FACTCHECK.ORG

Obama and 'Infanticide'

The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois.

By Jess Henig | factcheck.org
Aug 25, 2008 | Updated: 7:53  p.m. ET Aug 25, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: moku nui_hawai'i @ 09/14/2008 2:13:49 PM

    Being anti-abortion should not be synonymous to being against women's rights. The anti-abortion stance is about supporting the life of the child. Its ironic that many in our country are choosing a life-style of being vegetarians for ethical reasons (myself included), yet the killing of a human life (in the stage of life where we all once were, and without, you and I would not be reading this) has been made legal.

  • Posted By: trazer @ 09/12/2008 2:32:15 AM

    Obama does not know what to think about children and the future of America. He thinks if they are born alive...then perhaps they should die? Its very confusing even in this article. Can someone please give us a "clinical" definiition of what Obama is saying? Given Biden and Obama is for RACISM and SEGREGATION given thieir ridiculous idea to divide Iraq into 3 countiries - something Iraq citizens do not want - I tend to think he does support infanticide. He also uses cocaine which he writies about in his autobiography. In short, he is for racism, segregation, infanticide, and drug use.

  • Posted By: Spooky @ 09/07/2008 4:43:32 AM

    Obama is like most politicians wishy washy to the max.
    I am sure that he will change his tune many more times before this election is over.
    Tell me again what is the difference between the two parties?..... NOTHING they are both full of liars and hypocrites.
    America I guess we will be burdened once again of choosing the lesser of two evils.

  • Posted By: wildlifeusa @ 09/06/2008 11:53:57 PM

    9/11 and religion..... What is the connection?? There are your answers. Please pass this video on
    http://propagandameatgrinder.magnify.net/video/Zeitgeist-s-hrvatskim-titlom/theater#theater_title

  • Posted By: Davole @ 08/28/2008 6:23:11 PM

    Dems choose Obama in thunderous acclamation
    Yahoo News by David Espo, AP Special Correspondent Wed Aug 27, 7:18 PM ET

    Clinton's call for Obama to be approved by acclamation ??? midway through the traditional roll call of the states ??? was the culmination of a painstaking agreement worked out between the two camps to present a unified front.


    My commentary:

    So, democrats, in order to portray a false unification, schemed to allow politics to trump the democratic process.

    And they are insulted when people don???t refer to them as the democrat(ic) party!

    Yes, the truth is offensive to the democrat party!

    • Posted By: raddave @ 09/02/2008 2:12:48 PM

      The "democratic process" was complete at then end of the primaries and the roll call vote is a mere formality. Do you honestly think there will be a full roll call, if they even have one, at the repugnant convention?

  • Posted By: ICYEYES800 @ 08/26/2008 8:23:20 PM

    Abortion is a CHOICE!!!!!! NOW, for blacks to try to force us to believe that WHITE America is forcing them to abort babies....IS RIDICUILIOUS AND SHALLOW....It is clearly placing blame on others for your personal choices...WRONG. Anybody who would have unprotected sex in this day and age...deserves what they get..AIDS OR AN UNWANTED CHILD....It is not the fault of the child that anybody was too stupid to use a condom or birth control....its much cheaper than raising a child to the age of 18...Planned Parenthood offer FREE birth control...so take responsiblity for POOR CHOICES...and keep your legs together...works everytime...

    • Posted By: max in fl @ 08/27/2008 4:40:08 PM

      Condoms and the pills are not 100% effective. Date rape drugs are on the rise. Sure the guy can be arrested but now the women has a decision to make that will haunt her for life. Of course the girl should not have place herself in that situation, right? I would not take the 'deserved what they get path' because first blaming the woman;will not ease her decision to talk to you; next it only enforces your reasons not to help and reenforces their decision that they have no choice to get an abortion.

      Finally I feel next they can cut Planned Parenthood's funding. I wouldn't think that was a good idea but what would stop them after abortions become illegal?.



      This is not a black and white issue as some are imagining. If we keep pushing, pretty soon on garbage day we will have an abandoned baby on every corner. Just because we make it illegal doesn't mean it will stop. it will just mean we will go back and repeat what happened in the past when women were not given a choice.

      • Posted By: ICYEYES800 @ 08/27/2008 11:03:56 PM

        Max, it seems that you have MORE than a passing interest in seeing that abortions continue to claim innocent potential for our country....COULD it be that you may be one of those who make MILLIONS of dollars in aiding these innocents to be murdered???? Rape cases are not the problem with abortions, It has become a "oops" moment....and a quick FIX...If as you say, there will be a deserted baby on every corner, it may fulfill the dreams of the thousand of thousands of American couples who are being forced to go outside the USA to adopt...THERE are plenty of couples praying for one of the angels....For the love of GOD, at least give them a chance!!!!!

    • Posted By: loriw @ 08/27/2008 3:04:23 AM

      Sorry but Planned Parenthood does NOT provide free birth control! My daughter is married to my son-in-law who is currently in Iraq. Between his training and when he signed up for a mission he was a reservist and they didn't have health care insurance. My daughter and needed control but due to financial issues didn't have the money to pay for it. I called Planned Parenthood . My daughter coudn't begin to afford waht they wanted to charge her. They might offer free condoms but they never offered anything to us and they knew she had limited finacial resources.ng other places and guess what...Planned Parenthood was very expensive !

      • Posted By: loriw @ 08/27/2008 3:09:56 AM

        Before anyone begins to think that I am pro-abortion I am not. This very issue, Obama's unwillingness to require a doctor to be called when an infant is born alive following an abortion because (and this is his wording) it would be"too burdensome" for the doctor to be required to call in another doctor to care for the live infant. Obama also said (his own words) it would be "burdensome" to the mother. When did he ever state it was "too burdensome" for an infant to die alone in a clinic or hospital's dirty utility room? NEVER!

  • Posted By: Jurr @ 08/27/2008 10:31:42 AM

    Yeah, let's talk about murder. I'm thinking of the 4,148 American soldiers who died on lies fed to us by Bush, Cheney, & McCain so that their friends-Big Oil & Defense Contractors who are making a mint- can get a lot richer while the rest of the American economy is in shambles.

    It is not a natural birth, the baby is being aborted. You pro-lifers think every fetus has to be born or it's murder, but then when crack babies are born you refuse to support them, both socially & financially which in the end condemns them to a slower & more agonizing death.

    Abortion is a good thing, look at Mexico who has gifted us with 28 million illegal poverty stricken refugees which have come ocer here & bred like rats because their faith does not believe in abortion or even birth control.

    • Posted By: ICYEYES800 @ 08/27/2008 10:22:20 PM

      What you FAILED to NOTE is that those 4 thousand plus PATRIOTS are VOLUNTEER and served their country with PRIDE..While, aborted children have NO SAY in the actions being taken...you make abortion sound so uncomplicated...perhaps you have a GOD syndrom, you are capable of defining WHO should live and WHO should die...Are you suggesting that Mexicans be forced to have abortions??? YOU are obviously a racist.....BY the way OUR TROOPS overwhemlingly support the REPUBLICAN mindset, because WE value their partiotism.....NO Obama

    • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/27/2008 11:14:56 AM

      So tolerant aren't you.

      • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 08/27/2008 11:46:11 AM

        And so dishonest as well. The non-partisan center for Responsive Politics,shows that it is actually Democrats,who are the largest recipients of defense contract campaign monies with one man,John Murtha[D-Pa],at the top of the heap.[indeed throwing such a lavish party for defense contractors in May at the Washington DC CARLETON Hotel,that PORKBUSTERS,a pork barrel watchdog,showed up at the fete with a giant paper-mache pig float and several protesters in porcine masks made to resemble Murtha].
        Dianne Feinsteins[D-Ca] husband millionaire Richard Blum was awarded several no-bid contracts in Iraq,causing her to dodge a federal inquiry by stepping down from her position on an Iraq appropriations sub-committee this year,while one of HALLIBURTONS largest single stock holders at over two million shares is George Soros,the leftwinged 527 PAC titan, Yet the Commerce Dept. finds that new home sales are rising again. unemployment remains in the 5 percentile. Fewer Americans are without health insurance. The DOW remains largely unfettered. The dark accuasations of ''massive layoffs''failed to materilize. Corn and other farm commodities are going to see one of their biggest harvests in American history this Fall. So while JURRS ranting over the subject has zero to do with the issue of Obama and abortion,it is also dishonest.

        www.opensecrets.org ''Defense''

        www.porkbusters.com ''Crashing Jack Murthas Party''[with photos].

        MSNBC Aug.25,2008:''New Home Sales Rise''

        The Associated Press Aug.25,2008:''Number of Americans Without Health Insurance Declines''.

        The US Dept. of Agriculture www.ag.gov

        • Posted By: Jurr @ 08/27/2008 12:15:19 PM

          ***rich getting richer at the expense of the working families

        • Posted By: Jurr @ 08/27/2008 12:14:32 PM

          Good thanks for helping make my point, it's about the rich getting richer, regardless of the side of the fence they are on thanks to thw WarHawks in power.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 08/27/2008 3:50:13 PM

    well he's caught in yet another lie !!! obama is a abortionist dream canidate !! and the devil's only freind !

    • Posted By: bwlear @ 08/27/2008 4:26:02 PM

      The devil has been in office for almost 8 years now and I dont believe he and Sen Obama are that close.

      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/27/2008 8:32:01 PM

        Your right Bush is the Devil, he is so evil and all those GOP are just so Evil, we need a Democrat to show us the light...please won't you show us the way to salvation...Obama is the path...please show us the path.

  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/27/2008 11:14:33 AM

    Rasmussen Tracking 08/24 - 08/26 3000 LV 46 47 McCain +1
    Gallup Tracking 08/23 - 08/25 2684 RV 44 46 McCain +2

    • Posted By: bwlear @ 08/27/2008 4:23:57 PM

      Zombie, when did you leave your cave? I thought you were waiting for the big race war? Times must be getting had for you neocon if you are now beliving the polls? What a joke.

      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/27/2008 8:30:22 PM

        What you don't like the numbers so you resort to name calling? Real mature,,,true Democrat the party of tolerance.

  • Posted By: cathmom3 @ 08/27/2008 8:12:43 PM

    Ectopic pregnancies are not the same as a born child being left to die. The bill Obama refused to back had to do with born-alive human beings, not ectopic pregnancies....

  • Posted By: cathmom3 @ 08/27/2008 8:08:21 PM

    "Calling him a baby killer is ridiculous" What would you call it then? To take the life of an infant or to put it in a corner and let it die is murder...I can't understand how you can't understand that. Anyone who supports the killing of a born human being is supporting murder pure and simple...the wishes of the "mother" at that point are moot, the child has been born, is a live human being and deserves the protection affortded all human being by a little thing called the Bill of Rights...why does one person's wishes override the rights of another...be very careful here because if you continue to support this line of reasoning it could come back and bite you in the butt. Someday someone's wishes may take precedence over your rights...

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 08/26/2008 2:36:33 PM

    Both Obama,Pelosi,and their hip-pocket parrots among the ''pro-choicers''are looking dumb right about now. Pelosi was called out by a Catholic bishops conferance which included the Bishop of Denver that corrected Pelosis falsehoods on the position of the church on abortion and added that ''she should not recieve communion''[Biden is targeted for similar consequences]. They are playing hardball for a refreshing change.
    Neither are the pro-lifers rolling over for Obama,who has now been caught in a lie of his own making[hence the need,as I heretofore mentioned,of bringing up pro-lifer Bob Casey[D-Pa] to speak at the convention]. Too late.The cat is out of the bag due to Obamas dissembling,Pelosis lies,and Bidens disinterest. This will torpedo Obamas hopes to get the evangelicals on board,who will shift to McCain[are doing it,now in fact]. All of this ''first trimester'',''crackbaby''nonsense is just this. Pro-choicers are being made to answer for their absolutism,no differant than the NRA,when confronted with highschool massacres and VT/style killings. The NRA has concluded that one cannot own a machine gun or rocket launcher. ''Pro-choicers''are demanded to live within the confines of ROE. Had these dead kids been mere ''first trimester fetuses''we would not even be having this discussion. These were fully developed children beyond the third trimester that were left to die after being tossed into laundry hampers. What do such actions say about the health of a society? It is illogical to rail at a ''Bush''over the killings brought forth from war,but in the same breath ,defend this barbarism.

    • Posted By: max in fl @ 08/26/2008 6:31:35 PM

      If you think women are throwing out babies NOW. Wait until they have NO CHOICE.

      • Posted By: loriw @ 08/27/2008 3:26:42 AM

        You are so confused. No one is reversing Roe V. Wade.
        What we are saying is that a baby born alive deserves compassionate medical care.
        Sen. Obama opposes that and lies about his reasons for why he voted as he did.

        • Posted By: max in fl @ 08/27/2008 5:53:23 PM

          Don't think for a moment this is not an eventual attack against women's choice.

          The woman has made her choice not to have the baby her pro life doctor 'botches' the operation. Well now it is too late game over, right. . He collects his check and now what happens to the baby. She has to give it up for adoption with is exactly what she didn't want to do. I know giving a baby up for adoption SOUNDS simple but with all the freedoms and information available today, if women are STILL not doing so, they has to be a reason. It saddens me to think about it because I don't belief in killing babies but I have a stronger conviction of letting the mother have her wish despite of how I feel about it. The mother is the one that will most.traumitized from this experience, not you and not me..

          This was a hard decision for Obama to make as a senator and we have sat back reduced it to simply right or wrong, Calling him a baby killer is ridiculous..

  • Posted By: max in fl @ 08/26/2008 6:13:32 PM

    A fertilized egg lodges on to the tube, the doctor says we have to get it out, that is an abortion, No wafer. A single mother has to choose between the baby and herself because they both can't survive. No wafer.

    Four women brutally raped are forced to raise the children of the rapist because they cannot choose. Sure they can all go to foster homes wondering why mommy left them and who was their daddy, Maybe they can all go on one of those shows titled my daddy was a serial rapist or become one themselves because their own mother didn't love them

    There was a time when women were BLAMED for the attacks. Definately no wafers for them. Unfortunately some of the same people that sit back and that are pro life will donate $1 to help the children once in a while.The foster care system is breaking down because people that can give, give very little. Some church are forced to turn away children because they simply don't have the space. Some pro lifers don't want a foster care home in their township because they don't want their daughters getting any ideas. Forget about asking for money, they have their own problems. Some of woman that are pro life and keep the babies are looked down upon if they don't have the means. They are laughed at and called a drain on society but pro lifers forget that these women are pro lifers too.

    Will Pro Lifers foster more children in their home or help a struggling mother, are you kidding? Pro Life yes, ask me for money to help, go away.

    There is nothing wrong wih being heard, but the church is tax exempt for a reason, There will come a point will it will also have to choose.what is more important; taking the choice away from women, enter politics and get taxed like everyone else or not. The parishers can fight roe vs wade. They can only serve as spiritual guides.

    • Posted By: Davole @ 08/26/2008 8:38:51 PM

      max in fl -

      What percentage of abortions are required in order to protect the mother from probable death if the abortion were not performed? I imagine that it would be a very low ratio, and the Catholic and other churches would not hold the mother accountable in that regard, contrary to your smug assertion..

      Should any case of rape justify or excuse the obliteration of an innocent human life?

      Do you not think that the current society's abandonment of moral principles would be the root cause of most of the abortions?

      How many individuals (maleand female) regard sexual intercourse as merely an evening's entertainment?

      How many females are all too ready to become impregnated by multiple sexual partners?

      How many females are willing to have sex with a boy or man who shows no respect for women, and demonstrates the propensity to vacate the premises as soon as the female is considered to be an easy "catch," or becomes pregnamt?

      But hey, what's the value of a human life when the chance for a few hours of sexual gratification comes into play?

      You state that "some pro lifers don't want a foster care home in their township" - is that merely your supposition, or can you provide any supportive facts in that regard?

      Also, who is laughing at the mothers who decide to keep their children?
      Can you also provide verifiable statistics in that regard?

      If there are even some individuals who would laugh at them, on the scales of morality, would being laughed at be a valid reason or excuse for terminating an innocent human life?

      And contrary to your assertions, quite a few pro life persons do adopt children who have been born out of wedlock, and many more responsible individuals do support child care facilities.

      Yes, women do have a choice - live responsibly, or otherwise.

      Do you realize that Roe vs. Wade was enacted merely by several judges in black robes, as opposed to the collective will of the population?

      And just as slavery and segregation were abolished, the time may soon come to ensure that the rights of all members of society, especially its most vulnerable, are protected.

      Otherwise who's next - the elderly, the paralyzed, people with AIDS, the sick, etc.?

      The most convenient option isn't always the best, the fairest, or the most moral!

      • Posted By: max in fl @ 08/27/2008 1:15:33 AM

        I don' t have to, you have already proven my point. Just reread your comment. YOU WOULD, albeit not a belly laugh but a sneer, You are at this moment assuming that most of the women/teenagers are fast. You looking down at them before you know a thing about them and what is your proof, a child. There is no way to know whether she is fast or if she was attacked but is keepng the child because she is pro life,

        The point is, no matter what i believe (which is life by the way) unless I can step up to the plate and provide for them ALL, I can't decide for them AT ALL.

        As for the robes, do you think the collective at the time had the least bit of interested in what a woman thought or felt? Maybe this collective wanted to finally end segregation because it was wrong? Likely

        • Posted By: loriw @ 08/27/2008 3:17:45 AM

          Davole is correct. There are very, very few situations anymore where a mother's life is in danger due directly to the pregnancy especially in late term. Medical procedures and monitoring can determine and treat most life threatening conditions in pregnancy. Treatment is available for these patients in hospitals in every state...may not be the closest hospital but it is available.
          Personally I wish I had the chance to vote on Roe V. Wade becaause I would have voted NO!

          • Posted By: max in fl @ 08/27/2008 5:20:42 PM

            I'm not going to debate numbers with you because more than one is sufficient. Atopic pregnancies happen and again will not reduce that expecience to %.because if it happened to you one is enough.

            In a hosipital this RARE situation is still an abortion. If you know a woman who has had an atopic pregnancy you would know that the baby will be aborted in the hosipital with every imaginable device at their disposal

            If it is your wish as a women to give up your right, that women before tried so hard to pass, that is your choice. I know that there ARE woman who feel otherwise..

      • Posted By: loriw @ 08/27/2008 3:11:29 AM

        VERY well stated Davole!

        • Posted By: bwlear @ 08/27/2008 4:21:47 PM

          Very well stated if you enjoy B. S. What this shows is that the poster has a very low opinion of women and that you must have a very low opinion of yourself. Like most of the anti abortionist, whom I refuse to mislable as pro-life, you prefer to harp on the rare example to highlight your attempt to dictate to another person your personal views while ignoring the vast majority of women whom make this decision not on a whim or with no compassion. Do you really believe a women who has been raped or a victim of incest should be forced to give birth to the child of her attacker?
          And since you are going to question percentages, what percentage of abortions are performed in the later stages of a pregency? (heres the answer, around .20%) Oh. I forgot, numbers only matter if they support your version of sharia law.
          And as to your point of judges deciding the law, if it was up to the people, I would still be considered less then a full human being and a peice of property.
          I'm glad you dont vote on the S.C., Lori, your lack of objectivity and self hatred would make life here for the rest of us unbearable!

  • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 08/26/2008 9:22:05 PM

    Barack The Baby Killer has a very good friend. A friend that sponsered Hussein's very first, political meeting at his own home.....He is becoming very famous. He was quoted in the NYT, on 9/11/2001. Here is the first paragraph...........Police detectives say..."there are never just coincidences"...hmmm

    NEW YORK TIMES September 11, 2001

    No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen
    By DINITIA SMITH
    Published: September 11, 2001

    '"I don't regret setting bombs,'" Bill Ayers said. '"I feel we didn't do enough.'" Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago. The long curly locks in his Wanted poster are shorn, though he wears earrings. He still has tattooed on his neck the rainbow-and-lightning Weathermen logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for bombings. And he still has the ebullient, ingratiating manner, the apparently intense interest in other people, that made him a charismatic figure in the radical student movement.

    HUSSEIN...YOU HAVE BEEN LYING ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP, WITH THIS TRASH......TELL THE TRUTH......We feel YOU haven't done enough.....

    NOBAMA!!!


    • Posted By: max in fl @ 08/27/2008 2:04:29 AM

      Hello did pay attention to what you wrote. Obama was FOUR YEARS OLD. I don't recall a four year old child in that group. By the time they met, Ayers was a respectible professor.

      Try Wright like everyone else, at least Obama was older at the time.. You know the guy that started EVERY weekly speech for 20 years with *** **** America!

      • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 08/27/2008 2:45:10 PM

        Imam Wright will be revisited....Right now though...it's Willy time....Hussein is about to pee on himself. He has even requested the Judicial Dept. to force stations not air the Ayers/Obama ads. Ain't gonna work. They are factual. He's just about finished. BTW...he was 8. But what's that got to do with anything. Ayers is unrepentant. He is a domestic terrorist..AND...he is a 20 yr Hussein donor. It is very relevant to who the False One really is. And the fact that he is lying about the relationship is very important...just as his lying about his stance on the practice of infanticide.

        NOBAMA!!!

        NOBAMA!!!

        NOBAMA!!!

        • Posted By: max in fl @ 08/27/2008 3:35:39 PM

          We get it, you don't like him, but you are putting too much hope in Ayers bringing him down. You know that Ayers was not giving money to Obama 20 years ago .Obama was not in the Senate 20 years ago.

          You are better off with Wright, Obama was older, but don't buy stock it because pretty soon people will figure out that unless the man was mental, there is no way he would say *** **** America for 20 years. Three times tops because of something he felt passionate about. I also would imagine that he would have apologized to God and to the congregation for using His name in vain. I for one cannot see Michelle or Obama (or anyone else for that matter) having any person ranting *** **** America for 20 years touching their child. Likely

          Based on your blogs,in the heat of the moment, I'm sure that you have said worse against your fellow Americans..

          • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 08/27/2008 4:57:25 PM

            The relationship goes back 20 yrs. It is not Ayers alone who will bring him down. It is a compilation of many associations, within the Hate America community. Then there is his lying...in so many areas....incl. the facts of this articles subject. Then there is the lawsuit challenging his qualifications to run for POTUS.

            He has no firm stand on any issue. He has altered his stated opinion on virtually ever issue. He is pompous, weak and has a profound socialist agenda. His "messiah" status will be on stage tomorrow. It will not go over well with the masses.

            NOBAMA!!!

  • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/26/2008 2:05:01 PM

    except for fetus are indistinguishable from other mammels during the first trimester, you bible bashers wouldnt even know the difference between a fetal racoon or a human fetus this early in the pregnancy. its just another way that the right wingers are attempting to erode civil liberaties and insert their religious beliefs. if you don't agree with abortion don't have one. you have no right to intrude in other peoples decisions

    • Posted By: Jmon @ 08/27/2008 12:44:12 AM

      I find it very convienent that pro-death, er i mean pro-choice, advocates manage to mask the destruction of human life with that womens' rights crap. Women do a have a choice when it comes to pregenacy, its called don't fornicate but if you do use frickin protection!!! I understand that their are extenuating circumstances, e.g rape, incest, women's health, but when you have consensual intercourse without the use of contraceptives, you are consenting to creation of life. I don't blame people for their mistakes but by God they better live with them and be a responsible person. But then again what would I know, I am just a Bible thumping Christian zealot.

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 08/27/2008 4:05:43 PM

        yep and if you think about it they are (while they're doing the deed they are asking god for a baby !) how many time while your having sex do you say OH GOD MMMMM BABY ! OH GOD OH GOD BABY BABY !! HE GIVES WHAT YOU ASK FOR AND THEN YOU KILL IT !! CHOOSE YOU WORDS MORE WISELY !

  • Posted By: kategus @ 08/27/2008 1:11:12 PM

    Those of you who feel this is the right thing to do go to your DHR office and learn to be a foster parent or adopt these children who are not wanted. My guess is very few of you pro lifers are willing to do this but you can look down on Mothers who don't feel they can give their children what they need and feel abortion is the only answer.

  • Posted By: kategus @ 08/27/2008 1:02:19 PM

    All of you who believe abortion is wrong please put your home where your mouth is and adopt all the babies who are going to be aborted. There are so many of you, this would solve the problem for all the foster children who need a family. I'm sure God would look on you with favor as apposed to how he is going to look at you for protesting rather than doing what is the Christian thing to do. If you don't want to do this then shut
    up.

  • Posted By: douglasjohnson @ 08/27/2008 8:03:39 AM

    This report by FactCheck comes two weeks after the National Right to Life Committee (http://www.nrlc.org) released newly uncovered documents that demonstrated that demonstrated that Senator Obama since 2004 had been mispresenting his record on the issue of infants born alive during abortions. On August 16, when asked specifically about the NRLC charges in a televised interview with CBN's David Brody, Obama responded that "they have not been telling the truth" and "folks are lying." But now we see that FactCheck.org concluded: ???Obama???s claim is wrong. . . . The documents from the NRLC support the group???s claim that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082.??? Will newspaper editorial boards now press Obama to apologize to those he accused of "lying"? Will mainstream journalists press Obama to explain why he thinks a bill that spoke only about babies who had been born alive was an unacceptable infringement on abortion? Don't hold your breath. Unfortunately, the FactCheck analyst goes beyond examing the facts to suggest that "many other people -- perhaps most" believe that a living, fully born human could not possibly be a victim of "infanticide" unless that infant's lungs had reached the point that would allow long-term survival. This echoes the position that Obama took in the Illinois Senate -- that what he called a "previable fetus" should not be regarded as a legal person, even when fully born. However, the U.S. Congress rejected that dangerous doctrine without a dissenting vote in 2002, when it enacted the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which declares babies "at any stage of development" to be legal persons once they are fully outside the mother. FactCheck has now confirmed that Obama killed an identical bill when he chaired the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee in 2003. It is a fair verdict, then, that Obama took a more extreme position on the so-called "right to abortion" than ANY member of Congress was willing to vote for -- a position under which that "right" must be extended even outside the womb, in some cases. There is much more documentation on this subject on the NRLC website at http://www.nrlc.org



  • Posted By: loriw @ 08/27/2008 4:18:52 AM

    Folks...Obama is playing a word shell game and trying to confuse the voters on his position because he knows it is POLITICALLY INCORRECT how he voted in the IL legislature. Get informed on this topic and do not let Obama confuse you! This is not about abortion rights or Roe V. Wade. This is about his opposition to requiring an abortionist to call in a doctor to provide compassionate care for an infant that is "accidentally" born alive after a late term abortion procedure. Obama has stated in his own words which I have heard on CNN that to require the abortionist to simply call in another doctor would be "too burdensome" on the doctor and the mother. Notice he does not feel it is "too burdensome for the infant to stuggle to survive , often alone, for HOURS, before it dies. It seems it was "above his pay grade" to determine when life begins but it appears that it is not "above his pay grade to decide when a baby should die due to inconvenience of the abortionist!

  • Posted By: ZachJonesIsHome @ 08/25/2008 8:27:35 PM

    It seems that Senator Obama is described as having one of the most extreme positions that one can find when it comes to the issue of abortion???.Normally, I can understand a lawyer???s dancing on the head of a pin for the sake of not wanting to undermine a future legal argument or position. However, regarding Senator Obama, some other details give me pause and raise questions about whether his stated motivation(s) can be trusted.
    Obama Would Evidently Throw The Baby Out With The Bathwater found at:
    http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/obama-would-evidently-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater/

    • Posted By: loriw @ 08/27/2008 4:11:10 AM

      ZachJonesIsHome, you have good information on this site about the topic here.
      I recommend that bloggers check it out especially the information on Jill Stanek's testimony to Obama on the Live Born Infant.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse