President Obama

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Feb 28 2007, 07:58 PM) [snapback]398120[/snapback]</div>

No. The law, I quoted earlier, was passed in 2005. You're flogging a non-issue. Since when do laws require some attachment regarding medicare? I find that assertion baffling. The federal law makes no mention of medicare, see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-2175 . As Obama stated, he would have voted for a law like the federal one. That's what eventually passed in Illinois in 2005, after the language changes I highlighted earlier. The most recent text in the links you provide are from 2002, with most it being from 2001, i.e., SPRINGFIELD, IL, March 27, 2001, the date of the entire excerpt you quote about the "comfort room" through all the "it is wrong thats."

5/18/2005 House Passed Both Houses
6/16/2005 House Sent to the Governor
8/12/2005 House Governor Approved
8/12/2005 House Effective Date January 1, 2006
8/12/2005 House Public Act . . . . . . . . . 94-0559

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus...ID=50&GA=94

EDIT: from the same website you quote the old info from http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/ActionNeededArchive.htm
Pro-Life bills introduced in Illinois' 94th General Assembly in 2005:
HB 984 Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Status: HB 984 was signed into law by Governor Blagojevich on August 12, 2005.
HB 984 was passed 52-0 (with 4 abstentions) on 5/18/05 in the Illinois Senate. HB 984 passed 116-0 in the Illinois House on 4/12/05. HB 984 was amended during a March 9, 2005 hearing in the Illinois House Judiciary I - Civil Law Committee. The amended version was passed 14-0. The amendment added two provisions:
(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.
Once it becomes law, this bill guarantees that all newborn babies will be granted the full rights and protections of the law from the moment of birth. HB 984 uses the exact wording from the Federal legislation signed into law by President Bush in 2003, but with the addition of the two provisions mentioned above. For more details, review the responses to frequently asked questions.
This bill is intended to address situations like the one at Oak Lawn’s Christ Hospital, where infants born alive as the result of late-term induced-labor abortions were denied any sort of medical care and were set aside in a soiled linen closet until they died. Illinois’ own Jill Stanek, a former obstetrics nurse at Christ Hospital brought national attention to that cruel and heartless practice as she testified in support of the Federal Born Alive law.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 27 2007, 07:28 AM) [snapback]397180[/snapback]</div>

Come on, Karl. There's no difference between the parties. Both are made up of politicians who are egotistical, self-centered, and power-hungry. Once in a while an honest person comes along, with a new and fresh view. And if that person is intelligent into the bargain, she/he is a rare opportunity for the community.

Barak Obama is a bridge-builder and a fence-mender. He carries no hatred over the past, but looks towards the future. He works with the Republicans to find solutions both sides can live with, rather than hurling insults or looking for ways to cut out the other side.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 1 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]398371[/snapback]</div>

Daniel, he CHOSE to be a Dem rather than a Repub...there must have been a reason. I stand by my assertion. He BELIEVES in the Dem platform. His IDEALS are toward secular humanism in gov't, abortion on demand, socialistic policies, gov't knows better than the individual, ANYTHING goes between consenting parties, lying is only bad if you get caught and lying about personal immorality is to be worshipped...yada, yada.

I would rather see a repub full of idealism be corrupted by Washington than a dem who is going to Washington for the PURPOSE of corrupting.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Mar 1 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]398413[/snapback]</div>

Is there no downside to him?

It's time to play... SPOT THE CONTRADICTION!

If he thought THAT, he'd be a Republican!

Republican idealism? Like "Say we support our troops, but don't give 'em any money! And to hell with our Vets!" Like Mark Foley, Jack Abramoff's pals, Tom Delay, Mike "Heckuva Job" Brown, the list goes on and on...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 1 2007, 03:46 AM) [snapback]398349[/snapback]</div>

Megan, the reason I cited those facts prior to 2005 was to show the inhumanity of Obama's position on abortion and mandatory medical care for aborted babies born alive. He was NOT in office in 2005 and it is the reason why, finally, a law passed mandating medical care. A fact which goes directly against the statement that he was doing the will of the majority of people in Illinois. In fact he killed the bill several times(?) in committee without letting it come to vote. A tactic use quite often in order to push an agenda and bypass the will of the people politicians represent.
Take your own advice and do some research.

Wildkow

p.s. medicare?!? What is that about? That must be a typo you did mean medical care right? Because I don't remember ever mentioning medicare as a factor in this topic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Mar 1 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]398413[/snapback]</div>

Lessee...Terry Schiavo? I think that's a great example of the government "knowing better than the individual." And who was leading the charge? Can we say "Republican?"

Lying is only bad if you get caught? About a hummer? Or about outing a CIA agent? Hmm...'nother Republican, p'raps?

Secular humanism in government? Yes. It's called separation of church and state, and our founding fathers believed in it, too. Especially good ol' TJ. Oh wait--wasn't he the original Republican?

And your abortion on demand doesn't even deserve a response because it's just intentional flaming. And ridiculous.

Seriously, Schmika, why bring up these ridiculous wedge issues? Throw out party labels for a second. Is there anything besides "socialistic policies" that is actual germane to your alleged argument? Socialistic policies is the only mention in your post that is worth debating. I suppose you consider universal health care socialistic. If you truly believe that, then yes, you should support the candidates who are in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies and don't believe in universal health care.

Amazing that you're a single-issue voter. I've heard of them, just never met them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Feb 28 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]398120[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 2 2007, 09:04 AM) [snapback]398995[/snapback]</div>

You telling me to do research is laughable.

Wildkow: "Fact, your law is not a law it is nothing more than a public act that defines what a Born Alive Infant is. "

No, it's a law. Laws define things.

The bill kept getting killed because it did not protect existing rights for abortion (see below). When the anti-abortion side agreed to those provisions, it passed. It's that simple. For Federal law H. R. 2175 that was put in section c. For Illinois Law HB984 it was put in sections d and e. If the other side had been willing to negotiate prior to 2005, the bill would have passed much earlier.

A big split over abortion, stem cells
Polar opposites wage campaign for U.S. Senate
Chicago Tribune (IL)
October 4, 2004
Even so, Obama said that had he been in the U.S. 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.

Abortion-rights advocates said current laws already protected a fetus in such instances and argued that the measure was really a way of making it harder to perform abortions.

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, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.


Lawmakers bridging abortion divide // Bill ensuring health care to babies born alive at stake this week
Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
March 7, 2005
On the table is the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which has failed at least three times in the General Assembly. The proposal is meant to guarantee medical care for babies who survive a rare form of abortion and live outside the womb, if only for a short time.

Illinois Citizens for Life says it's a commonsense law that merely confirms basic rights to babies born alive, according to lobbyist Ralph Rivera. Planned Parenthood wants absolute assurances that the bill, if it becomes law, can't be used as a starting point to chip away at abortion rights, lobbyist Pam Sutherland said.

Both sides need each other.

The traditional anti-abortion groups know they're at the mercy of state Senate President Emil Jones (D-Chicago), an abortion-rights advocate who could unilaterally kill the bill even if it passes the House. Jones declined to comment.

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood and its supporters, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, are mindful that the concept has broad popular support -- Congress passed nearly identical legislation at the federal level in 2002 by huge margins. (The federal proposal, signed into law by President Bush, has limited effect in Illinois.)

Reaching 'common ground' is big

"This has a chance to be the first negotiated bill touching on the issue of abortion in this state," said state Rep. John Fritchey (D- Chicago), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "The bill is big, but to try to reach common ground on anything is even bigger."

The proposal, House Bill 984, was introduced by state Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-Norris City), an abortion opponent, three weeks ago. Since then, Fritchey and Phelps have led talks between the two sides, arguing over a possible amendment that would leave the original language intact but add a section explicitly saying the law would not affect abortion rights in any way.


The bill Obama killed is reproduced below. It provides no such exception as was finally amended to the bill that passed, and as exists in the federal law. The section c of this bill was added as an amendment (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095sam001.html)
so it's not like O'malley et al (the original bill sponsors/amenders) were trying to be accomodating or come to any compromise.

The "will of the people" in Illinois was not for a bill like the one below, but rather for one like the 2005 one that passed, like the federal bill.

SB1095 Engrossed LRB9206290REdv

1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
5 Section 1.36 as follows:

6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 B As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 C A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
25 fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.

27 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
28 becoming law.
from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92...20SB1095LV.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Mar 2 2007, 10:48 AM) [snapback]399015[/snapback]</div>

Single party...not single issue. Other points you made........pointless to respond to IMHO.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Mar 1 2007, 09:39 AM) [snapback]398413[/snapback]</div>

WOW well said!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 2 2007, 06:21 AM) [snapback]399029[/snapback]</div>

Obamas act of killing the bill in committee or before voting could take place prevented the negotations to modify the bill. Please show me in the federal version of the BAIPA the provision that specifically protects existing rights for abortion, I do not believe it is there. In addition his concerns over the bill affecting existing rights for abortions were just smoke and mirrors there was no way the law could affected the existing rights.

Wildkow

Thank you Zen, my bad. Looked at my posts twice wondering where medicare came from and still didn't see it. However, I am a little surprised that my typo was misconstrued in this way as all my previous posts mentioned medical care and not medicare.

Wildkow

p.s. In future replys could you put at least one word in the body of your post so that replys concerning that post have a source that other readers can reference?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 3 2007, 05:24 AM) [snapback]399451[/snapback]</div>

My bad. When I posted it I didn't see any repsonses yet (but livelychick slipped in there before I finished my post), so it would have been immediately following your question at the end of your post - which then really wouldn't need any specific pointing reference. Sometimes less is more.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Mar 1 2007, 06:39 AM) [snapback]398413[/snapback]</div>

Karl, you are talking like the d-man, and this is not like you. While I am aware of your extreme conservative political and religious views, the above post is simply dishonest.

Yes, Obama chose to join the Democratic Party. If you are a politician who wants to actually get elected, you choose one of the two major parties. But this does not mean that you subscribe to the views that lying a-holes like Rush Limbaugh ascribe to that party.

Yes, Obama believes in the separation of church and state. This philosophy was invented by conservative Christians to keep the government from forcing opposing religions on them. You should support it, as Obama does. You and he are both Christians.

The rest of your rant is just plain nonsense, and is unworthy of you. Learn a bit about this man, rather than just listening to Rush. When you assert that Obama went into politics for the purpose of corrupting, you are abandoning truth and decency and you are simply repeating the lies of extremist political panderers.

Instead of judging this man by the party he belongs to, as seen through the distorted lens of extremist partisan politics, take a look at his life, and his actual record of working with, rather than against, the opposing party, to find workable solutions to real problems.

I don't extect a straight party-line man like you to vote for him. But at least keep the discourse civil, by not repeating preposterous accusations devoid of reality or thought. Leave the lies to the b-man.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 3 2007, 01:50 PM) [snapback]399503[/snapback]</div>

Uh...what part of what the DEMS stand for was I incorrect on. I was just pointing out why I dislike DEMS. I don't know much about Obama....I don't care to, I don't have time to research every politician. Back when I did, I found that, overall, DEMS supported things I did not, and REPUBS supported things I did. Every so often I check..nothing has yet changed. So, for me, I cannot support anyone who claims the DEM moniker. Just in power by the way, I have no prob being a social friend of a DEM, or lib, or non-believer, etc.

OH, I don't listen to Rush, stoped that about 5-6 yrs ago. Don't listen to Hannity either, don't watch fox news...IOW, these are my own positions.

Again...over time you have decided that you are supportive of people who share your views, if you cannot reseach them, I am sure...beiong made to choose, you would choose based on a label..we all do. I am being honest about my label.

Might I miss a good person...maybe....I don't think so.

Daniel, I have found over time that both you and I don't really know the complexities of each other. We could probably enjoy a lunch together....and part agreeing to disagree.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Mar 3 2007, 07:51 PM) [snapback]399685[/snapback]</div>

Labels change, though. Rather, the meaning of labels change. That's my only problem with voting the party line every time. And folks like Giuliani, with his social liberalism, break some of those molds. Based on your wedge issues you mentioned earlier, I guess you wouldn't vote for him, huh?

For instance, folks who claim to be a Republican because (allegedly) the Repubs stand for a reduction in "big government" and reduced spending should NOT support this administration. Our government is bigger than ever, and has certainly been the biggest spender EVER.

I understand how you measure a party and cleave to the one that suits you, but I wonder how often "party line" folks take inventory of what their party actually is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Mar 3 2007, 07:51 PM) [snapback]399685[/snapback]</div>

Just curious, why do you like the modern Republican party? Is it that you enjoy record-setting national debt? Or maybe you enjoy seeing American soldiers killed simply to increase Halliburton stock? Maybe you just like Big Gummit, telling us what we can and can't do in the privacy of our own homes? Could it be you enjoy seeing the environment raped? Maybe you're proud to have the worst education system and worst health care system of the Industrialized world? I know, it's probably a combination of all of the above.

Because seriously, I can't think of any other reason to vote Republican...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Feb 27 2007, 07:28 AM) [snapback]397180[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Mar 1 2007, 06:39 AM) [snapback]398413[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Mar 3 2007, 04:51 PM) [snapback]399685[/snapback]</div>

Nobody who has read what I have written on PC can accuse me of supporting the Democratic Party. But lying, pandering, "immorality," and corruption, are not "part of their platform." "Lying is only wrong if you get caught" is not part of their platform.

Your assertion that while both parties engage in vile behavior, it is (according to you) merely human frailty on the part of Republicans, but embraced by the Democrats, is preposterous.

But the worst (and this is where I really take issue with you) is your assumption, or assertion, that any given individual within the democratic party must be as vile as your fictitious and partisan description of that party. If you choose to keep yourself ignorant about one of the most prominent candidates for the presidential nomination, that is your right. But if you do make that choice, you should then keep silent about him, and not join in the mud-slinging against a candidate that you have chosen to know nothing about, other than his party affiliation.

As parties, I am disgusted by both. But the more I learn about Barak Obama, the more I see a man who is not the usual political hack. I see a man who is intelligent and articulate (rare these days!) who did not rise in politics by demagogery or mud-slinging, but rather by building bridges, who has a vision of what this country could be, who works to unite us rather than divide us. I don't know if there is an honest politician in Washington. But if there is, I think Barak Obama is that man. And when I see that his opponents have nothing to say on the issues about him, and devote so much ink to lying about his past and insulting his name, I am both encouraged to believe he is different than all the rest, and depressed at the depravity to which this nation has sunk. Is it in your Christian faith to judge a man merely by the political party he has joined? If so, it would seem to me a questionable faith.

Stev0 replying to Schmika:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 3 2007, 05:53 PM) [snapback]399708[/snapback]</div>

I think he likes the republican party because it gives lip-service to his conservative brand of Christianity and promises to establish that brand of Christianity as the de facto state religion. To a certain mind set, nothing else matters.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 3 2007, 06:24 AM) [snapback]399451[/snapback]</div>

From the federal bill:
``© 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.''.

The original -- amended modification -- section c of the Illinois bill does not do this, and, to some extent, works to create a precedent for a fetus having full legal rights the second it is outside a womb. The sign that they added section c as an AMENDMENT meant they did not want to negotiate on it. If they had wanted to, the bill could have passed far earlier -- probably would have if they had not modified it with the language below. Here, to make it clear, is the amendment the Illinois republicans added:

C A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

That could very well have served as a precendent for some subsequent suit saying, well, look at this bill, this fetus has all the rights of a person, why should a few centimeters of geography (i.e., in or out of the womb?) make a difference?

Contrast that with the language of the Federal bill above and the bill that finally passed in Illinois below:

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

The Illinois Republicans were more concerned with passing a bill that they could eventually use to chip away at abortion rights in Illinois than with getting it passed in the first place. They were playing politics. Obama played politics back at them. As Obama has stated many times, he would have voted for a law like the federal one; the Illinois bill's sponsors did not provide that option.

The links to all bills quoted above are provided in my prior posts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 3 2007, 08:53 PM) [snapback]399708[/snapback]</div>

I tell you why i like the the repubs more than the dems right now:
1. they are actively defending my country and the lack of a terror attack here in 5+ years is evidence enough for me.

National debt is cute - again, how much would another 9/11 cost us. also the federal budget is coming into line nicely.

I do not enjoy seeing American soldiers dying - in fact we say a prayer for each one kia in our Synagogue each week to honor them. I also do not enjoy watching INNOCENT American civilians get slaughtered while at work. I also know that our heroic servicepeople are doing a good job killing the bad guys and keeping them on the run. God bless our soldiers.

Halliburton - tell me why leftist george soros now owns a good piece of that company? cant wait for this answer.

Agree with you on big govt - i hate how the repubs have increased govt spending - hope rudy gets the nod.

your other rantings are just the usual leftist blabber jabber - no response necessary

the other reason to vote repub - the dems have no plan, no backbone to do anything , they pander to the unions and other contributors (like the repubs), want to force me to have no health care choices, they want to raise my taxes and take away decisions i want to make in raising my children and leading my life, they worship at the alter of BIGGER govt and more taxes and spending, they have no God, they do NOT believe democracy is worth fighting for or defending, they pander to multiculturalism and global warming, they think America is in the twilight of its life, they want amnesty for illegal immigrants and do NOT want to enforce immigration laws, they want to give rights to terrorists captured in battle, got to go to work now but you get the drift. once the dems of scoop jackson, truman, even jfkennedy come back so will i.