Breaking: Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill
Newly discovered documents from the Illinois state archives prove Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has lied about his opposition to legislation requiring health officials to provide care to babies who survived abortion as an Illinois state senator. Read more about the cover-up here
Obama has claimed again and again he would have supported his state’s version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act if it included language to protect abortion rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade and viciously attacked conservative opponents who suggested otherwise. Now there’s documentation showing Obama did vote against a version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that contained language to protect abortion rights identical to the bill that passed 98-0 in the U.S. Senate.
“We have a smoking gun committee report,” the National Right to Life Committee’s Legislative Counsel Susan Muskett said. NRLC posted the unearthed documents from the Illinois senate archives Monday.
There’s been much confusion about Obama’s work on this bill, largely due to the Illinois Senate’s method of marking the bill as “held” in the Health and Human Services Committee, when in fact archived reports show it was killed by a 6-4 party line vote. As Chairman of that committee Obama voted in the majority. NCLR has the committee action report of that vote.
The 6-4 vote tally is included in the right hand column of the table. Just before the committee roll call vote was held to kill the bill, however, senators voted to amend the state’s version Born Alive Infant Protection Act to include a “neutrality clause.” That clause was copied from the federal version of the law and was the very language Obama has claimed would have allowed him to support the bill. The amendment passed the committee 10-0 and that vote is recorded in column on the left side of the table.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
There is no such thing as a born-alive abortion. To suggest that there are children being born due to abortion failures are irresponsible fabrications. If a child is born and the doctor or parent murders the child, the same laws that protects child at the instant of their birth protects all of us. Doctors and/or parents would be charged with murder. This happens all the time when children are left in garbage cans or left to suffer death by the abandonment of their parents. Where are the examples of children being born alive and doctors are killing these children claiming that they are performing abortions after their birth. It simply doesn’t exist.
You need to do your research, JUHAR! A nurse from Chicago testified infront of Obama and reported to him holding a botched aborted child, born alive, for 45 minutes until it died in her arms and legally she could do nothing! It is TRUE- Obama voted against the Born Alive Protection Act! I heard her today on a Chicago radio station telling her story! When she began to report these born-alive botched abortions of children left to die she was fired! Obama himself said a couple of months ago he would not want his daughters PUNISHED with a baby! It is all documented right here in Illinois! Obama is a liar and he is covering up his radical views!
Juhar, you need to educate yourself before babbling. Arlan has already spelled it out for you, and I heard the same nurse talking about her testimony in front of Barack Hussein Obama. She held a baby born alive in an abortion after it was thrown away. The baby was issued a birth and death certificate. She has knowledge of other incidents of the same.
Please quit living in denial and educate yourself.
Also, Obama claimed that there was a law already on the books that provided the same protections. The law he cites is a 1975 bill that provided comfortable conditions for the children to die in. And “trashcan baby” cases hang on proof that the baby was viable at birth, thanks to the liberals.
I am a person who has heard this before… long before Obama gained such prominence … I was and am still sickened that these babies are considered throw away humans. How dare anyone defend such a practice???
I am sick of all of you closing your eyes to the facts of life and this candidate for the President of the greatest country… these United States of America.
If you have any questions or doubts about the abortion industry just find a copy of the book Lime 5. The book is made up of ’strictly’ court cases (no he said - she said)regarding what is capable of happening in clinics all across our nation regardless of the laws that are passed.
Find out for yourself in a straight forward proven in a court of law format.
Juhar, you need to plow through a few thousand malpractice suits, court cases, inspection reports, and medical board investigative documents, like I did. They do indeed just set the baby aside to die. Or they drown them. Or strangle them. Or put them in a specimen container and stick them in the freezer.
Who’s gonna rat them out? Most of the time nobody. We only find out about these things when a disgruntled staff member raises a stink.
Be logical. Imagine the scenario. Instead of the expected dead fetus, they’re standing around the procedure room with a live, gasping baby. Are they REALLY going to tell Mom, “Well, congratulations. You’re the proud parent of a preemie and you’ll get to spend the next three months haunting the NICU. Good luck on the quarter of a million dollars of medical bills. And — ah — if we refund your abortion fee, do you promise not to sue us?”
Nope. Junior’s off to the pathology lab regardless of whether or not he is alive. That’s just the way it’s done.
Even abortion activist David Grimes of the Centers for Disease Control noted that no abortion doctor in his right mind is going to admit to having accidentally ending up with a live birth. “It’s like turning yourself in to the IRS for an audit.”
I think it’s interesting that no one is considering what would happen to these babies if medical care is mandated. The mother’s have already made the decision to abort, clearly they don’t want the child, so who is going to be responsible for the care provided? You can’t force the mother to take responsibility once her decision is made. Who do you bill for the extended stay in the NICU? Who gets the pleasure of taking care of a child that will probably have chronic health issues? I’m not familiar with the bill, but unless provisions are made for these types of issues and more, I don’t blame Obama for not supporting it? I don’t believe in murdering an innocent child, but maybe the legislature should focus more on preventing late term abortions that could potentially result in the birth and death of a viable baby. Everyone makes it seem like Obama is some kind of baby killer, but I don’t think that’s the case. I’ll agree to disagree with anyone who feels otherwise.
Niki (Sep 12) makes a good point - actually recasts a point that Christina (Aug 25) made in an almost humorous fashion - namely that it is very expensive to acknowledge the humanity of these innocent children. It is a question that needs to be considered, and ethically it should be considered before classifying certain behavior as a Class 3 Felony.
On the other hand, this is not the only place in life where the right decision is expensive. And once the question is on the table, it is disingenuous to pretend that it is adequately addressed simply by noting that doing the right thing would be expensive. Similar logic could be used to justify death-by-abandonment for healthy full-term infants up to at least the age of six months. If the mother has decided that she doesn’t want the child, who are we to say that this innocent human life deserves any better?
For whatever reason, the courts have drawn a line at the “magical moment” when a baby is no longer inside a mother’s womb. If we are going to move the line, what makes it right to move it a few inches and a few minutes but not right to move it further? And why should a price tag be the deciding factor in the first five minutes, but not later in the first five months?
Thank you so much for this story and links. This must be revealed to all.