Barack Obama, Baby Killer? Article about Obamas support for Partial Birth Abortion

[Joshua 0]

Barack Obama, Baby Killer

Abortion is a controversial topic these days. Some cant agree that children are truly human beings before leaving the womb. Some believe there should be exceptions when the mothers life is in danger or when rape has occurred. However, until 2007 it was legal for children to survive abortions and be left to starve to death on hospital beds.

Theres a lot the average American doesnt know about Mr. Barack Obama. The silver-tongued demagogue is to many just a promising young Illinois senator with the chance to become the first black president. But during Obamas time representing Illinoisans in the Senate, he opposed a bill that was voted in favor of 98-0 (Barack Obama voted present).

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. You see, under U.S. law babies who survived what is known as Partial-Birth Abortion, also known as late-term abortion, could legally be left to starve to death on hospital beds. Numerous hospitals in the Chicago-land area practiced this infanticide, including the infamously named Christ Hospital, at which nurse Jill Stanek worked.

She was one of those who testified before Congress about children whod died in her arms, and other horrors that had resulted from this law. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act would have stopped this outrage, but Barack Obama opposed it in the Senate, threatening that it would be judicially challenged. It was, which was why the bill was passed in 2003, but not upheld in the courts until the past year.

Barack Obama is not the moderate he presents himself to be. He is a hardcore abortionist to the point that he doesnt believe babies who survive abortions should have the opportunity to survive, even though when given the opportunity they can, and have in the past. They are for all intents and purposes just prematurely born children, and Obama supports the mass killing of these little kids.

The following are the exact statements pertaining to the bill made by Obama, as recorded in the senate transcript, pages 84-90, which you can read for yourself:

Senator OMalley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct?
Well, it turned out that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a womans right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think itll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, 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 were really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a 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, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if were placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as as if necessary to try to keep that child alive, then were probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably wont make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I I wont, as I said, belabor the point. I think its important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. Were going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, Ill be voting Present.

Additional Reading:

- Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever by Terrence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief.
- "Links to Barack Obama's votes on IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act" by Jill Stanek.
- "Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama" by Jill Stanek.
- "Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role" by Kate Zernicke and Jeff Zeleny, New York Times.

[Spyda 0]

Who cares, people should be able to believe in what they believe in. If they think that an abortion is best for them, so be it. I'm sick of all these people saying otherwise. It's their life, not yours. Besides, Barack is a great president no matter what. Truthfully, I'm sick of you conservatives bashing him. Go do something else instead of trying to bring him done ever way you can.

[truefusion 3]

It's their life, not yours.

Not necessarily. The topic is about babies who are considered life separate from the parents.

Besides, Barack is a great president no matter what.

President? The elections are over? I don't keep track of the elections, so i really wouldn't know.

Truthfully, I'm sick of you conservatives bashing him.

So if non-conservatives were to bash him, it would then be acceptable?

[iGuest 3]

Who cares, people should be able to believe in what they believe in. If they think that an abortion is best for them, so be it. I

Barack Obama, Baby Killer

 

To the last opinion..."It's their life, not yours...Obama is a great president, no matter what." Really? Are you not able to look at both sides...And weed out the irresponsible statements of others? If you want to be taken seriously, please do not make irresponsible remarks. Conservatism or liberalism have nothing to do with stopping the beating heart of vulnerable, helpless children. Please ask yourself - "Could you or Would you stop the heart of a small child if you could see that child?" ...Having worked around abused children...I see things much differently now...Maybe years of experience have heightened my senses on what is right and what is wrong...Holding myself accountable when my actions affect others. I can do what I want...But I do not have the right to hurt/maime or kill innocent, vulnerable children because I am inconvenienced.

I am a retired Crime Analyst w/20 years law enforcement experience and have tracked child abuse during that time. I have documented hundreds of cases of abused children - I prefer to call it child cruelty. I am also the mother of 3 severely abused children whom I adopted 17 years ago after my two sons left home. �.We must fight for these helpless and vulnerable children�.No matter what! I also have been writing about the subject myself over the years�and Dr. Suess has it right! There are few Hortons out there�and many Kanagroos�.Please do not ever give up the fight�.

 

Shame on You Women

19 Dec 2005

 

By: Jane Le-Mond-Alvarez 2005

Author of �Blinders - What Really Happens To Most Abused Children� &

�American Child - The Injustice Files, Where�s Mario? One Small Child, One Small Book, One Huge Problem.�

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

I just read the article on California Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg �who warned in a speech Monday that the danger of women losing their reproductive rights is higher now than at any point in the past 30 years, unless activists immediately work to prevent that from happening.�

 

I was saddened that her message was nothing more than an attempt to spark a furor to make women feel they are doomed to be nothing more than reproductive machines, to be forced out of the workplace and back into the home. Women have many choices in this country. Is it so bad to be a stay-at-home mother during your child�s formative years? Providing a stable home during this time might make the difference in whether your child becomes a productive adult in our society with values and ethics as opposed to one that becomes a burden to society.

 

Laws such as the �Unborn Victims of Violence Act,� the �late-term abortion ban� and �re-instating a law that prohibits foreign health organizations that receive you.S. Money from mentioning abortion� is a long time coming. Does anyone really disagree that the most innocent of human beings, the unborn and young, should be protected? Or that aborting a human being, as it is being delivered, should have an instrument inserted into his or her head to end their life is a good thing? Or that educating other countries about the value of life and prevention of pregnancy is a bad thing? Children are not property. They are responsibilities.

 

I have come to the conclusion that we live in a world that makes excuses for many and holds few accountable for their actions. Ladies, we have not lost our reproductive rights. Barring certain tragedies such as rape and incest where abortions may be performed, we still have the right to choose with whom we have sex, what contraceptive to use, whether or not we want to have a career, and yes, the right to end the life of a defenseless human being.

 

Mothers have been the pillars of society for centuries. Let us educate our young men and women and hold them to a higher standard without excuses. Let us rid ourselves of the �Me, Me, Me� mentality when we�re inconvenienced. What we have lost is our ethics and the value we place on life. We have lost our feelings for the helpless, defenseless and for our future generations.

 

Last week I witnessed the birth of my fourth grandson. My doctor had recommended that I abort his father 32 years ago because of a stroke I had suffered months before. Against the doctor�s advice, I chose not to abort . I didn�t need Wade vs. Roe to make my decision. Even though I had a legal right to end my son�s life, as a mother, how could I? I didn�t. My son is a wonderful human being, husband and the father of two of my four grandsons.

 

Jane LeMOND Alvarez

[Relying to bk2070,57276,384712]

[tricky77puzzle 0]

Not necessarily. The topic is about babies who are considered life separate from the parents.

Well, finally conversation is getting some logical answers... if the baby is still alive after the operatin, then by all means, let it live! After it parts the womb, after it takes its first breath, it's considered life! Wake up, people. Don't go down the slippery slope after legalizing abortion up to the moment of birth. Prove that America can hold on after shifting. Be strong!

President? The elections are over? I don't keep track of the elections, so i really wouldn't know.

Well, potential-President-to-be, whatever you want to call it.

So if non-conservatives were to bash him, it would then be acceptable?

It's acceptable both ways. It's just that the guy is sick about conservatists bashing him on this one point alone.

[Joshua 0]

Who cares, people should be able to believe in what they believe in. If they think that an abortion is best for them, so be it. I'm sick of all these people saying otherwise. It's their life, not yours.
Besides, Barack is a great president no matter what. Truthfully, I'm sick of you conservatives bashing him. Go do something else instead of trying to bring him done ever way you can.

Of course, if people want to kill each other, it's a belief so it should be alright, right? Once a 'right' infringes upon the rights of others, there should be boundaries placed of course.

And no, I'm not a conservative by the way. I don't believe in voting conservative or liberal but in thinking for myself on the issues. As a result I oppose abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research but also the Iraq War, free trade pacts like NAFTA, and I'd like to see illegal immigrants given a path to citizenship.

You want to make this a conservative vs. liberal issue. With me, that's not an option because I'm neither I voted for neither Bush or Kerry in 2004, but for a third-party candidate.

[tricky77puzzle 0]

Of course, if people want to kill each other, it's a belief so it should be alright, right? Once a 'right' infringes upon the rights of others, there should be boundaries placed of course.
And no, I'm not a conservative by the way. I don't believe in voting conservative or liberal but in thinking for myself on the issues. As a result I oppose abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research but also the Iraq War, free trade pacts like NAFTA, and I'd like to see illegal immigrants given a path to citizenship.

You want to make this a conservative vs. liberal issue. With me, that's not an option because I'm neither I voted for neither Bush or Kerry in 2004, but for a third-party candidate.

You oppose embryonic stem-cell research? You're not "conservative", you're a "conservatist" - one who upholds conservative values. No one is calling you conservative.

Anyway, I'll move my debate to a stem-cell research thread.

[Spyda 0]

Of course, if people want to kill each other, it's a belief so it should be alright, right? Once a 'right' infringes upon the rights of others, there should be boundaries placed of course.
And no, I'm not a conservative by the way. I don't believe in voting conservative or liberal but in thinking for myself on the issues. As a result I oppose abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research but also the Iraq War, free trade pacts like NAFTA, and I'd like to see illegal immigrants given a path to citizenship.

You want to make this a conservative vs. liberal issue. With me, that's not an option because I'm neither I voted for neither Bush or Kerry in 2004, but for a third-party candidate.

Well most of your views are of a conservative, that's why I made that assumption. Though, people cannot say that if they were in that position (meaning expectantly having a baby), what they would do.

You either could do one of the following...

A. Have them go on with having a baby, and possibly lose thier chance of having an education, tend to their baby full time, while trying to maintain a normal lifestyle, which they know will never happen again.

or

B. Have them go on with abortion, and return to their regular lives. Hopefully, learn from their lesson, and not make that mistake again.

I'm not saying it's okay for young girls, and guys to make stupid decision, but again it's their lives, not yours.

Having worked around abused children...I see things much differently now...Maybe years of experience have heightened my senses on what is right and what is wrong...Holding myself accountable when my actions affect others. I can do what I want...But I do not have the right to hurt/maime or kill innocent, vulnerable children because I am inconvenienced.

And why do you think these children are being abused in the first place? Because of either inexperienced parents, or teens not old enough to care for these babies. Maybe if half of these people had the chance to go on with an abortion, none of this would've happened.

[mikeyboy63 0]

Senator Obama is alluding to an important point: equal protection laws would make abortion a capital offense punishable by death.This is something that you and your ilk consistently overlook. The only way to 'protect' the 'unborn' is to call them 'human', but killing a human means life imprisonment or the death penalty. You probably think that a lesser penalty (punishment) could be agreed upon, but that would be unconstitutional. The unborn would have the same rights as the born. To create a lesser punishment for abortion is to declare the unborn to be second class citizens with lesser rights than the born. The only way to ban abortion is to put the mothers on death row, and to imprison the fathers and family members who went along with it.The senator points out that a bill guiding the care of 'aborted survivors' could have been worked out, but the conservatives opposed compromise. The senator had a problem with something else in the bill, not the idea of helping the babies survive in and of itself, but you choose to keep that a secret from us. It's very sweet of you to care so much about embryos, but it might be wise to consider the consequences of your beliefs.Once we declare fetuses and embryos to be human beings, we'll be filling our prisons with young girls who had abortions. A million women on death row is unacceptable.

[Watermonkey 0]

I don't think any such law would be retro-active. So the abortions would go underground, which is also unacceptable, of course. But a million teens wouldn't immediately end up on death row. Don't know who you think you're fooling with your sensationalist nonsense there, but we'll just clear up that little detail right now.I'm just wondering: Are you not aware if a pregnant woman is murdered, the crime is "double homicide"? That means the penalty is up to two life sentences or execution. That's the law everywhere in the States I'm aware of. Why is that considered murder, but abortion is not? Why the conflicting laws?

[osknockout 0]

Ooh, fun controversial topic. Yay generic branding of complex issue positions!

God bless ad hominem. What would we do without baby killers anyway?

 

@Watermonkey: I think it's technically it's a matter of choice and intent. It's implied that in killing a pregnant woman one wishes to have the baby go along with it or that one doesn't care about the baby enough to go ahead and finish off the mother. The law punishes one for both with the assumption that both choices are against the mother's will - I'm going to ignore suicide completely in this legal argument because I think that's a separate debate - whereas with abortion implies the mother's choice.

 

You probably think that a lesser penalty (punishment) could be agreed upon, but that would be unconstitutional.

Hmm. Constitutionality is at best a bothersome topic. Depends if you treat an unborn child as property or as individuals. Don't bash me for this, there's precedent for this with slavery - and if you're going to go moral on me and say how wrong that mindset was, well I'd suggest you calm down and understand I'm only talking about legal possibilities here.

 

If you treat an unborn child as an individual, you could assert that in some cases, following due process, preventing abortion would be a cruel and unusual punishment. - I would like to remind people that the Constitution of the US transcends all other laws, including state and federal laws on murder.

If you treat an unborn child as property, then we just follow normal property laws with appropriate exceptions.

 

I'm a guy. I refuse to pass judgment on things I am not able to experience.

However, I do have a few issues with the nature of this thread.

 

I don't think that the imposition of us-vs-them mentalities is appropriate here. While in the United States it is common to label pro-abortion as a liberal concept and the resulting negation as a corollary for the conservative stance, abortion really is a very private issue. Furthermore, people who actually have qualms about abortion but still have to treat it as a serious option are faced with tyranny of the majority when denied the ability to abort. - I'm not supporting abortion, I'm just saying that when you do make abortion illegal, you're imposing your moral code on other people. Same case as slavery.

 

Whatever the case, I'm just suggesting that people talk with cool heads and without using labels for a complex and very sensitive issue.

Including you, Baby Killer accuser.

Edited May 13, 2008 by osknockout (see edit history)

[mikeyboy63 0]

I don't think any such law would be retro-active. So the abortions would go underground, which is also unacceptable, of course. But a million teens wouldn't immediately end up on death row. Don't know who you think you're fooling with your sensationalist nonsense there, but we'll just clear up that little detail right now.
I'm just wondering: Are you not aware if a pregnant woman is murdered, the crime is "double homicide"? That means the penalty is up to two life sentences or execution. That's the law everywhere in the States I'm aware of. Why is that considered murder, but abortion is not? Why the conflicting laws?

Ah, I see I said 'had' abortions. I don't mean to imply that the law would work retroactively. I do mean that over time millions of poor girls would be imprisoned while financially secure females will be getting their abortions in Canada, etc. with Christian conservative daddy or hubby picking up the tab.

The fact is, you can't deny women their reproductive rights without justification, and if the justification is that an embryo is a child then that woman SHOULD go to prison or get the death penalty for murdering somebody. If you deny it, then you're basically admitting that you don't truly consider an embryo to be an equal human being, but something less.

Yes, I know killing a pregnant woman is a double homicide, which is what I'd want if my pregnant wife was murdered. I don't know if it's a double homicide if it's the first trimester however, and I don't think it should be.

I don't believe in a woman's right to choose if she's choosing to kill children. I don't consider a 5 month old fetus to be a child yet. The Supreme Court agrees with me.

Answer the following question: Why should abortion be banned? If your answer is "because a fetus is a human being" then the next question is "why should a woman who kills her unborn child recieve a punishment less than a woman who kills her born child?" If your answer is, "Welllllllllllllll, it's not quite a person just yet, sooooooooo" that doesn't wash.

What I'm saying is as anti- abortionists win their little victories here and there, eventually we'll have fetuses being treated as living, breathing human beings and millions of women in prison for infanticide. It's just logical.
Edited May 13, 2008 by mikeyboy63 (see edit history)

[gaspe86 0]

WOW!!!! Calling Obama a Baby Killer for supporting a possible law? Don't think so... guess not a supporter of Obama? Quite the opposite, you're an opposer of Obama and instead of pointing out how "your" candidate is better you attack the competition, typical. Just as almost on every campaign, both candidates end up so attack that past the elections we all know what bs president we have. Well, on the issue, I believe everyone has the right to choose whether they want to continue through a pregnancy or not.

[Watermonkey 0]

Well, just to clarify my stance, if you're interested: I'm sure you can see in my signature who my candidate is for President. He's a OBGYN medical doctor and has delivered over 4000 babies. I'm not personally a big fan of babies and I've avoided them my whole life and will continue to for the rest of my life. Dr. Paul obviously believes abortion is murder, but I'm sure he'd prefer it to save the mother's life. Otherwise, adopt it out. However, he states unequivocally: It's not the business of the Federal Government to weigh in on the issue! It's for the states to decide. I couldn't agree more. That's why Roe vs Wade MUST be overturned. If your state declares it illegal, no worries, there's always Nevada!

[osknockout 0]

It's not the business of the Federal Government to weigh in on the issue! It's for the states to decide.

Personally, I think Amendment 13 should be overturned because it's not the business of the Federal Government to weigh in on the issue, it's for the states to decide slavery laws. <grin>