Obama and Another Lie

I have been letting the media hash out all of Obama’s lies. I have been surprised that this has been happening. However no one is catching him on this one.

In the Relevant Magazine article Obama is quoted as saying:

“The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that stated you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster ”

He is so full of it. It had been established through US supreme court (and various state supreme courts): Stenburg vs Carhart; Planned Parenthood of central NJ VS Farmer; Roe v Wade; PP vs Casey just to name a few all agreed that the location of the infant did not matter. Under the law before the Born Alive Infants Protection Act the infant that survived an abortion had no legal rights under the constitution because the only reason that child was born was because the Mother wanted an abortion. So the “abortion” was considered finalized upon death of the “aborted” child no matter when death occured. There would be no law in the Illinois senate that would protect such a child because the mother wanted an abortion, not a live child.

As stated in the hearings for H.R. 2175 The Born Alive Infants Protection Act:

“the location of an infant’s body at the moment of death during a partial-birth abortion—delivered partly outside the body of the mother—to be of no legal significance in ruling on the constitutionality of the Nebraska law. Indeed, two members of the majority, Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, went so far as to say that it was ”irrational” for the Nebraska legislature to take the location of the infant at the point of death into account. 9 Instead, implicit in the Carhart decision was the pernicious notion that a partially-born infant’s entitlement to the protections of the law is dependent upon whether or not the partially-born child’s mother wants him or her.”

also in H.R. 2175

“in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer ,10 in the course of striking down New Jersey’s partial-birth abortion ban. According to the Third Circuit, under Roe and Carhart, it is ”nonsensical” and ”based on semantic machinations” and ”irrational line-drawing” for a legislature to conclude that an infant’s location in relation to his or her mother’s body has any relevance in determining whether that infant may be killed.11
Instead, the Farmer Court repudiated New Jersey’s classification of the prohibited procedure as being a ”partial birth,” and concluded that a child’s status under the law, regardless of his or her location, is dependent upon whether the mother intends to abort the child or to give birth. The Farmer Court stated that, in contrast to an infant whose mother intends to give birth, an infant who is killed during a partial-birth abortion is not entitled to the protections of the law because ”[a] woman seeking an abortion is plainly not seeking to give birth.”

So basically if the mother didn’t “want” the baby then it didn’t matter how or when the baby died. If a woman wants an abortion - then she gets a dead child no matter what happens.

Obama, allow me to introduce you to a little thing called the truth. Learn the concept. It’s not difficult.