Posted on 08/21/2008 2:35:06 AM PDT by cdchik123
(it starts on page 31)
from what I can tell, it is obvious what the intent of the bill is. I find the "fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it" quip kind of PATHETIC.
also here is mp3 audio of Obama talking about the act.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/mp3/2007-04/29383467.MP3
LISTEN: http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/mp3/2007-04/29383467.MP3
Obama “if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child”
State of Illinois
92nd General Assembly
Regular Session
Senate Transcript March 30, 2001
Page 87
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
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 keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the lines in terms of unconstitutionality.
ALSO BEGIN ON PAGE 84
ping for later
Sick. Sick. SICK.
OBAMA: “As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fat, 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 it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would 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.”
Yeah, Senator, that baby has the audacity to not be dead like the mother and doctor had planned. What a horrible burden for the doctor to have to deal with such a mistake.
Of course, since he voted NO on throwaway newborns receiving Equal Protection under the law (1095, 1662), it really shouldn’t be too much of a surprise.
More details: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
Can’t you just feel the love in this guy?
Sounds like the voice of a cold, calculating, beating evil black heart.
It's as gruesome as the Biblical stories in the Bible of children being sacrificed by fire.
This mouthpiece for the liberal left blows away all pretenses to the argument that it’s about “her own body.” It’s actually about her mistake and the power she thinks she wields over the life of another individual, who represents her indiscretion.
Obama as a General?: “Bringing in a doctor to treat a wounded enemy soldier would only burden the original decision of the soldier to fire his weapon and attempt to kill an enemy.”
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 verbal oppostion to Born alive, (7) “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 keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the lines in terms of unconstitutionality.” March 30, 2001
Obama’s “present” vote on the IL Senate floor ( 8 ), March 30, 2001
2002
Senate Bill 1662 ( 9 ), Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Go here to view Obama’s “no” vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee (10) 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 (11), April 4, 2002, pages 28-35
Obama’s “no” vote on the IL Senate floor (12), April 4, 2002
2003
Senate Bill 1082 (13), 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 (14).
As can be seen on the Actions docket (15), 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 (16) 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/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
8. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1095_03302001_030000T.PDF
9. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1662.html
10. http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_3502.pdf
11. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf
12. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1662_04042002_014000T.pdf
14. http://www.ilga.gov/senate/committees/members.asp?GA=93&committeeID=85
Well said. The thing that finally made me sit down and think about this issue (I used to be a craven modlib Mass. moron on this) was the NARAL ads around 2000 that went on and on about respecting the woman’s mature judgement. It was a real quick sit-down when it came to it. I think that ad series made a lot of fence-sitters into committed pro-lifers. I wish it hadn’t taken me so long.
I’m sure this will be the feature story on CNN and MSNBC today, right? I’ll bet even Fox won’t touch this...
The baby killing champion has good cause to be concerned. If any law protects a baby who survived abortion, somebody’s responsible to that little person with rights.
Somebody endangered its life and probably damaged its health for life, or somebody committed a homicide, by removing the baby from the temporary life support of its mother’s body at a time when they knew it would be detrimental, perhaps deadly, to do so.
There’s a logic here that’s too powerful even for Democrats to ignore.
Give that baby recognition, even for a few minutes, and you damn everyone involved in its imminent death.
Their answer will be, must be, to leave no survivor, no witness to the massacre. Then it is deniable, like any other complete massacre.
Obama’s burnt toast now.
Every newborn child is “not viable.”
Outside the womb, left to fend for itself, an infant would not survive.
Doesn’t it give you a warm feeling knowing that our next president thinks it is more important to not “burden a doctor” to keep a child alive, than to require that all measures be used to stop the killing of the innocent?
Even more illogical, PROBABLY? Obama isn’t knowledgeable about the facts to begin with;
Obama “then we’re PROBABLY crossing the lines in terms of unconstitutionality”
State of Illinois
92nd General Assembly
Regular Session
Senate Transcript March 30, 2001
Page 87
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
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 keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the lines in terms of unconstitutionality.
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.