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.
A State cannot have Laws that counter Federal Law. Roe v Wade held that abortion was allowed in 1st and 2nd trimesters. End of story! If you feel it to be the wrong decision, work to have it changed, but a State cannot force it to be changed. Could not be clearer.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."
Every woman who has a termination has a very tough decission to make...... they do not make that decission without a lot of soul searching but there is a point at which a termination becomes extremely traumatic for the mother and baby and there must be guidlines to prevent her being psychologically scarred. You think the mother should be able to terminate at late term and i think you are wrong....... hormones are going wild and a time limit must be in place for the sake of the mother and baby. Maybe you also think a pregnant woman should have the freedom to take drugs or drink alcohol or smoke during pregnancy, after all that is her choice too. Here is a pic of a 24 week fetus and in my opinion that is far to far down the road of pregnancy for a termination......... maybe you think it's ok but i disagree with you.
The only thing that matters is that the law disagrees with you. Minority opinions have zero legal weight.
Illinois’ preexisting protections were “loophole-ridden” and only applied to babies who were considered to have “sustainable survivability,” leaving pre-“viable” newborns unprotected.
The Chicago Tribune reported that “prosecutors in IL entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of the law based on ‘born alive’ definitions or other definitions.
A de facto legalization of infanticide under certain conditions was already in place in Illinois, and Obama’s votes blocked measures to end it.
Keep up the Repug whackadoodle titles and threads!!!
Obama will be a shoo-in with you and InSanetorum and a few other crazy posters showing just how freaky and extremist the right wing is!
This is really old news & common knowledge. Look it up yourself. It is a matter of voting record in the Illinois legislature. Quite a bit was made about this prior to the 2008 election. Of course the pro-abortion/pro-infanticide/pro-war Obama voting base couldn't care less.
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.
Heartless
