quote:

Are you saying that asking why an existing statute is not being enforced is somehow fallacious?

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

How do you interpret the story posted in the first link of the "Obama lied, children died" thread?

With confusion, because when one takes into account the prior "Born Alive" IL statute, none of the "controversy" the article cites about Obama makes any sense.

quote:

Am I missing something here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubya

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubya

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubya

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

I don't know. I'll have to look into it further.

But unless I'm missing an outstanding detail the size of a Mack truck, the whole furor about this matter (by Stenek) seems like a very loud case of much ado about nothing.

And for the record, if any IL hospitals were in violation of the existing "born alive" statue, I wonder why they were not held accountable by the State's Attorney's Office?

That would be my question as well.

Just a question - does the term 'subverted support' mean anything to you?

Please explain.

"Don't recognize the term", then. Thanks for clarifying.

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/subsup.htm

Thanks for the link.
I am still not sure what you are implying. Are you saying that asking why an existing statute is not being enforced is somehow fallacious?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Wasn't this issue basically covered in this other thread?

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

Are you saying that asking why an existing statute is not being enforced is somehow fallacious?

I think what Swede is suggesting is that in this specific "controversy," there's no "there" there.

quote:

Oabam bashers apprently feel the need to make their false accusations as often as possible.

quote:

My bad, Jack. I started this new thread to carry over the specific legal arguments for this issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

It matters because those who condemn Obama for his vote on the 2003 measure never bothered to do their research, which would have otherwise revealed that any babies born in Illinois under the revised statute were already required to have medical attention under the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

Of course at the end of all this Mr Obama doesn't have a problem with unborn children being murdered so what does it matter...

John

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubya

I did a little homework on this issue because much of what was being debated here did not make much sense to this poor old Texan.


First of all the “Born Alive Bill” or Illinois Senate Bill 1093, was an AMENDMENT to the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. It was NOT a duplicate bill or anything of the sort. Here is a link to the original law: LINK.

Here is a link to the 2001 bill: LINK.

Here is a transcript of the debate on the senate floor: LINK.
Here is what Obama said (P. 86) He was afraid the bill would not pass constitutional muster. He said. “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 are 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.”
The problem is that what Obama is defining as a previable fetus the bill actually calls a live born child – outside the womb, living, breathing, etc.
Senate Bill 1095, debated and voted on the same day makes certain definitions very clear: LINK.
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.

These definitions had not previously been codified into law. Most likely because people used to be smart enough to know what a live child was!

To say that the new bill was redundant is not true. To say that it interferes with a woman wishing to have an abortion is also NOT true. To say that it clarifies and legally defines that a child born alive despite an attempted abortion has Constitutional rights is TRUE.

Now, to the Obama kool-aide drinkers... show me again how I am wrong on this.

quote:

Thereby surrendering the subject of the thread and trying to divert attention away from that surrender.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubya

I did a little homework on this issue because much of what was being debated here did not make much sense to this poor old Texan.


First of all the “Born Alive Bill” or Illinois Senate Bill 1093, was an AMENDMENT to the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. It was NOT a duplicate bill or anything of the sort. Here is a link to the original law: LINK.

Here is a link to the 2001 bill: LINK.

Here is a transcript of the debate on the senate floor: LINK.
Here is what Obama said (P. 86) He was afraid the bill would not pass constitutional muster. He said. “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 are 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.”
The problem is that what Obama is defining as a previable fetus the bill actually calls a live born child – outside the womb, living, breathing, etc.
Senate Bill 1095, debated and voted on the same day makes certain definitions very clear: LINK.
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.

These definitions had not previously been codified into law. Most likely because people used to be smart enough to know what a live child was!

To say that the new bill was redundant is not true. To say that it interferes with a woman wishing to have an abortion is also NOT true. To say that it clarifies and legally defines that a child born alive despite an attempted abortion has Constitutional rights is TRUE.

Now, to the Obama kool-aide drinkers... show me again how I am wrong on this.

Thereby acknowledging - and confirming - that the 2003 vote for which you have been bashing Obama was nothing more than a moot-point political grandstanding act.

Thanks for playing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dubya

I did a little homework on this issue because much of what was being debated here did not make much sense to this poor old Texan.


First of all the “Born Alive Bill” or Illinois Senate Bill 1093, was an AMENDMENT to the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. It was NOT a duplicate bill or anything of the sort. Here is a link to the original law: LINK.

Here is a link to the 2001 bill: LINK.

Here is a transcript of the debate on the senate floor: LINK.
Here is what Obama said (P. 86) He was afraid the bill would not pass constitutional muster. He said. “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 are 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.”
The problem is that what Obama is defining as a previable fetus the bill actually calls a live born child – outside the womb, living, breathing, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

Thank you for providing this.

So essentially, Obama voted against it because he didn't think it would pass a Constitutional challenge. What's wrong with that? I don't agree with his position on abortion, but aside from that, isn't part of his job as a legislator to try to craft the best legislation possible? Laws that are consistent with constitutional application and judicial precedent? Part of the reason so many people are able to levy the charge of judicial activism is because legislators have stooped to writing laws that will get them re-elected, not laws that actually do long-term good and stand up to judicial scrutiny.

-Dan.

quote:

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.