http://usactionnews.com/2011/01/abortion-doctor-charged-with-murder-for-doing-what-obama-defended/
Abortion doctor charged with murder for doing what Obama defended: "
A West Philadelphia abortion doctor has been charged with murder for killing babies. He should use Obama’s words as a senator as a defense.
According to abc affiliate WPVI-TV a West Philadelphia ‘abortion doctor who catered to minorities, immigrants and poor women was charged with eight counts of murder in the deaths of a patient and seven babies who were born alive and then killed with scissors’.
Why should he be charged with murder of the babies when our own president Obama defended such practices as an Illinois state senator. Here is what Obama said as reason not to vote for the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act which would have made this treatment of babies illegal in Illinois:
From ‘What you need to know about the `Born Alive’ controversy and Barack Obama‘ in a August 20, 2004 article at the Chicago Tribune:
Here’s some of what Obama said on April 4, 2002 during floor debate in the Illinois Senate:
The source of the objections of the (Illinois State) Medical Society (was that this proposal) puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact his is a non-viable fetus; that if that fetus, or child—however way you want to describe it—is now outside the mothers’ womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s non viable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, (the fetus is) not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved….. The only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor – the attending physician – who has made an assessment that this is a non-viable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, …that labor is being induced, that that physician a) is going to make the wrong assessment and b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a non-viable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician or his own accord or her own accord would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now if—if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense. But I suspect –and my impression is that the Medical Society suspects as well –that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making those determination and that ,essentially adding 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 physicians to induce labor and perform an abortions. Now if that’s the case… I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.
Pro life activist Jill Stanek noted then senator Obama’s 10 reasons for supporting infanticide in an article on WorldNetDaily.com in January of 2008. Among the reasons was #10:
“10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:
I just want to suggest … that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.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 – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …
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 anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”
So why should an abortion doctor be held liable for what was so vigorously defended by president Obama? Because it really is infanticide which is a fancy name for murder of infants even if he defended it.
"
