Loading ...
First things first. Driving yesterday I passed a house than had an Alan Keyes for President signed nailed to their mailbox somewhere in Wadsworth. Don't see too many of those. Anyhow. Barack Obama is for infanticide.
Chicago Tribune, October 4, 2004: "Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. . . . The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion."
Some brief background on the issue: On August 5, 2002, President Bush signed the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA)." The act made it illegal to kill a child born during an attempted abortion. A law was actually needed for this which is quite stunning. No one in the Senate voted against it. No one in the House voted against it, which is a feat considering they can't even pass a unanimous resolution supporting the Boy Scouts or to recognize September 11 as a day of remembrance. Not even NARAL opposed it the BAIPA. While still humbling us with his presence in the Illinois Senate, Barack Obama disagreed with all members of the United States Congress.
It turns out Obama either lies, misrepresents, or simply forgot about what actually happened (or maybe he was confused and thought he was on the Senate Banking Committee). That is for you to decide. On March 12, 2003, State Senator Obama and his colleagues were debating their version of the bill in Illinois. An amendment ("neutrality clause") just like in the federal BAIPA was added that stated the bill would not affect the legal standing of a fetus before birth. Obama voted for the amendment for whatever reason. Then he still voted against the bill, in committee, which he chaired (I guess at some point he did perform that duty unlike now). It failed, 6-4 in Obama's committee. When push came to shove, Obama voted against protecting infants born during live births. If you can vote to let newborns die, lying (or misrepresenting) about it probably isn't too difficult. Obama said had he been in the United States Senate, he would have voted for the unanimously passed act. He voted against it in his own state.
Really, even if you demand the so-called neutrality clause is in there so you vote for it, you may as well say "I won't let unwanted born children die as long as you agree to not go after Roe v. Wade." Does it have to be one or the other? That is what Obama tried to argue he did, but it wasn't even the case.
If the vast majority of people hear about this, they will be appalled. Not just hard core right wingers either. Moderates and even some liberals who are generally in favor of some abortion rights will be sickened by the thought of Obama seeing nothing wrong leaving a live-born baby to die in some hospital corner. Maybe Obama should have just taken his customary stance of voting "present." When he actually cast an up or down vote, he must have meant it. Prediction: he will give his standard answer of blaming us common folk for not understanding what happened and try to get away with it.
All the PDFs are here. Discretion used in this post - no photos.
*Unrelated, but Steven Warshawsky of the American Thinker writes "Why Obama is in trouble." Sometimes I need to read something like this to keep my sanity.
14 Responses for "Centrist."
Ben:
Great post. I keep telling my brothers that this is far from over. McCain is going to win. Steven's article put a smile on my face!
And to make all of you laugh…see what happens when Obama's teleprompter cuts out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc
Anybody have an 'inhalator?'
It is very clear for those willing to open their eyes. Obama is more pro-abortion than NARAL. That is amazing if you think about it. A decent person would have to be willfully ignorant of his position on this issue in order to vote for him.
the left and the press will try to write off Obama's stance on abortion as a wedge issue that is used as a diversion from the real issues. Will that line work?
Ben is this the best you can come up on with? There are many other policies that Obama could be criticized over that are more important than this? Economic, Fiscal, International, and Military policy are more important to the country as a whole than attacking Obama's vote on a social issue several years ago.
Some would argue dead babies are a pretty important 'social issue.'
Tom, it was 5 years ago, not that distant. Even if it was 30 years ago, that was still the way he voted. I didnt say it was the best I had, I am just saying it was appalling.
Revulsion.
Ever look up infanticide in the dictionary? Maybe Obama should.
He just doesn't want anyone "punished wif a baba!"
There are some people who are single issue voters, with abortion and abortion rights being their main issue, so Tom was oversimplifying when he said that this wasn't an important issue. True of voters on the right, the left and in the middle.
It's too bad that conservatives are so discouraged with McCain that they must be prompted by phony cries of "Obama wants to kill our babies" nonsense.
Ben: You've reached a new low with this one. I know you're looking for anything to hang on to for the upcoming election…..but this wasn't it.
What did he say that is inaccurate Reverend?
I dont think I reached a new low letting people know about Obama's vote. If he wants to vote that born children should not recieve medical care, then I dont see anything wrong with posting about it.
Anonymous makes a good point. Abortion is an issue people on all sides of the spectrum care about in their own way. But this isnt abortion we are talking about it is murder.
Leave a comment