Monday, August 11, 2008

Infanticide Revisited, Obama's position

"Barack Obama wants to move closer to Catholics, or more accurately, wants Catholics to move closer to him. Despite a track record of abandoning all limits for on-demand abortion, Obama plans to argue that he actually is a moderate on the topic. He has repudiated criticism for his vote on an Illinois bill that would have required practitioners to give normal medical attention to infants born alive during an attempted abortion by claiming that it lacked a pre-birth neutrality clause that was included in a bill adopted unanimously by the US Congress in 2002.

The National Right to Life Committee now claims that Obama lied about the bill in order to provide cover for his support of infanticide:......" Infanticide Revisited

"Clearly, Obama lied about his position. It’s no small rhetorical matter, either. His vote puts him on the extreme of the pro-abortion camp, so extreme in fact that not a single member of Congress would follow his example. Obama voted to allow Christ Hospital and other facilities performing abortions to allow live children to die." from HotAir.com

Infanticide Revisited

Top 10 reasons Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Top 10 Reasons Obama Voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act
...This post is from Jill Stanek at Illinois Review

"

Here are the top 10 reasons Barack Obama has variously stated why he voted against Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act when state senator.

10. Babies who survive their abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Speaking against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act on the IL Senate floor on March 30, 2001, Obama, the sole verbal opponent to the bill stated:

... I just want to suggest... 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 - 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...."

read the rest of the article Top 10 Reasons Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act