Obama and abortion...just another radical view

Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting “present” and “no” on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA.

10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:

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 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

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 anti-abortion 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 mothers.

Before voting “no” for a second 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.

8. 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 BAIPA because it included provisions that “would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable.”

7. Anyway, doctors don’t do that.

Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA because “physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions.”

6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof.

Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said “there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee,” according to the Illinois Leader.

5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.

During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, 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’ condemnation as a blanket statement against Obama’s pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.

Nevertheless, induced labor abortion, the procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive, must be included as one Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes as he recounted in a July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:

… [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and … I can’t impose my religious views on another.

4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.

In that 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.

3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.

During the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, “The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons,” according to the Illinois Leader.

2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver.

Obama has this quote on his website:

Pam Sutherland … of … Illinois Planned Parenthood … 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 No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn 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 a lie on two points.

First, there was no such amendment.

Second, both definitions of “born alive” were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois’ version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.

The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama’s contention:

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.

At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically “encroach on Roe v. Wade”?

Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2008/01/45553/#OEoxF7XOStOZEGKM.99

And if that is NOT ENOUGH...HERE YA GO.

*****************



OBAMA: I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there’s, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think, as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, lets say for the purposes of the mother’s health, is being — that — that labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, if — if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case – and –and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue – that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after. Thank you, Mr. President.”

Hear the video....

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/23/n...e-in-illinois/


"Today, legalized abortion is like a chicken bone that's stuck in the throat of the American people. The abortion lobby will never be able to make them swallow it, and the pro-life movement will never let them just ignore it. And every once in a while, something comes along to remind them of those two realities." Mark Crutcher

 

Everything you need to know about Obama's sick view of pregnancy is when he said that if one of his daughters "made a mistake" he did not want her "punished with a baby."

He is a demented freak, like many in the pro abortion movement.

 

He is evil...period.

 

Funny, that is exactly what one of our resident pro-life posters has said many times. Women who have sex should "suffer the consequences," and, If the woman decides to have the baby, it is hers to "DEAL WITH," without child support from the man, or government assistance.

 

All seem perfectly valid reasons to me .. I especially like the one where the pro-lifer says that the bill is not an attempt to undermine Roe vs Wade, they said exactly the same about the UVOVA, and yet here on these very pages we have pro-lifers saying that the UVOVA does render Roe vs Wade obsolete.

Now sits back and waits for the usual "you are", "you want" rant from the topic author.

 

Why did Ilinois need the BAIPA, when a law already existed to protect babies born alive during an abortion?

http://factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/

 

Obama has to play along to keep the radical feminist supporters in his Party happy. If he did not heed to their every pro-choice anti-baby abortion stance, the feminist leadership would start telling Liberal women everywhere about "how he isn't doing a good job of upholding women's reproductive rights", even though many of these pro-abortion policies being pushed by the feminists are so extreme, I doubt even most Democratic women really want this.

Obama needs as much support as he can get, and the sad fact is he gets more support pandering to these radical feminists than he would if he took a more moderate pro-choice approach. Obama doesn't want feminists going around accusing him of being anti-choice on abortion in any way.

 

Which "pro-abortion policies being pushed by the femisists are so extreme"? Abortion is already legal, and all polls have shown that the majority of Americans want Roe v. Wade to stand. What Democratic women really don't want is the 278 anti-abortion laws that have been introduced already this year.

Specifically how has Obama pandered to radical feminists as president?

 

Yes, no one should judge another as not worthy of life.

 

you mean like you judge DS people as not worthy of life .. hypocrite.

 

#8 - Obama is right. You lifers would want to make doctors try and save the life of a fetus that cannot be saved. Obama says let the doctor decide if the baby is viable, if not, let it die. It is a pointless waste of money trying to save the life of a baby born at 20 weeks when it has no chance.

 

Men have been judging since the beginning of time. Everyone judges....Are you telling me that you can't recognize evil? What you say is absolutely absurd...and its not livable.

 

Yes doctors like Gosnell and others who just want to kill babies. Obama is a barbarian and the position showcases that fact. What you might see is a waste of money...might be different than my idea of what it would be. And we are not talking about just 20 weeks....but much later as well.

- - - Updated - - -

ARe you attacking the position Fungazi...looks as if your not. Would this be against the rules or don't you try to follow them?

 

Cady...I hope you mean me...of course you do. Don't have the guts to call me out so you crawl around making slams at me trying to look like your within the rules to do so.
I said....that responsibility should make a difference. A woman has consensual sex....with HER BODY, USING HER BRAINS TO MAKE THE DECISION TO TAKE THE RISK.

How should this be anyones problem other than hers? Why should I have to pay for her mistake as she calls it? Should I foot the bill for your mistakes? Show me the logic in that? Why should someone foot the bill for someone who through their own carelessness or bad decision...got pregnant? Why should anyone else suffer the consequences of HER ACTIONS. Why should the child suffer?

The result might punish her...but that result SHE CAUSED AND BROUGHT ON BY HERSELF. NO ONE ELSE DID IT...SHE DID. She should deal with it.

 

Obamas words speak for themselves...no need really to say anything...but see pro-choicers squirming to make sense of what he says....and trying to defend it. But that is not hard as most of you so it seems condone what Obama thinks is compassionate....infanticide. So while Obama did give his position...it is the position of most that are debating here that defend abortion...late term abortion and infanticide.

 

Look at those who support him Anders? There are two world views here.....one that is moral and one that is not. Guess which one theirs represent? But feminists are not the only ones supporting him...look at the men who do as well. There is NOTHING moderate about Obama...NOTHING. He is anti-choice on a lot of things...in which he wants to enslave the American people.
His transparent presidency is a crock of crap. There is nothing transparent about him or his presidency. He is singlehandedly raping America. He has an aura of superiority that is nauseating. He's a liar and a master manipulator..and has the ability to dupe those who support him. He no more cares for unborn babies as he cares for the poor or those in need.

Now you can spin what is posted about him here...but the fact will always remain that when he was an Illinois State Senator he voted to deny equal treatment and basic protections for babies born alive from a failed abortion — not once but FOUR times. He also refused to back a parental measure that would have prohibited transporting a MINOR girl across state lines to obtain an abortion. He also gleefully signed into law Obama Care which basically is the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortion in history. And he refuses to stand against gender selective abortion. That alone is a war on women.

The Democratic Party also condones for the most part what their savior Obama believes. Look at how many nay votes are from this party. Yea to partial birth abortion.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00340

"Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

What he means is..make the choice to kill a child always available to women who want to do it. Even his precious girls...so that if they get knocked up...while sleeping around...they can kill his grand babies so the family won't have to suffer.

 

This thread is rather indictative of the "pro-lifers"....

arguing about something concerning abortion....that they can and do have ZERO effect on.


Or does churchmouse think she's going to get President Obama impeached for his views on abortion??? That WOULD be about as feasible a scenario as her getting abortion made illegal again.

 

If you were pro-choice and not interested in forcing every pregnancy to come to term then I might agree with you, but as it currently stands you want to force women to give birth even if they cannot afford to do so, if you want to force women to give birth when they have made it clear they do not have the financial resources to do so then you are obligated to help them. If you don't want to help or be involved at all then back off and let her make her own choices.

What's the mistake?

You are pro-life, you want to involve yourself in someone else's personal life and personal medical decisions. If you continue to interfere with their life in such a way you should be willing to offer financial help. It costs money to give birth and raise children. If you are in favor of bringing children into this world then back up those moral beliefs and take the next step, assure each child you forced women to give birth to is financially supported and gets everything it needs to have a chance in this life.

But God forbid you do the Christian thing and actually help born humans.

Why should you get a say in her life choices at all?

How do you know the fetus suffers? I mean, at most it's a quick and painless death and then it goes straight into the arms of Jesus doesn't it? What's so bad about that?

I thought you part of a group that made efforts to help pregnant women, or is it a group that helps women recover from emotionally traumatic abortions?

 

People like that are sick.

 

Ok Unifier, we get it. Every person who believes women should always have legal authority over their on bodies are sick (*)(*)(*)(*)s. Yada, yada...

 

johnnymo said,

So what are you doing by telling me that what I post is wrong...that I have no right to judge? Are you judging me? Sure ya are. Everyone here who opposes me and posts so...is judging me.
Just in this thread I have been judged. Karma did it by saying...

"The OP is a cut and paste piece of garbage from the noise machine...yawn..." This statement is totally judging.

Fungazi judged Anders...."you mean like you judge DS people as not worthy of life .. hypocrite."

I could go on and on about how pro-choicers judge lifers...and specific people.

See you think this is wrong...I don't. We all judge and we could not live unless we made righteous judgement concerning people and events.

It depends what it is. Should all rights be afforded people? I am in a position to effects the rights of others and so are most people if they actively get involved. You think Obamas decisions do not affect our right to do something? I want abortion banned...and I work in fields that work towards that cause.

Well it is always up to the individual because we are supposed to take responsibility for our actions. That is why the person who gets pregnant should stand up and account for their mistakes...the risks they take.

I want to expand on what you said here..."Clearly your view of evil differs from mine, so in essence, what is evil is an opinion with yours being no more valid than mine."

Yes our idea might differ.

I believe rape is sometimes ok...that men should be able to have sex when they want...their bodies are wired differently and we as women should recognized that..so if we always said yes, rape might not be such an issue. IMO its not that violent. And I think that childrens bodies are beautiful so if someone want to engage in kiddie porn it should be ok. And I think that men should be the head of the household and women should answer to them...they do know what is best...so if a wife disagrees with her husband...well, if abuse happens it not always is wrong. And I think that gays should not marry or cohabitate...it is evil...its nasty and if they are caught should go directly to prison. And I think that whites are superior to any other race...so they should abide by different sets of laws that are tougher on them....and I think that Muslims who do the honor killings are doing something great....discipline is what people need especially kids. And I think that anyone who condones abortion should be locked up and fed only one crust of bread and a glass of water a week. These are all evil and as you said....our ideas might differ but both our ideas are valid. Right?

You moral relativists are unbelievable...no right or wrong...no truth, everything in the eyes of the beholding it. You make a case for every one of the sick and perverted examples I just gave. And if you disagree with any I mentioned then WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO JUDGE ME..IF ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE?

 

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. And it's dishonest of you to represent my position like that, Pasithea. You're better than that. Your rights end where someone else's begin. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. But apparently it's a difficult concept for emotional people to accept. Which is an entirely different problem. For instance, what kind of logical person can defend something like this:

If you believe the pro-abortion position to be so logical, then please explain to me how a child that survives abortion and is born alive - at which point is now no different than a willfully delivered child - still does not count as a person and thus can be left to die.

Go ahead. I'd really like to hear this. Every argument you people use about "being part of the mother's body" now goes completely out the window since the child is now outside of the womb.

 

But half your friends on here who are pro-choice believe the same way you do remember? The women past 24 weeks...do they have legal authorities over their bodies?

LMAO