quote:

As NewsBusters reported on August 13, the media pretty much ignored the great work by Jill Stanek in uncovering the truth that contradicted nearly 6 years of claims that Obama made concerning his vote on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act when he was in the Illinois State Senate. Obama claimed that the Federal "neutrality clause" wasn't in the Illinois bill and that if it were he would have voted for the bill instead of against it. Stanek proved that the exact same clause Obama said wasn't in the bill was actually placed in the bill by the very committee Obama chaired. Yet he still voted against it.

So, even with the same "neutrality clause" in the bill, placed there by the very committee of which he chaired, Obama still voted against the bill. Even though for 6 years he has claimed he would have voted for the bill if the "neutrality clause" was there -- that he has been saying this whole time that the lack of that clause made him vote against the bill -- even with that claim being proven a lie, the media stays silent.

The fact is, Obama's abortion record is far more extreme than he and his willing Old Media accomplices are allowing for. Obama is in favor of allowing babies to die from neglect even if born completely healthy, but unwanted by the Mother. This is an extreme view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jazzact13
But, of course, he doesn't make enough money to say whether these just-born children (not to mention those still in the womb) are really human or not.

quote:

Although I'm all for desperate attacks on candidates

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

Frankly I found the comment even more horrifying than just simple honesty. If he doesn't know (it's "above his pay grade"), then basically he's admitting that he doesn't know when a baby should be considered a human (and by extension have human rights), yet he's apparently still willing to give carte blanche in killing them according to his voting record.

Anyone else find that kind of terrifying?

quote:

doesn't this belong in the Election 2008 section?

quote:

ORIGINAL: .nile.

How much higher was the 'pay-grade' of women who decided to kill their own flesh and blood because of the deception of this public policy which Obama refuses to address or admit as an important issue, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jazzact13

Campaign Admits Obama Lied About Abortion Vote, Media Asleep

quote:

As NewsBusters reported on August 13, the media pretty much ignored the great work by Jill Stanek in uncovering the truth that contradicted nearly 6 years of claims that Obama made concerning his vote on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act when he was in the Illinois State Senate. Obama claimed that the Federal "neutrality clause" wasn't in the Illinois bill and that if it were he would have voted for the bill instead of against it. Stanek proved that the exact same clause Obama said wasn't in the bill was actually placed in the bill by the very committee Obama chaired. Yet he still voted against it.

So, even with the same "neutrality clause" in the bill, placed there by the very committee of which he chaired, Obama still voted against the bill. Even though for 6 years he has claimed he would have voted for the bill if the "neutrality clause" was there -- that he has been saying this whole time that the lack of that clause made him vote against the bill -- even with that claim being proven a lie, the media stays silent.

The fact is, Obama's abortion record is far more extreme than he and his willing Old Media accomplices are allowing for. Obama is in favor of allowing babies to die from neglect even if born completely healthy, but unwanted by the Mother. This is an extreme view.

But, of course, he doesn't make enough money to say whether these just-born children (not to mention those still in the womb) are really human or not.

quote:

People without a high level of interest in the election should not be subjected to this nonsense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

After reading the following quote, I'm a bit confused:

The Chicago Tribune reported [8/17/04], "'For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when 'there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,' an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes 'it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.' And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique 'most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus' and perform the abortion in the presence of 'a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.'"

Here is the IL legal language in question:

The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm

If so, why the need for the Born Alive Act in Illinois if legal protections for such "botched abortion" circumstances already existed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000
People without a high level of interest in the election should not be subjected to this nonsense.

quote:

Any who have no interest in this kind of stuff (yourself included, if that is your position) are very free to ignore this discussion. They are not being 'subjected' to anything.

quote:

People with a high level of interest in the election should not be subjected to this nonsense. But if we have to be, at least put it in the election folder.