Obama Says It Is Not True That He Would Deny Medical Attention To An Aborted Infant Who Was Born Alive
Do you remember how convincingly he said that at the last debate?
His comments went something like this: If it sounds unbelievable that I would vote to deny medical attention for an infant born alive during an abortion procedure… that’s because it is not true. You can look up the exact quote; I’m working from memory, but I’m pretty close. He was so convincing. I think that the only time he is not lying is when his lips are closed, but I felt the pull to believe him as he spoke.
So, go to the link and listen to him saying this:
“I suspect that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations, and that essentially adding an additional doctor, who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments, is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”
Since most of our readers are not Typical Obama Supporters, I probably don’t need to explain this, but I’ll just do it anyway. He didn’t want a second physician called into the room because he didn’t want to “burden” the original decision of the woman and her doctor to terminate the pregnancy. In other words, don’t ask, don’t tell. Don’t interfere with the decision to take the baby’s life, even if the baby is born alive. What remains unsaid is the wink and nod given to euthanizing the infant, but it is more than clear in the subtext.
- Aggie
Carol said,
October 21, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
He is just a sickening human being. I don’t know anything else to say about him.
I wonder how long it would take under ObamaCare before the government adopted the view of that horrid bureaucrat in England that demented old people had an obligation to the state to die because they were just using up resources.
AP said,
October 21, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
Obama’s view on abortion are extreme even for pro-choice people.
First off, I’m pro-choice. However, I’m still voting for McCain. I believe in a woman’s right to choose, but there are limits, and Obama has crossed way beyond those limits. My understanding is that late term abortions are performed by inducing labor which often results in the fetus being killed in the process. There are times when this does not occur and a baby is born alive (I’m pro-choice, but come on, it is a baby once it’s born). At Christ Hospital in suburban Chicago (I live in the Chicago area), babies were being born by this late term abortion process - often times just being put in a soiled linen bin and left to die. This obviously created outrage so bills were introduced at both the state and federal levels. At the federal level, the born alive protection act was passed unanimously that a baby born alive should be give protection and care. To say this bill was uncontroversial is an understatement. Every single vote cast was “yes” (including Senators Boxer, Feinstein, Durban).
In the Illinois Senate, a nurse testified in front of Obama of what was happening - that babies were being left to die in the garbage can. And, the same bill (not a similar bill with some of the same language - but the identical language to the federal bill) was brought before Obama’s state senate subcommittee. Obama was the only person (the only person!!!) who spoke against the bill. As you say, he was concerned that it would be too much of a burden imposed on abortion care providers to take care of a baby if it was born. So, the bill died in the state senate subcommittee.
Again, I’m pro-choice - but faced with the option of McCain (and his pro-life stance) and Obama (with his refusal to take care of a baby once it’s born), I choose McCain.
Bloodthirsty Liberal said,
October 21, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
AP,
I’m with you. To be honest, I’m a helluva lot less pro-choice than I was when I was younger, because of certain life experiences, but this is one issue where I’m still sort of on the Left. However, infanticide is beyond the pale.
- Aggie
AP said,
October 21, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
I don’t come to this decision lightly. Like you, I have been pro-choice my entire adult life, though less inflexibly so than in my youth.
With a McCain Presidency and a solidly Democrat Congress, I believe (hope) that McCain nominates Supreme Court Justices that do not overturn Roe (perhaps further limit Roe, but not overturn it). Still, forced to choose between an Obama Presidency with Roe in tact and a McCain Presidency with Roe threatened, I must choose McCain.
Bloodthirsty Liberal said,
October 21, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
I don’t think that there’s much chance that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. They say that every election cycle to scare people. But I’m with you; McCain is a much better choice for President than Obama. I just hope that America agrees with us.
- Aggie
Carol said,
October 21, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
There’s nothing scary about Roe v. Wade being overturned. All that would do is devolve the question of abortion back to the states where it belongs. Washington, for example, has enshrined a right to abortion in the state constitution. If a “right” to abortion is that important to you, then move to a state where it is legal. If you find it appalling and immoral, then you move to a state where it is illegal. This is what one of the main concepts of this country was supposed to have been about: federalism.
Anyone who claims that Roe v. Wade is “under attack” is generally a liar and, worse, a fool who knows nothing about her own country.
KHO said,
October 22, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Why do women want to kill children before they are born?
Carol said,
October 22, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
I never seem to meet a woman who wants to kill HER baby. I just meet women who think it is just peachy keen for other women to kill their own babies if they want to. I don’t get that. If it’s yours, it’s a baby; if it’s someone else’s, it’s a fetus or a clump of cells.
The Chronicler said,
October 30, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
Not so.
If you look at the Senate transcript which is PRINTED at the URL I will post here, you can see that this entire blog article here at “bloodthirstyliberal” is taken completely out of context, which isn’t at all surprising for a site like “bloodthirstyliberal.com” (hell, even the URL for this site is out of context. Maybe this should be outofcontext.com)
Anyway, here is the PRINTED transcript of what Obama was actually saying (just scroll a little past the audio links):
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/baipaobamamp3.html
P.S., I know many of you will not possess the reading comprehension that is required in order to accurately interpret the transcript; maybe it wouldn’t hurt such individuals to do a little research on the matter of obtaining a sufficient reading comprehension ability.