Let's put to rest this notion that the Born Alive Protection Act was kind of devious GOP trick to force poor B.O. to vote against one of his largest bankrollers, the abortion industry. This vid is a side by side comparison of the Illinois state bill and the federal bill. In the vid B.O. states that he supported the federal bill (to assist infants who survive an abortion) but opposed the state bill b/c it was "constitutionally flawed." The vid clearly shows that except for a few P.C. touches on inclusive language, the two bills were identical.
So, why does he say that he supported the federal bill but not the state bill, which are identical bills? You have think like a politician. By supporting the federal bill--which he could not vote on b/c he was not in the Senate--he could come out and say that he supports medical care for infants who survive abortion. Good for him. By opposing the idential bill in the Illinois Senate--where he could vote and did--he could give his bankrollers what they wanted: the defeat of a law that would require them to spend more money on a second doctor for every abortion they perform.
What's really interesting here is that B.O. chaired the committee that ran oversight on this bill. He and the Democrats voted to add "Roe v. Wade neutrality langauge" identical to the federal bill, so nothing in the bill, if passed into law, could be construed as a infringement on a woman's "right" to abort her baby. Once this language was added--with B.O.'s vote to amend--he voted against the final bill. In other words, he voted in committee to make sure the bill would not be used to challenge abortion in the courts--just in case it passed the Senate--and voted against the whole bill when it was released from committee.
In another Youtube vid there is an audio of B.O. arguing against the bill on the grounds that requiring an abortion clinic to have another doctor on hand to treat the unsuccessfully aborted infant would be a burden on the woman's initial decision to abort. He says nothing about the burden of the surviving child as it dies without help.
And let's not forget that this is the same man who supports abortion b/c he doesn't want either of his daughters "punished with a baby."
Like I said: just another politician.
So, why does he say that he supported the federal bill but not the state bill, which are identical bills? You have think like a politician. By supporting the federal bill--which he could not vote on b/c he was not in the Senate--he could come out and say that he supports medical care for infants who survive abortion. Good for him. By opposing the idential bill in the Illinois Senate--where he could vote and did--he could give his bankrollers what they wanted: the defeat of a law that would require them to spend more money on a second doctor for every abortion they perform.
What's really interesting here is that B.O. chaired the committee that ran oversight on this bill. He and the Democrats voted to add "Roe v. Wade neutrality langauge" identical to the federal bill, so nothing in the bill, if passed into law, could be construed as a infringement on a woman's "right" to abort her baby. Once this language was added--with B.O.'s vote to amend--he voted against the final bill. In other words, he voted in committee to make sure the bill would not be used to challenge abortion in the courts--just in case it passed the Senate--and voted against the whole bill when it was released from committee.
In another Youtube vid there is an audio of B.O. arguing against the bill on the grounds that requiring an abortion clinic to have another doctor on hand to treat the unsuccessfully aborted infant would be a burden on the woman's initial decision to abort. He says nothing about the burden of the surviving child as it dies without help.
And let's not forget that this is the same man who supports abortion b/c he doesn't want either of his daughters "punished with a baby."
Like I said: just another politician.
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
in prayer.
ReplyDeleteWhat if we individually commit to fast and make a Holy Hour of Adoration on Inauguration Day for the conversion of President Obama's heart in the matter of abortion?
ReplyDeleteAnother thought as I listen to Catholic media coverage of the 36th anniversary of Roe v Wade is: perhaps we should be emphazising in a more mainstream fashion that abortion is truly a double-death: it is not just "murder of babies" but the mortal wounding of a woman's (mother's) soul and spirit. I know this is patently obvious for those of us who are invested in the pro-life cause, but it seems that if we give equal mainstream emphasis to the death of a soul as to the death of a child, the seeds of the pro-life rhetoric would fall on more fallow ground...
Having spoken to many people wounded by abortion (not just mothers, but fathers and grandparents as well) and witnessing their subsequent medical and psychiatric problems, my heart heaves for them!