Posted on 08/17/2008 4:42:08 AM PDT by coffee260
It seems like Barack Obama’s heated answer about The Born Alive Infant Protection Act is making some headlines out there. The Brody File has decided to break out this clip of video by itself rather than having you sit through the whole 5 minute interview. The transcription is below. Clearly, the conversation over this bill has gotten Obama riled up. He truly believes The National Life to Right Committee is lying about this controversial infanticide bill which he opposed. He is adamant in saying that the bill he opposed in the Illinois State Senate was NOT the same as the federal legislation that pro-choice Senators even voted for. The National Right to Life Committee is pointing to a document that shows how Obama voted against a bill that had the federal language in it so they say Obama is misleading people because of past conflicting stories. The Obama campaign says the Illinois bill had added language that would have watered down Roe. The whole thing can get a little confusing. In future posts we will lay out the arguments on both sides. For now, research it yourself. Just remember, everything you read on the Internet isn’t always true!
Watch the video above and the transcription below.
Brody: Real quick, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I gotta tell you that's the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it's just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main -- they're trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.
Obama: Let me clarify this right now.
Brody: Because it's getting a lot of play.
Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And 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. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.
So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.
Brody: I wanted to give you a chance to clear it up.
Obama: I appreciate it.
Brody: Thank you so much.
Obama your track record shows otherwise.
NARAL gave him a 100% rating because (in part) of his position on this bill.
If he does not know this he is way to stupid to be President.
His track record...including the paper trail....shows otherwise. Obama is not being honest about this.
Of course I can't see why anyone would vote for abortion in the first place. Talk about unconstitutional!
He always says this, so I guess the politics we have to get beyond is actually finding out how politicians voted on things and expecting them to be accountable for those votes and those positions.
“I’m mainstream. Pay no attention to my voting record.”
There is no justification for such a vote! And it was certainly great to see Senator Obama soooo clearly outclassed by McCain last night. Their immediate (or not so immediate in Obama’s case) answers on the question of when life begins....TRULY showed the difference between them.
Excuse me but they do the abortions and create this crisis in the first place. For Obama to emphasis them as beyond reproach is "ridiculous" and shows the kind of political spin that people want to get away from.
A package of Born Alive bills was introduced three times during Obama’s tenure.
The cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which defined legal personhood. This definition was identical to the federal BAIPA (1) which was drafted from the definition of “live birth” created by the World Health Organization in 1950 (2) and adopted by the United Nations in 1955 (3)....
Here I will only post links to Obama’s actions and votes on the cornerstone bill, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The bill number changed every year it was reintroduced.
2001
Senate Bill 1095 (4), Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Go here to view Obama’s “no” vote (5) in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 28, 2001.
Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor (6), March 30, 2001, pages 84-90
Obama’s “present” vote on the IL Senate floor (7), March 30, 2001
2002
Senate Bill 1662 ( 8 ), Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Go here to view Obama’s “no” vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee (9) on March 6, 2002. (ABC inadvertently coped bill #1663, a companion bill. The vote for the Born Alive bill, #1662, was identical.)
Transcript of Obama’s verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor (10), April 4, 2002, pages 28-35
Obama’s “no” vote on the IL Senate floor (11), April 4, 2002
2003
Senate Bill 1082 (12), Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. They sent Born Alive to the infamously liberal Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama (13).
As can be seen on the Actions docket (14), Obama held Born Alive on March 6, 2003, from even being voted on in committee. It is also important to note from the docket that on March 13, 2003, Obama stopped the senate sponsor from adding the lately discussed clarification paragraph (15) from the federal BAIPA, to make the bills absolutely identical.
1. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2175
2. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/indunder5mortality/en/
3. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/natality/natmethods.htm
4. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1095.html
5. http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_32701.pdf
6. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
7. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1095_03302001_030000T.PDF
8. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1662.html
9. http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_3502.pdf
10. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf
11. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1662_04042002_014000T.pdf
13. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?GA=93&committeeID=85
Tell me what is true. Corsi and others say that he voted for the bill that had the federal language in it WHILE he was on some committee that put the language in the bill. He along with 17 others voted it down.
“He truly believes The National Life to Right Committee is lying...”
How does Brody “know” what Obama “truly believes”
The interviewer should have hit harder on this statement. What in the bill would have undermined RvW, but for the withholding of life saving efforts for an infant that survived an abortion?
(See also the Induced Infant Liability Act. Also note there were five hospitals in Chicago that did this)
Obama’s Abortion Distortion
The senator’s excuses for opposing the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act don’t withstand scrutiny.
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/404kfgky.asp
Obama continues to misrepresent Born Alive vote
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/obama_continues.html
Okay folks, is it me or do these men totally miss it? (vid)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzsBooE2Ols
Alrighty then, let’s get deeper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pir-etUBKKU
*Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill (the side by side link, breakdown)
The following statement was issued on Monday, August 11, 2008, by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C.
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaCoverup.html
Tuesday, pre-Saddleback:
Rick Warren, Obama and the Born-Alive Act [Peter Kirsanow]
As Yuval Levin noted yesterday, Obama’s claim — that he voted against the Illinois state version (S. B. 1082) of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (”BAIPA”) because it didn’t have the “neutrality clause” contained in the federal version — has been shown false. The state version did, in fact, contain the same neutrality language as the federal Act that not one U.S.senator voted against. The state version was killed in the committee chaired by Obama, with Obama voting against it.
NARAL didn’t oppose BAIPA. At the time CNN reported that NARAL’s spokesperson stated the following:
We, in fact, did not oppose the bill. There is a clear legal difference between a fetus in utero versus a child that’s born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that the country can provide them (Emphasis added).
The logical import of Senator Obama’s vote is that he disagrees; i.e.,once a baby has been targeted for abortion it thereafter has no inherent right to the food, comfort or medical care provided to other babies born alive. That’s an extraordinary position, one that could be fairly described as vile, even monstrous. Does Obama maintain that the abortion provider retains dominion over babies he fails to abort for some unspecified time after birth? Does common law rescue doctrine attach at some point? If so, when? Would Obama permit the abandonment of any other class of babies born alive, e.g., those born with abnormalities? Precisely where does he draw the lines?
As I mentioned yesterday, some veteran politicos maintain that the candidate that first raises the abortion issue (albeit,this is no longer abortion, we’re talking a living, breathing infant that has been born) is harmed thereby, so the Obama camp may be betting that McCain won’t raise the issue. And you can be sure the mainstream media will come nowhere near the matter. But Obama is such an outlier that the questions must be asked.
A perfect opportunity will come this Saturday when both candidates will appear at Rick Warren’s Leadership and Compassion forum at the Saddleback Church. If there was ever a question that goes directly to a candidate’s capacity for compassion, it’s “At what point is a baby entitled to be treated as a human being?”
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmUzZmY2ZGU0YzJiNjgxMmUwYjQ4YTI5MDZiOTQ3ZWU=
Obama’s Christian Creds Vs. Abortion and Infanticide
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_christian_creds_vs_abor.html
“He truly believes The National Life to Right Committee is lying...”
So, if I “truly believe” that wacking my head against a brick wall will not give me a headache, will that MAKE it true?
No wonder the guy voted "Present" so often. It's a good thing they didn't provide an option to vote "Absent" as well. He's still be agonizing on how to spin that.
I had lunch the other day with a friend, who brought along one of her co-workers. In about two seconds of conversation it was obvious the co-worker was an Obama supporter. When I began to ask a question about presidential qualifications, he did the equivalent of putting his hands over his ears and chanting “Lalalalalalalalala.” And he did what virtually every lin does when they can’t discuss anything logically: He defaulted to BDS. In other words, he steadfastly refused to discuss the 2008 election and instead ranted about the evils of George Bush. When I pointed out to him that Bush is not running his only response was: “But McCain is!”
I am more convinced than ever that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Re: “And he did what virtually every lin does....”
lin should be lib.
Unfortunately there’s a segment of society that if ObamaNation instructed them to bring newborns to his house so he could eat them, they’d simply swoon and rant some BDS drivel.
Hypocrats ARE the mentally unhinged/diseased party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
