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.
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.
Not sure if I follow but recapping. . . .
- in '75 Illinois had a law that you've posted.
- a nurse went public at what was occurring and the Illinois attorney general found the '75 law unenforceable for babies not clearly viable.
- Movement to close the '75 loophole with a Born Alive Infants Protective Act. Obama fought it.
- Feds pass a BAIPA
- Same BAIPA was introduced to Illinois leg in '03 but Obama squashed it.
- Obama left and in '05 Illinois passed the BAIPA to close the '75 law loophole
- Obama lied about his position.
- Obama called those questioning his lie, liars.
- When facts became clear, Obama campaign acknowledged Obama was wrong
The people that say it begins at conception are airing on the safe side of not knowing....the others are assuming the opposite and they spout of all the data they want....but no one really knows.
Like I said if it's found to feel pain at conception will it become illegal to have abortions and if they do will the be brought to trial for murder?
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.
(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.
(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.
Looks pretty clear.
As pointed out several pages ago, this 1975 law was ruled unconstitutional in the mid 80's...blah blah blah, see page 4'ish
I would consider anyone who claims to know specifically when an embryo/fetus receives human rights to be very intellectually arrogant, personally.
Agreed.
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.
