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.
When you look at the bill that Obama struck down in the Illinois senate, there are several little phrases that - had this bill been passed - COULD be twisted to use as precedent in order to undermine Roe v Wade. I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that defining a "Person/human being/child/individual" to "include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." That one sticks out for me. All these little nuances do make a difference, I would imagine.
When you look at the bill that Obama struck down in the Illinois senate, there are several little phrases that - had this bill been passed - COULD be twisted to use as precedent in order to undermine Roe v Wade. I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that defining a "Person/human being/child/individual" to "include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." That one sticks out for me. All these little nuances do make a difference, I would imagine.
I read that also in the 2001 bill. However then he voted to pass the ammendment to have the verbiage changed to identically match the federal bill. 2003 per his request the bill was presented word for word, the same as the federal and against his word he voted AGAINST it again. I know that the original bill had verbiage that he said was unconstitutional and he "believed" could be used to overturn Roev Wade. But why did he vote against it again, when all of the changes he requested were made and presented to him? As far as I know it was and still is procedure in Illinois to put those babies (labeled medical waste) with other garbage from teh procedure and let them die slowly alone. The parents do have the option to hold them till they die, but for those who do not want to the babies are waste.
Can you provide proof/documentation of that? I ask because it totally contradicts everything I have read in Senate transcripts over the past couple weeks. From all of the government and media sources your post on City Data Forum is the only thing I have heard, seen or read that states the Illinois Law requires them to receive medical treatment. So the nurses that testified before senate and the hospitals who have stated the policy was to dispose of the babies are lying for what reason?
"(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.[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]
"(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.[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]
So you would agree with Obama, as per the audio of his speech, that it is an undue burden to call in a doctor to aid the baby. The original decision, to abort the baby, should hold, whether it is alive or not?
He can't run from this - and if he continues to LIE about his votes, he will be in big trouble.
"(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.[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]
Seems to me that "SUBSEQUENT TO ABORTION" is a pretty big condition precedent for the rest of the statute to apply. "Abortion" would be a recognized term of art within the law and medical communities as well.
This is an ignorant post. This Republican smear tactic of "Obama thinks it's ok to kill a newborn on the table!!" is COMPLETELY inaccurate and ridiculous. Get a clue. Read some of the previous posts. Read up on the legislation in question here.
AND FOR GOD'S SAKE, IT WAS ALREADY LAW IN ILLINOIS THAT HOSPITALS MUST PROVIDE MEDICAL TREATMENT TO A FETUS BORN ALIVE IN THE PROCESS OF AN ABORTION!!!!!!!!!!
"At issue is an Illinois bill in 2003 called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that Mr. Obama voted against, which was modeled on federal legislation enacted the previous year declaring that in failed abortions resulting in a live birth, the baby must be given normal medical treatment. This was in response to a gruesome practice whereby abortions involving induced labor were resulting in unintended live births - and those infants were simply being left to die. It had passed the U.S. Senate without any dissent. Mr. Obama contended that he "would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported," but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because "that was not the bill that was presented at the state level." Except that it was. As it turns out - and as even Mr. Obama's campaign admitted Monday to the New York Sun - the National Right to Life Committee wasn't lying; Mr. Obama was. The specific difference cited by Mr. Obama in the CBN interview was that the Illinois bill didn't contain the federal legislation's language explicitly stating that it would not "undermine Roe vs. Wade." (This was not merely off-the-cuff, as the campaign had issued a written statement to CNN in June offering the same rationale.) Not only did the bill contain the exact provision from the federal bill, but Mr. Obama voted in favor of adding it as an amendment. After the state bill was changed to be almost identical to the unanimously passed federal law, Mr. Obama voted against it."
This isn't all that complicated and the only one showing ignorace on the issue is yourself. And again, submitting facts is not a smear.
Okay so I am really trying to be fair here. My first instinct is to think Obama is lying, due simply to the fact that he has proven himself a liar. I asked for proof that it was law in Illinois to save a baby and I got the following:
Originally Posted by KLDanford
"(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.[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]
So this is still in effect today? I have a hard time believing that because if it were the case why wouldn't have Obama have said that to get himself off the hook? Also why would the nurses and doctors who testified that the babies were being left to die even testify. According to this they would have then been guilty of a felony.
Okay so I am really trying to be fair here. My first instinct is to think Obama is lying, due simply to the fact that he has proven himself a liar. I asked for proof that it was law in Illinois to save a baby and I got the following:
Originally Posted by KLDanford
"(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.[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]
So this is still in effect today? I have a hard time believing that because if it were the case why wouldn't have Obama have said that to get himself off the hook? Also why would the nurses and doctors who testified that the babies were being left to die even testify. According to this they would have then been guilty of a felony.
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.
For further reading see the links above. This appears to be a case of misunderstanding, whether intentional or not, by those who do not wish to see the truth.
Okay so I am really trying to be fair here. My first instinct is to think Obama is lying, due simply to the fact that he has proven himself a liar. I asked for proof that it was law in Illinois to save a baby and I got the following:
Originally Posted by KLDanford
"(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.[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]
So this is still in effect today? I have a hard time believing that because if it were the case why wouldn't have Obama have said that to get himself off the hook? Also why would the nurses and doctors who testified that the babies were being left to die even testify. According to this they would have then been guilty of a felony.
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.
For further reading see the links above. This appears to be a case of misunderstanding, whether intentional or not, by those who do not wish to see the truth.
Yup. There is a LOT of misunderstanding floating around and a LOT of conflicting info put out. It's really a shame.
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.
Here ya go!
