Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Obama Supports Infanticide

  1. #1
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default Obama Supports Infanticide

    This brings out one of Obama's lies - and it's a biggie -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4B3O9uUc-4

    This is the video I was trying to find about how Obama supports infanticide. I referred to it as genocide, but what it is, Obama claims that he supported the federal bill (Born Alive Infant Protection Act). The truth is that the bill in question passed before the Illinois Legislature in 2003 and it was worded exactly like the federal legislation that he claims he would have supported, and he still voted against it.

    Apparently he worked with someone to make the 2003 bill identical to the federal legislation then he turned around and voted against it. The video has a clip of him stating, however, that he would support the federal legislation.

    It's brought out in this video that Obama, on his website, claims to have worked together with Planned Parenthood to keep the Born Alive act from passing. It is also brought out that he was the only senator in Illinois to oppose this on the floor, and that he knows that to oppose this bill is to support infanticide.

    I can not vote for someone who would leave a helpless little baby to die alone like that. Especially in a soiled utility room of a hospital. That's just cruel. Abortion is bad enough, but this goes even further than abortion, and that's legally identifiable as negligent homicide.

  2. #2
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    Here's more:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N_wlOCZUpM

    This second link accuses Planned Parenthood of being racist, but if you look at the history of their founder, Margaret Sanger, then it's easy to see, as Margaret Sanger was a white supremacist. In fact, her ideas are said (in her own written autobiography) to have influenced Hitler when he was in prison writing Mein Kampf.

    Margaret Sanger, in her book Women and the New Race
    (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923), wrote about supporting infanticide and other horrible things. Looking at her history, her youngest child mysteriously died, and I believe she killed her own child. She advocated that each family should only have a maximum number of children and that any thereafter should be killed. She, herself, had more than that, and that youngest one suddenly dies with no reasons given. Kind of makes a person wonder.

    Planned Parenthood denies these things today, but you can see by their actions that they're just as racist as they ever were.

    The idea, at first, was to give birth control to blacks. Margaret stupidly reasoned that if all blacks were given birth control, they'd eventually die out.

    http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
    http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
    http://www.marxists.org/subject/wome...ger/labor.html
    http://www.marxists.org/subject/wome...nger/pivot.htm

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Phoenix Az
    Posts
    1,421

    Default Lies Lies Lies Lies !

    This is a pathetic slur originated by the sleazy, right wing, character assassins. After the Saddle back church appearance by McCain and Obama CBN ( The Christian Broadcast Network) Obama sat down to give an interview. The ridiculous Infanticide charges have been addressed. ... if there is one thing worse than an ignorant voter, it is an ignorant voter spreading lies.

    http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429313.aspx

  4. #4
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    slur my arse! It's real - face the truth. It's been out in the open for years now, no slur about it. Saddleback gave the opportunity to look into the matter further, I'll grant you that, but the legislation itself goes back to 2001, do your homework and look up the bills you can read them for yourself and compare them word for word. The one that was worded exactly like the federal legislation was the one in 2003.

    The infanticide charges have not been addressed, they've been lied about. Again, Obama will say anything for a vote, including lie.

    It is well recognized that allowing a baby to die like that is a homicide. It's murder. And Obama suports it.

    He claims that he supported federal legislation on this but he did not show up to vote for it, and he rejected it when it was brought through the Illinois legislature, so what does that tell us?

    On one hand he's taking sides with Planned Parenthood, who wants to make infanticide legal, yet he says he supported BAIPA? Where was he when it was time to vote for it, then? Conveniently away?

    And if he supported BAIPA, then why did he work with bill writers to make sure the Illinois version of the bill was exactly like the federal legislation (which he claimed to support) then turn around and vote against it?

    Those are facts, and they are public information. Look them up. It's not a smear campaign, it's the truth. Sorry you have such a hard time with that.

  5. #5
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    ... if there is one thing worse than an ignorant voter, it is an ignorant voter spreading lies.
    You just remember that, by the way, as you go spreading your BS about Palin...

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Phoenix Az
    Posts
    1,421

    Default Facts

    You could not even comprehend the "context" of Obamas ' Lipstick on a pig" remark when I posted it . I don`t know how I can expect you to understand something a little more complicated. (By the way McCain has admitted that he knew that Obama did not mean that Sarah Palin was the subject of Obamas lipstick remark. You just can`t. Lol )

    On Abortion
    There was already a law in Illinois that made it mandatory for doctors to try to save surviving infants of attempted abortions. There was no reason to pass new legislation . Obama voted NO . Obama is pro choice, He says this regarding abortion.

    A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women.

    "I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. I oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in this case.

    "I believe we must work together to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. I support legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventative services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. That is why I co-sponsored the Prevention First Act of 2007, which will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. It will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

    "Finally, I support the enactment and enforcement of laws that help prevent violence, intimidation, and harassment directed at reproductive health providers and their patients."
    The new bill that was passed in Illinois after Obama left to DC passed with an additional statement added to the bill

    And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor says that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time.
    Obama simply did not want any new legislation to be used to weaken the Roe Vs Wade decision.

    You would have to be an idiot to believe that any rational human being would be for letting a baby born alive struggle and die with no assistance to survive. I know it happens, that is why there was already a law in place in Illinois to prevent it. Obama has never made any excuse for his PRO CHOICE STANCE.
    Last edited by davide; 09-17-2008 at 06:59 PM.

  7. #7
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    You could not even comprehend the "context" of Obamas ' Lipstick on a pig" remark when I posted it
    Actually, it's you who can not comprehend what I posted on that thread to begin with. You saw the picture and assumed something and shot off your mouth about it, saying something about him not calling Palin that. I never said he called Palin that or that he referred to her when he made that remark. I posted the picture then stated in that same post that this is what I thought of his lipstick remark. I even stated in a later post on that same topic that in posting that picture that I was calling Obama a hypocrite. NO WHERE did I infer that he was making that remark about Palin.

    Don't believe me? Go back and see for yourself. (You might actually have to do some reading...)

    On Abortion
    There was already a law in Illinois that made it mandatory for doctors to try to save surviving infants of attempted abortions. There was no reason to pass new legislation . Obama voted NO . Obama is pro choice, He says this regarding abortion.
    There was reason for it because the laws on the books were obviously not enough to protect those helpless children.

    In 2003 Obama helped ensure that the BAIPA was worded exactly as the federal bill was worded. In that sense, you could say he helped author it. And he STILL voted against it! He later gives some lame brained nonsensical excuse which just last week was found to be a lie.

    What's the use in voting against something you helped write, unless you suddenly got a nice chunk of money from Planned Parenthood?! OH YEAH, that's right! Planned Parenthood admits to donating money to him that year, and quite a sum. Money talks, and human rights walk.
    Quote:
    And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor says that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time.
    Actually, it was 2003, not 2005.

    You would have to be an idiot to believe that any rational human being would be for letting a baby born alive struggle and die with no assistance to survive. I know it happens, that is why there was already a law in place in Illinois to prevent it. Obama has never made any excuse for his PRO CHOICE STANCE.
    Better tell that to Christ Hospital, who was routinely letting these things happen. Might also want to tell that to Planned Parenthood, that's a routine practice for them. In fact, they'll keep the kid alive until the guy from the lab comes then they'll kill it just before handing it to the lab guy. Not something they brag about, but it's murder and they're doing it and they get away with it.

    And, you'd also better tell Obama that, since he's supporting Planned Parenthood.

    I'll bet Margaret Sanger is rolling around in her grave because the very organization she founded donated money to a half black man running for President.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Phoenix Az
    Posts
    1,421

    Default I hope you can comprehend this

    Fact Check on CNN and Bennet's Inaccurate Claim That IL ''Born Alive'' Legislation Obama Opposed Was the Same as Federal Legislation He Supported
    June 30, 2008

    BILL BENNETT: "Carol's piece was good; it was accurate, except there's one more thing you need to know. The 2003 bill, the more you look into this, the worse it is for Barack Obama to deny it because if you look into the record – and Carol did a good job – you will see the 2003 bill had exactly the same language as the federal bill, and Barack Obama voted against it. This was not about Roe v. Wade, this was not about abortion; this was about protecting these babies when they are alive, after seven months, five months, six months, whether it be an abortion or through birth or through any other means. Barack Obama, what he's saying is just false. Check the record. The more you dig into it, the worse it looks. He should just say whatever he wants, something else. 'I was naive, I didn't realize how close it was to the federal act.' He cannot say it was different from the federal act. It was the same." [CNN, 6/30/08]
    REALITY: Illinois and Federal "Born Alive" Legislation Were Not the Same, Which Is Why NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal Legislation

    Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "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." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]

    NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal BAIPA Because of Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That's Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, "We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them." In a statement, NARAL said, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [CNN, 8/5/02; NARAL release, 6/13/01]

    Chicago Daily Herald: Major Difference Between State And Federal BAIPA Was That "The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have Been Used To Challenge" Roe V. Wade. "Perhaps on no other issue is Keyes' rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. Keyes repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring 'infanticide' because of Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The failed measure would have required doctors to provide medical attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of abortion procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed through Congress. But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to hammer Obama with the "infanticide" charge virtually daily on the campaign trial. Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he's "deeply offended" by Keyes' assertion because he knows it's false. Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on late-term abortions that Bush signed - but federal judges since have put on hold - and Keyes would have voted for it." [Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04]


    REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

    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 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]


    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]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •