Barack Obama, Baby Killer
Why is it that no one is focusing on Obama's support for the killing of newly born children? His opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2001, which was voted in favor of 98-0 (he defiantly voted 'Present'), is recorded in the official senate transcript. The bill was designed to prevent hospitals from letting babies that survive late-term abortions, i.e. partial-birth abortions, from being left to starve to death on hospital beds.
Obama's words as recorded in the transcript showed he has no regard for the lives of these for all intents and purposes prematurely born children, who when given the chance to survive, have, to live meaningful and fulfilling lives. The link to the senate transcript is at the bottom of this page (see pages 84-90), along with all of the exact statements Obama made in it for you to read for yourselves.
Not since 2004 has an opposing candidate called Obama out for it, and in 2004 it was Alan Keyes who did it, whom I supported and voted for at the time, after coming over late in the election from Massachusetts with virtually no chance of winning. In the short few months of the election, I witnessed firsthand how the Obama campaign attacked him viciously on his daughter's lifestyle choices, his personal views against homosexuality, and his 'carpetbagging' in coming to a state just for an election (he did it because the Republican candidate had dropped out due to a scandal and he despised Obama's abortion record).
Obama later killed in a committee he headed the Illinois version of this bill. When questioned about it, he spread a lie that his supporters still quote today, that he would've voted for it if it had the same language as the original bill, which said it wouldn't go against Roe v. Wade. What he failed to mention was that A) He hadn't voted for the federal bill and was the only senator to publicly speak against it in the senate session, and B) The Illinois bill was EXACTLY the same word for word as the federal bill, thanks to an amendment sponsored by Richard Winkel which required it have the exact same wording as the federal bill.
An article which sums this up very well is Terrence Jeffrey's "Obama is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever".
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/01/09/obama_...
Noted anti-abortion witness and speaker Nurse Jill Stanek is also one of Obama's most fervent adversaries, frequently focusing on his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-rea...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121
I am not a Republican. I am an Independent, who chose to vote for the Constitution Party's candidate, Michael Peroutka, in the 2004 election. I disagree with McCain about Iraq. However, I consider Obama a lying, silver-tongued demagogue with the potential to do more harm than any previous politician America has ever seen. I like McCain's honesty and openness with Americans and the media, as well as how he endured torture for the country. For those reasons, I am more and more looking to support McCain so that Obama does not reach power.
Official Senate Transcript:
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
Obama's exact words:
“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?”
“Well, it turned out – that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your – you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, 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 – 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 be found 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 if necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I – I won’t, as I said, belabor the point. I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and – and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a – a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present.”
Obama's words as recorded in the transcript showed he has no regard for the lives of these for all intents and purposes prematurely born children, who when given the chance to survive, have, to live meaningful and fulfilling lives. The link to the senate transcript is at the bottom of this page (see pages 84-90), along with all of the exact statements Obama made in it for you to read for yourselves.
Not since 2004 has an opposing candidate called Obama out for it, and in 2004 it was Alan Keyes who did it, whom I supported and voted for at the time, after coming over late in the election from Massachusetts with virtually no chance of winning. In the short few months of the election, I witnessed firsthand how the Obama campaign attacked him viciously on his daughter's lifestyle choices, his personal views against homosexuality, and his 'carpetbagging' in coming to a state just for an election (he did it because the Republican candidate had dropped out due to a scandal and he despised Obama's abortion record).
Obama later killed in a committee he headed the Illinois version of this bill. When questioned about it, he spread a lie that his supporters still quote today, that he would've voted for it if it had the same language as the original bill, which said it wouldn't go against Roe v. Wade. What he failed to mention was that A) He hadn't voted for the federal bill and was the only senator to publicly speak against it in the senate session, and B) The Illinois bill was EXACTLY the same word for word as the federal bill, thanks to an amendment sponsored by Richard Winkel which required it have the exact same wording as the federal bill.
An article which sums this up very well is Terrence Jeffrey's "Obama is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever".
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/01/09/obama_...
Noted anti-abortion witness and speaker Nurse Jill Stanek is also one of Obama's most fervent adversaries, frequently focusing on his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-rea...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121
I am not a Republican. I am an Independent, who chose to vote for the Constitution Party's candidate, Michael Peroutka, in the 2004 election. I disagree with McCain about Iraq. However, I consider Obama a lying, silver-tongued demagogue with the potential to do more harm than any previous politician America has ever seen. I like McCain's honesty and openness with Americans and the media, as well as how he endured torture for the country. For those reasons, I am more and more looking to support McCain so that Obama does not reach power.
Official Senate Transcript:
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
Obama's exact words:
“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?”
“Well, it turned out – that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your – you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, 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 – 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 be found 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 if necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I – I won’t, as I said, belabor the point. I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and – and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a – a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present.”
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by James Carder on
-
Permalink Reply by BarbaraT on -
Joshua, you bring a lot of good ammunition here, and I thank you for it. I am also an independent and have never voted for a republican until John McCain. I chose him early on and have not found one reason yet to doubt my judgment. There have been some arguments I faced over this issue and I had little to go on that was definitive, this gives me what I need. If I can return the favor on any issue, just give me a shout!
-
Permalink Reply by Joshua Zambrano on -
Yeah, I really think this one issue more so than any other has the potential to bring down Obama and show the world just what he really is.
The problem is that nobody seems to be broaching the subject publicly who can get it publicity. Nobody's pointed out that Obama lied back in 2004.
I've tried contacting the McCain campaign multiple times in the last few weeks about this, trying to suggest they call Obama out on this subject.
I've voted for Republicans before at lower levels but never at the Presidential level. I'd planned on voting for the Constitution Party's candidate, thinking they'd go with Michael Peroutka or newcomer Alan Keyes, but they chose some Chuck Baldwin guy who struck me as more than a little nutty.
Stopping illegal immigration is his main rant, he believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories, and thinks a North American Union is being created that needs to be stopped. If he focused on stopping abortion or other stuff that showed where his heart is at I'd be more accepting of him, but he seems like a pure politics guy using wedge issues to get conservative votes. Plus, I tend to be suspicious of pastors that only talk about politics.
I don't agree with McCain about everything, like immigration or Iraq, but at least he's against abortion, and most importantly, strikes me as an honest person. He doesn't avoid the controversial issues like Obama and makes it a point to keep himself open and honest with the media, even if it results in him getting into subjects that wouldn't be considered a good idea politically.
Plus, his history of undergoing torture without accepting the easy way out for the sake of his country impressed me. How many politicians have that on their resume? I'd rather have an honest guy in office who doesn't have a perfect country-changing plan than a guy who has a great-sounding plan but is dishonest as a snake.
Clinton can talk about experience all she wants (I like Clinton more than Obama though), but we've had experienced people in office who led our country in horrible directions - what we need are honest politicians.
-
Permalink Reply by BarbaraT on
-
Joshua, it's an issue that people are uncomfortable with in a more personal way, so past a fleeting reference to Roe V. Wade I'm afraid we're not going to hear much about it, unless it's brought up by McCain's supporters. I found it very interesting in Obama's Father's Day speech/sermon that he reprimanded black fathers telling them that their responsibility to their children didn't end with conception. The way he phrased it seemed to indicate that he himself believes that life does indeed begin at conception. One of his supporters on the youdecide2008 discussion board reiterated this when I mentioned it, saying that he was sure Obama does believe life begins at conception. This alone contradicts his argument that a baby born alive via abortion is not a "previable fetus", is not really a human being yet. I think even to a woman who supports her right to an abortion, this would define Obama in a negative way. If life begin at conception, then partial birth abortion is most definitely murder.
As I said in an earlier blog on my site I don't agree with everything McCain says, either, if I did I'd worry about myself. But let me tell you one thing about him that really spoke to me, and it's something you'll never see on the evening news. Several years back when the Senate raised a bill for a new pay increase for themselves, McCain opposed it very vocally. It passed anyway, and that could have been the end of the subject for McCain, taking the money and going on about his business. But he didn't do that. He stood behind his convictions by never accepting the pay raise, every dollar of that pay raise has been donated to charity from day one. Now that's not an earth shattering, life changing issue that will win an election for him, but it told me here was a man who stood behind his convictions and acted on them without any expectation of reward for it. He simply said what he believed in, and then acted on it. This is honest integrity, and it sealed the deal for me.
Obama has lied about so many things, if the media chose to they could fill every day all day with nothing more than Obama's flip flopping, hedging, and outright lies. I hope we see more of them exposed as the campaign continues.
-
Permalink Reply by James Carder on
-
As far as I'm concerned, the abortion and gay issue in America is more important to national security than Iraq or the War on Terror combined.
Iraq and the War on Terror drags us down, but the nation's current position on gay marriage and abortion will pull us down, and from within.
The sky is falling and the walls are crumbling, but no one in America seems to understand why.
Gays have gained their right to marry in California; they've had it in Massachusetts and we have a candidate running for President telling the public that if his daughter gets pregnant he would rather let her get an abortion than let the unwanted child be a burden to her life.
America is going the way of Sodom...Nineveh...and ancient Babylon.
This is what happens when the public is allowed to make decisions for the nation that requires moral and spiritual insight.
I think that if Jesus and Barrabus were running for President in this election - Barrabus would be elected.
I also think that this is a very similar analogy of the vote that America will be faced with in November between Obama and John McCain... unless John McCain does something to corrupt his image.
If this happens, I would say that the nation is going to be in a lot of trouble.
I'd hate to get to November and not have a place to cast my vote.
Looking for the Wise Men of America (CLICK)
Jim
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by John McCain Volunteer Staff on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
