, Please 
0
Abortion is a controversial topic these days. Some can’t agree that children are truly human beings before leaving the womb. Some believe there should be exceptions when the mother’s life is in danger or when rape has occurred. However, until 2007 it was legal for children to survive abortions… and be left to starve to death on hospital beds.
There’s a lot the average American doesn’t know about Mr. Barack Obama. The silver-tongued demagogue is to many just a promising young Illinois senator with the chance to become the first black president. But during Obama’s time representing Illinoisans in the Senate, he opposed a bill that was voted in favor of 98-0 (Barack Obama voted ‘present’).
That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. You see, under U.S. law babies who survived what is known as Partial-Birth Abortion, also known as late-term abortion, could legally be left to starve to death on hospital beds. Numerous hospitals in the Chicago-land area practiced this infanticide, including the infamously named Christ Hospital, at which nurse Jill Stanek worked.
She was one of those who testified before Congress about children who’d died in her arms, and other horrors that had resulted from this law. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act would have stopped this outrage, but Barack Obama opposed it in the Senate, threatening that it would be judicially challenged. It was, which was why the bill was passed in 2003, but not upheld in the courts until the past year.
Barack Obama is not the moderate he presents himself to be. He is a hardcore abortionist to the point that he doesn’t believe babies who survive abortions should have the opportunity to survive, even though when given the opportunity they can, and have in the past. They are for all intents and purposes just prematurely born children, and Obama supports the mass killing of these little kids.
The following are the exact statements pertaining to the bill made by Obama, as recorded in the senate transcript, pages 84-90, which you can read for yourself:
Quote
“Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct?”
“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, 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 if 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.”
“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, 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 if 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.”
Additional Reading:
- “Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever” by Terrence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief.
- "Links to Barack Obama's votes on IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act" by Jill Stanek.
- "Why Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama" by Jill Stanek.
- "Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role" by Kate Zernicke and Jeff Zeleny, New York Times.
