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.
I am so sick of having to go find this information 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 the RW fearmongering sources either did not or were too dishonest to admit.
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?
Yes, the whole point of the thread, actually, was the fact that Obama was arguing Constitutional law in regards to this bill. The bill was unconstitutional.
Where in the constisution does it say we have the right to kill an un-born child? You see the problem with Roe vs. Wade is that if their where more conservative type judges the outcome would have been different! You did nice research but it is all hogwash as he Obama and all his brilliance should have realized state law can not overpower federal law so his whole argument was for nothing.
Where in the constisution does it say we have the right to kill an un-born child? You see the problem with Roe vs. Wade is that if their where more conservative type judges the outcome would have been different! You did nice research but it is all hogwash as he Obama and all his brilliance should have realized state law can not overpower federal law so his whole argument was for nothing.
Please read the post, your answers are there. R v W is the federal law. It extrapolates from the Constitution's implied right to privacy. Thanks for the nice mention about research. It's really appalling that the hate/fear e-mails have had such a head start and have taken such a hold - people so gleefully believe. Wish the Obama campaign would pay me for helping them out as much as I do
Where in the constisution does it say we have the right to kill an un-born child? You see the problem with Roe vs. Wade is that if their where more conservative type judges the outcome would have been different! You did nice research but it is all hogwash as he Obama and all his brilliance should have realized state law can not overpower federal law so his whole argument was for nothing.
They take an amendment that had a purpose to secure slaves rights slaves and warp into a pro abortion clause?
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.
