Obama opposed the Born Alive Infant's Protection Act, requiring medical care 4 infants surviving abortions?

Obviously Obama is pro-abortion. Not "pro-choice."

Really there is no such thing as "pro-choice." For the unborn baby being murdered has no choice in the matter of life or death.

This issue has been deliberately distorted by the pro-abortion crowd, and many people have been brainwashed into seeing it a matter of what a woman does with her own body. But it's THE BABY'S body we are actually talking about.

You also have to keep in mind that the ABORTION BUSINESS is very lucrative for the abortionists. Planned Parenthood, for example, reported an income of OVER A BILLION DOLLARS last year from it.

And Obama's campaign has been funded in part by the abortionists.

So it should be no surprise that he serves their interests.

I am not an Obama supporter (I usually vote independent or third party) but there is more to the story than that. Here is a cut & paste from another conversation:

REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS

Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should "Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion." The Chicago Tribune reported, "'For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when 'there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,' an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes 'it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.' And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique 'most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus' and perform the abortion in the presence of 'a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.'" [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]

Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6

nini has the answer. Sometimes you hear things that aren't the whole truth and it sounds horrible that way. These are how rumors start.

I don't know and I really don't think this should be under a pregnancy and parenting section, Put it under Debates of political opinions.

'why did obama oppose giving babies medical care after surviving an abortion attempt?'

That's a pretty strong charge. Care to back it up? Could you spell out a little bit how you arrived at that conclusion? You don't give any reasoning or evidence, and it sounds pretty phony.

Considering that such protection is granted by federal law, including during the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, which Obama pointed out as part of his explanation of his voting record, your conclusion seems even more tenuous.

In fact, the need to protect babies after they're born with legislation itself seems phony. (see more below) Are you sure this whole thing isn't a right-wing gullibility test for the rest of us?

As Obama said at Saddleback Church (transcript here:http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/ ) his being pro-choice doesn't mean he's pro-abortion. Obama wants to reduce the abortion rate, just like the rest of us. He's just unwilling to take his anti-abortion stance so far as to make illegal a woman's choice in the matter, including in cases of rape, incest, or even the endangerment of the life of the mother.

This doesn't really seem to jive with your claim at all, making your claim increasingly extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence you're providing is less than extraordinary.

As for the actual need of such legislation (setting aside that the baby-protection part was already redundant), the perception of a need was triggered by a nurse called Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. The Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims, because what she was alleging were violations of existing law, supporting Obama's position that Illinois law already prohibited the conduct. Illegalities aside, Ryan was naturally quite concerned that such heinous activity could be going on in a hospital, as any sentient human being would. But as one might expect, the story that was so heinous that it couldn't be true, in fact was not true. The investigation concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone." Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that her testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance her anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations. Nevertheless, not too credible, huh?

Jill Staneck also says domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions. She also supports billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili, written next to a large skeleton, to discourage condom use. She claims that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China, to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening."

So why was the legislation put forth in the first place, given that the baby-protection part was redundant? The act was designed as "wedge" legislation. It was designed for just for the sort of attack that the journalist you link is making. When a bill-authoring group does this, they put in one horrible provision (the "infanticide" part of the bill) and package it with a bunch of other provisions that assault a woman's right to choose. Then, when someone votes against the bill to protect that right, they say the vote was over the "infanticide."

Articles that spin such legislation as infanticide are little more than gullibility tests, and I'm afraid you flunked it. Didn't this story seem a little implausible to you from the start?

Furthermore, this story has been debunked dozens of times in Yahoo Answers, so you really don't have an excuse for reposting it here.

If you want to attack Obama for not making abortions illegal, then OK, fine. If you want to scold him for not doing enough to combat the impulsiveness and short-sightedness that leads to so many abortions and an STD rate among teens of 25%, then OK, fine (though I give a link below contradicting this). But passing on stuff that's just made up is a bit much. Trying to keep others from breaking Commandment 6 doesn't give you permission to break Commandment 9.

Furthermore, McCain is hardly one-sided on this matter. McCain's saying to great applause at Saddleback that life begins at conception (actually it begins before conception; sperm and egg cells are respiring cells) of course doesn't reconcile with his support of embryonic stem cell research. When he reminded the church audience of his position, he was met with -- crickets.

But back to the exceptions: note also that prohibiting abortion even in cases of rape, incest, of even the endangerment of the life of the mother has been in the GOP platform since at least 2000. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that last prohibition dictates that, when both lives are in danger, the fetus's has primacy over the mother's? I find this hard to believe. Even parity seems a bit much.

McCain scolded Bush in a 2000 debate for not knowing that the GOP platform did not make exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_Yszait8kc

In '07, McCain exhibited the same hostility to the platform. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/04/mc... But in the past few days McCain has backed off his intent to change the platform language, just as the abortion attacks on Obama heated up.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/mc...

Mere coincidence? Just really, really good timing?

what does this have to do wit us

politicians are boneheads...