39 1 min 13 yrs

Obama says that he does not support infanticide, but  actions speak louder than words.  Obama voted four times against a bill called the “Born Alive Protection Act,”put in front of  Congress in 2001-2002.  This bill legislated medical care for babies born alive after botched abortions.   Four times,  Obama voted against this bill; four times,  Obama voted not to extend medical care for babies born alive after botched abortions.

Gianna Jesson survived a saline abortion 31 years ago.  She testified in front  of Congress in 2001-2002 for the passage of the Born Alive Protection Act, and now she speaks out regarding Obama’s obstruction of the “Born Alive Protection Act.”

On a side note, Obama’s hubris apparently knows no bounds.  The Obama campaign now hocks “faith-based Obama merchandise,”  hoping to appeal to the religious among us. Obama is pro-family? Who knew?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

39 thoughts on “Does Barack Obama Support Infanticide?

  1. " Obama voted four times against a bill called the “Born Alive Protection Act,”put in front of Congress in 2001-2002. This bill legislated medical care for babies born alive after botched abortions. "

    Because it was unconstitutional.

    Now Obama proposes a medical insurance plan that will insure and thus provide medical care for virtually all children in the USA. We already know that you will vote against it.

  2. Coincidentally as you posted this i was reading this and trying to make sense of it all.

    It would appear he is pro family. How effective his proposals are I don’t know not paying taxes there obviously.

    There is very little opportunity to learn about US politics at the nitty gritty level rather than the cliche top line politics. What makes people vote. Economic issues are kind of key and we have done this abortion merry go round so very many times.

    We KNOW you are against abortion Patty and we know that the Republicans want to appeal to those who oppose it and the Dems then appeal to those who favour liberalising it and that your politics are polarised around gender to some degree. We also know that late term abortions are an incredibly difficult issue.

    Is there any chance we could get a proper analysis of this election’s real bottom line policies by one of ATW’s American posters. Instead of the polarising issues around the usual?

  3. Alison: This "polarising issue" is a huge issue in the States. It’s not just MY issue.

    The ad I link to above gives readers outside of the US a look at the key issues driving this election.

    Not coincidentally, Obama’s faith-based merchandise becomes available at the same time.

    Not too long ago, Obama stated that he didn’t want his daughters "punished" with an unwanted pregnancy. He is now back-pedalling as not to alienate some potential voters. But his record – paltry as it is – shows him to be far to the left on the abortion issue.

    You say that you want a "bottom-line." The bottom-line is that the election is virtually tied. THe country is split. And America is experiencing what is being called a "culture" war.

    THe abortion issue, the gun issue, the individual rights v. big government, national soveriegnity v. internationalism a la Europe – these are the issues. Not race. not gender. Not the war. and I don’t believe even the economy.

    Middle American’s are sick and tired of being told that they are backwards hicks because they believe in the Bible, or that they are somehow unenlightened because they find "abortion on demand" a repelling notion, or that flying a flag is somehow jingoism.

    And the left are in a frenzy because they thought they had the election all sown up – what with the race card in their back pocket. Unfortunately, the Palin pick neutralized this.

    I’m just reporting it as I see it, from the front lines, for your reading pleasure.

  4. Alison

    Last week I inquired when would there be a "Barack eats Babies" post on ATW.

    The culture war is the GOP’s strongest card. Well, they can hardly highlight the economy, can they?

  5. Peter: Yes, the Democrats would like to frame this around a third Bush term. If the Iraq war was not going so well, ending the war would be the key issue. As a second choice, the Democrats choose the economy. But, the reality is that we do not really have a recession. Nor do we have high unemployment. There are no bread lines. Go to Vegas. Americans are rich.

    Not as rich as perhaps a few years ago before the housing bubble burst and everyone was flipping houses, but rich enough for most to have a flat screen TV and a car.

    Oil is a huge issue. But the Democrats lose on this issue because the environmentalist will not entertain drilling in many areas.

    And the culture wars driven by the CHristian right has taken a front seat now that Palin was nominated and the "base" is energized.

    I think there is a hidden reserve of libertarian sentiment (strong individual rights, small govt.) but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats tap into this.

    Obama is not pulling ahead because he turned away 18 million Hillary voters when he snubbed her as a VP pick. Also, his Messiah schtick peaked too soon.

    What I find puzzling is the lack of any global warming conversation. Wasn’t this a driving issue last year? Seriously. What happened?

  6. "Because it was unconstitutional."

    How?

    The same law that Obama voted against in the Illinois sennate was passed unanimously in the federal senate and no one seems to have found that unconstitutional.

  7. Okay. So abortion is an essential voter issue and you frame your election around this. Not what I read from some US commenters here a few weeks ago in some spat that went on in one of the posts over abortion and the Dems or something like that. So understandably each party stacks up on either side and you split your country and its politics along abortion and gender? I thought you wanted less government interference and actually voted for other issues like bang for your buck.

    Man oh man. You were totally right Peter. Hat tip. In which case the Democrats should slam the Republicans on their whopping great double standards, haul Sarah and Bristol Palin through the mire and clean up.

  8. Patty

    If the US economy is so strong then why isn’t McCain hammering Obama on it?

    The truth is that McCain-Palin will be a continuation of Bush-Cheney, but the GOP try to dress it up as a change.

    Foreign policy: More wars and more unilateralism.
    Economy: More tax cuts for the super-rich, like McCain himself.
    Health cover for the 40% with no cover: Nothing.
    Culture wars: Creationism in schools, and the end of Roe v Wade.

    So lots to look forward to.

  9. Ross,

    The bill was introduced several times in a form that was believed unconstitutional, and rejected. It also came with companion bills which you won’t often hear mentioned. It was clearly an anti-abortion effort from the outset.

    There is a good summary of the timeline of events here.

    But I’m sure that Obama can count on the support of the anti-infanticide folk for his healthcare plan which, according to independent analysis, will insure virtually all children in a country notable for its high infant mortality among first-world nations. Right?

    Or will those children simply be left to die?

  10. >>Go to Vegas. Americans are rich.<<

    Patty, what time do people start drinking in LA?

    >>Seriously. What happened?<<

    Maybe this, or
    this.

  11. Noel, or maybe the fact that both candidates have policies to address AGW happened.

    Although Palin does add some color by both claiming that she believes it isn’t, but might be, caused by man – and should be combated even if it isn’t.

    All said without blinking, mind you.

  12. Noel: hahah. not drinking. but I am in the kitchen.

    Alison: "I thought you wanted less government interference and actually voted for other issues like bang for your buck."

    That would be me, personally. I am libertarian, small "l," more than Republican, and while I abhor abortion, I don’t think the Federal Government has any business telling me, or anyone else, how to live. I can’t stand all of the political activism around social issues. (from either the left or the right) But I am only one person.

    I am reporting here the issues currently driving the election. Sadly, small government is not one of them.

  13. "There is a good summary of the timeline of events here."

    Ok, although it appears to suggest that Obama didn’t understand exactly what he was voting for or against because it was too ‘confusing’, which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

  14. Ross, or he knew fine well that it was just the usual pointless window dressing and disingenuous attack by the pro-life.

    Again, if these people want to save children’s lives, why then do so many of them so strongly object to insuring virtually every one of them in the USA? They’re all about legislating medical care for children, right?

  15. Frank, parents without financial means can enroll their children in the S-Chips program or Medicaid (or both) if they want medical coverage. Poor people here do have access to to socialized medicine if they bother to enroll.

  16. So there’s nothing needs fixing with healthcare USA-style then, eh Daphne?

    Any problems are down to the fecklessenss of the poor.

    Sorted!

  17. Daphne,

    "Frank, parents without financial means can enroll their children in the S-Chips program or Medicaid (or both) if they want medical coverage. Poor people here do have access to to socialized medicine if they bother to enroll."

    Ah so not favoring a particular approach to ensuring care for children isn’t the same as infanticide then? That’s what I thought.

    So then we have our answer. Does Barack Obama support infanticide – no.

  18. Actually, Barack Obama does support Infanticide.

    McCain doesn’t. He may support Proletariaticide [I probably made that word up] but not Infanticide.

  19. Frank, pretty sure that the word Infanticide has been kicking around for a while now. Probably been there since even before I was an infant.

  20. I couldn’t give a rat’s what Obama or McCain’s position is on abortion.

    Their opinions are not going to change abortion law in this country – it’s a non-issue swung wildly about as an emotional trigger by both left and right to use as a battering ram and to stir up single issue voters.

  21. Seamus

    Infanticide means the murder of a young child. It is an illegal act. It is an act with malicious intent.A serious criminal offence. Claiming that Obama is a supporter of Infanticide is a smear and a lie, and I guess that is what Frank meant by ‘made up’

  22. "Their opinions are not going to change abortion law in this country – it’s a non-issue swung wildly about as an emotional trigger by both left and right to use as a battering ram and to stir up single issue voters."

    Not entirelly true. America’s Abortion policy is decided by 9 unelected Judges, rather than the people of the United States. Those 9 Judges are nominated by the President. The President can appoint Judges who will reinforce or overturn Roe vs Wade, with I think the current composition of the Court being 5/4 in Favour. If one Pro Choice Judge retires and is replaced by a Pro Lifer then the Supreme Court would have a Pro Life majority and could, in theory, overturn Roe vs Wade.

  23. "Infanticide means the murder of a young child. It is an illegal act."

    That is a matter of opinion. It starts firstly with the idea of when childhood or Infancy begins. Children that are viable and could live outside the womb, for example, those after 22 weeks, can still be aborted in some cases in the United States. In some people opinion this is Infanticide. This is without getting into the whole debate about Life from Conception.

    Also, Obama blocked granting rights to Children born during failed Abortions. In my opinion that is tandamont to Infanticide.

  24. >>In some people opinion this is Infanticide.<<

    And in some people’s opinion killing ants is murder.

    Infanticide is a legal term, and the law defines what it is, and accordingly whether Obama is guilty of it or not.

  25. "Infanticide is a legal term, and the law defines what it is, and accordingly whether Obama is guilty of it or not."

    Infanticide is simply a term, similar to Genocide. I can’t think of many countries in the world that have laws defining Genocide but we still use the term.

    I say it now that Obama has broken no law. That doesn’t mean that he isn’t in favour of Infanticide.

    For example, many Irish people occuse the British of Genocide due to their practices of stealing Irish food during the Gorta Mór. But they broke no laws in doing so.

  26. Seamus, I think I know how my country works. A conservative weighted court won’t overturn a woman’s right to bodily privacy. If by some odd miracle they did, it would just go back to the states and they aren’t going to criminalize abortions.

    Abortion is only an issue for those stupid enough to think it is an actual political issue.

  27. "I say it now that Obama has broken no law. That doesn’t mean that he isn’t in favour of Infanticide."

    Nor does blocking a bill mean that he is. Just because you think that bill is the only way to oppose infanticide doesn’t mean it is, or even a particularly good way.

    As I said, anyone can equally say that those who fail to support Obama’s healthcare plan are in favor of letting children die. Doesn’t mean they are.

  28. "Seamus, I think I know how my country works. A conservative weighted court won’t overturn a woman’s right to bodily privacy. If by some odd miracle they did, it would just go back to the states and they aren’t going to criminalize abortions."

    There is a line in the Constitution of the United States that goes "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". If that court were to consider the Child an alive human beign with human rights then they would be able to overturn Roe Vs Wade without just sending it back to the States.

    I also feel that if it was a State matter then many States, probably a majority of States, would legislate against it. Remember that previous to Roe vs Wade that only 5 States allowed Abortion on Demand and 31 States opposed Abortion all together.

  29. Seamus,

    "There is a line in the Constitution of the United States that goes "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law""

    Which has no bearing on abortion since even if a fetus were a person, the state doesn’t require anyone to have one, with or without due process.

    There is also line that goes "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

  30. And that is why Frank that it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret the US Constitution. If they apply "life, liberty, or property" bit then they can illegalize abortion while if they take your interpretation of "slavery" then they can legalize it. I was just relaying to Daphne how a Supreme Court could overturn Roe vs Wade if they so wanted to.

  31. Seamus,

    "If they apply "life, liberty, or property" bit then they can illegalize abortion "

    Do you see the word ‘State’ there? How many abortions has the State had?

  32. But if the Supreme Court deems the child to be an alive human with human rights then the State would be depriving a person of life, without due process of law if they allowed Abortion. By allowing Abortions and legislating favourably for them then the State is getting itself involved in the Abortion process and is thus partially responsible and thus the Constitution could, theoritically, take effect.

  33. Seamus,

    "But if the Supreme Court deems the child to be an alive human with human rights then the State would be depriving a person of life, without due process of law if they allowed Abortion."

    No they wouldn’t. The State would only be depriving a person of life if they required abortion – which your interpretation would also open the door to, by the way. The state that can ban abortion can mandate it.

    What you’re looking for is the equal protection clause, however note that it also applies to women – who are entitled to protection from involuntary servitude, and to religious freedom.

  34. Nothing in this about either Religion or Servitude. If a country considers a child to be a human being with human rights, any attempt to kill that child will be illegal.

  35. Seamus, I seriously doubt the court would ever touch that hot potato, and if they did I believe they would continue to rule that a woman’s rights would supercede any child in utero.

    Remember that previous to Roe vs Wade that only 5 States allowed Abortion on Demand and 31 States opposed Abortion all together.

    That was a long time ago Seamus, times and minds have changed since then, the majority of Americans (even those like me who don’t like abortion) do not want abortion outlawed. Limited in scope of how late you can perform one, sure, but not criminalized or banned. It just won’t happen.

Comments are closed.