Obama's Infanticide

ABORTION:

Obama is the most Pro-Abortion candidate in U.S. history. He stands firmly in support of the murderous acts of abortion, late term abortion, to selective infanticide. His stances are beyond any other Representative and even Pro-Abortion advocacy groups as NARAL. Obama is a habitual liar and depends on the ignorance or indifference of people.



1) HELPING EXPECTANT MOTHERS AND SCHIP:
This federal program was implemented in 1997 to help states provide insurance coverage for lower income families with children. It was funded through 2007 upon which Congress voted to extend and expand the program. President Bush vetoed the new plan because it contained many flaws but extended the current bill until 2009 to allow for better provisions. Bush of course was derided at the time by Barack Obama and others.

“It is outrageous that the president has decided to use his fourth veto to deny health care to four million American children… today’s veto of this bipartisan plan shows a callousness of priorities that is offensive to the ideals we hold as Americans…”

“If there’s one thing all of us should be able to agree on, no matter what our political views, it’s that our children should get the treatment they need when they need it. And when I’m president, they will”



Obama presents health care as one of his greatest concerns and such should be provided, as he stated at the time, for “every child”. Health care is a great pillar of his campaign as he presents. The FACT is, before and after the flawed SCHIP proposals that Bush vetoed; Obama voted “No” on SCHIP amendments that would have given financial assistance to poor women and their unborn children! The Allard amendments were strongly supported by Pro-Life groups because they offered help to expectant mothers who may have chosen to have an abortion due to financial difficulties.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00081


The second Allard bill was introduced immediately after a Barbara Boxer bill to the SCHIP program. It again was heavily favored by Pro-Life groups as it was a Pro-Life bill versus a Pro-Abortion bill. Obama supported the Boxer bill and again voted “Nay” on the pro-life Allard bill. This is input from Pro-Life groups upon consideration of each of those bills.
http://www.nrlc.org/Docs/SCHIPAllardAmendmentLetter.html

http://www.lifenews.com/nat3798.html

Obama opposed helping poor expectant mothers and their unborn children but he supports public funding of abortions!



2) INFANTICIDE AND OBAMA:

a) BORN ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT 2001. This act offered medical assistance to children born alive after a failed abortion attempt.

Barack Obama was the outspoken opponent of this act. His “No” vote in Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee can be seen here.
http://www.jillstanek.com/Obama's vote against SB1095 pdf.pdf


His THEN reason for opposition as found on pages 85-90.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
Note, he virtually refuses to recognize the unborn child and even the born child, from a failed abortion, as a living child.
“the fetus or child, as --- some might describe it…”,
“…whenever we define a previable fetus as a person…what we’re really saying, in fact, is that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections…provided a --- a child..” ,

His “Present” vote on Illinois Senate floor, March 30, 2001. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1095_03302001_030000T.PDF




b) BORN ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT 2002.

Obama’s “No” vote in Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee as seen here.
http://www.jillstanek.com/Obama's vote against SB1662 pdf.pdf


His THEN reason for opposition as found on pages 31-34.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf
His arguments are completely erroneous. Again however, he at times cannot bring himself to recognize the sanctity of the child. “…that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mothers womb…”

His “No” vote in Illinois Senate floor, April 4, 2002. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1662_04042002_014000T.pdf


In contrast, the Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed Congress unanimously. The Senate voted 98-0 while the House of Representatives had a unanimous voice-count. President Bush signed it into law August 5, 2002.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020805-6.html




c) BORN ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT 2003.

The Democrats gained control of the Illinois Senate in 2003. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act was sent to the Health and Human Services Committee of which Barack Obama was the chairperson. He again voted against the Act but, as the above, misrepresented and even blatantly lied about his actions.

Obama had maintained since 2003 to have THEN opposed the Act because it did not contain a “neutrality clause” as the Federal bill did. The FACT is, Obama voted to amend the Illinois Act of 2003 to include the Federal “neutrality clause”. It was the exact same language. Obama then proceeded to vote against the Act! Each vote can be seen here. http://www.jillstanek.com/Obama's vote against SB1082 pdf.pdf


Obama had continued to misrepresent those facts for the last five years. He blatantly lied to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network just a few months ago in regards to the above. Brody gave Obama an opportunity to respond to the facts as the Right to Life Committee and others were then reporting. This interview occurred immediately after Pastor Rich Warrens “Saddleback Showdown” on August 16, 2008. http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/obama_continues.html

“I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born….”

“…for people to suggest that I….somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond.”


Obama is someone who has little problem in distorting the truth or lying. However you want to call it. He even called those who were actually telling the truth liars! “They have not been telling the truth..”, “People are lying..”, “Folks are lying..”.

However, within a day of the CBN interview and in lieu of indisputable facts Obama admitted the bills were identical and as such had misrepresented the truth. This occurred in a New York Sun interview. http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/
This is an excerpt from the New York Sun.

Obama once again misrepresented the truth to the American public in the last debate with McCain. Again, he depends on people’s ignorance or indifference. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78189


There was nothing in the Illinois BAIPA which infringed upon Roe v. Wade. Nor were there sufficient laws which offered protection to such infants as Obama now resorts to alleging. These things are irrefutable. The Act strictly applied to “born” infants. The laws in effect were not sufficient and such was the whole purpose of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It was the purpose of Nurse Jill Stanek’s Congressional testimony. She and others witnessed this neglect, with a percentage of such occurring in abortions, and eventual death of such infants. This is a fact which Obama completely omits.

Obama has attacked her. He has also attacked an abortion survivor in an anti-McCain add all the while continuing his misrepresentations. Both adds can be seen here.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75788
Gianna Jessens story and a good account can be found here. http://bornalivetruth.com/pressreleases.aspx



In his interview with Pastor Rich Warren he was asked “at what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”Obama responded by stating “answering that question with specificity…is above my pay grade”. How about offering anything in those regards? He cannot because to do such would condemn his un-Godly stances. He after all states, “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.”. He has co-sponsored this act which would nullify any and all regulations on abortions. http://www.lifenews.com/nat4359.html

Obama can make dire decisions in regards to allowing the murder of innocent children; however it is “above” his “pay grade” in even attempting to recognize the sanctity of life? This is an excellent and revealing video you may wish to view. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6heVhZfVwR8
The first 4 minutes speaks volumes about Obama while the rest offers good insight into the entire issue. Otherwise, read the simple question Pastor Warren asked and realize the complete callousness of Obama’s answer.

In Christ :jesus:

 

I agree webdog and thought the same thing. In researching some of these things I visited a anti-abortion site with pics. It was horrendous to the extent most people do not realize. To say those children are not indeed "children" is outlandish. To deny they should have been valued is simply to support the Devil and his causes.

take care

 

Hello BaptistBeliever.

I appreciate your input but no my arguments are not "overstated". Indeed they are the arguments and facts as presented by Pro-Life groups, and active pro-life individuals. Such people who deal with and argue these issues on a daily basis.

In regards to the differences between the Allard and Boxer bills. Boxer is an ardent Pro-Abortionist and this is what Pro-Life groups specifically pointed out, as I appropriately listed.

http://lifenews.com/

Though I thoroughly disliked Clinton, I have never claimed he was completely devoid of all morality. Nor have I seen such claims by anyone else. However, I would state he was of low moral standards. He after all, among other things, twice vetoed "late term abortion" legislation as passed by Congress! (Give Bush credit here)

In other words Clinton thinks it is OK to partially deliver the child and then kill it. A horrendous act BTW. Whereas Obama thinks it is OK to partially deliver the child and kill it; and if that does not initially work then kill it from neglect!
If you read or view any of my sites you may see a doctor could have arguably taken a hammer to the babies skull without possible prosecution. This is in regards to how weak the actual laws prior to BAIPA were. Though Obama attempts to use smoke and mirrors to state they were sufficient.


Obama also offers as reasoning, among-st his other reasoning attempts, to state saving the child would interfere with the mothers "original" decision to abort. 1) That is pure and simply advocating and condoning infanticide. What does it say of a man who feels it is OK to kill a living child from neglect after it is actually born!? 2) He never mentions, as does no media, that Illinois had a safe harbor law. Meaning the mother did not have to take any responsibility for the child at all. It would have been cared for by the state and had an opportunity for adoption.

Well, that is off point but if Socialism is your desire than yes. Otherwise, they should work as my wife and myself in providing for their families. This is not to say I do not support helping those who truly need it. My family has always been closely associated with Hospitals and Doctors. The greatest problem needed is tort reform. Frivolous lawsuits and outrageous awards raise Insurance premiums, which in turns raises health care costs, which in turn means less coverage at higher prices. Which in turn means many people cannot afford insurance though some can afford computer games, cell phones etc?

Insurance providers/Hospitals will not even provide Ultrasound "video" now because of lawsuits. You have to pay for the 3d/4d yourself and as I understand without the doctor viewing. He will only be notified if the nurse spots something wrong. We are told someone apparently missed something and the ultrasound was used as evidence.

Another forgotten thing is clinics and hospitals which already offer free or low cost care. But again, I do support helping those who truly need it.


The point still being the fact Obama is someone who has little reverence or conscience of the value of unborn children.

In Christ :jesus:

 

Not sure about the Constitutionality of it but I agree with you. We have the best care system in the world and why foreigners come here! Which would include heads of state.

If they go toward socialistic care as Obama espouses; they would not be giving care-to-the-poor but simply poor-care!

 

Yes! This is why I wanted to point out his pathetic and hypocritical notion in stating he will provide "all" children or "every" American with health care.

The man refuses to even give and opinion as to when he thinks a child should be given human reverence. He chose not to give the unborn child and mother health care! It is a fact he would not expect born children from a failed abortion to receive such either.

However, by all means do not point these things out as he will resort to attacking you and calling you a liar! This as he did to good people who were actually telling the truth. One of whom witnessed these failed abortions and subsequent neglect, the other being a young lady who survived an abortion.

Obama portrays them as evil; whereas he attempts to portray himself as dignified and all-caring. What a crock! I can only pray the majority of Americans are not as gullible, uncaring, or indifferent as we seem to have become.


:godisgood: