When Obama Voted For Infanticide

[theHawk]

Alan Keyes, Obama's opponent, was in the one in fact who supported infanticide.

How so?

 

[Jroc]

Alan Keyes, Obama's opponent, was in the one in fact who supported infanticide.

The larger point is liberals favor population control as does Obama's science Czar,You've got nothing Jake as usual.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As far as the facts go, little one, Keyes supported the legislation as much as Obama.

FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

 

[Jroc]

As far as the facts go, little one, Keyes supported the legislation as much as Obama.

FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Not really much in that link accept the fact that Obama was too concerned about his political career to worry about the lives of babies

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jroc gives up the OP.

 

[Jroc]

Jroc gives up the OP.

Nope.... The results are the same. Dead babies, What do you think he's going to say?

 

[theHawk]

As far as the facts go, little one, Keyes supported the legislation as much as Obama.

FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Fail. Nothing in the link at all that shows Keyes ever supported the legislation.


This is what you libs have to resort to - just lie!

 

[JakeStarkey]

As far as the facts go, little one, Keyes supported the legislation as much as Obama.

FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Fail. Nothing in the link at all that shows Keyes ever supported the legislation.


This is what you libs have to resort to - just lie!

Why? The factcheck.org demonstrates that neither did Obama, yet the far right keeps arguing that he did despite the facts. So why not do to the far right what it does to sane America?

Of course, it's wrong. Thanks for discovering that, and be more respectful to facts in the future.

 

[Jroc]

"Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate"

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”

Sebelius took questions from the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health about President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal

Because the Catholic church teaches that sterilization, contraception or abortion are wrong and that Catholics must not be inolved in them, the regulation forces Catholics--and members of other religious denominations that share those views--to act against the teachings of their faith. Numerous lawsuits have already been asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to the free exercise of religion. Many of the nation's Catholic bishops have published letters saying: "We cannot--we will not--comply with this unjust law."

Sebelius, however, insisted that the mandate “upholds religious liberty."
“The rule which we intend to promulgate in the near future around implementation will require insurance companies, not a religious employer, but the insurance company to provide coverage for contraceptives,” Sebelius told the subcommittee.

The Catholic bishops have called for the regulation to be rescinded in its entirety, so that no employer, insurer or individual is forced to act against his or her conscience.

Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate | CNSNews.com

 

[nitroz]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBBiKkYqljw&list=LLgzHR4gPYVpt3fxQsvyVyVw&index=3&feature=plpp_video]Americans Are Pro-Birth Control: Poll - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlkt28t3CrY&list=LLgzHR4gPYVpt3fxQsvyVyVw&index=1&feature=plpp_video]Hilarious Anti-Planned Parenthood Video (Warning: Vagina Cakes) - YouTube[/ame]


Get Schooled.

 

[Jroc]

Americans Are Pro-Birth Control: Poll - YouTube

Hilarious Anti-Planned Parenthood Video (Warning: Vagina Cakes) - YouTube


Get Schooled.

Government sponsored now how's the leftist expect to pay for all their liberal programs when they kill off the people who are going to haft pay for it

 

[Jroc]

Ethicists call for killing of newborns to be made legal

A leading British medical journal has published an article calling for the introduction of infanticide for social and medical reasons.

The article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” states in its abstract: “After-birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

The article, written by Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of Melbourne University, argues that “foetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons” and consequently a law which permits abortion for certain reasons should permit infanticide on the same grounds.

The article follows alleged instances of sex-selective abortions throughout Britain raising alarm concerning the application of the 1967 Abortion Act.

Lord Alton, co-chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, said that infanticide was the “chilling and unassailable” logical step for a society that permits killing a baby one day before birth.

He said: “That the Journal of Medical Ethics should give space to such a proposition illustrates not a slippery slope, but the quagmire into which medical ethics and our wider society have been sucked.

“Personal choice has eclipsed the sacredness, or otherness, of life itself. It is profoundly disturbing, indeed shocking, to see the way in which opinion-formers within the medical profession have ditched the traditional belief of the healer to uphold the sanctity of human life for this impoverished and inhumane defence of child destruction.

“It has been said that a country which kills its own children has no future. That’s true. And a country which accepts infanticide or the killing of a little girl or a little boy because of their gender, the killing of a baby because of a disability, or the killing of a child because it is inconvenient, the wrong shape, or the wrong colour, also forfeits its right to call itself civilised.”

Ethicists call for killing of newborns to be made legal | CatholicHerald.co.uk

 

[nitroz]

Americans Are Pro-Birth Control: Poll - YouTube

Hilarious Anti-Planned Parenthood Video (Warning: Vagina Cakes) - YouTube


Get Schooled.

Government sponsored now how's the leftist expect to pay for all their liberal programs when they kill off the people who are going to haft pay for it

How are they going to pay for everyone's unwanted pregnancies and all other taxes that will be spent on them?

 

[Jroc]

Gingrich’s assertion rests on then–State Senator Obama’s opposition, in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to successive versions of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that was meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions. The bill gave them protection as legal persons and required physicians to provide them with care, rather than allowing doctors to deal with them as they would, literally, with medical waste. In 2008, Obama’s campaign repeatedly claimed that he opposed the bill because it was unnecessary, since Illinois law already provided protection for infants born alive. However, as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on NRO at the time, this extended only to babies whom physicians deemed to have “sustainable survivability.” Thus infants who were not expected to survive could be killed or left unattended to die. Obama, Ponnuru wrote, “did not want the gap filled.” (The National Right to Life Committee has a report on Obama, Illinois’s legal loophole, and its horrific consequences here.)

Obama maintained at the time, with support from Planned Parenthood of Illinois, that the bill wasn’t really about protecting infants’ lives or mitigating their suffering, but was in fact a backdoor attempt to restrict abortion. The argument (which is constitutionally dubious, anyway) goes that, by providing legal protection and “recognition as a human person” for a pre-viable infant, the law could be used to threaten Roe v. Wade. Thus, in his 2004 Senate campaign, and then during the course of the 2008 campaign, Obama claimed that he would have supported a law like the 2002 federal born-alive statute, which stated explicitly that it could not be used to dispute the legal status of fetuses prior to their birth.

In committee in 2003, however, Obama voted against a version of the Illinois bill that contained the same protection included in the federal bill (which passed 98–0 in the U.S. Senate). Thus, Obama’s tenuous constitutional argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

One other excuse for Obama’s opposition to the Illinois bill has been proffered: that the final version of the bill was coupled with another piece of legislation that imposed criminal or civil consequences for doctors who did not properly treat infants who were covered by the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Obama and others deemed this second bill unacceptable. However, this doesn’t begin to defend Obama’s vote on the first bill

Obama

 

[Needyou527]

Facts are facts they are not always pleasant especially when it comes to liberals

 

[uscitizen]

Infanticide

does that come in spray cans?