September 3, 2008

Update/Addendum on the P.O.S.

Here are some links showing that Obama voted against BAIPA (Born Alive Infants Protection Act), SB #1662 and #1663. (ABC inadvertently copied bill #1663, a companion bill. The vote for the Born Alive bill, #1662, was identical.)

2001
Senate Bill 1095
- Obama's "Present" vote to this bill

2002

Senate Bill #1662

- Obama's "No" vote to this bill

2003
Obama was chairman of the Health & Human Services Committee. On 3/6/2003, Obama postponed voting on 1082
(Illinois' version of BAIPA) and on 3/13/2003, he - and the committee - barred the clarification paragraph from being entered onto the bill.

Sorry I didn't provide these earlier, I was tired when I typed that first entry this morning!

18 comments:

Amanda said...

what does bother me about Obama is that he voted "present" so many times...pick a side! However, ultimately I choose to change my party from within and I think Obama is still a better choice than McCain. I saw a particularly obnoxious hearing led by McCain years ago and I though what a horrible, horrible man. And that was only because of the way he was treating people (American Citizens, mind you) who were around him, such as aides, and interns.

Minxy Mimi said...

Thanks for posting some information, I intend to do some research and see exactly what he voted for and why, I could not personally see any politition give support to kill/abort a healthy baby and expect to not have the nation up in arms. As for the vote of "Present" only, that is done for many reasons, it is not always a show of support and many, many Dems and Republicans do it.

Minxy Mimi said...

What are these bills advocating? I see the bill defining what Born Alive means, that is all I am getting from it, it simply seems to be trying to define when a baby is considered alive and human. Is this a bill advocating and legalizing killing babies when they are born alive? I do not see that mentioned in the bills. They are a bit diffuclt to read however.

Darcie said...

It's right here:

"Provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
protection under the law."

It's toward the end of the text body.

Minxy Mimi said...

Yes, I saw that. What I do not see is where he advocates and supports killing babies born alive. Isnt that the claim being made?

Darcie said...

By voting against the treatment and sustainment of an aborted infant born alive, he's allowing the doctors/nurses to sort of set the baby aside to die. If you read either Jill Stanek's article or watched the YouTube video, she explains what she witnessed. It's horrible. This law requires doctors/nurses to treat an aborted infant, exhausting all options of treatment to sustain its life, if it's born alive. He voted against it.

Minxy Mimi said...

This is what I found, and
Although I do not agree with his stance, (I would have had to vote in favor) I also do not think that he is advocating the killing of babies willy nilly. That is providing him with hooved feet and horns. To know why he voted as he did, I would have to sit down and ask him myself. I am surprised, but I do not think he is a baby killer by nature. JMHO.

I read this:

The transcript of the State of Illinois’ 92nd General Assembly regular session records Obama criticizing BAIPA:

“As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.”

According to the transcript, Obama also claimed the bill was based on the suspicion that, in the event the doctor performing an abortion discovers he or she has wrongly assessed the viability of the unborn child, the physician abortionist “would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.”

Further, Obama voiced his suspicion that the bill is “really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

Erickson, giving his own polemical summary of Obama’s criticism, writes on RedState.com “Let's trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion.”

Obama opposed the bill all three times it was proposed in the Illinois Senate and was the only state senator to speak against the bill in 2002. It passed in 2005, after he left the legislature.

He had repeatedly claimed that his opposition to BAIPA was driven by legal concerns about whether the bill would be used to challenge abortion law, especially the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. According to an October 4, 2004 article in the Chicago Tribune, Obama said that, were he a U.S. Senator at the time, he would have voted for the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal.

He claimed the difference between the state and federal versions “was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.”

Records from the Illinois Senate showed that in 2003 Obama had voted in committee for an amendment adding such clarifying language to the state bill shortly before he voted to shelf the amended bill. When the records were revealed, the Obama campaign then claimed that the current presidential candidate opposed the BAIPA act because he felt it would be used to overturn state abortion laws.

Minxy Mimi said...

Although this is on Obama's website, this is still facts from what I see (has documentation) and does not support the idea of Obama being a "Baby Killer"

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php

Darcie said...

You're getting that from his website, an obvious self-promoting site. That's its intent: to paint a pretty picture of the candidate. I'm sure McCain's website does the same thing.

Let me put it this way: if you don't favor it, you're against it. I feel very strongly about that. If he won't speak up and for the babies who were aborted (IMO, in and of itself a travesty) but survived that abortion, then he doesn't mind if they die, cold and alone.

Minxy Mimi said...

Thanks for posting all that!!! LOL!
I am thankful to you for making me see what was being said out there and what the other side of the story is, This makes no change in my choice to support and vote for Obama! I appreciate the chance to post another side of a very emotional issue.

Minxy Mimi said...

Of course it is his stance and from his website, I could not find ALL the facts in what you posted. It was geared towards what Republicans and Anti Abortion people want the general public to think. Just because it comes from Obama does not mean it is a lie or the truth , and just because your information (not in its entirety) comes form a nurse, doesnt mean it is the truth or a lie. Obviously there is much more to this than Obama leaving babies to die. That is inaccurate.

Minxy Mimi said...

Also, I think that we just have opposing views and we each believe different things about Obama ( I do not think he wants to pass bills to kill babies and let them die alone) and you obviously think something else. All we can really do is agree to disagree!

Darcie said...

Yep! Amanda (the other poster here) and I are the same way. :)

Thanks for commenting!

Heather said...

Sadly, I am not on here often enough to comment as freely and having just come home from the dance studio and needing to go to bed, I cannot read into all of this to make a truly thoughtful comment regarding voting records, etc, however I will leave you with this: Keep in mind that sometimes a bill is paired with another bill or other legislation and in order to vote for (or against) one is to do the same for the other. Often times people question the votes of a politician but fail to recognize (or maybe realize) that their vote was not an accurate depiction of their true belief. Instead they voted in that way to prevent or support the other 'cause'. (make sense?)

Heather said...

Having said that...I am not arguing for/against the discussion here.. I'm just trying to bring up some food for thought. I never realized the frequency of this "piggybacking" legislation until I was in college & minored in poli sci. One of my classes was all about the American political system. Interesting class (but then so was 'Women & the law', but that is another story for another time). Not sure if piggybacking was even a possible case here, but something to consider.

Amanda said...

Not being for a certain law does not mean you are for the opposition of it. There can be one minor issue that you do not support for instance say I'm trying to pass a law to bring about world peace. You'd be all for that, right. but to end world peace I'm advocating blowing up the rest of the world. so you vote against it, darn, but wait does that mean you are against world peace?
a silly example, but see what I mean?

Darcie said...

No, I see what you mean. But in this case, he opposes mandating that doctors take life-preserving measures to ensure a baby's existence. He's not opposed to doctors using their own discretion to determine whether it's worth the time and effort, he's just opposed to mandating it. In my mind, that means that if a baby is aborted, is breathing/has a heartbeat but it's shallow or he looks too gray to be "worth" saving to the attending doctor, then Obama's okay with that baby dying again, cold and alone. Inhumanely. I'm not okay with that. If the baby is aborted and is DOA, then obviously, all's done. But if the baby is born and shows signs of life, he/she deserves the same treatment as any other citizen who gets a chance at life.

But again, this is going onto the whole abortion debate on the grander scale. No sense clouding up my comments section with that rhetoric! :)

Minxy Mimi said...

According to Obama's website (yes it is his site, but it has links that can be verified) this explains more. and I agree with PP, piggybacking is common, I had never heard that term. Obama says (once again, his words which some may say is not truthful) that he opposed it as it could be used to overturn Roe VS Wade, and he would not oppose the federal bill which was worded differently so that Roe VS Wade was not at risk. Also, I wonder if the thousands of women who have borne children yet are pro-choice such as I am, if they opposed this same bill for the same reasons stated, would we call them "baby killers?" would you call us "murderers" and say "we dont care if babies die?" Thats ludicrous unless we are all phycopathic masochists and stark raving mad. JMHO

Here is the information.

BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS

Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should “Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “‘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.’” [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]

• Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. 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. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]

 
template by suckmylolly.com : background by Tayler : dingbat font TackODing