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.
But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired. Obama’s work to kill the bill in 2003 has always been attested to by witnesses (committee records are poorly kept in Springfield), but yesterday the National Right to Life Committee found and revealed the document showing definitively that Obama had voted against it in committee — against the exact same bill he is now falsely claiming on his own campaign website that he would have supported.
I know you all enjoy believing that Obama likes nothing better than to kill Christian babies, but I think it's important to point out that:
1) Obama didnt defeat this bill in his committee alone, he commanded his zombie minions to overpower the Republicans on the committee by their sheer numbers. So it's stupid and Chicken-Littleish to say OBAMA single-handedly voted to kill the babies.
2) The bill went back the next day to the Rules committee, who let it lie around for two more years until it died in 2005, made redundant by the 2005 federal law.
3) Although any partisan information source that uses words such as "found" and "revealed" automatically drops to News of the World credibility level IMO, the 3/12/03 voting record "revealed" by National Right to Life shows that the committee split exactly on party lines, which virtually proves that it was nothing but political games-playing by that time. As do these questions:
If they all knew it was exactly the same language as HR 2175, why not just approve it?
Why didnt the Rs on the committee set up a hue and cry at this outrageous result?
An article called "Obama's Abortion Distortion" tried to discover why some of the Ds voted no and published a few very different answers and outsiders' speculations. I wont quote it (though the vice chairman's reason supports sending it back to the Rules Committee), but Im choosing to believe this of all of them: "Christine Radogno, a Republican senator who voted for the act during the 2003 committee hearing, thinks that the Democrats killed the bill for political reasons. 'Anything promoted by pro-life groups, the pro-choice Democrats just wouldn't be for it,' she says. 'They just didn't want to give the pro-life groups a victory.'"
(Note - such an imbroglio is a tiny taste of what you and your tax dollars have to look forward to if Roe v Wade is removed from federal constitutional protection in a McCain presidency and tossed to the states.)
Quote:
The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the “neutrality clause” (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.
I must comment on the bolded section. "[A]ccording to the records made by committee Republicans, the amendment to include in the Illinois bill the language Boxer said protected Roe was approved by a 10 to zero vote of the committee. (This vote, Republicans say, was a common procedural courtesy extended to the sponsoring senator.)" - More on Obama and Babies Born Alive - HUMAN EVENTS National Right to Life's writer is either trying to mislead you into suspecting nefarious goings-on (which would mean both the Rs and Ds on the committee are in evil collusion), or else is too disingenuous to be writing about this stuff. I dont think they're disingenuous, do you? (Also, "Obama led the committee in voting" misleads as well.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Sorry delu; it is clear the verbage was in the bill to protect Roe. He voted for that then killed the bill in his committee. He's a friggin monster.
Well, if he's a monster, so are the other five senators who voted No also. It seems pretty obv. they and the Rs were all playing games. This is a tempest in a teapot.
That said, I dont know why he's saying the 2003 language didnt contain the protection clause. If that's what he's saying. Look forward to a clarification, because this apparent fudging is not a tempest in a teapot.
Thanks for all the info, sanrene, I wasnt aware of all this brouhaha and it's been interesting if confusing to follow.
The NO 1 thing Jesus would care about would be LIfe for the Innocent. THIS voter is NOT moving beyond that. How can anyone be so callous as to discard life as meaningless. Jesus would never do that. He loved the children, and taught that people should become like them, in order to understand his teachings. It all had to do with love, and respect of life--even though it isn't your own. Just because you are alive. doesn't mean others shouldn't be. You are not any more deserving of life than a new born who is helpless. Are people really this mean? It's hard to believe that some people actually would think it's okay to kill the innocent. We have all been in that state at one time, and thankfully, our parents didn't kill us. To me, the greatest gift of all, is that of consciousness--the gift of being alive--a chance to experience life. The worst thing, would be to deprive anyone of that, to take away the right to be conscious, for whatever time they are alloted. This is the ultimate act of selfishness.
At the same time, you must agree that there are some people that just shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. Or at the very least, have the option. Baby Jesus might love all the scumbags in the world, but those of us here have to deal with them and their offspring, lol.
I think the trick is, dont have sex with someone whose baby you dont want. This society however encourages irresponsible sex. But you cant legislate popular culture per se.
Abortions have always been and will always be. Thats just a fact, it's pointless to bemoan it. Maybe the most realistic way to cope with the reality of it is to adopt the "safe, legal and rare" POV.
From what I've read about Jesus he was very practical....he knew things like prostitution and the poor would be around forever no matter how right or wrong it was...they just WERE. It's the same with abortion ....overthrowing Roe will not end abortions....nothing will.....and to think otherwise is the height of stupidity and blind ignorance.
Maybe religious people(many of whom HAD abortions) see this now and realize that one-issue voting begets the likes of bushCo...
Not sure how you got Bush into the mix but oh well will Dumbo cure sickle cell?. Meanwhile back ON topic, Christians are anti murder, many MANY see the termination of an unborn CHILD (since we can assume it's not a tyrannosaurus) as the worst kind of murder. Jesus was about as non violent as one could get, sucking a fetus out of a womb falls into the violent mode.
Not sure how you got Bush into the mix but oh well will Dumbo cure sickle cell?. Meanwhile back ON topic, Christians are anti murder, many MANY see the termination of an unborn CHILD (since we can assume it's not a tyrannosaurus) as the worst kind of murder. Jesus was about as non violent as one could get, sucking a fetus out of a womb falls into the violent mode.
No one is proabortion. There is no one out there hoping to get pregnant so they can have an abortion. As a Catholic, I focus on helping young people to understand their own self esteem issues and to not use sex as a way to feel good about themselves. As a mom, I also promoted the use of birth control if they were not going to abstain. These are practical actions I can take to eliminate the need for abortions. However, when a young woman is pregnant, words like she is in trouble, the little *****, etc do not promote a respect for either her life or her babies life. Why is murder wrong? Because you are taking away a God given life. So both the young woman and the baby are both God given lives to be celebrated and scorned. So I have to vote for the person who will help us meet the goals of a better life for all, not just some. I must go for Obama.
No one is proabortion. There is no one out there hoping to get pregnant so they can have an abortion. As a Catholic, I focus on helping young people to understand their own self esteem issues and to not use sex as a way to feel good about themselves. As a mom, I also promoted the use of birth control if they were not going to abstain. These are practical actions I can take to eliminate the need for abortions. However, when a young woman is pregnant, words like she is in trouble, the little *****, etc do not promote a respect for either her life or her babies life. Why is murder wrong? Because you are taking away a God given life. So both the young woman and the baby are both God given lives to be celebrated and scorned. So I have to vote for the person who will help us meet the goals of a better life for all, not just some. I must go for Obama.
Lets be real, you, like most of us are no more than a "Cafeteria Catholic", it's a lot easier that way. Let's call a spade a spade.
What religous people are favoring Obama....hate folowers of Rev. Wright I assume and Pflegfer, and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.....wow....how can you impress some one....calling your self "black...something".....
This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read, and there are a lot of them on here. You are obviously not a Christian and have not read the Bible, so please don't speak for those of us who have and DO NOT speak for Jesus. The evils of homosexuality and murder (yes abortion is murder) are taught at length and even an atheist like you should be able to distinguish between right and wrong if you had a conscience.
He, he.
Got under your goat, did I?
I love it.
I am very familiar with the bible, bobby joe, I just interpret it a little differently than some psycho zealots....ERRRR..... certain brands of Christians do.
Is that really what you took from his post? That's even more ignorant than your interpretation of the bible as well as where the young evangelical movement is going.
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.
Meanwhile back ON topic, Christians are anti murder, many MANY see the termination of an unborn CHILD (since we can assume it's not a tyrannosaurus) as the worst kind of murder. Jesus was about as non violent as one could get, sucking a fetus out of a womb falls into the violent mode.
Let's call a spade a spade.
