Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H2) on 9/26/08:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (27 comments)

When your family believes false Obama rumors like 'Infanticide'

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (3 fans)   -- Page 2 of 4 page(s)

opednews.com

The accusations against Barack are so reckless that not even the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill will support them. In fact, he freely admits that,

“None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.” [Chicago Tribune, Winkel LTE, 9/5/08]

Also, there was already protection on the books for infants born alive in Illinois state law:

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]

A federal version was passed and signed into law in 2003, but it had specific language that made it clear that the act would not be used to undermine Roe v. Wade.

Barack is on the record saying that he would have supported a similar bill that came up in Congress -- but that didn’t pose a threat to a woman’s right to choose the way the Illinois bill did.

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. 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 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]

And the NYT said:

Obama has repeatedly said that he would have been willing to vote for such a measure in Illinois had it been identical to the federal statute. But “that was not the bill that was presented at the state level,” he said Saturday. “What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade.”

...

The accusations against Mr. Obama reprise those leveled against him in his 2004 campaign for the United States Senate. His opponent in that race, Alan Keyes, accused him of “infanticide,” citing Mr. Obama’s vote on the “born alive” bill, earlier versions of which had been rejected even when Republicans controlled the state legislature.

A year later, after Mr. Obama had moved on to Washington, the Illinois legislature approved a “born alive” law. But that statute, as the result of a compromise meant to avoid the standoff that led Mr. Obama to oppose the 2003 version, added language specifically stating that it should not be construed “to affect existing federal or state law regarding abortion” or “to alter generally accepted medical standards.”

If what Jill Stanek, the lady in the video, says is true (dumping live babies in a soiled utility room to die), then they were committing violations of existing law. But according to a letter (pdf) from Illinois' then-Attorney General Jim Ryan's office, the Illinois Dept. of Public Health (IDPH) found no evidence:

IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not indicate a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act.

No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.

[...]

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

JC Garrett is a freelance writer and Constitutional scholar from the piney-woods of East Texas. Mr. Garrett owns and operates an independent recording studio, plays several instruments, writes, sings, and produces music. His stories have (more...)
 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
27 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Obama by Kellis R. Solomon on Friday, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:48:34 PM
I understand your frustration by JC Garrett on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:40:38 AM
GREAT STUFF, JC! by Meryl Ann Butler on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 2:02:51 AM
No forgiveness necessary by JC Garrett on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 2:18:07 AM
that's by Meryl Ann Butler on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:47:02 PM
" we have to choose. . . " by sometimes blinded on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:39:41 AM
Thanks by JC Garrett on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:00:27 PM
infanticide et all by Candace Frieze on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:31:40 AM
ignorance by kgongre on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:36:49 AM
I know what you mean by JC Garrett on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:03:42 PM
Family by Archie on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM
Family by JC Garrett on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:08:18 PM
You can choose your friends. You're stuck with relatives by Margaret Bassett on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:01:57 PM
Wouldn't ever want to come unstuck, either by JC Garrett on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:15:03 PM
You should listen to your mother by Douglas Johnson on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 12:43:45 PM
You're conflating the issue and ignoring key facts by JC Garrett on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 2:43:53 PM
So what do you mean? by pft on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:54:38 PM
This is what I mean by JC Garrett on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 9:40:58 PM
The problem with your argument by pft on Sunday, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:09:24 AM
The problem with your counter-argument by JC Garrett on Sunday, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:23:58 AM
A Real Debate by kibitzer2 on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 5:57:16 PM
Welcome by JC Garrett on Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:56:23 PM
The Constitution Revisited by kibitzer2 on Sunday, Sep 28, 2008 at 2:43:57 PM
You're not being difficult by JC Garrett on Sunday, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:55:22 PM
Right.... by kibitzer2 on Sunday, Sep 28, 2008 at 6:11:29 PM
As to the "incorporation" argument by JC Garrett on Sunday, Sep 28, 2008 at 8:51:50 PM
Amendment V by kibitzer2 on Monday, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM