I want to hear Obama asked if he believes that he was wrong to have actively opposed the Illinois bill to require medical attention for newborn babies who survived botched abortion attempts. I want him defend fighting for the right of hospitals to allow these newborns to die in agony.

I can take care of this one for you:

 

 

 

The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US 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. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…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." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

The Illinois bill deliberately left out this compromise language, and that's why Obama opposed it.

I can take care of this one for you:

 

 

 

The Illinois bill deliberately left out this compromise language, and that's why Obama opposed it.

Thanks, but I am aware of Obama's justification for opposing the state measure. Most Americans have not and most would not agree with his decision to take a position that most extreme supporters of abortion rights declined to take. The media has a duty to educate the electorate and this particular issue has received very little media attention.

 

Obama believed that it was more important to protect the Roe v. Wade decision than to protect newborn infants. Failing to act to prevent infanticide was a serious mistake in judgment and it should be a major campaign issue.

Thanks, but I am aware of Obama's justification for opposing the state measure. Most Americans have not and most would not agree with his decision to take a position that most extreme supporters of abortion rights declined to take. The media has a duty to educate the electorate and this particular issue has received very little media attention.

 

Obama believed that it was more important to protect the Roe v. Wade decision than to protect newborn infants. Failing to act to prevent infanticide was a serious mistake in judgment and it should be a major campaign issue.

Just by your framing of the issue, you betray your real intent. The bolded is straight from conservative talking points. Can you show me which extreme supporters of abortion rights supported the Illinois bill? Not the federal bill, which passed and Obama would have voted for.

 

The Illinois bill failed to pass (See? Obama wasn't alone) because the sponsors had absolutely zero interest in the actual issue... they knew that without the Roe v Wade language that it would not pass, but they weren't willing to include it. They wanted to score political points.

 

That's part of legislative process, flawed and ideologically rigid bills usually die a rightful death. Before being passed into law, bills should be ready, and that wasn't.

Just by your framing of the issue, you betray your real intent. The bolded is straight from conservative talking points.

Why not respond to my arguments instead of incorrectly assigning motives to them? Nobody on this forum has been a more vocal critic of John McCain's record than me.

JCan you show me which extreme supporters of abortion rights supported the Illinois bill? Not the federal bill, which passed and Obama would have voted for.

I never said that any extreme groups supported the bill. Try reading my post again. The extreme left knew better than to aggressively oppose a popular bill that prohibited infanticide. Obama apparently could not recognize the difference between a fetus and an air-breathing baby.;

 

The Illinois bill failed to pass (See? Obama wasn't alone) because the sponsors had absolutely zero interest in the actual issue... they knew that without the Roe v Wade language that it would not pass, but they weren't willing to include it. They wanted to score political points.

 

That's part of legislative process, flawed and ideologically rigid bills usually die a rightful death. Before being passed into law, bills should be ready, and that wasn't.

The Illinois bill failed to pass because it was bottled up in committee (Obama was the chair for the 2003 vote) and it was not given a floor vote until after Obama departed for the US Senate. The bill passed easily the year after Obama left for Washington.

 

I listed the tough questions that I would like to see each of the three candidates asked, yet you attacked me for having some hidden agenda and respond only to the question that I suggested the media should be asking Obama. Maybe if I have a hidden agenda I am not alone.:lol:

 

I do not like any of these candidates but I hope that Obama's whining will not keep the media from asking him the tough questions about his record that need to be asked. McCain may get angry at being asked tough questions, but I am pretty sure that he will not do much whining.

 

When Obama was in the Illinois Senate, the Born Alive Infants bill came up three successive years.

 

In 2001, three bills were proposed to help babies who survived induced labor abortions. One, like the federal Born Alive Infants bill, simply said a living "H0m0sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

 

On all three bills, Obama voted "present," effectively the same as a "no." Defining "a pre-viable fetus" that survived an abortion as a "person" or "child," he argued, "would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute." - More on Obama and Babies Born Alive

So, not only did Obama oppose the bill, he opposed identifying the living, breathing organism that survived an abortion a "person" or a "child." If the media does its job, it is going to be a long, hot summer for both Obama and McCain.

Edited June 4, 200818 yr by The Scribe

The part of that post that I agreed with was:

If it would have been in bold then, I would have known, but...

If it would have been in bold then, I would have known, but...

 

I must apologize for not meeting your standards. :lol:

cch5432, Novel idea, but not very fun.

 

 

Just my point in the other thread. We really don't care that much about the issues....it's the fun we want!

 

We get exactly what we want.

:lol:

 

It's an issue, HB. If one candidate is getting treated with kid gloves by the media, it leaves a skewed vision of the others.

 

You must flat out be ignoring whats being said about McCain.

 

What happened to you, I thought you were thinking about voting for McCain? Get swept up in the Obama hype?

 

 

RTS, were you not one of the many conservatives on here that was lambasting McCain a couple of years ago ? Many of you guys said you would not vote before you would vote for that RHINO. Now he's your boy. If the truth was known, he's probably closer alligned with my views than he is yours. Hope you like it when he beds down with Kennedy and other Democrats over the next four years. I enjoyed his remarks yesterday lambasting Bush's handling of Katrina. There's much more to come over the next four years. I am looking forward to ever who wins this election...it's gonna be fun for Democrats either way! No matter who wins, I can't lose.

RTS, were you not one of the many conservatives on here that was lambasting McCain a couple of years ago ? Many of you guys said you would not vote before you would vote for that RHINO. Now he's your boy. If the truth was known, he's probably closer alligned with my views than he is yours. Hope you like it when he beds down with Kennedy and other Democrats over the next four years. I enjoyed his remarks yesterday lambasting Bush's handling of Katrina. There's much more to come over the next four years. I am looking forward to ever who wins this election...it's gonna be fun for Democrats either way! No matter who wins, I can't lose.

 

It's not often that I agree with almost everything math says in a post but this is one of those times.

 

The three choices we have remaining are between a moderate who could easily be as much left of center as right of center in McCain, a solid liberal in Hillary, and a radical leftist in Obama.

It's not often that I agree with almost everything math says in a post but this is one of those times.

 

The three choices we have remaining are between a moderate who could easily be as much left of center as right of center in McCain, a solid liberal in Hillary, and a radical leftist in Obama.

 

Yep. You are correct, sir.

 

........................................ Center ..................................

................................||.........................

.......................Hillary.......................................................

Obama .............................................................................

Why not respond to my arguments instead of incorrectly assigning motives to them? Nobody on this forum has been a more vocal critic of John McCain's record than me.

Nobody? That, as Vincent Vega once said, is a bold statement. I'm pretty sure that you can't back it up. I'll one-up you right here: I don't think he should be president. Want to join me?

 

Just because you don't think he's perfect doesn't mean you have no dog in the fight. Everyone on this board knows that you're a conservative Republican.

 

Newsflash- I don't think Obama's perfect. Does that mean that I would expect everyone to believe that I'm really undecided?

 

I never said that any extreme groups supported the bill. Try reading my post again. The extreme left knew better than to aggressively oppose a popular bill that prohibited infanticide. Obama apparently could not recognize the difference between a fetus and an air-breathing baby.

Obama knows something about Constitutional law.

 

The Illinois bill failed to pass because it was bottled up in committee (Obama was the chair for the 2003 vote) and it was not given a floor vote until after Obama departed for the US Senate. The bill passed easily the year after Obama left for Washington.

Passed with the language Obama insisted on, House Amendment No. 1:

 

Provides that the definition of "born alive" shall not be construed (i) to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion or (ii) to alter generally accepted medical standards.

 

Oops.

 

For the record, the article YOU linked, states that it was brought up to a committee vote in 2003, and it failed. Even if Obama had voted for it, it would have remained tied 5-5. The transcript that article quotes, as I will point out later, brings an even larger inaccuracy to light.

 

I listed the tough questions that I would like to see each of the three candidates asked, yet you attacked me for having some hidden agenda and respond only to the question that I suggested the media should be asking Obama. Maybe if I have a hidden agenda I am not alone.:lol:

My agenda is not hidden. I'm a Democrat, and a supporter of Barack Obama. I have nothing I'm trying to hide on that score, and I don't insult everyone's intelligence by claiming otherwise.

 

I do not like any of these candidates but I hope that Obama's whining will not keep the media from asking him the tough questions about his record that need to be asked. McCain may get angry at being asked tough questions, but I am pretty sure that he will not do much whining.

 

So, not only did Obama oppose the bill, he opposed identifying the living, breathing organism that survived an abortion a "person" or a "child." If the media does its job, it is going to be a long, hot summer for both Obama and McCain.

Here's my painstaking retyping of the ACTUAL transcript. I've included everything because I want people to see, not only the context of the comments and their ACTUAL meaning, but also to see that I'm not playing hide and seek with the truth:

 

SENATOR OBAMA:

 

This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was-- is that the method of abortion, an induced abortion where the-- the fetus or child, as-- some might describe it, is still temporarily outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the concerns that they were not being properly cared for during the brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of some of the key concerns of the bill?

 

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)

Senator O'Malley.

 

SENATOR O'MALLEY:

Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the-- the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to threat that baby as a-- a citizen of the United States afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.

 

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)

Senator Obama.

 

SENATOR OBAMA:

Well, it turned out-- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to abortion were 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 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, and if this is a child, then this is 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 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 is 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 would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize that 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 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.

 

The measure went on to pass. That's right, floor vote on the Senate, passed. So what happened to this bill? It died in the HOUSE, not the Senate. Obama didn't somehow stop the mighty workings of democracy all by his lonesome, as has been suggested. When the bill was amended in the manner Obama suggested above, it passed both chambers.

 

On Senator Obama's comments, he was speaking as the Constitutional Law professor that he is. Without including the amendment stating that the bill had no effect on Federal law effecting abortion, Obama didn't believe it would survive court rulings. He was probably right, as we have seen in legislation from several states.

 

I know that most posters on this board disagree with my personal views on abortion. We're a conflicted country on that score, with a substantial ambivalence- the majority of people think that abortion is wrong, but the majority also want it legal. But the broader point here is how this wedge issue is used in campaigns. In particular, trying to paint Obama as some sort of lone legislative obstructionist, a monster who hates babies. Yes, Obama is pro-choice. Disagree with he and I on that score, but don't try to turn it into something it isn't.

 

Read the transcript. Look at what he actually says. Make your own decisions.

Nobody? That, as Vincent Vega once said, is a bold statement. I'm pretty sure that you can't back it up. I'll one-up you right here: I don't think he should be president. Want to join me?

 

Just because you don't think he's perfect doesn't mean you have no dog in the fight. Everyone on this board knows that you're a conservative Republican.

 

Newsflash- I don't think Obama's perfect. Does that mean that I would expect everyone to believe that I'm really undecided?

 

Obama knows something about Constitutional law.

 

 

Passed with the language Obama insisted on, House Amendment No. 1:

 

 

 

Oops.

 

For the record, the article YOU linked, states that it was brought up to a committee vote in 2003, and it failed. Even if Obama had voted for it, it would have remained tied 5-5. The transcript that article quotes, as I will point out later, brings an even larger inaccuracy to light.

 

My agenda is not hidden. I'm a Democrat, and a supporter of Barack Obama. I have nothing I'm trying to hide on that score, and I don't insult everyone's intelligence by claiming otherwise.

 

Here's my painstaking retyping of the ACTUAL transcript. I've included everything because I want people to see, not only the context of the comments and their ACTUAL meaning, but also to see that I'm not playing hide and seek with the truth:

 

 

 

The measure went on to pass. That's right, floor vote on the Senate, passed. So what happened to this bill? It died in the HOUSE, not the Senate. Obama didn't somehow stop the mighty workings of democracy all by his lonesome, as has been suggested. When the bill was amended in the manner Obama suggested above, it passed both chambers.

 

On Senator Obama's comments, he was speaking as the Constitutional Law professor that he is. Without including the amendment stating that the bill had no effect on Federal law effecting abortion, Obama didn't believe it would survive court rulings. He was probably right, as we have seen in legislation from several states.

 

I know that most posters on this board disagree with my personal views on abortion. We're a conflicted country on that score, with a substantial ambivalence- the majority of people think that abortion is wrong, but the majority also want it legal. But the broader point here is how this wedge issue is used in campaigns. In particular, trying to paint Obama as some sort of lone legislative obstructionist, a monster who hates babies. Yes, Obama is pro-choice. Disagree with he and I on that score, but don't try to turn it into something it isn't.

 

Read the transcript. Look at what he actually says. Make your own decisions.

 

 

 

Nice post. Congratulations, sir. It was worth the effort you put forth.

RTS, were you not one of the many conservatives on here that was lambasting McCain a couple of years ago ? Many of you guys said you would not vote before you would vote for that RHINO. Now he's your boy. If the truth was known, he's probably closer alligned with my views than he is yours. Hope you like it when he beds down with Kennedy and other Democrats over the next four years. I enjoyed his remarks yesterday lambasting Bush's handling of Katrina. There's much more to come over the next four years. I am looking forward to ever who wins this election...it's gonna be fun for Democrats either way! No matter who wins, I can't lose.

If you've been paying attention in P&R at all, you would know he's not my boy. I don't like any of the three. I know he's closer to your view than mine, that's why he's a RINO. Just ask LN or BF, they both know I'm NOT a McCain fan.

Sad thing is, if I think it will be a tight race at, I'll have to vote and vote for McCain. Regardless of my feelings for McCain, the other two options are unacceptable for me.

Nobody? That, as Vincent Vega once said, is a bold statement. I'm pretty sure that you can't back it up. I'll one-up you right here: I don't think he should be president. Want to join me?

 

Just because you don't think he's perfect doesn't mean you have no dog in the fight. Everyone on this board knows that you're a conservative Republican.

 

Newsflash- I don't think Obama's perfect. Does that mean that I would expect everyone to believe that I'm really undecided?

 

Obama knows something about Constitutional law.

 

 

Passed with the language Obama insisted on, House Amendment No. 1:

 

 

 

Oops.

 

For the record, the article YOU linked, states that it was brought up to a committee vote in 2003, and it failed. Even if Obama had voted for it, it would have remained tied 5-5. The transcript that article quotes, as I will point out later, brings an even larger inaccuracy to light.

 

My agenda is not hidden. I'm a Democrat, and a supporter of Barack Obama. I have nothing I'm trying to hide on that score, and I don't insult everyone's intelligence by claiming otherwise.

 

Here's my painstaking retyping of the ACTUAL transcript. I've included everything because I want people to see, not only the context of the comments and their ACTUAL meaning, but also to see that I'm not playing hide and seek with the truth:

 

 

 

The measure went on to pass. That's right, floor vote on the Senate, passed. So what happened to this bill? It died in the HOUSE, not the Senate. Obama didn't somehow stop the mighty workings of democracy all by his lonesome, as has been suggested. When the bill was amended in the manner Obama suggested above, it passed both chambers.

 

On Senator Obama's comments, he was speaking as the Constitutional Law professor that he is. Without including the amendment stating that the bill had no effect on Federal law effecting abortion, Obama didn't believe it would survive court rulings. He was probably right, as we have seen in legislation from several states.

 

I know that most posters on this board disagree with my personal views on abortion. We're a conflicted country on that score, with a substantial ambivalence- the majority of people think that abortion is wrong, but the majority also want it legal. But the broader point here is how this wedge issue is used in campaigns. In particular, trying to paint Obama as some sort of lone legislative obstructionist, a monster who hates babies. Yes, Obama is pro-choice. Disagree with he and I on that score, but don't try to turn it into something it isn't.

 

Read the transcript. Look at what he actually says. Make your own decisions.

I will respond in more depth when time permits, but yes I have been a more vocal critic of John McCain than anybody on the forum. You are welcome to use the search feature and look for somebody else who has posted more specific criticisms of his record than me. That does not mean that in the words of McCain's mother, "hold my nose and vote for him," but I certainly will not be campaigning for him or touting his virtues. Of McCain's many shortcomings, facilitation of infanticide is not one of them.

 

On the transcript, which you "painstakingly" retyped, note that Obama voted against the bill on three separate occasions and the transcript is dated March 30, 2001. The bill that Obama opposed as the committee chairman in 2003 contained additional language to address his concerns. In other words, Obama and his supporters are engaging in some revisionist history on this issue.

 

Obama's explanation of his position on the bill was nonsensical and most Americans will agree if the media gives him a proper grilling on the issue. There is no reason that a single live born baby should have died in agony because of Obama's pandering to the abortionist lobby.

 

It is ironic that without the free speech restrictions of campaign finance laws pushed by John McCain, this issue might have denied Obama the nomination. Instead, pro-life groups have been forced to the sidelines for most of this campaign.

If you've been paying attention in P&R at all, you would know he's not my boy. I don't like any of the three. I know he's closer to your view than mine, that's why he's a RINO. Just ask LN or BF, they both know I'm NOT a McCain fan.

Sad thing is, if I think it will be a tight race at, I'll have to vote and vote for McCain. Regardless of my feelings for McCain, the other two options are unacceptable for me.

:thumb: I am hoping for a landslide McCain win so that I can cast a protest vote without risking turning over the White House keys to an inexperienced socialist.