Born Alive
by BurnTheShips 6 Replies latest members politics
-
-
-
beksbks
I'm sorry Burn, I just don't think it's as simple and straight forward as your opposition video would have us believe. The only simple aspect of this subject, is that some people believe the decision should be the woman's, and some believe the decision should be the government's.
From one of the articles you posted.
His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.
In 2005, the campaign noted, a "Born Alive" bill passed the Illinois Legislature after another clause had been added that explicitly stated that the legislation would have no effect on existing state abortion laws.
-
BurnTheShips
The only simple aspect of this subject, is that some people believe the decision should be the woman's, and some believe the decision should be the government's.
We are talking about abortions where the child is still alive outside the womb, at that point, the woman's body has nothing to do with it. She has evicted the tenant.
From one of the articles you posted.
And not only did he lie to CBN, but these "concerns" you quote were a smokescreen. The bill was specifically amended so as to not infringe in any way on abortion rights with language identical to the Federal bill that passed unanimously in the US Senate. Obama still voted against it.
From the first article I posted:
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.
A write-up from the time by a Republican staffer on the committee further explains:CA #1 was adopted on a “Be Adopted” motion (Righter/Syverson) by an attendance roll call (10-0-0).
CA #1 (Winkel) to SB 1082 (Winkel) adds to the underlying bill.
Deletes language, which states that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Inserts language, which states that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or right applicable to any member of the homo sapien species at any point prior to being born alive as defined under this legislation.So again: after the above amendment was added to change the original bill, making it identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama and five other Democrats voted to kill it. They killed the same bill that the U.S. Senate had passed unanimously.Here is the interview in which Sen. Obama offers his false explanation once again, which is contradicted not only by eyewitnesses but also by the records of his own committee:
...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.
The senator is right. Someone is lying.
Obama has hardly ever stood up for anything in his legislative career. This is one of the few things; he is grievously wrong on it, and he lies about it.
BTS
-
beksbks
There's just no arguing with conservatives.
-
M.J.
Ad hominem, beksbks?
I really don't think anyone can argue the point that once a baby's out of the womb, one should have the right to terminate it. I mean, just think about how barbaric that image is. Is there anything to justify that? I'd like to know.
-
beksbks
Actually M. J. a joke in reference to another thread. And a closure to my part in this discussion. As I tried to point out above, the two "sides" will never agree on any aspect of the subject of abortion. Thus they will see all filtered through their own belief. I do not believe that was Obama's intention, and Burn does. An impasse.