Classroom "ad wars" discussion spotlights Gianna ad

[bluestems]

yep- it says that he will continue to fight to protect my right to choose despite how it might look or be twisted to be used against him.

[PeterHaroldErikson]

Which means you basically admit that this is all about letting kids die because to do otherwise might infringe on authoritarian legislation from the bench.

[bluestems]

Obama knew that the Federal law was in already in place to protect babies born alive. The IL bill was unnecessary. google "What you need to know about the Born Alive Controversy and Barack Obama" This bill wasn't about protecting babies born alive, if it were then the pro-lifers pushing it wouldn't have protested when language was added to protect Roe v Wade. If you disagree w/ abortion in general, that is another argument- remember, this bill wasn't about abortion (yea right).

[LivingGodsWay]

In 2002, Obama was the only one that voted against providing aide to abortion survivors. Now he calls anyone who quotes him a "liar". Search YouTube video for "watch?v=ttF8s5XGVDw"

How do you properly describe a lawmaker who would condemn the child survivor of an abortion by permitting doctors to refuse that child, once born alive, potentially life-saving medical treatment and nutrition?

A number of things come to mind. Mr. President isn't one of them.

McCain-Palin "COUNTRY FIRST"

[bluestems]

The prolifers tried several versions of the bill, claiming "oh no, it's nothing to do with abortion" yet when the final bill came through w/ language to protect Roe v Wade, they protested. why? b/c it was always about Roe v Wade all along. The Fed bill offers protection for babies born alive even in cases of abortion, so this law was unnecessary. noone believes Obama supports infantcide. seriously.

[bluestems]

btw, McCain-Palin = "COUNTRY CLUB FIRST"

[truc111]

There is already a law in Illinois that protects babies born alive. The law he voted no for would undermine roe vs wade. So to accuse him is just one big whopper.

[mattmillburn]

The bill he voted against had nothing to do with abortion, only about babies who were already born. Infants who survived abortion were being murdered by neglect in Illinois hospitals. That's why this bill was necessary. Obama's argument was that premature babies aren't people and therefore don't deserve constitutional rights.

[bluestems]

Actually, you're incorrect. Obama's argument against the bill was that it was questioning whether a doctor who already diagnosed a nonviable fetus wouldn't make attempts to save the baby if it actually was born alive and was in fact viable. google "what you need to know about Born Alive and Barack Obama" for the language in the many attempts to pass the bill as well as Obama's full statement. The IL bill intended to set up the argument on fetus viability that is Roe v Wade's stronghold.

[PeterHaroldErikson]

Also, if we follow BO's latest logic (passing the Act would render Roe v Wade meaningless), doesn't that mean he should now flat-out say: "The Born Alive-act HAS ALREADY made Roe v Wade meaningless, all abortion-clinics are illegal"?

He can't have it both ways, either he's an 'Infallible Prophet of Legal Truth' ('all other Dems R 2 stupid 2 see I was right,I was the only one to protect Choice), or he's just your average BSíng politician making up excuses for being more extreme than NARAL.

[bluestems]

google "What you need to know about the `Born Alive' controversy and Barack Obama" for the background on the many bill attempts and the legal reasoning about how it was being used to undermine the issue on fetus viability.

[PeterHaroldErikson]

That's what I did, that's the conclusion I - like many others with Law degrees - came too: Obama may try to whitewash his ultra-liberal, New Party-past now to appeal to the middle, but, as others have said: record counts. Politicians basically do one essential thing for a living: passing or not passing laws. That's what counts the most, not non-binding words and phrases to pander to the audience.

watch?v=Z22Aem5_r44

[bluestems]

so why the need for this IL bill when the Federal bill was already in place to protect babies born alive? If this bill was only about protecting those babies, then why did prolifers pushing it protest when language was added to protect Roe v Wade - what should that matter if protecting those babies born alive was really the intent? You may disagree with abortion- but this bill wasn't about abortion, remember? and in the case of babies born alive- they are already protected under Federal law.