Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Infanticide and Barak Obama

What are your opinions about children who survive an abortion attempt and are born alive?  Should they be given medical care?  Should they be allowed to die?

We have all heard about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, both the Federal version and the version from Illinois.  The purpose of these bills is to insure that a child who survives an abortion attempt and is born alive is given medical care.   Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act when he was a Senator in Il.  His excuse was that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act didn’t include the right kind of language needed to protect Roe v Wade. 

Well then . . . .
How true is that?  Redstate.com has done some research on this. 

“The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.”


But today Obama’s words have come back to haunt him.  In 2002 the then Senator of Illinois stood up and told the real reason he opposes a law that protects children that are born alive after a botched abortion.  From the article again:

“In 2002, Senator Obama stood on the floor of the Illinois State Senate to oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. By this time, even the abortion rights organizations like Planned Parenthood had dropped their opposition. But Obama continued to oppose the law. He was the only person to speak out against the legislation.

‘In an exchange with Senator O'Malley, the legislation's sponsor, Obama's concern was about second guessing the abortionist.

‘Here is what he said:

‘’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.

In 2002, Obama Supported Infanticide and I've Got the Transcript of His Words  http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/aug/21/in-2002-barack-obama-supported-infanticide-a/

I know some may say that such laws are not needed.  Surely children born alive are already protected by the laws of the state of Illinois. Medical care would have to be provided by law.  I thought so too.  I was wrong. 

“In fact, the Illinois Attorney General determined that doctors were under no such obligation when a child, born alive, had been intended to be aborted. Doctors only had the obligation to give life sustaining treatment when it was intended that the child be born alive.”

If you would like to read or compare the federal bill and the Il. bill, you can at  this site.  http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html


elephant, Rebublican

Latest Month

July 2012
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner