GGniner
All American
Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
|
to the LEFT of NARAL..
Obama more Pro-Choice than NARALQuote:Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.
When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”
But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.
Change and Hope
Murder a baby? "YES WE CAN"
coming soon to an attack ad near you!
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2008 10:44 PM by GGniner.)
|
|
02-13-2008 10:31 PM |
|
RobertN
Legend
Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
|
RE: to the LEFT of NARAL..
GGniner Wrote:Obama more Pro-Choice than NARALQuote:Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.
When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”
But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.
Change and Hope
Murder a baby? "YES WE CAN"
coming soon to an attack ad near you!
Could you please post the Bill? Do you know what the bill said?
|
|
02-13-2008 10:55 PM |
|
GGniner
All American
Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: to the LEFT of NARAL..
Here is the Federal bill that is now law and passed unamiously in the Senate and only 15 in the house voted against in 2002.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext...=h107-2175
Not sure where you find the Illinois version, but I'll continue to look out of interest. Basically its "live birth abortion", where they attempt a partial birth abortion and fail, baby is born alive and they set it off to the side to die.
|
|
02-13-2008 11:03 PM |
|
RobertN
Legend
Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
|
RE: to the LEFT of NARAL..
GGniner Wrote:Here is the Federal bill that is now law and passed unamiously in the Senate and only 15 in the house voted against in 2002.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext...=h107-2175
Not sure where you find the Illinois version, but I'll continue to look out of interest. Basically its "live birth abortion", where they attempt a partial birth abortion and fail, baby is born alive and they set it off to the side to die.
My guess without reading the Bills(but I will) is that there was no provision for the health of the mother. It doesn't say anything about the health of the mother. So that very well could be the reason.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2008 12:33 PM by RobertN.)
|
|
02-14-2008 12:28 PM |
|
Fo Shizzle
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina
|
RE: to the LEFT of NARAL..
GGniner Wrote:Obama more Pro-Choice than NARALQuote:Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.
When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”
But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.
Change and Hope
Murder a baby? "YES WE CAN"
coming soon to an attack ad near you!
Oh...There is NO doubt the this guy is probably the most liberal candidate to ever be this popular....There was little doubt in my mind when the Kennedys indorsed him.
|
|
02-14-2008 12:42 PM |
|
GGniner
All American
Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: to the LEFT of NARAL..
RobertN Wrote:GGniner Wrote:Here is the Federal bill that is now law and passed unamiously in the Senate and only 15 in the house voted against in 2002.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext...=h107-2175
Not sure where you find the Illinois version, but I'll continue to look out of interest. Basically its "live birth abortion", where they attempt a partial birth abortion and fail, baby is born alive and they set it off to the side to die.
My guess without reading the Bills(but I will) is that there was no provision for the health of the mother. It doesn't say anything about the health of the mother. So that very well could be the reason.
the 'health of the mother' is completely irrelevant. The baby is no longer inside of her. the evil logic behind its that the mother intended to "abort" the baby but it was unsuccessful, and lived and was born. They then set the live baby aside and let it die instead of trying to save a life. Which is why even the Dems in congress that are liberal voted for it.
|
|
02-14-2008 01:05 PM |
|