Obama supports killing unwanted BORN babies—& lies about it—should we trust him with healthcare?

Multiple damning sources | 8-12-09

[cpforlife.org]

If there are any folk left who are not extremely alarmed about the prospect of socialist government death care, please spend some time reading the following.

This alone should absolutely eliminate any reason to trust this man with our beloved Country's health-care.

Freepers, please help add the missing pieces of history to this thread and help spread the word about this. Hopefully this will help make a difference.

Time is short.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html

February 19, 2008

Links to Barack Obama's votes on IL's 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 Committeehere, 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

Obama's "no" vote in the 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.

[cpforlife.org]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL
by Amanda B. Carpenter

12/26/2006

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

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.”

As a senator, Obama has opposed measures to criminalize those who transport minors across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

At a townhall meeting in Ottawa, Ill., Joanne Resendiz, a teacher and mother of five, asked him: “How are you going to vote on this, keeping in mind that 10, 15 years down the line your daughters, God forbid, could be transported across state lines?”

Obama said: “The decision generally is one that a woman should make.”

[driftdiver]

It would be easier to say when BO ISN’T telling a lie. 99.99% of what he says is an outright lie.

[cpforlife.org]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2060017/posts

Obama’s Abortion Lies (Obama cover-up on born-alive survivors bill)
michellemalkin.com ^ | August 11, 2008 | Michelle Malkin

Posted on Monday, August 11, 2008 12:16:39 PM by Free ThinkerNY

There’s a newly uncovered paper trail demonstrating Barack Obama’s abortion militancy you can believe in (hat tip - Jill Stanek):

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama’s legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.

The NRLC’s Obama paper trail index is here.

***
And here’s a related howler about the Party of Planned Parenthood:

ABC NEWS: Are Democrats Now Pro-Life? As Convention Draws Near, New Talk of a Pro-Life Presence

[cpforlife.org]

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2063887/posts

Life Lies: Barack Obama and Born-Alive
NRO ^ | 8/17/2008 | David Freddoso

Posted on 08/18/2008 12:39:46 PM PDT by mojito

In 2001, Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons.” The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted “present” on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.

In 2003, a similar bill came before Obama’s health committee. He voted against it. But this time, the legislation was slightly different. This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush.

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.

Obama’s work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one — so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.

At the end of last week, Obama gave an interview to CBN’s David Brody in which he repeated the false claim that the born-alive bills he worked, spoke, and voted against on this topic between 2001 and 2003 would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. This has always been untrue, but, until last week, it appeared to be a debatable point that depended on one’s interpretation of the bill language. Every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb.

But in 2003, in the health committee which he chaired, Obama voted against a version of the bill that contained the specific “neutrality” language — redundant language affirming that the bill only applied to infants already born and granted no rights to the unborn. You can visit the Illinois legislature’s website here to see the language of the “Senate Amendment 1,” which was added in a unanimous 10-0 vote in the committee before Obama helped kill it. This is the so-called “neutrality clause” on Roe that everyone is talking about:

1 AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1082

2 AMENDMENT NO. . Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by

3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:

4 “(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to

5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal

6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at

7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this

8 Section.”.

The addition of this amendment made the bill identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. This Committee Action Report, dug up in Springfield by the National Right to Life Committee and revealed last week, shows two different votes. In the left column, under the heading “DP#1”(or “Do Pass” Amendment 1), we see that Obama’s committee voted 10-0 to add this neutrality language to the bill. In the right column, we see that the committee then voted 6-4 to kill the bill. Obama was among the six “No” votes.

A write-up from the time by a Republican staffer on the committee further explains:

CA #1 was adopted on a “Be Adopted” motion (Righter/Syverson) by an attendance roll call (10-0-0).

CA #1 (Winkel) to SB 1082 (Winkel) adds to the underlying bill.

Deletes language, which states that 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.

Inserts language, which states that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or right applicable to any member of the homo sapien species at any point prior to being born alive as defined under this legislation.

So again: after the above amendment was added to change the original bill, making it identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama and five other Democrats voted to kill it. They killed the same bill that the U.S. Senate had passed unanimously. Here is the interview in which Sen. Obama offers his false explanation once again, which is contradicted not only by eyewitnesses but also by the records of his own committee:

...I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

The senator is right. Someone is lying.

[cpforlife.org]

Lengthy—please see link:

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html

National Right to Life White Paper:

Barack Obama’s Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection
of Born-Alive Aborted Infants -– and What They Tell Us About His Thinking on Abortion

[cpforlife.org]

This should help convince those still undecided that obozo should NEVER have a say on health-care. And is unworthy of being dog catcher let alone POTUS.

I hope you can help spread this Jim?

[wolfcreek]

“should we trust him?’

I think that horse has left the gate.

[cpforlife.org]

All right FRiends. We need to bring this up whenever possible.

If you can’t trust someone with the life of ONE single BORN baby, how on earth can you trust him with the lives of 300+ million?

obozo: Deciding when a baby gets human rights is “above my pay grade” TRUE, and so is running the largest economy in the world and it's health care system.

In fact I doubt obozo was competent as an assistant community organizer. That's why he was never promoted to Lead organizer. /s

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government" - Thomas Paine

[cpforlife.org]

øbozo Health Care Czar

[cpforlife.org]

Obama Cover-up Revealed on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill

Obama’s legislative actions in 2003 — denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions — were contrary to the position taken on the ...

http://www.nrlc.org/obamabaipa/ObamaCoverup.html

[cpforlife.org]

Jill Stanek Interview - Obama Supports Born Alive Abortions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z65F0z-UKmk

[cpforlife.org]

CitizenLink: Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Apr 2, 2008

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm

“He often stood alone as an Illinois lawmaker in opposition to protections for babies who survived abortion.”

[reaganbooster]

I think this indicates has a moral blind spot on his brain; it’s called radical liberalism.

This man has frightened me since the campaign. He is aggressively pursuing “communism”. He’s skipping the socialism part entirely.

[WayneS]

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues...

But he DID carefully consider "both" sides of the issue.

He carefully considered whether he should simply support completely unrestricted abortions or whether he should support adding infanticide into the mix.

He chose the latter.

[cpforlife.org]

PING

God bless you for all you do.

[cpforlife.org]

Wow, great minds TRULY do think alike:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2314047/posts?page=5#5

I think what obozo really wants to do to America is sovietize it. I have yet to see or hear anything from him that points to the contrary....

5 posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:13:00 AM by cpforlife.org

__________________________________________________

LIBERALISM IS THE WORST TYPE OF CANCER.

[RoadTest]

He really is sinister, isn’t he?

[reaganbooster]

Yes, anyone who paid attention to his past radical associations should not be surprised at how openly brazen he is about taking complete control of our lives. It is very encouraging to see the independent American spirit awaken and speak out against this communist agenda. I just hope it isn’t too late to stop him before he does significant permanent damage to our country.

[tutstar]

bump