Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
partial birth abortion.
that stops Obama cold,
he is pandering with that ego of his
check out:Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
he starves babies that live through abortions as well!
Obama/ real change!
partial birth abortion.
that stops Obama cold,
he is pandering with that ego of his
check out:Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
he starves babies that live through abortions as well!
Obama/ real change!
I am so sick of having to go find this for people who prefer to believe trash. Nevertheless, here, enjoy, learn something, and from now on, if you continue to spout lies, you can never again honestly say that you were ignorant of the truth. You have the right to choose, as it were.
The Induced Infant Liability Act was a cynical legal ploy designed to make all AB illegal, which would have been unconstitutional. He saw right through it as many if not most of his colleagues did not and as apparently ALL of your fearmongering sources either did not or were too dishonest to admit.
You do understand that Roe v Wade upholds the Constitution's implied right to privacy.
...in the quote that the Times referenced, Obama was asserting that the bill (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilga.gov%2Flegislation%2Fle gisnet92%2Fstatus%2F920SB1093.html - broken link), sponsored by Republican state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, was unconstitutional because it would "define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution" and therefore represent a de facto restriction on all abortions. From Obama's March 30, 2001, statement (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilga.gov%2Fsenate%2Ftranscr ipts%2Fstrans92%2FST033001.pdf%23page%3D86 - broken link) on the Illinois Senate floor:
OBAMA: 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 -- 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 anti-abortion statute.
Additionally, Obama listed a "second reason" in his floor statement that the proposed law was "unconstitutional" -- it would "plac[e] a burden on the doctor" that would prevent many facilities from having the resources necessary to perform abortions:
OBAMA: 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 we're 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 is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.
............................
O'MALLEY: Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's 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 it'll 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 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 -- 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.
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 we're 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 is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won't 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 won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's 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. We're 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, I'll be voting Present.
PS, this also shows Obama stood up for the Constitution in the face of a LOT of obloquy - then and now, seven years on. I think that shows massive strength of character dont you? Why don't you go against the tide of stupid people and get to know something about the candidate you're assailing?
Obama has corrupted my version of separation of church and state . .
In my version, NO churches receive ANY state funding, for anything. That USED to be the constitutional ruling . . . .
The damned things are non-profit, and enjoy tax bennies already . . . that's enuff.
I'm MUCH more comfortable with the NONE part, than the enabling of some, and now, a hope that it will be regulated better . . . .
Like the whole spectrum of erosion of rights, and the constitution, this is just one more continued and deeper encroachment to turn the whole thing over to the 1% who use the 23% as their shills in the pulpits of the masses.
I remain jaded, and unloving of Obama, anymore . . . hell, I'm unloving and jaded about it ALL, so I guess I'm not tellin ya nothin new!
Obama has gone off in search of the votes of the religious right so he's playing both ends of a lighted stick of dynamite.
There are already "church schools" springing up everywhere. They are4 getting our tax money under the guise of community service to the poor, disadvantaged and special needs. The thing is most of them have become "rich kid" schools with maybe 10% poor, disadvantaged or special needs kids. Under Obama's plan there will be more of 'em and the ones already in existance will get more of Michelle Obama's pie to take in a couple 'o mo poor chaps!
AIN'T RIGHT! Just ain't right!
Guys like Fallwell, Pat Robertson, T.D. Jakes as well as that goofball Jerimiah Wright have sucked at the government teet for their "initiatives" before....it's gonna get worse! Did you notice that not only Christian churches were mentioned in Obama's speech but Jewish temples and Muslin Mosques. I'm betting Farrakan and his bunch of racist muslims will soon join the feast at the government feed trough.
The sad part about this whole thing is that a good part of the whole faith based program is schools-PRIVATE schools! It shows me that Obama, like a lot of politicians are willing to take money away from PUBLIC EDUCATION and give it to private institutions controlled by a religious group. So they get to teach what they want and how they want to teach it. They can teach creation theory instead of evolution....
Why does our government have no faith in Public education?
WRONG---just wrong!
Damnit Obama you can't be both for and against everything just to buy more votes!
These new Obama relevations are nerve racking:
FOR GUN CONTROL?-----AGAINST GUN CONTROL?---which is it Obama?
FOR FAITH INITIATIVES?---AGAINST FAITH INITIATIVES? ---wtf Obama?
MM you surely know the Faith Based Initiatives (FBIs) were begun by Bush, not Obama. I dont know the language of the Act creating them, but until I read it Im going to suspect that it was created to pay back Bush's evangelical supporters.
Im glad Obama is keeping FBIs and I hope he'll restore them to their highest ideological purpose. Wonderful, tremendous potential is there. I hope he'll cut the fat out of them to disallow their being taken advantage of any further. However in another thread on this topic another poster, I think paperhouse, pointed out the cold realities of any program's financials - FBI assistance likely would cost as much as than just plain secular welfare.
So - Im glad he's keeping the Initiatives in place but I hope he'll re-shape it into something more sensible than a piggy bank for the big hoggy mega-operations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why dont you do some homework?
