My Morning Jacket

The Obama Debate Every American Should See
by  Terence P. Jeffrey

10/08/2008  
 
   The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O'Malley, who served with Obama in the Illinois Senate and engaged Obama in a colloquy every American should read.
   The Obama-O'Malley debate was a defining moment for Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state's duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled.
   Some background: Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor.
   Babies who survived this, Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting.
   Then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general's office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor's rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not. Continued

   So, O'Malley -- a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Obama on the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee -- drafted legislation.
   In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present "to assess the child's viability and provide medical care." SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a "'person, 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"
   The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of Illinois," O'Malley told me.
   The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the Illinois senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Obama.
   "Nobody else said anything," O'Malley recalls. The official transcript validates this.
   "Sen. O'Malley," Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, "the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb."
   Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about 1) a human being, who was 2) "alive" and 3) "outside the womb."
   He also used an odd redundancy: "temporarily alive." Is there another type of human?
   "And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living," Obama continued.
   Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that 1) a human being, 2) alive and 3) outside the womb was 4) "properly cared for."
   "Is that correct?" Obama asked O'Malley.
   O'Malley tightened the logical knot. "(T)his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States," said O'Malley.
   But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings -- to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving -- to these specific children of God, Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all.
   To explain his position, Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by O'Malley's bills. The abortion survivor became a "pre-viable fetus."
   By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a "fetus." Merriam-Webster Online defines "fetus" as an "unborn or unhatched vertebrate" or "a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Obama had already conceded these human beings were "alive outside the womb."
   "No. 1," said Obama, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of 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."
   Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human "person" as a baby born alive at 22 weeks.
   Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors "persons." "I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions," said Obama, "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."
   For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.

Amazing huh?

If you have this much disdain for Obama, please tell me you are doing more than cutting/pasting news article on the My Morning Jacket message board. I mean, if the anti-christ gets elected, I would be saddened to hear your explanation to God regarding your best efforts to prevent him from getting elected.

God, "MMJ fanatic, what did you do personally to stop Obama the anti-christ from being elected?"

MMJ fanatic, "I cut/pasted a bunch of articles that dennounced Obama on the My Morning Jacket message board".

;D

Why is this always the response to facts?

[size=24][/color][/size]
I wouldn't believe anything Terence P. Jeffrey says.  Afterall, he speaks arabic.





In closing: Please keep your Christian hands off my uterus please.  Thanks.

This is an account of the actual events in the Illinois senate, not some made up fairy tale.  

It also has nothing to do with anyone's uterus!  It has to do with providing a living human being the basic care they need to survive.

Seriously, can we vote to temporarily ban this guy until the election is over?  

QuoteSeriously, can we vote to temporarily ban this guy until the election is over?  

That seems a little much, but it does suck to come on here and have the board cluttered with stuff like this. Maybe if it was one or two, but that's not the case. I don't believe in banning it from the board but jesus, we get it(I Promise). And for all the anti-Obama stuff you post, there is an equal amount of negative things about McCain that you turn a blind eye to. You want to preach about the sanctity of life, but you have no problem electing a president with war on his mind.

Additionally, even though I would not like either one, I would rather live in a equal, peaceful time than one that was plagued with and centered around war, power, and money.

QuoteIn closing: Please keep your Christian hands off my uterus please.  Thanks.

[smiley=thumbup.gif]

QuoteSeriously, can we vote to temporarily ban this guy until the election is over?  

That's right shoot the messenger because you can't justify the actions of a man trying to become the leader of the free world.
Next thing you know the "fairness doctrine" will be a hot topic for the left.  Whoops, it already is.

Did even one person read the account of the nurse about how the babies are treated?  Probably not--just jump on MMJ_fanatic cuz he's a racist!

Quote

QuoteSeriously, can we vote to temporarily ban this guy until the election is over?  

That's right shoot the messenger because you can't justify the actions of a man trying to become the leader of the free world.

That MUST be it!  ::)

QuoteThis is an account of the actual events in the Illinois senate, not some made up fairy tale.  

It also has nothing to do with anyone's uterus!  It has to do with providing a living human being the basic care they need to survive.

Well, nobody's calling fairytales here; I don't doubt that the convo took place.  What I am concerned with are the pro-life, evangelical contingent trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and if you can't see the bigger, underlying issues with what's going on in your OP, then I don't know what else to tell you and we'll have to agree to disagree.

Quote

QuoteThis is an account of the actual events in the Illinois senate, not some made up fairy tale.  

It also has nothing to do with anyone's uterus!  It has to do with providing a living human being the basic care they need to survive.

Well, nobody's calling fairytales here; I don't doubt that the convo took place.  What I am concerned with are the pro-life, evangelical contingent trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and if you can't see the bigger, underlying issues with what's going on in your OP, then I don't know what else to tell you and we'll have to agree to disagree.

Even though I understand the importance of Roe v. Wade, I also believe that if Americans could elect a decent President that will give those decisions back to the states, that there would still be a majority of states voting to keep abortion(<Can anyone say run-on). And if your concerns are the South... well, let's just say there's a lot of unwanted pregnancies around here. Even more than the Evangelical vote can muster to diminish. Either way, I believe people should have the decision to do with their bodies, whatever they please. Suicide, abortion, bulimia, leaping in front of a bullet to save a loved one, etc...

Quote

the pro-life, evangelical contingent trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and if you can't see the bigger, underlying issues with what's going on in your OP, then I don't know what else to tell you and we'll have to agree to disagree.

But this situation has nothing to do with aborting a rfetus in the 1st trimester--its about affording basic care, comfort and human rights to a live baby that survives an attempt to kill it.  I cannot see how anyone could oppose this especially with all the infertile couples who would gladly adopt a newborn.

But it has everything to do with the definition of a "person" and that, my friend, is a very slippery slope.

What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can't support that. ---B.Obama

He recognized what the constitutional ramfications would be, Roe v. Wade has been chipped at time and time again, up for overturn like 10 times---check out Casey--the parameters changed and did away w/the trimester classification--now you CANNOT unduly burden a woman no matter what.

QuoteBut it has everything to do with the definition of a "person" and that, my friend, is a very slippery slope.

Only if you're a Nazi Satanist.

Interesting observation

per-son[ch8194][pur-suhn]
–noun
1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.  
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

beating a dead horse (verb):
arguing a topic in which there will never be any compromise, trying to bait and attack others who have an opposite viewpoint.
synonyms: arguing about religion or whether khaki is more a color or material.

Quotebeating a dead horse (verb):
arguing a topic in which there will never be any compromise, trying to bait and attack others who have an opposite viewpoint.
synonyms: arguing about religion or whether khaki is more a color or material.

;D

Quote
synonyms: arguing about religion or whether khaki is more a color or material.

Or....pants?

So this is OK with everyone bitching about this thread:


 Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor.
  Babies who survived this, Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting

QuoteSo this is OK with everyone bitching about this thread:


 Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor.
  Babies who survived this, Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting

I don't think a single person expressed that it was ok.  
But the legislation was written as a challenge to Roe vs. Wade.  That is what Vespa was referring to, the number of weeks that defines human life.  Whatever, you won't change my mind and I won't change yours.  But I thought Penny's khaki comment was funny........

Quote

QuoteSo this is OK with everyone bitching about this thread:


 Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the "induced-labor abortions" performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor.
  Babies who survived this, Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting

I don't think a single person expressed that it was ok.  
But the legislation was written as a challenge to Roe vs. Wade.  That is what Vespa was referring to, the number of weeks that defines human life.  Whatever, you won't change my mind and I won't change yours.  But I thought Penny's khaki comment was funny........

I'm sorry but you are both wrong:

The bills dealt exclusively with born children. "This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of Illinois,"