24 Comments

• 1. The Arctic Fox  |  September 16th, 2008 at 3:20 pm

  Another grey area full of things it’s very hard to set black and white legal rules that clearly define what should and should not be allowed.

  My personal view is that if a baby is delivered even as an act of abortion and that baby consequently survives, then yes of course it’s entitled to protection as an individual citizen.

  But this does NOT mean that the act of abortion itself should be made illegal. There will be a percentage of abortions, particularly late term abortions, where the child survives. There will be a portion - probably a much larger one - where it doesn’t. But this has no bearing on the legality of the actual procedure.

• 2. kimberly4victory  |  September 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

  It’s not about Rowe vs Wade, Arctic Fox.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlBj9mzqOIU&feature=related

• 3. Rich  |  September 16th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

  Souns like Arctic Fox agrees with the born alive act. Why do you think oBama voted against it?

• 4. New Conservative  |  September 16th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

  I can’t believe anyone would support killing babies that have been born. I can’t believe people believe in abortion, but abortion after birth is called Murder in all fifty states.
  http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/

• 5. kmg  |  September 16th, 2008 at 7:45 pm

  Rich,

  Do you really want to know why Obama voted against it? If so, go here:

  http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php

• 6. Rich  |  September 16th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

  KMG- I know the spin. I also know the truth and I know Obama has lied about this particular issue. Do you feel about yourself good knowing you are covering for these heinous actions?

  http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBkYTYzZDNjNDgyMWJmMzMxYzljYjYxNmEwMTdhYWE=

  But in 2003, in the health committee which he chaired, Obama voted against a version of the bill that contained the specific “neutrality” language — redundant language affirming that the bill only applied to infants already born and granted no rights to the unborn. You can visit the Illinois legislature’s website here to see the language of the “Senate Amendment 1,” which was added in a unanimous 10-0 vote in the committee before Obama helped kill it. This is the so-called “neutrality clause” on Roe that everyone is talking about:

  1 AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1082

  2 AMENDMENT NO. . Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by

  3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:

  4 “(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to

  5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal

  6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at

  7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this

  8 Section.”.

  The addition of this amendment made the bill identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
  This Committee Action Report, dug up in Springfield by the National Right to Life Committee and revealed last week, shows two different votes. In the left column, under the heading “DP#1”(or “Do Pass” Amendment 1), we see that Obama’s committee voted 10-0 to add this neutrality language to the bill. In the right column, we see that the committee then voted 6-4 to kill the bill. Obama was among the six “No” votes.

• 7. Rich  |  September 16th, 2008 at 7:59 pm

  Wow sorry about that.–

  Do you feel good about yourself…

• 8. Rich  |  September 16th, 2008 at 8:01 pm

  Obama’a lies on the issue….

  …I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

• 9. Jeremiah  |  September 16th, 2008 at 8:31 pm

  That Obama even condones abortion says a lot about his status as a Christian. He is not a “Christian”. Period.

  He voted four times on this bill, and he voted all four times to deny health-care to babies who survived abortion, and to let them suffer and die. Well, you heard the pro-life woman witness what happened to a down-syndrome baby in one of this murdering, hell-hole, demonic-filled, abortion mills…

  She picked that baby up and held him in her arms for 45 minutes trying to survive and then he died….and all while Obama is off giving his big speeches on “hope” … Yeah, what about “hope” you sorry, good-for-nothing mulatto?

  I don’t see any “hope” in your plan for unborn babies, Mr. Obama, I see a very, very, sick man, in you, Mr. Obama. You need help, and not a psychiatrist, either.

• 10. kmg  |  September 16th, 2008 at 8:58 pm

  Rich,

  And as Obama’s statement said, the federal law would not have the same impact as a state law, because abortion is regulated by the state. The 2003 bill was also apposed by the Illinois State Medical Society. He has been consistant in his position that he would support a law protecting a live-born child, which was already the law in Illinois. He apposed the bill because he saw other parts as another back-door attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

  You can disagree with his position, his rational, or his interpretation of the bill’s language, but it is quite the stretch to call it a lie.

  BTW, National Review and Fredosso are not exactly unbiased sources.

• 11. kmg  |  September 16th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

  jeremiah,

  Do you have proof of this woman’s story? Anything other than her sole word?

• 12. Jeremiah  |  September 16th, 2008 at 9:14 pm

  KMG,

  We have her word.

  Don’t you believe her?

  I do. She’s not the liar that Obama is, for sure.

  And if Obama wins, he will be the first to win as a true, blue, liar!!

• 13. Jeremiah  |  September 16th, 2008 at 9:25 pm

  And, BTW, KMG,

  Obama’s interpretation of the bill had zero concern for the children, zero.

  He said that he voted no on numerous bills presented before his desk because “none” of them protected the life of the woman.

  Poor, poor, Obama … such a cold-blooded devil.

  This really fumes me that a man could stand before millions of people sending them the message that his is the “hope” of the world, when his heart is in complete agreement with Hitler.

  Pitiful, pitiful, pitiful … No, it’s SICK, actually!

  If Mr. Obama were standing next to me, you know what I would tell him? Exactly what Jesus told Peter … ‘Get thee behind me, SATAN!’

  And you brood of vipers who follow after him, I say same thing to YOU!

• 14. kmg  |  September 16th, 2008 at 9:42 pm

  No, Jeremiah, I don’t believe her without proof. Illinois law mandated that a doctor care for any child born alive. If her story is true, the law was broken. Were any charges filed? Was there any investigation? Does she have any shred of evidence?

  BTW, from your rants, bigotry, and racism, I think you may be a pawn of Satan. Get thee behind me, Jeremiah.

• 15. Jeremiah  |  September 16th, 2008 at 10:18 pm

  Listen to Jill Stanek speack about her experience, and she explains Barack Obama to the T.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z65F0z-UKmk

  Until you can prove that she’s lying, kmg, you need to find something else to do, or just … s-h-u-t u-p. Just shut up!

• 16. kmg  |  September 17th, 2008 at 7:23 am

  Jeremiah,

  The Illinois Board of Health investigated Janek’s claims and found nothing to substantiate them. So, do I believe a rabid anti-abortion activist and columnist on WorldNetDaily without evidence? Absolutely not. So, unless you can come up with some proof…s-h-u-t u-p. Just shut up!

• 17. Rich  |  September 17th, 2008 at 11:16 am

  KMG - I guess there is no point arguing with you if you will just simply ignore the lie of your candidate and further it with your own obfuscation. The law clearly did not affect row v wade.

  1 AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1082

  2 AMENDMENT NO. . Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by

  3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:

  4 “(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to

  5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal

  6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at

  7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this

  8 Section.”

  Obama lied about his position.

• 18. Jeremiah  |  September 17th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

  I like women like that, KMG … Yes, indeed, I like women that are “rabidly” opposed to baby murderers.

  They’re sure a heck of lot better and TOUGHER than the trash that go around laying with anything that will lay with them.

• 19. kmg  |  September 17th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

  Rich,

  It is your opinion that the proposed law did affect Roe vs. Wade. It is Obama’s opinion that it did. A difference of opinion is not a lie. But please, feel free to stick to the McCain campaign’s talking points.

• 20. kmg  |  September 17th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

  Correction: …your opinion that the law did not affect…

• 21. kmg  |  September 17th, 2008 at 7:23 pm

  So, Jeremiah, any woman that supports abortion rights or has had an abortion is trash that goes around laying with anything that will lay with them?

• 22. Some Assembly Required  |  September 17th, 2008 at 7:24 pm

  I wonder what he things of surgate mom’s for homosexuals. Or should I even ask?

• 23. Jeremiah  |  September 18th, 2008 at 11:07 pm

  any woman that supports abortion rights or has had an abortion is trash that goes around laying with anything that will lay with them?

  kmg,

  In most cases, yes, they are. Most of them aren’t even married that have abortions, as the the Left-wing teachers are consistently opposed to marriage, and the proper definition of marriage.

• 24. Jeremiah  |  September 18th, 2008 at 11:13 pm

  SAR,

  If they’re trying to act “mother” and are for homosexuals, then they’ve got serious problems.

  Children should never be under the care of such people.