Sign in or 
Location: The Barack Obama Wiki
Discussion: Obama and Infanticide - Debunk This
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 2 posts
|
Jzyehoshua |
Obama and Infanticide - Debunk This
May 6 2012, 10:09 PM EDT
| Post edited: May 6 2012, 10:10 PM EDT
How do you explain Obama's voting against 7 different bills designed to protect newborn children from being left to die on hospital beds or being thrown in wastebaskets or back rooms? This was a major issue here in Illinois and led to the passage of the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002, passed unanimously by the entire U.S. Senate. Yet Obama while in the Illinois Senate was delaying the passage of these bills year after year. Pam Sutherland, head of the IL Planned Parenthood Council the past 30 years, said the following:""He [Obama] came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."" http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/obama-abortion/ http://creationwiki.org/Obama_born_alive_controversy 3 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you?
Keyword tags:
Barack Obama
Chicago
democrat
Illinois
senator
|
|
Jzyehoshua |
1. RE: Obama and Infanticide - Debunk This
May 6 2012, 10:12 PM EDT
Obama's own words on the Illinois Senate floor as seen from the senate transcript pp. 84-88:http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf "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?... 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, 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 befound unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide 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." 4 out of 4 found this valuable. Do you? |
