind could allow untold numbers of living children to die due to some bizarre interpretation of a bill that only a complete nutcase could interpret as threatening Roe vs Wade.
And even if that was the case how are the deaths of those children still justifiable?
Explain..
|
|
LyinDan
|
8/17/2008 8:28:19 PM
Obama says Illinois already had a law protecting viable live births.
Have you noticed that you're drooling lately?
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/17/2008 9:20:53 PM
Which law is that Dan? Post it here.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/18/2008 5:54:05 AM
I'm sure it's pretty easy for even Holo to clearly understand the intent of this bill as it was for Ted Kennedy, Bobara Boxer & Nancy Pelosi not to mention the rest who voted 98-0 to approve it's passing.
107THCONGRESS
2DSESSION
H. R. 2175
AN ACT
To protect infants who are born alive.
•HR 2175 EH
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001’’. SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant‘‘
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens,means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the
umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
•HR 2175 EH
‘‘(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.’’.
(b) CLERICALAMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:‘. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive in-
fant.’’. Passed the House of Representatives March 12, 2002.
|
|
LyinDan
|
8/18/2008 7:39:10 AM
Federal Bill (later bill):
‘‘(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.’’.
Illinois Bill:
"(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."
These two provisions are in NO WAY equivalent!
The federal bill specifically states that this bill will NOT affect any child not "born alive".
The Illinois bill specifically INCLUDES the word abortion and opens the way to interpret "live child", and specifically gives any child, fetus, or fertilized egg the rights of a "human person accorded immediate protection under the law".
If you say you can't see the difference, you're simply being disingenuous (as usual).
Obama was correct, and he is correct in saying that this subject is being LIED about to use against him.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/18/2008 8:44:16 AM
---- Updated 8/18/2008 8:46:19 AM
.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/18/2008 8:45:07 AM
That additional clause which appears in the Federal Bill first appeared in the ILL State bill which Obama first approved that later voted against, as has already verified in this thread.
So the same Federal Bill he now claims he would have voted for he voted against in Ill and that cannot be disputed.
|
|
Slim Jim
|
8/18/2008 8:52:26 AM
Here's some inspiration for you Danny-Doug.
|
|
| |
�2015-16 IndieMusicPeople.com All Rights
Reserved
| |
|