Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Where did you get this from and what his statement on the issue then?
Didn't you read it? It's from factcheck.org.
Back to the Obama infanticide scandal, while it was said by many that Obama opposed the bills in 2001, 2002, and 2003 at the state senate level because of the attempt to give all non-viable fetuses rights of protections as human, this is not the case according to factcheck.org.
The 2003 version, contained the same language as the federal "Born Alive" bill that Obama says he would support.
Specifically,: "Amendment 001 was adopted in committee and added the following text: "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." That wording matches exactly the comparable provision in the federal law."
The 2003 version with the wording Obama wanted never got to the state senate, however.
It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.
Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. 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, the campaign argues.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-...nfanticide.html
Factcheck goes out of the way to say that whether or not this is infanticide is up to interpretation (do you consider a pre-viable fetus that needs to be supported an infant?), but it's pretty clear:
Obama was never for the bill, and when the 3rd version of it was changed with the same wording as the federal bill he says he would've supported, he killed it before it got to the senate.
And then changed his position on why he didn't support it. (it wasn't the wording, it was because it was a state bill.)
Originally posted by chithappensYour answer is in the italics.
doesn't that explain it?
It didn't get to the state senate because as the chair of the Health and Human services commitee, Obama killed it (with the newer verbiage that he wanted added in!) before it could get there.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
So nobody wants to comment on how Obama lied about his reasons for not supporting the Born Alive bill?Pity.
"Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. 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, the campaign argues."
Also, I'll repeat for the third time since it's apparently going over your head -- in Illinois there were already laws protecting infanticide and late term abortion. One of the consistant reasons for him voting against these bills. You're claim that there was only one reason for him voting against the bill is factually wrong. Once more, you're attempting to simplify a bill and ignore perfectly valid reasons for voting against it.
The idea that Obama is actively in favor of killing babies is quite deplorable. You are free to disagree with his stance on the issue, but it's not necessary to demonize the man and ignore certain aspects of the bill and the situation surrounding the state in which the bill was passed. Again, it's akin to someone saying that McCain is actively trying to kill American troops because he's voted against some issues involving giving Vets more rewards for their service and for keeping them in Iraq. It's misconstruing the situation and the bill to the point of self parody. And no fair-minded person is going to buy it.
Originally posted by sithsaber408It didn't get to the state senate because as the chair of the Health and Human services commitee, Obama killed it (with the newer verbiage that he wanted added in!) before it could get there.
That's nothing new. I don't know the changes so I can't comment further and you shouldn't make speculations if you don't know what what was changed.
Originally posted by BackFire
"Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. 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, the campaign argues."Also, I'll repeat for the third time since it's apparently going over your head -- in Illinois there were already laws protecting infanticide and late term abortion. One of the consistant reasons for him voting against these bills. You're claim that there was only one reason for him voting against the bill is factually wrong. Once more, you're attempting to simplify a bill and ignore perfectly valid reasons for voting against it.
The idea that Obama is actively in favor of killing babies is quite deplorable. You are free to disagree with his stance on the issue, but it's not necessary to demonize the man and ignore certain aspects of the bill and the situation surrounding the state in which the bill was passed. Again, it's akin to someone saying that McCain is actively trying to kill American troops because he's voted against some issues involving giving Vets more rewards for their service and for keeping them in Iraq. It's misconstruing the situation and the bill to the point of self parody. And no fair-minded person is going to buy it.
No, it's not.
The bill came up three times. 2001, 2002, and 2003.
The first two he said he wouldn't sign because of certain wording. THAT'S his statement at the time. FACT.
When the third version came about with the EXACT same wording as the 2002 BAIP (which he said he would support), he voted against it before the bill could get to the senate.
Then LATER, this summer in fact, came up with the excuse about the state laws changing abortions.
And the idea that Obama wants to kill babies is plausible, his own comments are that if his daughters were pregnant, he wouldn't want to "Punnish them" with a child!
And he was wrong anyway. Because you SHOULD assign a pre-viable fetus born alive the same rights as human!
Rocas - No, it's the state that regulates abortion. A federal bill couldn't be used to affect regular abortions, a stateside bill could even if worded properly, because of how laws work.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
No, it's not.The bill came up three times. 2001, 2002, and 2003.
The first two he said he wouldn't sign because of certain wording. THAT'S his statement at the time. FACT.
When the third version came about with the EXACT same wording as the 2002 BAIP (which he said he would support), he voted against it before the bill could get to the senate.
Then LATER, this summer in fact, came up with the excuse about the state laws changing abortions.
And the idea that Obama wants to kill babies is plausible, his own comments are that if his daughters were pregnant, he wouldn't want to "Punnish them" with a child!
Well again, you are showing that you're incapable of critical thinking by saying that because it's the primary reason that he voted against those bills, that it must be the ONLY reason, aside from him enjoying the thought of killing babies, of course.
Yes, the first two he said he wouldn't sign because of their questionable wording. That doesn't mean that was the ONLY reason for voting against it, does it? And that doesn't mean he's now obligated to vote differently if that one single aspect is solved if it's still problematic in other ways.
Sure, Obama wanting to kill babies is plausible just as McCain wanting American troops to die is plausible. If you distort the vote and simply look at it for the sake of demonizing the respective candidate, but trust me, you're fooling no one.
Lastly, Obama's comment about being "Punished" is not evidence that he wants to kill babies. If a teenage girl is impregnated and forced to give birth, possibly altering/ruining their life in the process would obviously be akin to a punishment. But where do you get "I want to kill babies" from "I don't want my daughters punished with a child"?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I love how the conversation quickly turned to me when it's shown that Obama renegged on his stance about the wording of the bill.
Originally posted by chithappens
That's nothing new. I don't know the changes so I can't comment further and you shouldn't make speculations if you don't know what what was changed.
It's really cute how you keep skipping what I said.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Quote where I said that. BF threw out something that I never said.
Here's your quote:
"And the idea that Obama wants to kill babies is plausible, his own comments are that if his daughters were pregnant, he wouldn't want to "Punnish them" with a child!" -Sithsaber408
BF did what now?
This is the point:
The Illinois state version of the born alive act was voted against by Obama twice. Once in 2001 and again in 2002.
Both times he said it was because the law would confer human rights to all fetuses by saying that those born alive through abortion having them would constitute all of them having them.
When the wording was changed so that only those already born alive would be saved and no title/rights bestowed to unborn fetuses (EXACTLY the verbiage he wanted) in the 2003 version of the bill, he voted against it as Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee.
He only now, THIS SUMMER, when the pressure has been on claims it was because it would change the state laws regarding abortion.
That's the issue.
"Obama is for infanticide, he didn't sign the bill!"
"No he isn't sith, he had problems with the wording. He said he would sign it if the wording was changed."
But the wording was changed and he STILL didn't support it. No reasons were given at the time. CERTAINLY not this claim from his campaign that it would change state abortion laws that we are hearing now.
It's a bunch of crap.