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.
Stating a "present" vote in Illinois legislation is a "lack of position" denotes a clear misunderstanding of the Illinois legislative procedure.
It's just more Obama duck and hide; a few are perhaps parliamentary in nature. 130 "present" votes blows the door off the practice and shows Obama as a talker and not a doer; unwilling to take on the tough issues . . . . such as providing medical aid to a moving, breathing newborn lying on a table.
It's just more Obama duck and hide; a few are perhaps parliamentary in nature. 130 "present" votes blows the door off the practice and shows Obama as a talker and not a doer; unwilling to take on the tough issues . . . . such as providing medical aid to a moving, breathing newborn lying on a table.
Another clear lack of understand of an issue, or perhaps willful willingness to not understand the issue, since this statement has clearly been disproved. I digress however, the information has been posted, perhaps you enjoy the stand you have taken. The law is clear.
Are you a lawyer? If this issue appears clear rest assured you haven't got it. . . the ignorance is bliss syndrome at play.
First it is irrelevant in that it hasn't been Obama's first, second or third excuse. . . perhaps it will be before he gets done spinning.
Second, Illinois did see the necessity to pass the Born Alive Infants Protective Act in 2005 after Obama had left. The law you quoted gave a recognized loophole; that is, an abortionist who thinks he might deliver a live viable baby has the call on whether a 2nd objective physician is needed to care for the baby. Obviously this person deciding pre-delivery whether or not a baby may be viable is the abortionist invested in killing the child. Given the size, physical strength, and medical steel held by the abortionist and the vulnerability of a newborn child the child isn't going to have a chance at a life for very long. My understanding is the Illinois prosecutor's office had a policy not to pursue these cases due to it being unenforceable.
Obama voted to kill live viable babies; lied about it; confessed to lying and is now spinning and blowing smoke. Most not in the cult see through it. Some even feel his vote was right although I don't recall reading anyone defending it here to date. . . .
Are you a lawyer? If this issue appears clear rest assured you haven't got it. . . the ignorance is bliss syndrome at play.
First it is irrelevant in that it hasn't been Obama's first, second or third excuse. . . perhaps it will be before he gets done spinning.
Second, Illinois did see the necessity to pass the Born Alive Infants Protective Act in 2005 after Obama had left. The law you quoted gave a recognized loophole; that is, an abortionist who thinks he might deliver a live viable baby has the call on whether a 2nd objective physician is needed to care for the baby. Obviously this person deciding pre-delivery whether or not a baby may be viable is the abortionist invested in killing the child. Given the size, physical strength, and medical steel held by the abortionist and the vulnerability of a newborn child the child isn't going to have a chance at a life for very long. My understanding is the Illinois prosecutor's office had a policy not to pursue these cases due to it being unenforceable.
Obama voted to kill live viable babies; lied about it; confessed to lying and is now spinning and blowing smoke. Most not in the cult see through it. Some even feel his vote was right although I don't recall reading anyone defending it here to date. . . .
Nope, I'm not a lawyer. Yes, it looks pretty clear to me. If you can't refrain from calling me ignorant do not address me. Laws are passed after Senators move on, it happens.
Sec. 6. (1) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.
(b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act, the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing the method employed.
(c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
This pretty unambiguous.
And so is this.
(2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; in such a case, the physician shall describe the basis of this judgment on the form prescribed by Section 10 of this Act. Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
Looks pretty point blank to me. Which part is confusing?
Obviously this person deciding pre-delivery whether or not a baby may be viable is the abortionist invested in killing the child. Given the size, physical strength, and medical steel held by the abortionist and the vulnerability of a newborn child the child isn't going to have a chance at a life for very long.
Doesn't the physician have a duty to keep the child alive? You're the expert, I'll defer to you, perhaps I'm reading it wrong. Where am I getting mixed up?
.....shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.
Nope, I'm not a lawyer. Yes, it looks pretty clear to me. If you can't refrain from calling me ignorant do not address me. Laws are passed after Senators move on, it happens.
I didn't call you ignorant -- and that's pretty clear. The law passed after Obama left to close the loophole. The Illinois attorney general was not prosecuting these cases unless the babies had "sustainable survivability." This came to light after nurse Jill Stanek reported that at her hospital "abortions" were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die.
That's why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap. Obama fought it until he left and then the Illinois legislature passed it.
I didn't call you ignorant -- and that's pretty clear. The law passed after Obama left to close the loophole. The Illinois attorney general was not prosecuting these cases unless the babies had "sustainable survivability." This came to light after nurse Jill Stanek reported that at her hospital "abortions" were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die.
That's why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap. Obama fought it until he left and then the Illinois legislature passed it.
Ah, so this is a discussion of a prior law and the Senator's vote on/or amendments to change the law prior to his term ending. Or is it a discussion of the present law and the language the Senator objected to which was consequently passed? Loopholes exist in many laws, the law is not perfect hence the description of the Highest Law of the Land - A Living Document. I'm trying to find clarity here and if this is a discussion of a prior law and amendment do you have a link, as well as the Senator's legislation as it was proposed at the time? The information I have, I have posted, and perhaps this is why I don't understand your objection.
this works both ways. they should use this quote out of context, in context, or in whatever context they want. mccain has had a lot of stuff taken out of context and used against him. this is just what they do.
Barry "I'm a Christian" Osama is a lightweight
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.
It's just more Obama duck and hide; a few are perhaps parliamentary in nature. 130 "present" votes blows the door off the practice and shows Obama as a talker and not a doer; unwilling to take on the tough issues . . . . such as providing medical aid to a moving, breathing newborn lying on a table.
Sunshine Chick is RIGHT ON!
