Some in the hard-core, left-wing nut base of the Democrat Party are probably having strokes when they see the latest in Obama's "moves to the Center." But he isn't fooling me a bit. This is all smoke and mirrors. Obama acts like a "moderate" but he isn't. Look for the VP nominee to be another ultra lib such as John Edwards to balance the "new" moderate Obama.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says "mental distress" should not qualify as a health exception for late term-abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he "strongly disagreed" with the ruling because it "dramatically departs form previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

The health care exception is crucial to abortion rights advocates and is considered a legal loophole by abortion opponents. By limiting the health exception to a "serious physical issue," Obama set himself apart from other abortion rights proponents.

The official position of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group that endorsed Obama in May, states: "A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family."

A leading abortion opponent, however, said Obama's rhetoric does not match his voting record and his previously stated views on abortion rights.

David N. O'Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama's remarks to the magazine "are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about."

"You cannot believe that abortion should not be allowed for mental health reasons and support Roe v Wade," O'Steen said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080703/D91MKQ681.html

WMD Owl Wrote:David N. O'Steen, the executive director of National Right to Life, said Obama's remarks to the magazine "are either quite disingenuous or they reflect that Obama does not know what he is talking about."

I'll vote for disingenuous. I think he knows EXACTLY what he is talking about.

WMD Owl Wrote:Some in the hard-core, left-wing nut base of the Democrat Party are probably having strokes when they see the latest in Obama's "moves to the Center." But he isn't fooling me a bit. This is all smoke and mirrors. Obama acts like a "moderate" but he isn't. Look for the VP nominee to be another ultra lib such as John Edwards to balance the "new" moderate Obama.

I keep wondering why the national media hasn't made much mention of Obama's swing from the extreme left towards the middle. If he's elected will we have a moderate democrat president or will he revert back to the far left?

Cue the faux outrage.

Last year he criticizes the ruling for not having a provision for the health of the mother. This year he states what that provision should entail. What drama.

At Ease Wrote:Cue the faux outrage.

Last year he criticizes the ruling for not having a provision for the health of the mother. This year he states what that provision should entail. What drama.

Obama was prevoiusly, and in deed not just word, More Pro-Choice than NARAL


witness his support for Live Birth Abortion, not partial birth but something virtually no one publicly supports in the "live birth" variety which is outright murder.

GGniner Wrote:

At Ease Wrote:Cue the faux outrage.

Last year he criticizes the ruling for not having a provision for the health of the mother. This year he states what that provision should entail. What drama.

Obama was prevoiusly, and in deed not just word, More Pro-Choice than NARAL


witness his support for Live Birth Abortion, not partial birth but something virtually no one publicly supports in the "live birth" variety which is outright murder.

The Induced Birth Infant Liability Act of Illinois had nothing to do with the legality of killing babies born alive during induced birth abortions. It was a bill assigning civil, not criminal, liability. It is entirely possible to oppose both this act and live birth abortions.

Indeed, it seems a bit perverse that a parent who was attempting to abort a fetus can sue on behalf of the baby that results if the proceedure is unsuccessful, especially because they lose out on money if the infant actually dies (it goes into a newly created fund).

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet...661LV.html

Quote:AN ACT in relation to civil liabilities.

If a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian of the county in which the child was born may maintain an action on the child's behalf for damages, including all costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney's fees, against any hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth.

This is not the same as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which clarifies the definition of "born alive" and explicitly states that born alive babies are entitled to the full rights and protections afforded to all people in this country. This bill DOES make it illegal to kill a baby dorn alive during an induced birth abortion.

http://www.nrlc.org/federal/born_alive_i...patext.pdf

Quote:IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant

It is an outright lie for all these organizations and "journalists" to claim that these two acts are equivalent and that by voting against one Obama is opposed to the other.

He's not flip flopping he clarifying his positions...

Quote:If next week he named Dick Cheney as his running-mate and revealed that he spends his spare time drilling for oil in wildlife habitats, the only surprise would be that it took him so long.

nobody said the two bills are the exact same(try reading), just "similar" and in both cases something very few opposed. the point is right and wrong, err "Judgment"....both bills protected babies that are born(outside of the womb) after an attempted abortion, where they had previously then sat baby to the side and let it die. Debating the "Civil" vs. "Criminal" side of it, is beside the point.

from the illinois Act, that Obama voted against...along with very few others

Quote:Section 5. Findings and intent. The General Assembly
7 finds that all children who are born alive are entitled to
8 equal protection under the law regardless of the
9 circumstances surrounding the birth. Children who are born
10 alive as the result of an induced labor abortion or any other
11 abortion are in special need of protection due to the fact
12 that the intent of their birth is to cause the death of the
13 born child. Therefore, it is the intent of the General
14 Assembly to protect a child who is born alive as the result
15 of an induced labor abortion or any other abortion and to
16 ensure that the child receives all medical care necessary to
17 preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the
18 child.

Quote:Section 10. Induced labor abortion; actions. If a child
20 is born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other
21 abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian of the
22 county in which the child was born may maintain an action on
23 the child's behalf for damages, including all costs of care
24 to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the
25 child, punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney's fees,
26 against any hospital, health care facility, or health care
27 provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide
28 medical care to the child after the child's birth. Any
29 damages recovered shall be used to pay for the cost of
30 preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the

so what, someone could be FOR making it a Crime and against Lawsuits that result from murdering the baby......Yes, please please please make this point. Especially to undecided and fence sitting voters.[/quote]

GGniner Wrote:nobody said the two bills are the exact same(try reading), just "similar" and in both cases something very few opposed.

I can't tell you how funny I find this coming from you.

NARAL did not oppose the federal BAIPA which makes it clear that it is illegal to kill a baby born alive during an induced birth abortion. Obama did oppose a bill dealing which does not make it illegal to kill a born-alive baby & which only deals with who could sue whom and for how much after an unsuccessful partial birth abortion. It does not make it a crime (I have no idea about the actual law regarding this in Illinois, but this bill does not affect it one way or the other), either because it was already a crime or because they did not feel it should be so. You say that this puts Obama to the left of NARAL when it does no such thing. It is entirely reasonable & logically consistent to support the BAIPA (and therefore in favor of protecting born-alive babies) while being opposed to the IBILA. There is no way his opposition to the IBILA can put him to the left of NARAL unless NARAL came out in support of it. NARAL's position on the BAIPA is irrelevant, unless you can show that Obama also opposed that bill.

I disagree that the civil vs. criminal distinction is irrelevant. What do you think is more effective at keeping doctors from killing born-alive babies, the possibilty that they could be arrested & thrown in jail or the mere possibility that they could be sued? Personally I don't think a born-alive baby who is killed cares one way or another who pays the costs associated with his or her treatment, especially because it's likely that these costs aren't very high since neglect is the basis of the suit. How can you sue to recover medical costs for proceedures which were not provided (unless the born-alive baby was transferred to another doctor/hospital)? And what kind of punitive damages is a person who was attempting to abort a fetus entitled to if the fetus is born alive and later dies (or lives)? What is their inccntive to even bring a suit? In fact, I could see it creating a perverse incentive for doctors to do as little as possible to try & keep a born-alive baby alive because every action they take increases their financial liability (hopefully other factors would overwhelm this incentive).

I don't know if Obama's position on the IBILA is the right or wrong one to take. The entire bill doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems more like an effort by the Trial Lawyers to grab an even bigger piece of the medical malpractice pie than they already have. But it is wrong to use his position on this bill to try and put him to the left of NARAL based on their support of an entirely different bill.

jh Wrote:I disagree that the civil vs. criminal distinction is irrelevant. What do you think is more effective at keeping doctors from killing born-alive babies, the possibilty that they could be arrested & thrown in jail or the mere possibility that they could be sued?

both, Doctors hate lawyers because of lawsuits and it does dictate what they do for obvious reasons, $$$. For example, there are more babies born via C-section today simply because of lawsuits that arose after some babies died during delivery...now they tend to not take any chances and recommend C-Sections.


Making live birth abortion a Crime(i.e. Prison) is harsher than the Civil Side(lawsuits), I think. So if anything, Obama worked in the minority and against testimony on the matter to the horrors of the procedure on a bill with lesser penalties than what NARAL didn't oppose on the National level, making it CRIMINAL, i.e. Prison....so its is not a stretch to say he's to the LEFT of NARAL on the issue of Live Birth Abortions. but who knows, maybe NARAL will come out and give him some cover and claim they are against Civil Penalites but all for Prison for live birth murder.....and make them both look ridiculous

On top of that, he lied/spun which he does so much on various issues. Stating as his excuse for opposing the bill that it was: "actually designed to overturn Roe v. Wade," and was not "going to pass constitutional muster." The Illinois bill was never going to "overturn Roe", its a ridiculous statement/spin....

bottom line, he's the most pro-Abortion candidate to ever run. He is for all abortions at all stages of Pregnancy for any reason and on top of that he wants them to be paid for by Tax Payers..........In most of Western Europe Late Term abortions are Illegal, but not here for the Obamamessiah.

Obama is flipping and flopping so much, he is even starting to screw up his airplane..

Obama's Campaign Plane Makes Unscheduled Landing

July 07, 2008 11:18 AM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Barack Obama's presidential campaign plane made an unscheduled landing in St. Louis, Missouri, due to a maintenance problem.

While flying from Chicago to Charlotte, the pilot's first officer announced at 9:40 ET, that they were experiencing "controllability issues", describing it as a "minor little problem" but significant enough to force the unscheduled stop.

Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, was aboard the plane at the time of the incident along with his campaign staff and a number of journalists covering his presidential bid.

The landing in St. Louis was relatively smooth and once the campaign has a better understanding of what's wrong with the plane, they plan to brief the press more fully.

Upon landing, the campaign initially considered moving Obama to a private airplane terminal but changed plans upon protests from the press.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/...paign.html

The more I think of this, it's not really that big a move, assuming he doesn't change again IF he's elected so there was never a move at all. He's still basically for abortion so I don't see how this minor modification of his view on this subject is a flip flop, but he's trying to appear as moderating his view to win a few social conservatives.

I think his approach is becoming more and more clear, hold the left and shave a few supporters from the traditional republican ranks by looking more moderate than he is. In the end he will gain more supporters than he loses while appearing to stand up for values against the "extreme" views of the drive-by media.

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:I think his approach is becoming more and more clear, hold the left and shave a few supporters from the traditional republican ranks by looking more moderate than he is. In the end he will gain more supporters than he loses while appearing to stand up for values against the "extreme" views of the drive-by media.

Disagree. If the McCain camp does it's job and exposes just how far left he is he won't garner as much "moderate" support.

Someone who supports abortion the way he does could never claim the "values" voting block. Too much evidence against him on it for him to.

Hope and change, change and hope, got him the nomination. But in the general it will only go so far before people stop and begin to wonder.

The debates will be key.

apparently there was more than one version of the Illinois bill, one of which reportedly used the exact same language as the Federal Bill that passed 98-0

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i...#continueA

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Disagree. If the McCain camp does it's job and exposes just how far left he is he won't garner as much "moderate" support.

Hope and change, change and hope, got him the nomination. But in the general it will only go so far before people stop and begin to wonder.

The debates will be key.

God I hope the ghost of Lee Atwater resides in a GOP Consultant working for McCain.

While Obama would be EASY to "Dukakis" thus exposing him as a two-bit hack ultra-liberal Democrat (and not the "Messiah" of hope and change as he proclaims).. McCain just has to have testicles to turn the right guy loose and let the voters see Obama as the Pablum puking empty suit that Barry really is...

GGniner Wrote:apparently there was more than one version of the Illinois bill, one of which reportedly used the exact same language as the Federal Bill that passed 98-0

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?i...#continueA

Indeed, it looks like I missed several bills. The link below contains links to all the abortion-related bills that Obama voted present (a no for all practical intents & purposes) on during his time in the Illinois senate. There might be several bills that he voted no on, but based on this list alone it looks like he was left of NARAL, right of NOW, and even with Planned Parenthood.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec...rti_1.html