Posts Tagged ‘senator’

Jill Stanek On Why Barack Obama Voted For Infanticide

August 21, 2008

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

by Jill Stanek

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.

9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to their mothers. She alone should decide whether her baby lives or dies. Before voting “no” for a 2nd time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:

What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.

During a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, that “the decision concerning a baby should be left to a woman, but that he does not see himself as supportive of abortion.”

8. Wanting to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was all about politics. During that same speech at Benedictine University, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, “the bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons.”

obama%20and%20baby.jpg7. There was no proof. Also during the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, that “there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee.”

6. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor’s prerogative. An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against Born Alive because it included provisions that “would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable.”

5. Anyway, doctors don’t do that. Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed Born Alive because “physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions.”

4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue. During their U.S. Senate competition Alan Keyes famously said:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died…. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.

Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes’ rationale for condemning Obama by implying Keyes was simply making a statement against Obama’s pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes pointedly stated he was condemning Obama for his support of infanticide.

Nevertheless, live birth abortion must be included in the list of procedures Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes by saying, as quoted in his July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:

… [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and that I can’t impose my religious views on another.

obama%20family.jpg3. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle. In the same USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a “typically liberal response,” and revised it:

… But my opponent’s accusations nagged at me…. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

2. Sinking Born Alive was simply about political oneupsmanship. Obama has this quote on his website:

Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. “We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on ‘partial birth’ and ‘born alive’. They put these bills out all the time… because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats….”

And the #1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. The IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a ploy to undercut Roe v. Wade. During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade…. At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was an out-and-out lie. The definition of “born alive” in the federal and Illinois versions were identical. The only difference came in paragraph (c), which was originally identical in both versions but changed on the federal level.

Illinois’ paragraph (c): 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.

Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

When the senator sponsoring the IL bill tried to amend IL’s paragraph (c), Amendment 1 below, to be the same as the federal paragraph (c), Barack Obama himself, as chairman of the committee hearing the bill, refused, and he then also killed the bill (click to enlarge).

Barack Obama, The Race-Card-Dealing Radical

August 1, 2008

Barack Obama had the following to say on July 31st:

“Since they don’t have any new ideas the only strategy they’ve got in this election is to try to scare you about me. They’re going to try to say that I’m a risky guy, they’re going to try to say, ‘Well, you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills and, and they’re going to send out nasty emails.”

But let’s break that down.

Since they don’t have any new ideas…” Well, stop and think about it: the demand by McCain and Republicans to drill for oil offshore is itself a VERY new idea, given that it hasn’t been contemplated by Democrats for decades. It’s Barack Obama’s psycho-environmentalist “let’s all inflate our tires instead” mantra that is the same old boring liberal nonsense.

They’re going to say that I’m a risky guy.” You’re darn right that we’re saying he’s a risky guy:

He’s THE most liberal member of the entire United States Senate. If that fact alone doesn’t add up to “risky,” I don’t know what does.

His worldview is radical and Marxist, coming out of Jim Cone’s and Jeremiah Wright’s “black liberation theology” and the most radical church in the entire country.

His “economic justice” platform comes right out of Jeremiah Wright’s clearly Marxist economics. It is nothing more than a code word for massive social redistributionism.

He’s got so many radical, leftist, and even terrorist associations beginning in his youth (e.g., Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky) and continuing unabated to the present that it’s frankly frightening. His longstanding official association with the radical group ACORN is also beyond troubling.

They’re going to try to say, ‘Well, you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills…

It’s amazing that the man’s very name is somehow supposed to be off-limits. Regardless of what Barack Hussein Obama may think of himself, his name is NOT the sacred divine name which dare not be uttered. If this man is so arrogant and so hyper-sensitive that he can’t stand people saying his name, then he has no business in politics or anywhere else where he could come into contact with people.

It’s that “he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills” comment that gets to the radical heart of Barack HUSSEIN Obama. He is spouting the same racist garbage that his “spiritual mentor” for 23 years spouted. I’ve seen the “he’s not playing the race card” posts, and they have to engage in all kinds of semantics to avoid the clear meaning of the sentence. Ask yourself, “Why doesn’t Obama look like all the presidents?” The clear answer is, “Because he’s black.” It’s not because Obama doesn’t wear a funny wig (Washington) or because Obama doesn’t wear a funny beard (Lincoln). He’s clearly saying “They’re going to point out that I’m black.” Period. Exclamation point.

It offends me that Barack Obama would so casually attribute racism to others without evidence (name the Republicans who are using race!!!). It should offend every decent American. You want to know who’s really out there playing the race card? Obama’s own supporters, like Ludacris. It’s the left (think also of Jesse Jackson’s recent N-word fiasco) that is using race in a racist fashion, not the right.

Obama has denied he was referring to race, but his own chief strategist acknowledged that he WAS referring to race. Barack Obama, once again, is a documented liar. If you are going to accuse people like me of being a racist, Obama, you should at least have the moral courage and integrity to admit that you’re doing it.

As for Obama’s complaint, “and they’re going to send out nasty emails,” give me a break!  Liberals aren’t sending out anything nasty, are they?  Barack Obama complains that John McCain is attacking him in the very same conference that he not only attacks John McCain, but gets so low that he plays the race card without provocation.  This is first class serial whining and first class hypocrisy.  The Obama campaign’s “Audacity of Hope” has long-since abandoned “Hope” and relied upon “Audacity.”

Barack Obama’s statement – for all of it’s distortion of the truth – serves to remind us just how risky he truly is.

Even the leftist-oriented Rolling Stone acknowledges in its piece on Obama that:

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr.

Barack Obama has been steeped in radical politics since the day he emerged from his atheist secular humanist grad student mother’s womb. The openly communist Frank Marshall Davis was his childhood mentor; Saul Alinsky and Gerald Kellman (it was through Kellman’s Woods Fund that Obama met leftist terrorist William Ayers) dominated his thinking in college. He chose the most radical church in the country; he chose to make Jeremiah Wright his “spiritual mentor”; he chose to immerse himself in hard-core ideological radicalism. Never before has this country considered such a radical leftist for its chief executive.

Between a liberal-socialist media that openly wants Obama to be president, and between the fear over the charges of “racism” that await any meaningful exposition of Obama’s life and thought, Americans have been prevented from seeing who Barack Obama really is. It’s long-past time they found out.