Obama’s Been Lying About Why he Opposed Protecting Babies Born During an Abortion Attempt
Barack Obama voted “present” while he was a senator on a vote that would have required doctors to administer care to babies who were born during an abortion attempt. This was effectively a “no’ vote. His defence of his position of letting breathing babies die without any attempt to save them was to claim that is was a ploy by “evil” Republicans to overturn Roe vs Wade. The name of this bill is Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It really is incredulous to me that such a bill would even have to be proposed.
Now he is coming under fire and naturally he is being misunderstood. Whenever you question Barack Obama’s position on an issue he considers it a personal attack. We are not allowed to question him.
“They have not been telling the truth,” Mr. Obama said. “And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”
Barack Obama is right, someone is lying. And it is he. He claimed that if this born baby was actually called a baby that it would eventually lead to pre born babies being called babies and that would lead to overturning Roe vs Wade. He also claimed that he supported a federal version of this bill because it contained language in it that protected the killing of unborn babies. However one version of the Illinois bill contained virtually the same language as the federal bill yet he still refused to vote on it.
“Nothing in this section,” the added sentence reads, “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.”
A federal version with that added clause passed Congress unanimously in 2002, with the support of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kennedy, among others. Mr. Obama said in 2004 and again on Saturday that he would have supported the federal version.
Finally his campaign came out and admitted that he had in fact had the opportunity to vote on a version of the bill that he claimed didn’t exist. An almost identical bill to the federal bill that he was supposed to have supported did come up for a vote on the state senate floor.
Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”
His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate,
There it is, Obama once again “misstated” a position. Why then did he refuse to vote against this bill? He is beholden to the extreme left wing and anything that can be seen as an intrusion on abortion rights can never be accepted. Yet he knows how radical this view is so he is trying to excuse his refusal to vote on the wording of the bill and not his approval of the procedure currently being practiced in his home state.
Some comments to my two previous posts on this issue have bought into the notion that it was just the wording Obama was against (as if that makes it acceptable to let the babies die in the meantime) and that is why Obama refused to vote on the bill. Hell, one blogger even dedicated a whole post to my previous post on this issue, claiming that I was twisting President Obama’s words around. I admit that Barack Obama’s words have been twisted, only it is Obama himself who has been doing the twisting.
Barack Obama got the wording that he wanted in this bill and had a chance to vote on it and he still refused. And that is the truth.
Trackbacks
- Obama Ad to Target an Abortion Survivor « Wake Up America
- Papa Mike’s Blog » Blog Archive » Obama Ad to Target An Abortion Survivor…My name is Gianna Jessen, born 31 years ago after a failed abortion. I’m a survivor, as are many others . . . but if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn’t
- New ad slams Barack Obama for not voting against protecting babies who survived abortions while still a state senator « America's Watchtower
America's Watchtower 
Its amazing and interesting that Mr. Pink Eye continues to say President Obama………………..
LikeLike
President Obama, in his interview with Rick Warren, claimed that he hates abortion and wants to limit the number of abortions. If President Obama wants to reduce the number of abortions, how about stop supporting this practice of legalized infanticide. This is not a complicated issue as Obama claims, you either are for life or you are not. He is clearly NOT regardless how he tries to justify his actions.
LikeLike
“This is not a complicated issue as Obama claims…”
I have to disagree with you on this. Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure that does have legitimate uses. The big question is, “where do you draw the line?”
If you define it too narrowly, you outlaw those legitimate uses and risk endangering lives. If you define it too broadly, you legitimize murder. There are plenty of gray areas: do you allow it for rape, rape, mother’s life in danger, mother’s health adversely affected? These are not easy questions to answer hence the reason for the years of debate.
Conservatives try to make the issue black and white by painting all abortions as murder. They view pregnancies as a deterrent to keep kids from having sex (it doesn’t) and actively work to make it more difficult for them to protect themselves.
Liberals, on the other, essentially leave their conscious at the door so that they avoid the consequences of their actions. They sugarcoat what they are doing so they can sleep at night.
No, this is not a simple issue.
LikeLike
Terrant, If you would not call ending a baby’s life murder, what would you call it? Just wondering. Also the fear of getting pregnant before marriage worked as a deterrent in my life.
LikeLike
To me, it is the motives that determine whether or not it is murder. Abortion as a means of birth control is murder, plain and simple, and no amount of debate will change my view on this point.
When the either the mother’s life is in danger or the baby is not viable or grossly unhealthy, this is where I see abortion as a legitimate medical procedure. I see this more of helping nature along rather than murder because the mother probably should have miscarried but didn’t.
As for rape and incest, I’m not one to judge. I believe that both sides have valid arguments on this particular point. In the end, I believe that this is something that should be between the mother and god.
As for the deterrent, for every person like you, there is another person who wasn’t. I forget what the exact statistic was but the number of people who do not wait for marriage is well over 50%.
Now, I agree that teaching abstinence has its merits (can’t get pregnant if you abstain). However, we need to acknowledge the reality that kids do have sex regardless of what we preach to them. Maybe if more parents would do their job and teach their children how to protect themselves (or let the schools do it), there would not be as much need for abortions.
LikeLike
Why are so many americans prejudiced? I used to think it was because most of them read the bible but now the intolerance is reaching critical levels and before you know it the USA will end up in civil war…wait that might be a good thing, then we could repopulate the united states with trees and fix that hole they made in the ozone, burn the heretics!
LikeLike