Obama Still Dodging on the Born Alive Act
August 19th, 2008 at 07:39am Mark Noonan
The problem, my friends, is that Obama grew up in the political hot-house of the kook left, and now has to try to fit into mainstream America, and it ain’t working:
In response to the new evidence which reveals that Senator Barack Obama has misrepresented his position regarding his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, the Obama Campaign has continued to deny that the Illinois state bill included a neutrality clause.
On Thursday, the ChicagoTribune.com posted a “fact check” on its website regarding Sen. Obama and his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) when it was proposed in the Illinois Senate. The site quotes a Susan B. Anthony List press release from August 12 as stating:
“Official legislative documents released this week show that Obama in fact presided over a committee hearing where “neutrality clause” language – identical to the federal language – was added to the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. After voting in support of the “neutrality clause,” Obama then joined fellow Democrats to oppose the bill, killing it by a vote of 6-4, even after the addition of the ‘neutrality clause.’ The bill Obama killed is nearly identical to the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act signed by President Bush in 2002 – legislation Obama has said he supports.”
ChicagoTribune.com quoted the Obama Campaign’s response as:
“There are major differences in state and federal bills, including the fact that the federal bill included a ‘neutrality clause’.”
President of the Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser responded to the article saying, “The Obama campaign thinks if they continue to repeat their flimsy story about Barack Obama’s opposition to the common sense Born Alive Infant Protection Act that their thin explanation will become true. The reality is that actual legislative records directly contradict their story.”
She continued, “Here’s the truth: Barack Obama killed the commonsense Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois Senate, and his campaign continues its game of hide and seek. That’s because his position is heartless. There is no baby at any stage - even born accidentally - that he finds worth protecting. Where is his heart for the downtrodden when it comes to the most vulnerable human beings? It is no wonder he cannot admit to the truth of his ‘leadership’ as a State Senator.”
Heartless, indeed. As a matter of fact, that is what the whole so-called “pro choice” position is - heartless. To think that abortion - the killing of an unborn child - is a good or even reasonable reaction to the temporary condition called pregnancy is absurd. It is only the love of lies and the cowardice of our times which allows this position to be professed, and the people professing it to continue on in politics as if they held reasonable opinions worthy of merit.
What I wonder is just when sensible Democrats will realise that they have signed on to a monstrous crime - there is a great deal to be said for such Democrats ditching the far left and setting up a Christian Democratic party…a party which will advocate for great amounts of social welfare, but which won’t be beholden to the wickedness of abortion, nor in thrall to those who seek by one means or another to undermine the family and traditional morality. Welfare has all sorts of problems with it, but someone who wants to help the poor has his heart in the right place - but no heart at all if an alleged concern for the poor is joined to an unconcern for the women and children who fall victim to the abortion industry.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Kook Left, Life Issues, Republicans
25 Comments
1. hermie | August 19th, 2008 at 8:13 am
They signed on because the abortion industry has big bucks…Big bucks to contribute to Dem candidates for office.
You see Dems frothing at the mouth when they mention ‘Big Business’; but they never bother to mention the big (and tax-exempt) business of the abortion industry.
2. Kahn | August 19th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Ted Baxter Obama doesn’t know anything that’s not written down for him.
As far as abortion goes. I encourage every opponent to attend one. Actually watch a doctor injecting the head of a baby and cutting it up into little pieces. with surgical scissors After you do that, let us know if you still support it or not.
3. Obama Still Dodging on th&hellip | August 19th, 2008 at 8:38 am
[...] Continue Reading [...]
4. Obama Still Dodging on th&hellip | August 19th, 2008 at 8:43 am
[...] Original post by Mark Noonan [...]
5. Eric T | August 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am
http://www.geocities.com/pregnancyhelpnow/abortionphotolinks.html
Kahn people DO need take a look!
6. jayhay | August 19th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
An honest question: Why do you believe life begins at conception, as opposed to being ensouled in the actual seeds of that creation? I understand your belief that at that moment - midstream in the process of procreation - life begins. But if that point in the process is going to be legislated, why not place legal restrictions on the care of the sperm & egg - they are certainly precious and the fundamental vessels of life. Why should those seeds not be legally protected?
7. Jeremiah | August 19th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Why do you believe life begins at conception, as opposed to being ensouled in the actual seeds of that creation?
Everybody has a right to life, as God has created us in Him image for His glory. Physical care, and social justice are for protecting life, for those who cannot speak for themselves. While a woman may have a choice, her unborn child cannot say the same, they are at the mercy of our choices. So, to bear, is to show that we care and love.
Why should those seeds not be legally protected?
We do, by illegalizing oral contraceptives, such as RU-486 and other over the counter drugs that would pose life-threatening to the little baby. And so, by illegalizing abortion we would still further protect life in all it’s forms.
8. 42 | August 19th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
“We do, by illegalizing (sic) oral contraceptives”
you didn’t answer the question Jeremiah, oral contraceptives only work after fertilization of the egg, Jay is asking about rights for the independent egg and sperm….for instance,
-shouldn’t hysterectomies be outlawed for women of child bearing age who have healthy eggs?
-Shouldn’t male masturbation be illegal for killing sperm?
to go a step further, after fertilization….shouldn’t alcohol and tobacco be illegal do the the threat the pose to the unborn, as well as x-rays at the airport, caffeine, high ozone levels, jumping up and down…
and since life begins at conception, I find it deplorable that immediately after coitus every woman doesn’t have a prenatal check up…do you have any idea how many million people are killed every day because their mothers don’t realize they exist??? As a right to life fundamentalist preaching but not practicing Christian I demand a doctor be present for every American during coitus….the murders must stop now!
9. jayhay | August 19th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Jeremiah - I appreciate that you wish protect life in all it’s forms (I’m taking that to mean specifically human forms that are protected) then how do you deal with other taking of life? I’m just wondering if you feel there are exceptions to this rule.
10. Jeremiah | August 19th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
jayhay,
That is, in essence, our God given potential…and it’s what we do with our God given potential that is key to right and wrong.
The potential as united man and wife to create life. A gift. So, it is protected by God.
The death of sperm or eggs is not done on purpose, but what IS done on purpose is knowing that a life has been created and then knowingly detroying that life.
Without choice, we cannot define sin, so God gave us choice on our account…not to confuse us, but let us know that we are free to choose as His free token of love toward us, therefore, we either choose to serve Him, or we don’t. When we love God, we obey Him.
So, what we do with our God given potential reflects directly on what our Spiritual life is like. We can’t say, “I’m forgiven” and then continue to do the very things that God has commanded us not too. See?
We can choose to sin by murdering our unborn children, but God will not uphold that decision…God would rather us choose life, and thus, it gives Him great joy…because we do it for His glory and pleasure. God loves life, and that’s why we’re here.
11. 42 | August 19th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
“The death of sperm or eggs is not done on purpose”
what?? How do you know, of course it is on purpose…should those who knowingly kill a sperm be punished?
12. jayhay | August 19th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Jeremiah - Here’s the deal. You have the right, as an American, to your beliefs (such as that no sperm is killed on purpose - I’m with Ernest Borgnine on that one…). Seriously, more power to you, that’s what makes this country great. But my belief is that if all Americans have to follow yours, or anyone else’s beliefs, our country suffers in terms of the ideal of freedom it represents. Free means free.
It’s like the commandment “Thou shall not kill”. If that’s your belief that’s great, but it doesn’t have an asterisk after it. If you stick with that rule, I seriously admire you. But if you pick and choose, where some death (abortion) is forbidden, but others (like the death penalty, war, accepting poverty in our midst) are okay, then you’ve lost me.
13. Rich | August 20th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Wow Jayhay and 42 hijack this thread with more strawmen. Blah blah blah, sperm, blah blah blah eggs. This thread is about the born alive infant protection act and why Obama has lied about being against it. Not about the moment of conception, not about sperm, not about zygotes, and not about eggs. If you are going to comment about this, please leave the strawmen at home. Do you also believ that babies delivered prematurely do not constitute as human beings? Why do you feel Obama voted present and then no on this type of legislation? Do you feel his excuse is worthy, and if so please explain the discrepencies between his campaign’s statements and the article quoted above.
P.S. Jeremiah, you are falling for their red herrings on this issue, don’t bother. When these libs have nothing to talk about on an issue they simply change subjects or muddy the water, as they are doing in this case. Don’t fall for it.
14. jayhay | August 20th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Rich - If you think that the “Born Alive Act” (another classy right-wing title) is not an attempt to insert government control into the abortion issue you are a… well, you know darn well what it is. This thread is about abortion, and if questions about someone’s beliefs here bothers you, tough. I approached this with more civility than I ever get around here.
So where do YOU think legislation on this issue should end? And how do you deal with the issue of consistency? They are valid questions, which of course means you’ll ignore them. At least Jeremiah takes a crack at it - I’ll give him credit for that.
15. Jeremiah | August 20th, 2008 at 1:41 am
my belief is that if all Americans have to follow yours, or anyone else’s beliefs, our country suffers in terms of the ideal of freedom it represents.
jayhay,
Yes, and I respect everyones right to believe whatever they want to believe, however, it’ll never work if people don’t start thinking about right and wrong…and that’s the reason we have such a mixed up world, because it is stressed in school and especially liberal colleges that you can go your own way “whatever feels good, do it” and not stressing the consequences of those lifestyles. Does abortion make you feel good? A liberal will say “yes”, but that’s because they want others to take the attitude that life is “insignificant” and of “less worth” than a living breathing person, thus, making life anathema to them. When the truth comes out, however, abortion is always the worst case scenario, because it can not only bring a lot of physical harm later on, but feelings of regret and depression, loneliness and grief. At the start it looks good on its face, but in the end, it proved disasterous. It was a choice that went against nature. This is all because the liberal line of thinking wants us to stick with that carnal nature that we are born with, and not open our hearts to allow God to write His Words of healing on ouur hearts. Thus, we live a life of slavery to sin.
When we allow Jesus to come in, we are set free, and life has purpose, because we acknowledge that yes, there is right and wrong in this world, and I want to do my best to live up to what that right says, and what is right? God’s Word. Right makes Might!
When you say there is “no right and wrong way” then society is weakened.
Now, as Rich said, this is about Obama … and to tie him into what I’ve already said, I’ll say this … he comes off as liberal like no other … he’s chosen to say that life is “worthless” no matter inside or outside the womb, sending the message that he is willing to undermine our Declaration of Independence which states everyones rights … and that is, ‘Right to Life’ … And that means, seeing that we have right to life, we have to extend that same opportunity to others, in this case, the unborn. Now, any time this is breeched, then the law must be added to compensate for the life taken as a correction of a wrong. Which goes with the saying, ‘Wrong does not make right’, in other words, we may think we can murder, but that does not make it right, because civilization cannot last. And that’s why the law says, ‘Thou shall not murder’.
Since Obama has voted against protection of the Born Alive Act, it stands to note, that, while he may be his convictions, is that the ideology that society wants to embrace? God forbid it!
No judgment outside God’s Word is adequate for society’s wishes to remain free and prosperous, His Word says so.
So, my rights, are defined by what ‘Thus sayeth the Word of the Lord.’
Fair enough?
16. Rich | August 20th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Jayhay- What would you rather an act that is written to protect born babies be called? That is what a living human being outside the womb is called correct, a baby? Do you really believe that a living breathing human baby does not morally deserve to be treated and that every effort be made to save it’s life?
This act (and this thread by the way, no matter how you try and make it so) is not about abortion. Thye following excerp from above is all you need to know.
–
After voting in support of the “neutrality clause,” Obama then joined fellow Democrats to oppose the bill, killing it by a vote of 6-4, even after the addition of the ‘neutrality clause.’ The bill Obama killed is nearly identical to the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act signed by President Bush in 2002 – legislation Obama has said he supports.”–
So Jayhay, other than arguing about the relevance of the name of the bill with me, or arguing about whether men masturbating is genocide, lets see what you have to say about the topic at hand. Is it right for any babies, even ones that have survived abortions, to have medical care witheld in order to end their lives? I say no.
Obama has voted to keep this practice legal because he is worried about it affecting abortions as a whole. This is of course strange because it was clear this would have no affect on abortion law. So what is wrong with treating living breathing babies? I would like a personal answer from you and maybe something explaining Obama’s position and strange defence of said position.
17. jayhay | August 20th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Rich - The bill purports to protect living infants, which is of course uncontroversial, and more importantly in this thread an attempt to imply Obama wants to “kill living babies”!, which is the opinion of either the retarded or the malicious. This bill is an attempt to legislate towards the weakening of Roe - call it what it is.
And if you look into the beliefs of Jill Stanek who pushed this King of the Strawmen (the use of which you suggest you oppose) she clearly wants government intrusion into not only the rampant “live baby killing” sweeping the nation, or the late-term abortions no sentient person would choose except in the dire medical circumstances, she wants the government to decide whether abortion is available, and she also wants condoms illegal even in Africa where she funds advertisements in Tanzania with the slogan “Faithful condom users die”. That’s the level of intellect and social awareness involved in this tripe.
Clearly you believe that government should be involved in our lives in this and other intrusive ways. I firmly believe it shouldn’t. So when the pro-government intrusion camp trots this stuff out, expect it to be treated as what it is, a shiny object to enflame the unaware and a backdoor slime campaign by the “we know how you should live your life better than you do” crowd.
When did the conservatives lose the Republican party?
18. jayhay | August 20th, 2008 at 10:00 am
And P.S. Rich, you never explained where exactly you put the asterisk in “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, a belief you are apparently so passionate about…
19. Rich | August 20th, 2008 at 11:41 am
“The bill purports to protect living infants, which is of course uncontroversial”
Which makes it curious as to why Obama voted against it, and then lied about his vote. I don’t give a rats ass about Jill Stanek or her other goals or ideas, on the born alive act she is correct. Your crap about condoms and Africa is simply more strawman crap and misdirection, take it elsewhere I’m for contraception. Why does the Obama campaign lie about the issue? As for your idea the bill tries to weaken abortion laws in place, well I would say that is the position of the malicious or retarded.
—-
“Official legislative documents released this week show that Obama in fact presided over a committee hearing where “neutrality clause” language – identical to the federal language – was added to the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. After voting in support of the “neutrality clause,” Obama then joined fellow Democrats to oppose the bill, killing it by a vote of 6-4, even after the addition of the ‘neutrality clause.’ The bill Obama killed is nearly identical to the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act signed by President Bush in 2002 – legislation Obama has said he supports.”
—
As you can easily read, the act did nothing against existing abortion laws. I said the other day when i found out about this act that this would cost Obama the election. I stand by my prediction. This issue is not going away and if Jayhay’s weak arguments and misdirection are what can be expected, well i think I will be right.
20. Rich | August 20th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Oh and what do I believe about “thou shalt not kill”? I have no problem with killing enemies in war, or violent criminals/pedophiles being put to death. I am against abortion for convenience, and I am against babies born alive being left to die. Pretty simple.
21. jayhay | August 20th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Rich - I can not encourage the Republicans enough to run on the “we know how to run your lives” platform. Seriously, put this kind of intrusion front and center and we could actually win this thing. There is an obvious, consistent, and solid preference for citizens to deal with these issues personally, without the government’s hands in the middle of it.
I look forward to when the Obama campaign starts to run clips of McCain’s desire to legislate how women can deal with these personal issues, and he’s toast (outside of Saddleback Church of course).
As to Obama’s votes on this, people always play games with how someone votes based on the name of the bill as opposed to the details of the bill. That’s why Senators usually are unelectable, because the great simplifiers play the flip-flop game when the same vote can be either against a bill, or a feeling it doesn’t go far enough, or that it has unacceptable attachments. It’s a game most see through.
And the final irony is that you people get used by the Republicans EVERY DAMN ELECTION on this abortion issue. And I guarantee it, if McCain is elected there will still be freedom on this issue when he is out of office. They never do anything in the end, because they can’t, they don’t have the votes. They play you on this every time, and each time you swallow it hook line and sinker. It’s amazing to watch how they wave the red flag in your face and you all start with the torches and pitchforks.
22. jayhay | August 20th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Rich - There’s always the asterisk in the “sanctity of life” platform - at least the honest Catholics are consistent. It’s your deep hole of credibility. That you think you are the “decider” as to who should live and die makes you arrogant, against God, and your wailings about “Life” ring false.
I am on the side of protecting the people that are here, the poor, the forgotten, the ones left at the fringes of society (or caught up in the crossfire of those wars you are so fond of). You always cheer for the fetuses, but it’s the actual souls trying to eke out subsistence on this earth you lose interest in.
23. Rich | August 20th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Jayhay- I haven’t personally decided who has died one time in my life and I most likely never will. I think late term abortion is wrong and I think that babies delivered alive should b treated medically. I think I am in the firm majority on these positions but even if I wasn’t that would not change my opinion. As for protecting the poor, the forgotten and the helpless I think you could start with infants as there is nothing as helpless as an infant.
As for Obama’s stance, you are still sugarcoating and muddying and it is fairly obvious. Sorry but your man has not left you with much wiggle room on this one. You can’t chalk this one up to tricky language in the act or rhetoric. Why not be proud of Obama’s strong abortion position and shout it from the rooftops?
24. JPL | August 20th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Hey Jayhay — Just a casual visitor to this thread who thinks your arguments here border on the insane.
Have a nice day,
–JPL
25. Jeremiah | August 20th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
I am on the side of protecting the people that are here, the poor, the forgotten, the ones left at the fringes of society (or caught up in the crossfire of those wars you are so fond of). You always cheer for the fetuses, but it’s the actual souls trying to eke out subsistence on this earth you lose interest in.
Jayhay,
Really?
Well, then it looks like you’d be out there advocating for what’s right, instead of advocating the murder of the innocent.
A soldier, a Doctor, and a Social Justice worker are all in it to defend and support life - of course, some doctors aren’t in it for life, they’re in to make money off of death…so we can’t call them really “doctors” but Butcher’s, instead.
But, anyway, you get the point, a doctor, a soldier, and social justice worker’s main purpose is to help the helpless.
Now, I guarantee you, if we get us two more good judges we’ll be able to make some head way on this issue, because two good judges will interpret the law not try to re-write and construe it to mean otherwise.
On the other hand, if Barack Obama gets it for President, his judges will scrap the Constitution and write their law in favor of death. In which case, those judges need strung up by the gizard.