Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Posted on 09/07/2008 4:19:12 PM PDT by Winged Hussar
Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide Posted: January 16, 2008 1:00 am Eastern
By Jill Stanek © 2008
I was intimately involved in the five-year process to pass the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, testifying before committees twice that then-state Sen. Barack Obama sat on.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito...
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Countless babies saved by this action of a Republican president, not to mention our tax dollars not funding abortions in other nations. McCain will continue this, Obama will reverse it, as Clinton did when he came into office.
January 22, 2001 (note first day in office)
The White House
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Restoration of the Mexico City Policy
The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. This policy was in effect until it was rescinded on January 22, 1993.
It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief that the Mexico City Policy should be restored. Accordingly, I hereby rescind the “Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of the Agency for International Development, Subject: AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy,” dated January 22, 1993, and I direct the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to reinstate in full all of the requirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on January 19, 1993.
GEORGE W. BUSH
“The Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act was introduced primarily by Republicans.”
Yes, they did. And while that wasn’t nothing, both that law and the ban on partial birth abortion are at best very minor scratches at the surface. The youngest premature child to survive, who was presumably not born as a result of an abortion, was born at 21 weeks 6 days. The chances of a child surviving who is born at less than 24 weeks is very low.
Abortions that are performed after 21 weeks represent less than 2% of all abortions performed. So if a child is aborted after 21 weeks (unlikely) and actually survives the procedure and is born alive (also unlikely), and survives being extremely premature (unlikely still), we can say that the Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act will have actually saved him or her.
I wonder if even one child has survived to date as a result of the passage of this law?
The Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act and the partial birth abortion ban were well gnawed polical bones thrown to the pro-life community. Their impact is slight, and represent very little progress given that Roe v Wade reared it’s ugly head in 1973.
“Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito...”
Last I checked, Roe v Wade was still the law of the land. Good intentions, while nice, aren’t particularly useful.
“Countless babies saved by this action of a Republican president, not to mention our tax dollars not funding abortions in other nations.”
Countless? By that do we mean 100? 25? 10? Abortion, with the exception of partial birth abortion, is just as legal as it was the day that President Bush took office. While I’m thankful about partial birth abortion being banned, it represented a very small portion of the slaughter.
As for the executive order, that’s good news. But you’ll note that it has zero impact in the U.S. I’m truly glad that there won’t be as many abortions in Guatemala. You’ll forgive me, however, if I don’t raise a glass to toast the lack of progress in the country that I hapeen to live.
Obama is for BAIPA! He says he would have voted for the bill as it was presented in the US Senate. But, that bill at a state level was problematic.
About Obama’s BAIPA votes at the state level, on his website he says he didn’t vote for BAIPA because it- A. Eroded abortion rights (calling the fetus at any stage a person, with all rights, which would mean you couldn’t do an abortion) and was- B. Unneccessary because there was already an Illinois State law in place that explicitly protected babies born alive, (since 1975).
In Illinois,
“Thirteen different bills relating to the rights of infants born alive as the result of a botched abortion were proposed during the 92nd (2001-2002) and 93rd (2003-2004) Illinois General Assemblies. See The Illinois Analogs to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
Five bills - 92-1095, 92-1662, 93-1082, 93-2631, and 93-2855 - were essentially copies of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (BAIPA). However, only the fifth bill contained a “preservation clause”, (about how a person is defined, which solved problem A., above), similar to the federal BAIPA.”
BUT,
“None of the bills in the 93rd assembly made it to a full Senate vote. Senate Bill 93-1083 (didn’t have the clause at first) never made it out of the Health & Human Services Committee, of which Obama was Chair. Senate Bills 93-2631 and 93-2855 (this last had the clause) never made it out of the Rules Committee, of which Obama was not a member.” 1.
So he never had a chance to vote on any that were like the federal BAIPA on the Senate floor.
When the Senate bill 93-1083 went to the Health and Human Services committee which Obama chaired, it was ammended to have the Federal “preservation clause”, but after discussion, the bill was killed by the majority of Dems-(6) to Rep-(4). Obama cast his, the 7th vote against, with the Dems. The Dems (and others) were still unsure about this bill, concerned how the 1975 law would be effected and other implications.
“The 2003 bill could have affected the way courts interpret the 1975 law, which Planned Parenthood and the Illinois State Medical Society contended could have far-reaching implications”, & “In 2005, Illinois lawmakers inserted an extra provision asserting that the law would not affect “existing federal or state law regarding abortion.”, (this solved problem B.). The measure passed, without opposition from Planned Parenthood and with the support of groups opposed to abortion.”- chicagotribune.com
Some people say Obama lied in saying the only reason why he didn’t vote for BAIPA at the state level was because it didn’t contain the “preservation clause”, because in the committee he didn’t vote for it, (and it had the clause). But it was already defeated 6 to 4 before his vote, and that was in a committee not on the Senate floor, and O.K, so the “preservation clause” was not the ONLY reason. There were other valid reasons, though. The Obama campaign says he misspoke.
I think it’s important to realise that Obama has stated he personally is not for abortion, he doesn’t know anyone who is. Of course, it’s a horrible thing. And babies born alive, surviving an abortion, and yet dying is tragic. Some say that the legistlation would have passed quicker if the pro-lifers initiating it would have just focused on the babies, but that they were trying to redefine a fetus being a person and over-ride existing laws, etc., to further the cause of pro-life. This of course is a worthy goal, but maybe not by those means.
He is the proud father of two daughters, of course he’s not for babies dying.
1.- nugentslaw.wordpress.com
“I think it’s important to realise that Obama has stated he personally is not for abortion”
I think it’s important to realize 0bama is known for saying anything to get elected - ask Reverend Wright, he’ll tell you.
You posted at FreeRepublic, agitprop. We don't fall victim to lies from trolls because we do our homework. Go try to manipulate weak minds somewhere else, you're exposing your trollish sycophancy.
The work Obama did to block the Illionois bills was to protect the particular form of abortion called induced labor abortion ... and if you too think that's acceptable, well, check your ass at the door because your soul belongs to satan.
Readers/lurkers, use a bit of common sense. Barack Obama stated to the press and in the Illinois Senate that to pass the bill designed to protect preemies would degrade Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade is the SCOTUS ruling which ushered in abortion on demand. The abortion methoid Obama was seeking to protect is induced prematrue labor and neglect of the struggling preemie so the just born child dies unattended, alone. If Obama was seeking to protect Roe v Wade by protecting killing by neglect of children forced to be born prematurely, what does Barack Obama tolerate and in fact wrok to prtoect?... For fools like Ruth5 and thos in Rio Linda, it's infanticide Barack Obama was trying to protect with his work in the Illinois Senate.
What the BAIFA was aimed to do was stop a particularly evil way of killing unborn children. That you would seek to obfuscate and play misdirection on this is telling of your deceitful presence at FR.
You know what induced labor aboriton is, yet you try to play a deceitful game to obfuscate the truth of the evil. You are disgusting. But then you're posting yourself as a Democrat so we expect nothing less than disgusting from you.
You deceit-filled poseur: “I wonder if even one child has survived to date as a result of the passage of this law?” Well, by stopping the particular method for killing alive unborn children via forced premature labor and abandonment to die struggling to try and breathe, the answer to your demonic ploy is that untold millions of children will not be miurdered by the abortion method you’re seeking to obfuscate. Get thee behind us, Satan
On 2000-JUL-20, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) issued a press release criticizing H.R. 4292. They asserted that extending legal personhood to premature infants who are born alive after surviving abortions constitutes an "assault" on Roe v. Wade. By providing legal rights to born-alive infants "at any stage of development," including those who had achieved viability, the supporters of H.R. 4292 are "directly contradicting one of Roe's basic tenets."
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), testified before the Subcommittee that providing legal personhood to premature infants who survive abortions "is an attempt to do what the U.S. Supreme Court has strictly forbidden over and over--it unduly restricts a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy."
Number one, these are purposeful arguments aimed at mischaracterizing what the bill was intended to do. Number two, the pleadings are factually efforts to protect killing born children by neglect so they die from conditions medical assistance could alleviate. Evil relies on explanations to be more complex than the lie evil can spin in a sound byte. We have two examples of agitprops doing just that at FR in this thread!
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.
