The Issue of Abortion

Voltaire said:
Republicans passed (and Bush signed) a ban on partial birth abortion, which, although rare, is a gruesome practice that shouldn't have taken so long to outlaw. That was a positive move by Republicans. That's a pretty common sense issue, though. While Americans are divided on 1st trimester abortion, virtually all Americans agree late term abortions should be illegal.
Click to expand...

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/breaking_news_n_1.html

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So ohiodem... there's the reason you see anti-abortion protesters around Obama. He actually supports infanticide. Beyond 'partial birth' ...beyond 3rd trimester... but outright killing a baby that is born by accident during an abortion procedure! His first executive order as president, was to overturn a rule prohibiting federal funding for international 'family planning' clinics who promote abortion.

While it is true, no American president has the authority to overturn Roe v. Wade, they can most certainly shape policy encouraging more abortion, and more extreme practices of abortion. To attempt to hold Republicans responsible for not overturning a Supreme Court ruling, while accepting the heinous and deplorable practice of partial birth abortion and infanticide being actively promoted and endorsed by the Democrat, is intellectually dishonest at best.
 
Technically, there's nothing stopping Congress and/or the President from ignoring Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to enforce the ruling nor are they the final word on what is Constitutional and what is not. They claimed this authority for themselves in Marbury v. Madison and everyone has gone along with it since.
 
Dixie said:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/breaking_news_n_1.html

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So ohiodem... there's the reason you see anti-abortion protesters around Obama. He actually supports infanticide. Beyond 'partial birth' ...beyond 3rd trimester... but outright killing a baby that is born by accident during an abortion procedure! His first executive order as president, was to overturn a rule prohibiting federal funding for international 'family planning' clinics who promote abortion.

While it is true, no American president has the authority to overturn Roe v. Wade, they can most certainly shape policy encouraging more abortion, and more extreme practices of abortion. To attempt to hold Republicans responsible for not overturning a Supreme Court ruling, while accepting the heinous and deplorable practice of partial birth abortion and infanticide being actively promoted and endorsed by the Democrat, is intellectually dishonest at best.
Click to expand...

Dixie, again you prove you are brainwashed and a liar. This whole issue in Ill. was brought up during the election. The Ill. law was crafted by right wing Republicans to undermine Roe v. Wade.

And you post from Jill Stanek who defended the murder of Dr. George Tiller and said Scott Roeder, who murdered Dr. George Tiller did not get his "fair day in court".

Every day Dixie, you prove more and more that you have much in common with Nazi Germany.
 
ohiodem said:
It's been eating at me since the end of October when I went to President Obama's Columbus Ohio rally and saw the protesters outside. A nice looking group, all very clean and well groomed holding signs that read "Obama's Choice" with pictures of aborted babies on them in full color.

What I haven't been able to shake is that the Republican party controlled the White House for eight years and did nothing to prevent or legislate abortion. The Republican party controlled both houses of congress from 2002 to 2006 and yet nothing was done to prevent or legislate abortion. With all of that they never did to prevent or legislate abortion there was never anyone at Bush rallies with similar signs.

Now I understand the gag rule that goes in place when Republicans go into office and gets lifted when a Democrat takes their place but this does nothing to stop or reduce abortions in this country. It's more of a symbol than a regulation.

All of that said, I am pretty pro-life. I would like to see heavy restriction placed on it and a better job of letting young mothers know what their options are. But seeing this made it even clearer to me that Republican politicians aren't interested in solving the issue, they are interested only in growing the issue to further wedge voters. It pretty well offends me as democrat but also as a catholic that there is such udder pandering going on and that it works.
Click to expand...
What you see, it seems, is what the DNC wants you to see.

It also seems you forget the huge controversy that erupted from pro-abortionists when the Bush administration pushed through legislation governing so-called partial birth abortions. You conveniently forget that it was the Republicans who fought for a ban on the use of federal funding for abortions, as well as a ban on use of federal funds for using new strains for embryonic stem cell research.

Actually, in the past decade or so, considering the overall political environment saying it is just Okee Dokee to kill children just because the law does not recognize their humanity, the progress made by republicans in adding regulation to an act, heinous though it may be, that is guaranteed by SCOTUS's interpretation of constitutional rights, has been more than many recognize, or in the case of those wanting to paint the republicans as evil, want to admit to.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....the genesis of abortion as a political issue?......actually is was sort of a Big Bang......Roe v Wade happened and it was a political issue......{by the way, the rest of your post?.....one of the dumbest ideas I have ever read}
Click to expand...

Across most of America in the early twentieth century abortion was illegal after quickening, but in the early ‘60s many states, including some that may seem surprising like Mississippi and South Carolina, began to loosen their laws on the subject. The political divide over abortion was not as clear at the time. In 1967, Ronald Reagan as Governor of California signed into law one of the country’s most liberal abortion laws. Barry Goldwater, the Republican Party’s candidate for President in 1964 and the godfather of the modern conservative movement was passionately pro-choice. Republicans in New York legalized abortion in that state.

Many Democrats from traditionally Catholic areas were opposed to abortion rights while many of its supporters were Republicans. Early opposition to the expansion of abortion rights rose largely from within the Catholic community. Catholics had well organized political groups which had been active in the long, failed, post-war battle to preserve bans on contraceptives. When the Supreme Court struck down most states’ abortion laws in 1973, they were already well mobilized. The National Right to Life Committee was formed within months of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Protestant groups were slow to warm to the pro-life movement. Mainline denominations remain mostly pro-choice to this day. Even the Southern Baptist Church advocated for legal abortion in some circumstances as late as the mid-70’s. It was the rise of fundamentalism among Protestants and an opportunistic alliance in 1980 between the Reagan campaign and the Moral Majority that turned abortion into a political issue of broad national interest.

Abortion and the GOP: A Little History
by Chris Ladd a moderate Republican
 
Bfoon said:
Dixie, again you prove you are brainwashed and a liar. This whole issue in Ill. was brought up during the election. The Ill. law was crafted by right wing Republicans to undermine Roe v. Wade.

And you post from Jill Stanek who defended the murder of Dr. George Tiller and said Scott Roeder, who murdered Dr. George Tiller did not get his "fair day in court".

Every day Dixie, you prove more and more that you have much in common with Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...


YaYaYa... I know, it's all rightwing spin from the masters who give us marching orders, and all the people involved are lying hacks with an agenda, and we can't believe a word they say because Fox News controls them....

This is all a matter of public record, and anyone is free to go check it out, if they are concerned with the legitimacy of the charges. But honestly, if you think Obama doesn't favor abortion, or isn't a staunch pro-choice advocate, something is wrong with you mentally anyway.
 
Voltaire said:
Technically, there's nothing stopping Congress and/or the President from ignoring Roe v. Wade, as the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to enforce the ruling nor are they the final word on what is Constitutional and what is not. They claimed this authority for themselves in Marbury v. Madison and everyone has gone along with it since.
Click to expand...

Well, they really don't have ultimate "authority" but they are the branch of government which decides Constitutionality, according to the separation of powers described in the Constitution. I happen to believe the Roe v. Wade ruling was one of the worst constitutional interpretations of all time... right up there with deeming black people as property. But the people actually have ultimate authority over the SCOTUS, through Congress, they can amend the Constitution, rendering any SCOTUS ruling obsolete. With abortion, I don't think they ever would, because too many people are not opposed, and it would be impossible to take this path. The best case scenario, would be a ruling by SCOTUS on the 10th Amendment rights of states to set their own laws pertaining to regulation of abortion practiced in their state, or a complete re-visiting of Roe by a future court.
 
Dixie said:
YaYaYa... I know, it's all rightwing spin from the masters who give us marching orders, and all the people involved are lying hacks with an agenda, and we can't believe a word they say because Fox News controls them....

This is all a matter of public record, and anyone is free to go check it out, if they are concerned with the legitimacy of the charges. But honestly, if you think Obama doesn't favor abortion, or isn't a staunch pro-choice advocate, something is wrong with you mentally anyway.
Click to expand...

The charges are bogus.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/is_obama_guilty_of_infanticide.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

I support a woman's right to decide what to do with her uterus and her life. I held that view before I even knew of Barack Obama.

If the right were truly concerned about reducing abortions, they would be big supporters of sex education and access to contraceptives.

But they're not interested in reducing abortions. They're interested in reducing women to second class citizens.
 
Bfgrn said:
The charges are bogus.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/is_obama_guilty_of_infanticide.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

I support a woman's right to decide what to do with her uterus and her life. I held that view before I even knew of Barack Obama.

If the right were truly concerned about reducing abortions, they would be big supporters of sex education and access to contraceptives.

But they're not interested in reducing abortions. They're interested in reducing women to second class citizens.
Click to expand...

The charges are not bogus, Obama signed an executive order as soon as he became president, authorizing federal money to fund clinics promoting abortions, including partial birth. His vote in IL is on record! He opposed the bill which mirrored the federal bill, prohibiting infanticide.... and has tapdanced around that ever since! Just because you can find a few Obama sycophants who claim otherwise, doesn't "prove" a damn thing, you fucking koolaid-drenched hack! The vote he cast is a matter of record... you can't run from the record!

You either support the practice of abortion on demand, or you don't! I personally think it is legalized murder. It's the willful taking of life... the most innocent of life we know of... and it's mostly for the sake of vanity and convenience, under the false premise that a woman has the inherent "right" to do this! It's absurd and insane, a woman shouldn't have the right to murder someone in cold blood, it doesn't matter what the circumstance is!
 
We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

This is from your OWN SOURCE you goofy fucking clown! How about reading your own goddamn sources BEFORE you come here and spread your lies and propaganda?
 
Dixie said:
We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

This is from your OWN SOURCE you goofy fucking clown! How about reading your own goddamn sources BEFORE you come here and spread your lies and propaganda?
Click to expand...

The lies and propaganda are that the President of the United States supports something as heinous as infanticide. Just how far from any semblance of reality are you willing to go Dixie? Can you get any lower?

The Illinois and federal bills differed not only in language, but regulatory impact. Critically, the Illinois version of the bill that Obama opposed was also bundled with other proposals that would have put doctors at risk of prosecution, which led the Illinois State Medical Society to oppose the measure along with Obama. The state bill also carried greater influence in terms of enforcement, since states had been granted greater leeway in regulating abortion practices ever since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

After Obama was already a US Senator, the 2005 version of the state bill, which passed, was a compromise bill free of any other measures Obama had previously opposed. Had he been there to vote for it, he may well have done so. Specifically addressing his onetime concern over the impact of a re-definition of what "born alive" could be interpreted to mean, the 2005 measure that passed after Obama left Springfield included three new clauses that read:

(c) Nothing in this Section 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.

(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion.

(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.

ref
 
Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

It's from your own source! It says it right there in black and white, both bills contain the same language. You are attempting to do what Obama has done all along, to distance himself from this, which is to claim the bill contained "other things" that he opposed, but the 2003 bill certainly didn't. As the source you provided states!
 
Bfgrn said:
Dixie, again you prove you are brainwashed and a liar. This whole issue in Ill. was brought up during the election. The Ill. law was crafted by right wing Republicans to undermine Roe v. Wade.

And you post from Jill Stanek who defended the murder of Dr. George Tiller and said Scott Roeder, who murdered Dr. George Tiller did not get his "fair day in court".

Every day Dixie, you prove more and more that you have much in common with Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

wtf are you talking about....are you denying the truth of Dixie's post?.....
 
Bfgrn said:
Across most of America in the early twentieth century abortion was illegal after quickening, but in the early ‘60s many states, including some that may seem surprising like Mississippi and South Carolina, began to loosen their laws on the subject. The political divide over abortion was not as clear at the time. In 1967, Ronald Reagan as Governor of California signed into law one of the country’s most liberal abortion laws. Barry Goldwater, the Republican Party’s candidate for President in 1964 and the godfather of the modern conservative movement was passionately pro-choice. Republicans in New York legalized abortion in that state.

Many Democrats from traditionally Catholic areas were opposed to abortion rights while many of its supporters were Republicans. Early opposition to the expansion of abortion rights rose largely from within the Catholic community. Catholics had well organized political groups which had been active in the long, failed, post-war battle to preserve bans on contraceptives. When the Supreme Court struck down most states’ abortion laws in 1973, they were already well mobilized. The National Right to Life Committee was formed within months of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Protestant groups were slow to warm to the pro-life movement. Mainline denominations remain mostly pro-choice to this day. Even the Southern Baptist Church advocated for legal abortion in some circumstances as late as the mid-70’s. It was the rise of fundamentalism among Protestants and an opportunistic alliance in 1980 between the Reagan campaign and the Moral Majority that turned abortion into a political issue of broad national interest.

Abortion and the GOP: A Little History
by Chris Ladd a moderate Republican
Click to expand...

why waste your time with such obvious revisionism.....what is the purpose behind lies like this?.......public anger existed the day after the decision was announced.....so what if it took a few years to organize that anger into a political reaction?........
 
Bfgrn said:
The charges are bogus.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/is_obama_guilty_of_infanticide.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

I support a woman's right to decide what to do with her uterus and her life. I held that view before I even knew of Barack Obama.

If the right were truly concerned about reducing abortions, they would be big supporters of sex education and access to contraceptives.

But they're not interested in reducing abortions. They're interested in reducing women to second class citizens.
Click to expand...

lol.....are you one of those who still believes anything from the Annenberg source (the same organization Obama used to work for) is really anything more than subsurface propoganda?......

Obama voted in favor of an Illinois law that would permit doctors and nurses to withhold medical attention to a living human infant delivered accidentally during an abortion......he did so, as he stated, because he believed it was an encroachment upon the right to abort.....

if you deny that you are a liar.....
 
Bfgrn said:
T Critically, the Illinois version of the bill that Obama opposed was also bundled with other proposals that would have put doctors at risk of prosecution
Click to expand...

can you give me a good reason why a doctor shouldn't be prosecuted for deliberately letting a human infant die by denying it medical care in violation of both federal and state law?....remember, the Illinois statute that Obama voted in favor of was written to exclude doctors and nurses from what the law already required of them.....you can pretend all you want that an unborn child isn't a human being, but that falls short when talking about a killing a child who has been born.......
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Not another goddamn abortion thread!!!!! :palm::palm::palm:
Click to expand...
LOL Forgive him. OhioDem is from my hometown of Wapakoneta in the rural west part of Ohio and there are only three political issues that count there. Abortion, gay marriage and gun control.

what do those have to do with running a large federal government in the best interest of a nation with 300 million people? Not much but it's what they care about in Wapak. LOL
 
It seems Mr. New Democrat has decided to pick up his ass and crawl under a rock somewhere...the thread got a little too hot for him....
Well, he needed the education in a big way so I hope he reads all the posts....
Maybe he'll get smart enough to ask himself, Why the fuck am I a Democrat anyway?
 
Dixie said:
Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

It's from your own source! It says it right there in black and white, both bills contain the same language. You are attempting to do what Obama has done all along, to distance himself from this, which is to claim the bill contained "other things" that he opposed, but the 2003 bill certainly didn't. As the source you provided states!
Click to expand...

Let's try to apply a little bit of common sense here. WHY would Illinois bother trying to pass a bill that contained identical clauses to the federal bill? If the federal law provided everything the authors intended in their bill, it would be redundant. The REASON IS Evangelical Christian Republicans were trying to write a bill that would add more traps and roadblocks to legal abortion procedures. Obama wasn't the only one who saw what the authors were trying to do. The Illinois State Medical Society oppose the measure along with Obama.
 
Bfgrn said:
Let's try to apply a little bit of common sense here. WHY would Illinois bother trying to pass a bill that contained identical clauses to the federal bill? If the federal law provided everything the authors intended in their bill, it would be redundant. The REASON IS Evangelical Christian Republicans were trying to write a bill that would add more traps and roadblocks to legal abortion procedures. Obama wasn't the only one who saw what the authors were trying to do. The Illinois State Medical Society oppose the measure along with Obama.
Click to expand...
The reason may have something to do with enforcing Federal Law at the State level...when AZ tried to enforce Federal immigration law they were sued by the Feds as interfering with what is the feds business....

If the States pass a law that is identical to the Federal Law, they can then enforce, what is then STATE LAW, and the Feds can STFU.....


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...fanticide.html

Factcheck has and interesting take on the issue....they do a little rambling in an attempt to confuse the reader, but when its all said and done....their explanation doesn't seem to come down on Obama's side...
He changing his statements often and with just enough bullshit thrown in to muddy the waters....it sounds to me like hes just a plain and simple liar on the issue, desperately trying to appease the far left and organizations like NOW....
Makes sense to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top