May 7, 200719 yr I think its unfair to characterize Obama on this bill. What else was on the bill? Was it passed in amended form? Unless there was an absolute string of bills for saving premature births in late term abortion attempts that he voted against, I think its a little silly to characterize. Then again, we all do it so whatever.
May 7, 200719 yr Author Where are you getting that from? That sounds like a blatant mischaracterization. Partial birth abortions? Guliani is on the same page. Here is the issue: In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote. Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention. If a woman is induced (not a partial birth abortion) for the purposes of abortion, and the kid is delivered, sometimes (about 50 a year) the child breaths and lives on its own. This is undeniably a child. It was born, and doesn't require anything more to survive than any premature infant. A law has been passed to prevent letting that child die due to inattention. Obama voted no. NARAL even supported this legislation. He is completely out there. First, can you provide me a link that indicates that Obama voted against the above bill? I can't seem to find it from any search. Second, I have read the Induced Infant Liability Act. What's amazing to me is that you came out with a blatant falsefood and twist of the facts. Nothing indicates that someone who votes against that bill is also ok with aborting babies after they are born. But I guess your position has now changed to someone who votes against that bill allows children to die due to inattention? I still don't find that. The bill basically allows mothers of the child to sue a clinic if they fail to take care of the babies. You know full well that since hospitals won't provide abortions, abortion clinics have popped up to provide the service. But these clinics don't have the extensive facilities to take care of children. Why would they? But this bill would allow mothers to sue an abortion clinic for cost of medical care, for punitive damages, and for attorneys fees, if they do not automatically take care of a child. How is that the same is supporting the abortion of live children? Here is the bill which you distort: Induced Infant Liability Act http://12.43.67.2/legislation/BillStatus.a...p;GA=93#actions Creates the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act and amends the State Finance Act. Provides that, if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian may maintain an action on the child's behalf for damages, including costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney's fees, against a hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth. Provides that damages shall be used to pay for the cost of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child. Provides that, if the child does not survive, the balance remaining after the costs of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child are paid shall be deposited into the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund, a special fund in the State treasury. Provides that the Fund shall be used by the Department of Public Health to make grants for neonatal care or perinatal hospice. Wanna tell me again how voting against this means Obama supports aborting children who are already born? Let's see now. The lies spread against Obama now include" -went to school in a fundamentalist Muslim school -supports abortion of babies after they are born -went to a Christian church that isn't really Christian Why am I not surprised.
May 7, 200719 yr First, can you provide me a link that indicates that Obama voted against the above bill? I can't seem to find it from any search. He voted against the Illinois bill. NARAL, the most pro-abortion, pro-abortion lobbying group even supported this bill. The Illinois bill was called: "Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act" and Obama voted either "present" or "no" on the bill on each opportunity. He now says it is because it did not include an exception to protect the life of a pregnant woman, except that the bill had no prohibition on the abortion procedure itself, only that once complete, if the child was still alive, it was to be given care. The life of the mother is no longer relevant, the kid is out and no longer connected.
May 7, 200719 yr Author First, can you provide me a link that indicates that Obama voted against the above bill? I can't seem to find it from any search. He voted against the Illinois bill. NARAL, the most pro-abortion, pro-abortion lobbying group even supported this bill. The Illinois bill was called: "Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act" and Obama voted either "present" or "no" on the bill on each opportunity. He now says it is because it did not include an exception to protect the life of a pregnant woman, except that the bill had no prohibition on the abortion procedure itself, only that once complete, if the child was still alive, it was to be given care. The life of the mother is no longer relevant, the kid is out and no longer connected. Oh..ok..now it is something different. So you didn't mean to cite to the earlier act? Keep the backpedling going. Can I have a link to what you claim for the new act, please? Substance of the bill? Obama's no votes?
May 7, 200719 yr Here is the bill which you distort: Induced Infant Liability Act http://12.43.67.2/legislation/BillStatus.a...p;GA=93#actions Creates the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act and amends the State Finance Act. Provides that, if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian may maintain an action on the child's behalf for damages, including costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney's fees, against a hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth. Provides that damages shall be used to pay for the cost of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child. Provides that, if the child does not survive, the balance remaining after the costs of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child are paid shall be deposited into the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund, a special fund in the State treasury. Provides that the Fund shall be used by the Department of Public Health to make grants for neonatal care or perinatal hospice. Wanna tell me again how voting against this means Obama supports aborting children who are already born? according to the link, the particular bill you're quoting was never voted on.
May 7, 200719 yr Author Here is the bill which you distort: Induced Infant Liability Act http://12.43.67.2/legislation/BillStatus.a...p;GA=93#actions Creates the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act and amends the State Finance Act. Provides that, if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian may maintain an action on the child's behalf for damages, including costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney's fees, against a hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth. Provides that damages shall be used to pay for the cost of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child. Provides that, if the child does not survive, the balance remaining after the costs of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child are paid shall be deposited into the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund, a special fund in the State treasury. Provides that the Fund shall be used by the Department of Public Health to make grants for neonatal care or perinatal hospice. Wanna tell me again how voting against this means Obama supports aborting children who are already born? according to the link, the particular bill you're quoting was never voted on. That's all I could find in terms of bills titled Induced Birth Infant Liability Act from Illinois that Obama voted against. The alternative would have to be a bill under the same title with a drastically different text. I still haven't been given any link on what Obama did or did not vote for or against.
May 7, 200719 yr according to the link, the particular bill you're quoting was never voted on. That's all I could find in terms of bills titled Induced Birth Infant Liability Act from Illinois that Obama voted against. The alternative would have to be a bill under the same title with a drastically different text. I still haven't been given any link on what Obama did or did not vote for or against. Obama buried it in his comitee, voting no or present at every time depending upon what he needed to do to keep it off the floor. http://12.43.67.2/legislation/BillStatus.a...nID=3&GA=93
May 7, 200719 yr Author according to the link, the particular bill you're quoting was never voted on. That's all I could find in terms of bills titled Induced Birth Infant Liability Act from Illinois that Obama voted against. The alternative would have to be a bill under the same title with a drastically different text. I still haven't been given any link on what Obama did or did not vote for or against. Obama buried it in his comitee, voting no or present at every time depending upon what he needed to do to keep it off the floor. http://12.43.67.2/legislation/BillStatus.a...nID=3&GA=93 Right. So that's what proves he thinks its ok to abort live babies. You've really proven your point effectively.
May 7, 200719 yr according to the link, the particular bill you're quoting was never voted on. That's all I could find in terms of bills titled Induced Birth Infant Liability Act from Illinois that Obama voted against. The alternative would have to be a bill under the same title with a drastically different text. I still haven't been given any link on what Obama did or did not vote for or against. Obama buried it in his comitee, voting no or present at every time depending upon what he needed to do to keep it off the floor. http://12.43.67.2/legislation/BillStatus.a...nID=3&GA=93 Right. So that's what proves he thinks its ok to abort live babies. You've really proven your point effectively. He is certainly OK with it being legal to allow the small number of late-term abortion infants that are born alive rather than stillborn to die due to innattention.
May 7, 200719 yr I think we just need to make one massive 2008 Presidential Election thread. No way.....that's how the Democrats do things! :mischief
May 8, 200719 yr Author I think we just need to make one massive 2008 Presidential Election thread. Actually, I don't think that's a bad idea. Maybe merge the existing ones.
May 8, 200719 yr I don't think it's fair in the bullpen to clog everything up in one thread, especially with two warring factions having their own issues and own concerns. Plus, every issue is multi-faceted and it would create a drain on conversation and thought.
May 8, 200719 yr I more or less just meant have a Republican Primary Thread and then a Democrat Primary Thread (primary election/general candidate talk) and then eventually a main election when that time comes. Luckily for you I'm not a mod anymore. :shifty
May 8, 200719 yr Boo to the big message board establishment, hooray individual thread rights! I, too, embrace this libertarian message board philosophy. The Primary Threads are fine, as long as direct issues are kept out of it. i agree
May 9, 200719 yr Theres nothing worse than massive threads. Especially when youre catching up and want to argue against a point made on page 41 of 87. But anyhow, if Rudy does get past the primaries he is much more than a legitimate candidate to win the presidency. Especially with a more socially conservative non-fiscally liberal neocon VP. As for social cons right now, Brownback seems to be in the lead, but Tommy Thompson is also a good choice. Ron Paul is by far my prferred candidate but unfortunately Presidential elections are like american idol voting and good ole Paul looks like a poor (not in the monetary sense) old man.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.