[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="chesterocks7"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Secondly just because he voted against the bill, it does not mean he is for afterbirth abortions.. Are people just stupid? Bills arn't cut and dry they have numerous lines of text that must be looked upon with scrutiny.. The bill from what I have read was very ambigious in quite a few areas.. Bills have been voted against due to the smallest things from the wording of a sentence, to policies with in the bill they do not agree.. People need to wake up and stop oversimplifiying the whole thing.
chesterocks7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xkT_W5l9-k&feature=related
Somehow I feel more secure trusting the word of someone who ran against him vs. your claim that he's not fully for it.
There are no direct quotes for him supporting infanticide.. Infact no one knows why he voted against the bill, its all speculation.. :|
No one knows why he voted against the bill........
Oh, maybe he opposed the bill? I know it must be difficult for you to grasp, but people usually vote against something when they disagree with it.
On the Record
While we don't have a record of Obama's 2003 comments on SB 1082, he did express his objection to the 2001 and 2002 bills.
Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a - 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. ... I think it's important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.
Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.
Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden."
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
Clearly there is no where he says he is for the support of infanticide.. Stopping a bill can mean many things, the wording was ambigious in alot of areas and this may very well been the reason why he voted against it.. In the end you guys have no proof that he supports infanticide :|
When your put in such a position such as being a senator.. All of them will show moves that seems to contridict one another when you just look in to it.. Bills arn't simple pieces of work, they hold many vairables that can ultimately change the law.. Though the actual reason may be good, the bill may be poorly written which would give confusion to its interpretation..
Log in to comment