HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 19, 2007 16:02:26 GMT -5
Illinois State Senate: 2001, 2002, BAIPA Act Sen. Obama votes against. As Chairman he refuses to bring Act out of committee. See if he denies it. OK Elvado, I'll be sure to ask him next time I see him.... Anyways, I did a simple search and found an explanation (not going to say it is an impartial one, but hey, I offered up a chance for someone else to post the article and didn't get one) from the Chicago Tribune written around the time that Allen Keyes tried to discredit Obama with this same charge. There is even a link to the bill text in the blog.(GASP! the bill had text besides "a bill to save babies from being killed!") blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2004/08/index.html(to find the part on this act, hit ctrl-F and type in 'BAIPA') Decide yourself if Obama is guilty of "infanticide".
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 19, 2007 16:14:06 GMT -5
I already have, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 19, 2007 16:16:53 GMT -5
tinyurl.com/3xd5svThis is the link to the legislation as Barrack Obama would have voted on it (i.e. how it was placed on the calendar of the US Senate). What the law is actually doing is changing the Chapter 1 of Title 1 of US Code. This section of the Code is about the interpretation of the code itself. This section changes the definitions of the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" to include in them fetuses that have either a) a heat beat, b) some movement of voluntary muscles, c) some pulsation of the umbilical cord and is extracted from the mother through an induced abortion. This would allow criminal charges to be brought against women who have abortions and doctors performing abortions so long as one of these tests are met. Since the law is a pretty wide-sweeping attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade - which has a constitutional underpinning in the 14th amendment - its probably a) unconstitutional and b) not surprising at all that Obama voted against it. The rule has nothing to do with infanticide, it has everything to do with abortion and the continuing denate in this country following Roe.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 19, 2007 16:20:26 GMT -5
Actually, he voted against numerous times in its Illinois incarnation as State legislation as well.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 19, 2007 16:26:17 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 19, 2007 16:28:52 GMT -5
I've read the article and you may parse this one all you like. Babies born alive were left to die and he was okay with that. He can take that to his grave when he meets his maker. What you, I or anyone else thinks of that one is immaterial, and he is immoral.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 19, 2007 16:39:57 GMT -5
I've read the article and you may parse this one all you like. Babies born alive were left to die and he was okay with that. He can take that to his grave when he meets his maker. What you, I or anyone else thinks of that one is immaterial, and he is immoral. Wow... you say what you think is immaterial and then in the same breath you call him immoral.... Anyways, the point of the article is that abortions don't result in a live child being born and if they did, the baby would be protected anyway. Late term abortions are only allowed in cases that the mother's health is in jeopardy or if the baby was conceived due to rape. If in this rare case, a doctor has to make the difficult decision to abort the child and it is "born alive", then the doctor might be in legal jeopardy if the baby dies soon after despite medical efforts to save it since the state law attaches that definition of personhood to an aborted fetus.
|
|
|
Post by hilltopper2000 on Jan 19, 2007 16:40:18 GMT -5
Uh, I'm pretty sure infanticide, i.e., murder, is illegal in Illinois. Why in the heck would you pass a second law outlawing something that is already illegal? (Hint: Because a right-wing activist judge somewhere might interpret it as limiting a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.) As a follow-up question, can anyone identify the sucessful employment of Roe as an affirmative defense to a murder charge? This is almost as silly as the grammar school debate. At the end of the day, the whole partial birth debate is all about tough cases making bad law.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 19, 2007 16:42:49 GMT -5
Keep defending the indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 19, 2007 16:46:12 GMT -5
I've read the article and you may parse this one all you like. Babies born alive were left to die and he was okay with that. He can take that to his grave when he meets his maker. What you, I or anyone else thinks of that one is immaterial, and he is immoral. Again, if you read the text of the bill and the relevant Federal Code sections its meant to change its not about that at all - its about jamming an interpretation of a word into the state and federal code to significantly role back Roe v. Wade - which probably won't happen because the Roe decision is based on the 14th Amendment. In addition, the bill in Illinois had the same intent - to change the meaning of words signifying personhood to include fetuses that are extracted from a woman via induced abortion. This would give legal recourse via criminal and civil law against the doctor and mother for the abortion. This is still not about infanticide. When you read a bill you need to read more than its title. You also might want to check sources other than Alan Keyes, like maybe the actual text of the bill itself. Like I said people can have differing opinions on the social implications of the law and of policies impacting the availability of abortion but this bill in no way dealt with infanticide.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 19, 2007 17:05:28 GMT -5
Keep defending the indefensible. Awww.... and here I thought my views were immaterial.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 19, 2007 17:25:00 GMT -5
Keep defending the indefensible. I'll leave that to you.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 19, 2007 18:22:35 GMT -5
see you in hell...
|
|
nychoya3
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,674
|
Post by nychoya3 on Jan 19, 2007 19:09:49 GMT -5
Checkmate.
Seriously, they can't fix the ignore function quick enough for me.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Jan 19, 2007 23:01:13 GMT -5
On the Edwards thing - my problem isn't that he was a trial lawyer. Whatever your opinion of lawyers the guy was helping families get the medical expenses they needed to care for their children (in many cases as he handled a large number of pool drain injury cases). I wouldn't call it a windfall that the tort system sees fit to compensate disembowled children for their years of lost productivity. Maybe the ends justified the means in some of those pool drain cases, but that was only part of his resume. He made a good chunk of his money on Cerebral Palsy cases, using junk science, emotional pleas and his excellent courtroom skills to win cases against doctors who were not at fault. Slimeball. Here's a good article on the issue; sure it is biased, but I am biased myself : tinyurl.com/3479n2
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 20, 2007 9:07:41 GMT -5
On the Edwards thing - my problem isn't that he was a trial lawyer. Whatever your opinion of lawyers the guy was helping families get the medical expenses they needed to care for their children (in many cases as he handled a large number of pool drain injury cases). I wouldn't call it a windfall that the tort system sees fit to compensate disembowled children for their years of lost productivity. Maybe the ends justified the means in some of those pool drain cases, but that was only part of his resume. He made a good chunk of his money on Cerebral Palsy cases, using junk science, emotional pleas and his excellent courtroom skills to win cases against doctors who were not at fault. Slimeball. Here's a good article on the issue; sure it is biased, but I am biased myself : tinyurl.com/3479n2My response would be the following. Even if I concede that the tort system with its lower burden of persuasion allows juries to find for plaintiffs more often on less evidence than those of us who've grown up watching Law & Order and the OJ trial are used to, its still an important way of compensating victims who might not otherwise have criminal remedies for their suffering. You can't just throw the baby out with the bath water. To clarify here is my past voting record in Presidential Elections and primaries: Oklahoma Democratic Primary (yeah, I'm surprised there are enough Dems in OK to vote in it too): Wesley Clark 2004 Presidential Election: Kerry (while looking away from the ballot and holding my nose) I didn't really intend to vote for Edwards either time because I personally dislike him - not because he's a good trial lawyer but because he uses poor people because it is politically expedient to do so.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 20, 2007 11:32:40 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, SPH, why Clark? Any thoughts on whether he'll get in the 2008 race?
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 20, 2007 13:17:09 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, SPH, why Clark? Any thoughts on whether he'll get in the 2008 race? It was a protest vote. Dean was unelectable by the general public. I don't like Edwards. I knew Kerry would probably win the nomination but probably wouldn't win the White House because he was the only candidate that was more wooden than Al Gore was in 2000. I could have voted for Kusinich but then that would just be throwing my vote away. For the record, I amazingly picked the winner of the Oklahoma primary.
|
|
HealyHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Victory!!!
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by HealyHoya on Jan 21, 2007 12:00:51 GMT -5
I've read the article and you may parse this one all you like. Babies born alive were left to die and he was okay with that. He can take that to his grave when he meets his maker. What you, I or anyone else thinks of that one is immaterial, and he is immoral. Again, if you read the text of the bill and the relevant Federal Code sections its meant to change its not about that at all - its about jamming an interpretation of a word into the state and federal code to significantly role back Roe v. Wade - which probably won't happen because the Roe decision is based on the 14th Amendment. In addition, the bill in Illinois had the same intent - to change the meaning of words signifying personhood to include fetuses that are extracted from a woman via induced abortion. This would give legal recourse via criminal and civil law against the doctor and mother for the abortion. This is still not about infanticide. When you read a bill you need to read more than its title. You also might want to check sources other than Alan Keyes, like maybe the actual text of the bill itself. Like I said people can have differing opinions on the social implications of the law and of policies impacting the availability of abortion but this bill in no way dealt with infanticide. Read the text of the bill? Federal Code? 14th Amendment? Constitution? Meh...just read the Bible. It's all in the Bible. That's "Hussein" Obama's problem...he's only read that Koran thing while he was attending that terrorist elementary school. Just read the Bible. The Bible tells you how to vote.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 21, 2007 17:34:45 GMT -5
Again, if you read the text of the bill and the relevant Federal Code sections its meant to change its not about that at all - its about jamming an interpretation of a word into the state and federal code to significantly role back Roe v. Wade - which probably won't happen because the Roe decision is based on the 14th Amendment. In addition, the bill in Illinois had the same intent - to change the meaning of words signifying personhood to include fetuses that are extracted from a woman via induced abortion. This would give legal recourse via criminal and civil law against the doctor and mother for the abortion. This is still not about infanticide. When you read a bill you need to read more than its title. You also might want to check sources other than Alan Keyes, like maybe the actual text of the bill itself. Like I said people can have differing opinions on the social implications of the law and of policies impacting the availability of abortion but this bill in no way dealt with infanticide. Read the text of the bill? Federal Code? 14th Amendment? Constitution? Meh...just read the Bible. It's all in the Bible. That's "Hussein" Obama's problem...he's only read that Koran thing while he was attending that terrorist elementary school. Just read the Bible. The Bible tells you how to vote. Perhaps I missed the part about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's.
|
|