I think I’m beginning to see the real reason for the reluctance of many blacks to get behind this guy.
I discovered purely by accident, in researching a post about Hillary’s pro-choice bonifides, this jaw-dropping piece of information: Not only did Barack Hussein Obama oppose the partial birth abortion ban, he voted against a bill in the Illinois legislature ( BAIPA)that would have required medical care for aborted babies who survive an abortion. (Most articles have used the words ‘aborted fetuses’, even though we’re talking about newborn babies outside the womb). It should come as no surprise then, that this man/diety’s devotion to the sacrament of abortion is so complete, he gets a 100% approval rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.
His rationale:
Obama — who joined several other Democrats in voting “present” in 2001 and “no” the next year — argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman’s right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.
“It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute,” Obama said in the Senate’s debate in March 2001.
For crying out loud…..if the baby is no longer in the mother’s womb….it ceases to be a fetus. It is a child. The problem for these ghouls is that two minutes ago, it could be called an inviable tissue mass. Now….not so much.
Obama is terrible on all of the major issues, but at least most of his positions seem to resonate with the average liberal voter.
This position, however, is beyond the pale even for most Democrats, I think, but I could be wrong.
The Messiah has a message of hope, in which he draws language from a biblical definition of faith as belief in “things unseen”:
“That’s what hope is: imagining, imagining and then working for and fighting for what has not been done before. Believing in things unseen. Believing despite evidence to the contrary that there is nothing we cannot do as long as we’re willing to make the effort and cast aside the fear and the doubt and the cynicism.”
That is truly inspiring. Yessiree…
Unfortunately, “Hope” isn’t “working” or “fighting” for an unwanted newborn baby. Oh, hells no.
As blogger Sacred Frenzy says:
If Obama truly believes that human beings are made in the image of God, then this should be reflected in his willingness to defend the innocent. But he doesn’t even think they are worthy of medical care.
P.S. Most victims of botched abortions end up dying. But not all.
UPDATE (September 18):
More about Gianna Jesson the abortion victim, mentioned above, who has now addressed Obama in a video.
Another video about Obama’s disgraceful stance on abortion/infanticide:
January, 7, 2008 at 4:57 am
“…he voted against requiring medical care for aborted babies who survive an abortion in the Illinois legislature.”
Well, if the truth be told, a baby that survives an abortion in the Illinois legislature has pretty poor prospects anyway.
But seriously, any “viable candidate” on the Democratic ticket is required by the party to endorse abortion on demand. The party has ruthlessly suppressed all other views for at least twenty years; it fears that the slightest hint of dissent from an all abortion / all the time agenda will fracture its alliance with NOW, NARAL, EMILY’s List, and the other major proponents of abortion. As these groups provide a very large percentage of Democrats’ funding, they can’t take that chance.
Coalition politics in the year of Our Lord 2008. Don’t you love it?
January, 7, 2008 at 9:34 am
Fixed it, Snarky.
I understand the need to be “pro choice”, but on the pro-abort -anti-abort spectrum he is off the charts on the left side, (as I realize so many of them are).
But I believe they are to the left of the vast majority of Americans, including Democrats.
January, 7, 2008 at 9:55 am
Need an “e” on the end of “rational,” m’dear.
On one hand this seems like a major weakness for the presidential election. On the other it seems that requiring care for a specific medical circumstance is more governmental intervention than I like to see. But I suppose that since the medical team created the medical circumstance, they should be required to fix it.
Regardless, as long as hospitals are required to provide emergency care for illegal immigrants, they should certainly be required to provide care in this case.
January, 7, 2008 at 11:59 am
I spelled inviable wrong, too – hah!
January, 7, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I was up kind of late writing this….
January, 9, 2008 at 1:17 am
[...] People – are actually – talking – about – voting – for Obama if that – happens. Not just staying home….actually taking the time to switch party’s and vote for the The Messiah. [...]
February, 19, 2008 at 2:32 am
[...] *Obama has stood up for very liberal and quite possibly insane women who believe that victims of botched abortions, (infants who have somehow survived the abortion procedure) should not receive life saving medical intervention. The accursed child’s last minutes, (hours?) on earth should thus be spent in agony, unheld, unsoothed, and unloved on a cold operating room table until he draws his last unwanted breath. [...]
February, 27, 2008 at 10:19 pm
[...] going folks may not know…… like for instance, Obama’s extreme and grotesque voting record on abortion. McCain needs to hit Obama with this, and hit him hard. McCain has nothing to be [...]
March, 3, 2008 at 12:41 am
[...] But I suspect, that however liberal a Catholic may be, his Catholic conscience can’t abide this: Not only did Barack Hussein Obama oppose the partial birth abortion ban, he voted against a bill in [...]
April, 1, 2008 at 10:31 am
[...] some additional information on Obama’s very impressive pro-abort creds. Posted in Cruel and Unusual, Deesgusting, [...]
May, 18, 2008 at 1:58 am
[...] doubt, any attempt to discuss Obama’s extreme views on abortion will elicit cat-calls from Obama’s camp of “changing the subject”, and [...]
August, 30, 2008 at 8:34 pm
You really are just another right-wing nutjob, aren’t you? Just because you people emphasize Obama’s middle name, Hussein, at every opportunity doesn’t mean that rational people won’t still see how many incredible qualities the man has. His leadership potential is far and away above anything the Repubelickers (oops, sorry, just a Freudian slip).
Nowhere in the Gospel of Jesus Christ did he give to any of his disciples the imperative or the right to force our religious or moral views on others. Christ always told people the truth and then let them make their own decisions, which is why I support the Democratic ticket; they allow me to believe in Christ as I see fit, because His words reach me in my own way. That’s the way He saw it when He lived, and that’s what we should do for ourselves now.
Go ahead and delete my post now, you hypocrite! I bet there are more skeletons in your closet than Charles Manson!
August, 30, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Huh.
So, only the religious view discarding unwanted (unsuccessfully aborted) babies born alive in the soiled linen closet, as cruel, and objectionable? Preventing doctors from applying life saving measures to the undesirables that premature (but wanted) babies are given on another floor is something only the religious find morally troubling?
Even though the United States Senate voted unanimously to stop the practice, and even friggin’ NARAL was neutral on it?
Your guy voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act 3 times.
Jesus, or no Jesus, that is disgusting.
Why would I delete a comment that so perfectly expresses the callous disregard for life that is so rampant on the left?
August, 30, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I don’t know who on the liberal side linked to you, ND, but they sure aren’t sending over any heavyweight thinkers.
August, 30, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I don’t think there’s a link from anyone in particular. They’re probably just furiously googling random buzz words they think they can score points on,.
I think the Obamabots are seriously rattled.
August, 31, 2008 at 1:34 am
For the sake of others reading this, I want to explain the issue b/c “smear-o-cons” have filled the web with this for weak minded people to fall prey to. In the interest of full disclosure, most of this is already at Factcheck.org. I have summarized some of the points made there and added a few of my own:
At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a “born alive infant” entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive. Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 “born alive” bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been “fully in support” of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade aka “the neutrality clause.”
The National Right to Life Committee (“NRLC “) released a statement Aug. 11 saying it had obtained proof that Obama was misrepresenting his 2003 vote by stating that the Illinois “born alive” bill that he voted against in committee lacked the neutrality clause. Obama, then said the NRLC were “not telling the truth. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion.
Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent because it contained the neutrality clause. The NRLC accuses Obama of infanticide and offers evidence that the bill Obama voted against in committee (SB 1082), was amended to contain a “neutrality clause”. The documents NRLC put out are a “Senate Republican’s staff analysis” and a handwritten roll call confirming that the amendment was adopted.
The assertion that the Bill was amended turns out to be true, however, the amendment was a last minute change done in Obama’s absence by the Illinois republicans. Brock Willeford, an Illinois Senate Republican, stated that he wrote the document immediately after the committee meeting and that he was in the room at the time of the votes. Assuming Obama knew of the amendment, he still voted against the Bill but offered a different explanation. He asserts that even with the same neutrality clause, the state bill would have a different effect than the federal bill. He argues that the state bill is state law, not federal law, and so it actually regulates the practice of abortion in Illinois. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level. Obama also argues that the bill was a political game because there are already laws in Illinois that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must “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.” Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. Not surprisingly, the NRLC and Illinois republicans calls this law “loophole-ridden.”
And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 after Obama joined congress, not only included the neutrality clause, it included an additional protective clause that states that: “Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion.” This statute, supported by Illonois repblicans, gives stronger protection to the Roe v Wade decision.
The fact is that this is an attempt to smear Obama by suggesting that he supports infanticide. Nothing more, nothing less b/c the very Bill that Obama said he would support with the changes he suggested was passed a year later after he left for congress.
Obama’s critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies’ welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing “born-alive” bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.
In Obama’s own words: I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. [W]henever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause…[t]hat determination, if accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place…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 would be an antiabortion statute.
August, 31, 2008 at 5:48 am
In the interest of full disclosure…
In the interest of full disclosure, you should do a better job of highlighting text taken directly from FactCheck.
the amendment was a last minute change done in Obama’s absence by the Illinois republicans….
You need a citation for that, since it goes far beyond what FactCheck said. And the idea that Obama would have been ignorant of the amendment, when it was inserted to garner his vote, is laughable.
Does Obama support infanticide? Here’s the problem the bill was intended to address:
SB 1082 is in response to instances at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn where abortions resulted in living infants who were then allowed to die without medical or comfort care.
Saying that he “supports” infanticide is almost certainly a stretch. But saying that he didn’t take any action to close loopholes in the existing law that allowed infanticide is not.
August, 31, 2008 at 8:51 am
He actively prevented the loopholes from being closed three times.
“Weak minded” is when you can’t see how necessary these bills, which were proposed to close the loopholes allowing these abominations to occur, were. The wording that was added for his sake wasn’t even necessary.
The actual issue was infanticide, yet Obama and his macabre forces want to twist it into a protection for abortion. How does “for the health of the mother” have any bearing at all on whether a live infant should receive medical care? How would treating a live infant threaten the health of the mother?
September, 18, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I support Obama 100%
September, 19, 2008 at 12:00 am
I wonder what it’s like to have lost your soul?
October, 16, 2008 at 1:42 pm
[...] of us have been saying; it IS incredible, and, sadly it IS true. He did that. FOUR times. I was flabbergasted the first time I heard about it, and I didn’t even know the full extent of his opposition [...]
August, 25, 2010 at 12:37 am
[...] for one, realized he was a bad egg, the minute I saw his record of opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. Then I noticed the unnerving pattern of radical supporters and commie friends. Then, I [...]
September, 13, 2010 at 6:02 pm
[...] name”).I, for one, realized he was a bad egg, the minute I saw his record of opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Actin Illinois. Then I noticed the unnerving pattern of radical supporters and commie friends. Then, I [...]