Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever
By Terence P. Jeffrey
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief
January 09, 2008


Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."

Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.
State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.


Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

Can you imagine that this goes on right here in the US, this sounds like something out of China!

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

Does this man have a heart at all??? How could any person even think of that little child dying in closet and not be moved?

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."

"Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person..." What the fuck! How can it be anything other than a person??!! This man has no heart, no feeling, no human qualities at all.


That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "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."

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."

In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.

A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill.


Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever -- 01/09/2008



I don't normally do the cut and paste deal but this is a must read. Obama advocates and supports allowing a new born baby from a late term abortion to lay in a closet and die of exposer/starvation/dehydration. This man cannot become President.

__________________
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20080109b.html

OBAMA SUPPORTS KILLING LIVE BABIES!! NOT JUST UNBORN BABIES BUT LIVE BABIES!!


"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

When Osama said children are a punishment, he meant it.

__________________
Drill offshore now

I have a fully loaded canon on this one I'm going to be posting several more articles about his subject in the next few days or hours. This is a must read for anyone who loves kids. I can't imagine laying a baby in a closet and letting it die and Obama supports just that very thing.

__________________
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20080109b.html

OBAMA SUPPORTS KILLING LIVE BABIES!! NOT JUST UNBORN BABIES BUT LIVE BABIES!!


"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

So... there's a problem with this type of thing? Is that what I'm hearing. But Barry is such a nice guy, I was going to start a church for him, with kool-aid and everything.

__________________

That's a big huah! Tell all your friends.

__________________
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20080109b.html

OBAMA SUPPORTS KILLING LIVE BABIES!! NOT JUST UNBORN BABIES BUT LIVE BABIES!!


"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

The Elephant in the Room: Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image
By Rick Santorum

American voters will choose between two candidates this election year.
One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible - indivisible by ideology or religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and change and possibility. It's inspiring. This candidate can make you just plain feel good to be American.

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue.

Which of these two candidates should be our next president? The choice is clear, right?

Wrong, because they're both the same man - Barack Obama.

Granted, the first-term Illinois senator's lofty rhetoric of bipartisanship, unity, hope and change makes everyone feel good. But it's becoming increasingly clear that his grand campaign rhetoric does not match his partisan, ideological record. The nonpartisan National Journal, for example, recently rated Obama the Senate's most liberal member. That's besting some tough competition from orthodox liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

John McCain's campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous times in Obama's short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in his party against broadly supported compromises on issues such as immigration, ethics reform, terrorist surveillance and war funding. Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002.

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.
Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.
Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term.

Obama's supporters say his rhetoric makes them believe again.

Is this the kind of change and leader you believe in?

__________________
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20080109b.html

OBAMA SUPPORTS KILLING LIVE BABIES!! NOT JUST UNBORN BABIES BUT LIVE BABIES!!


"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

Obama didn't want to lose any of the votes for reelection. He didn't want to tarnish his rep so that people wouldn't see him for what he is. Now if they put muslum babys in the bill he more then likely would have voted for it.

__________________


http://www.marines.com/page/Home.jsp?forceHtml=true

Vote or shut up
Save energy Turn your Lights OFF!
Gun Contol is as simple as hitting your target!

http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm

Spell check cost extra so deal with it.

Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), who led yesterday's debate against the bill stated, "Mr. Speaker, we have before us a measure which is one of the most puzzling bits of legislation to ever come out of the Committee on the Judiciary. To make it more interesting, the entire committee has supported this measure on a recorded vote except one person, one member of the committee." Later in debate, Rep. Conyers added, "Most of us believe that this bill is probably unnecessary for the simple reason that born-alive infants are already protected by existing law." After which, Rep. Conyers and 379 other Members voted for the bill.

Some Members of the House suggested that the bill was put forth by pro-life backers in order to force pro-choice members to support at least one piece of anti-abortion legislation before the November election. If that was the case, for whatever it's worth the plan worked as many pro-choice Members voted for the bill.


Next.

__________________
They only recognize greatness when some authority confirms it.
CAHQTOOC

The fact remains dispite what this crow freak says that Obama supports killing living babies. I will remind you of his own words.

__________________
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20080109b.html

OBAMA SUPPORTS KILLING LIVE BABIES!! NOT JUST UNBORN BABIES BUT LIVE BABIES!!


"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

What bill are you referring to? Is this one that the baby killer Obama would have voted against as well?

__________________
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20080109b.html

OBAMA SUPPORTS KILLING LIVE BABIES!! NOT JUST UNBORN BABIES BUT LIVE BABIES!!


"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.