Posted on 10/30/2008 4:15:14 PM PDT by wagglebee
The culture of death is openly murdering people at levels that Hitler never dreamed possible.
I think this is a good link of Obama’s abortion history.
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html
At times it is confusing!
Bills #ed 1661, 1662, and 1663 are also in the mix. There were four occasions, two of which never made it out of Obama’s committee because of his obstructions. I have the transcripts of floor sessions from which I pulled his comments.
Yes he knows, and he even sought to deny the Constitutional rights of these struggling children! Am IL Senator posting the bill to provide medical help for these babies even stated the obvious, that an alive infant born and separate from the mother is a U.S. Citizen and entitled to Constitutional protections. Obama argued against that as his way to protect abortion and thus empower his political capital with ‘pro-abortion’ voters. I can post the transcript segment if you wish.
WOW. He's been a busy advocate of killing babies.
Do you have a link for that or a link that sums up how determined he has been with legislation and Bill numbers? This man is so EVIL ... calling him “evil” is actually flattering.
You caqn google the IL Senate Transcripts for seesions dated March 30, 2001 and April 4, 2002. I haven’t gotten transcripts for the committee sessions ... mysteriously no longer available.
Please post the transcript of Obama’s State Senate endorsement of the procedure. Even if others have seen it, it is worth repeating here. There may be lurkers out there who are undecided about who they want for President.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
92ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY
REGULAR SESSION
SENATE TRANSCRIPT
20th Legislative Day March 30, 2001
law that allows for the court to still have discretion.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Further discussion? If not, the question is, shall Senate Bill
1080 pass. Those in favor will vote Aye. Opposed, vote Nay. The
voting is open. Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who
wish? Have all voted who wish? Take the record, Madam Secretary.
On this question, there are 53 voting Aye, none voting Nay, none
voting Present. And Senate Bill 1080, having received the -- the
required constitutional majority, is declared passed. Senate Bill
1081. Senator Clayborne. Senate Bill 1089. Senator Burzynski.
Senate Bill 1093. Senator O'Malley. Read the bill, Madam
Secretary.
ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:
Senate Bill 1093.
(Secretary reads title of bill)
3rd Reading of the bill.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Thank you, Madam President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Senate. Senate Bill 1093, as amended, provides that no abortion
procedure which, in the medical judgment of the attending
physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born
child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a
physician other than the physician performing or inducing the
abortion who shall assess the child's viability and provide
medical care for the child. The bill further provides that if
there is a medical emergency, a physician inducing or performing
an abortion which results in a live born child shall provide for
the soonest practical attendance of a physician other than the
physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately
assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the
84
child. The bill additionally provides that a live child born as a
result of an -- of -- of an abortion procedure shall be fully
recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection
under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good
medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical
records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the
child. I'd be pleased to answer any questions there may be.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Any discussion? Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor yield for
questions?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
He indicates he will.
SENATOR OBAMA:
This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary
Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just
make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is
about, as I understand it. 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? Is that an accurate
sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the
way children are treated following their birth under these
85
circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my
opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that
appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of
the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it
deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
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, and if this is 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
86
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 is
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.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Further discussion? If not, Senator O'Malley, to close.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Thank you, Madam President and Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Senate. The one thing the previous speaker did say is that this
is a passionate issue. And -- however, I don't think it's
challengeable on constitutional grounds in the manner that was
described. This is essentially very simple. The Constitution
does not say that a child born must be viable in order to live and
be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be
87
born.
need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinois and,
frankly, in the other forty-nine states and in the halls of
Washington, D.C., to make sure that we secure and protect those
rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, resecure
and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in
America, so be it, and it is constitutional. I would appreciate
your support
82nd Legislative Day
April 4, 2002
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
The question is, shall Senate Bill 1655 pass. All those in
favor, vote Aye. Opposed, vote No. The voting is open. Have all
voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who
wish? ...the record. On that question, there's 15 voting Yes, 36
voting No, 4 voting Present. Senate Bill 1655, having failed to
receive the constitutional majority, fails. Senate Bill 1661.
Senator O'Malley. Madam Secretary, please read the bill.
ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:
Senate Bill 1661.
(Secretary reads title of bill)
3rd Reading of the bill.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Thank you, Madam President -- or, Mr. President. Excuse me.
The -- the package that is before you, this is the first bill,
28
1661. It's associated with 1662 and 1663 that follow. This
package is known -- has become known as the "Born Alive" package.
1661 creates the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act, creates a
cause of action where medical care, as provided for in Senate Bill
1663, is not provided. I'd be happy to answer any questions there
may be.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion? If not,
the question is, shall Senate Bill 1661 pass. All those in favor,
vote Aye. Opposed, vote No. The voting is open. Have all voted
who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish?
Take the record. On that question, 31 voting Yes, 11 voting No, 10
voting Present. Senate Bill 1661, having received the required
constitutional majority, is declared passed. Senate Bill 1662.
Senator O'Malley. Madam Secretary, please read the bill.
ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:
Senate Bill 1662.
(Secretary reads title of bill)
3rd Reading of the bill.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Thank you, Mr. President. 1662 is the second component of the
"Born Alive" package, and it defines a born-alive infant in order
to resecure the rights of children who are born under any
circumstances to equal protection under the law. Be -- again, I'd
be happy to answer any questions there may be.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion? If not,
the question is, shall Senate Bill 1662 pass. All those in favor,
vote Aye. Opposed, vote No. The voting is open. Have all voted
who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who wish?
29
Take the record. On that question, there's 30 voting Yes, 12
voting No, 10 voting Present. Senate Bill 1662, having received
the required constitutional majority, is declared passed. Senate
Bill 1663. Senator O'Malley. Madam Secretary, please read the
bill.
ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:
Senate Bill 1663.
(Secretary reads title of bill)
3rd Reading of the bill.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Mr. President, again, thank you. This is the third component
of the "Born Alive" package, and what it provides is that a child
born under any circumstances would receive all reasonable measures
consistent with good medical practice. Also requires a second
physician to give an opinion of viability and to deliver such
reasonable measures of care as are defined in 1663. Again, I'd be
happy to answer any questions there may be.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Is there any discussion? Senator Cullerton.
SENATOR CULLERTON:
Would the sponsor yield?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Sponsor indicates he'll yield.
SENATOR CULLERTON:
Senator O'Malley, which one of these bills was the Medical
Society -- did they testify against? Was it all three of 'em or
just this one?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
30
You know, I -- I really can't speak for them, but I suspect
their major issue was with 1661.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Any further discussion? Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Thank you, Mr. President. Will the sponsor yield for a
question?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Sponsor indicates he'll yield.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously this is an issue
that we've debated extensively both in committee and on the Floor,
so I -- you know, I don't want to belabor it. But I did want to
point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion
in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or
at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this
would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and
the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this
situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this
legislation, what's going to be required for a doctor to meet the
requirements that you've set forth?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Senator Obama, first of all, there is established, under this
legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would
receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical
practice, and that's as defined, of course, by the -- you know,
the practice of medicine in the community where this would occur.
It also requires, in two instances, that -- that an attending
physician be -- be brought in to assist and advise with respect to
the issue of viability and, in particular, where there's a --
31
there's a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child --
may -- may be -- may be viable - that there's a suspicion - so
that the attending physician would make that decision as to
whether that would be the case. The other one is where the child
is actually born alive and then is -- is -- is actually born
alive, in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as
practically possible for a second physician to come in and
determine the viability.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
So -- and again, I'm -- I'm not going to prolong this, but I
just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the
objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts
the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since
they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, 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 then 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. Is that
correct?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
In -- in the first instance, obviously the physician that is
performing the procedure would make the determination. The second
situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and
then there's an assessment -- an independent assessment of
viability by -- by -- by another physician at the soonest
32
practical date -- or, time.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I
think, as -- as this emerged during debate and during committee,
the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation
would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending
physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable
fetus and that, let's say for the purposes of the mother's health,
is being -- that -- that labor is being induced, that that
physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the
physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in
fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that
this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that
that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try
to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would
be involved in saving that child. Now, if -- if you think that
there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe
this bill makes sense, but I -- I suspect and my impression is, is
that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that
they would be under that obligation, that they would already be
making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a -- an
additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency
situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed
simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the
physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that's
the case - and -- and I know that some of us feel very strongly
one way or another on that issue - that's fine, but I think it's
important to understand that this issue ultimately is about
abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who
are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor
33
who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked
after. Thank you, Mr. President.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR WATSON)
Is there any further discussion? Any further discussion? If
not, Senator O'Malley, to close.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the comments from the
previous speaker, but I can assure you that the interests of
everybody, I think, in -- in this State would be to protect the
life of a child, including the physicians who are involved there.
And I believe that the second-opinion physician would actually, in
many ways, protect not only the interests of that child, which is
its primary responsibility, but to make sure that if there -- was
any error in judgment of any kind by the -- the primary physician,
that -- that -- the -- the -- the burden association -- associated
with -- with that failure and decision would be minimized. And
so, I would request your support of this legislation so that this
package can move to the Illinois House, where it can be given some
serious consideration. Thank you.
THank you.
This really makes me sick. I could literlly throw up. All those little babies ... mutilated to death ... and those that somehow surivived left to die alone ... . I can only focus on this for so long.
I will bookmark this thread and put it all together. I will provide links for each so others can look it up. Many can’t believe this and want ot believe it is “smear talk”. It isn’t. I can only hope and pray this gets through to some who want to know objective truth.
This is part of a poster on the Obama. My daughter is doing it for her class. U can’t show abortion pictures. I can type up - tear offs - from the poster for them to look up the link and read through it. I want it to be VERY SPECIFIC so there is no doubt about how vile this man is.
I have no doubt you did all you could.
You LOVED them. That is the greatest gift to them.
I am sorry you had that happen to you.
Much love and hugs your way.
You will see them in heaven.
I’ve noticed that many links magically disappear.
I am not new to this.
We are absolutely not without sin, but I hope and pray when the end times come, the Lord will know we never supported this.
The left in this country has laid ruin to our societal order and morality. God have mercy on us.
What BO protected in Illinois was a method of killing these children by exploiting their premature state of lung development. Induced birth ‘abortion’ is as Jonick above explained a forced premature birth then just neglecting these struggling little ones until they eventually suffocate to death ... and as Jill Stanek has explained, soemtimes these babies struggle for hours before finally succumbing! THAT IS GHOULISH, Barack Hussein Obama is a damned ghoul!
Obama is a murderer by proxy as far as I am concerned. He will never be MY president.
FReep this Digg!!!
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Video_Shows_Babies_Left_to_Die_Obama_Supports_This
Good night! Obama’s views on the Constitution tells me that he is willing to side step the Constitution to allow the killings.
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.