Posted by
Jeff S on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 12:05:08 AM
With the heated debate surrounding President Obama's recent convocation speech at Notre Dame, the abortion debate has a new life. I should admit that I am less a cultural conservative and more a fiscal conservative but one thing gets me is when a politician ducks answers and tries to hoodwink the populace. If you recall during the campaign, Obama was dismissive of the late term issue. So, we now have this new debate presented to us. I see this as an opportunity.
With President elevating the debate by forcing himself upon Notre Dame (instead of bowing out), it is likely that this become an opportunity. That is if we can get on message and effectively shout down another plank of the liberal not-so-hidden agenda.
During his speech at the graduation ceremony, the President said this:
"...when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."
As you'll note, while the statement is wrapped in evenhanded rhetoric, the zinger Obama often inserts at the end of statements is there. That is to say that we need to find common ground.
I don't know that Abortion has common ground. Obama is calling to negotiate. Well, he already has Roe v. Wade and a Supreme Court Justice to be named, what more does he want? I would assert that no more 'common ground' be acceded in this debate.
Still, Obama want to appear to be sensible. He then noted:
" (lets) make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women,"
In other words, business as usual.
With all the cards in the liberal hand, what more could Obama possibly want. I'd assume it to be whatever Planned Parenthood wants. My guess but I assume I would not be far off. President Obama seems to want to set the agenda and this is perhaps the point.
He needs a shout down. It needs to be pointed out that Obama is neither reasonable nor willing to find common ground. When comes to Abortion, he has been unbending to the point of lying. Thus the need to make sure that the agenda is not set by him but by conservatives.
The real situation is that conservatives have been labelled as nutty when it comes to abortion and some of the more radical activist types have not made it easy fro conservatives to make a political and social point. However, I think we have a chance now to make the point of how radical the left is on the issue.
It is imperative that we do. Obama is setting up the court for just this debate and we need to be sure that the populace has not stomach for any more movement on abortion. This is the chance to expose what radicalism has been done by liberals.
...and Obama himself.
To knock him back on his feet, I suggest we revisit the Illinois State vote(s) on the matter. You know, that thing Obama was so dismissive of during the campaign. It was Jill Stanek that first brought this to the fore. However, I found myself less that overwhelmed by the thoroughness of the evidence regarding the vote. God bless her for doing so, though. While the most damaging things were discussed, it was never made as an airtight case.
Below I assembled what I believe is an airtight case that I feel needs to be broadcast far and wide. If you agree, take this or whatever iteration of it you see fit and make it known that this is the President's approach to the abortion debate.
A vigorous debate in the hands of Obama is more akin to a vigorous beating. To that I say, refute this -
Obama's voting and history on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Act:
The issue hinges on one key point in this issue, how was the amended bill handled when in his Health and Human Services Committee when he was chair?
The first thing is to set Senator Obama's position on the issue. While several press sources exist for his position on the original 2001 bill, below is a quote from FactCheck.org (a nonpartisan, nonprofit and part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center). The actual quote was from a CBN interview:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
Senator Obama Quote:
"I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion."
This quote was in response to an original bill submitted to the Illinois Legislature 92nd General Assembly in 2001. The issue Senator Obama originally took up was the verbiage from the Illinois bill was different that the bill submitted federally. This is correct, the text was different. the Senator's fear was that it would open up the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade. Irrespective of opinions on Roe v. Wade, he was likely right about the interpretation of the 2001 bill (SB1095) . See the original text below: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095LV....
Text of the 2001 Illinois Act:
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
25 fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
(note: the text in italics is where text in the 2001 bill differs from the federal bill)
Text of the Federal Bill:
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born alive' as defined in this section.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
8. `Person', `human being', `child', and `individual' as including born-alive infant.'.
As you can see, the bills do differ and leave room for interpretation. Again, while personal opinion of Roe v. Wade is subject to a personal interpretation, the difference does show why Senator Obama had an issue and as a Pro-Choice advocate, would be against the act as originally submitted. It provide intellectual consistency in his vote and subsequent statements regarding how he would support a bill with the federal verbiage.
Where the conflict begins is how the 2003 submitted bill (SB1082) in the 93rd General Assembly was handled. The first step is to clarify the path that the 2003 bill took:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID...
Bill Tracking History:
2/19/2003 Senate Filed with Secretary by Sen. Richard J. Winkel, Jr.
2/19/2003 Senate First Reading
2/19/2003 Senate Referred to Rules
2/26/2003 Senate Assigned to Health & Human Services
3/6/2003 Senate Postponed - Health & Human Services
3/11/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Filed with Secretary by Sen. Richard J. Winkel, Jr.
3/11/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Referred to Rules
3/12/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Rules Refers to Health & Human Services
3/13/2003 Senate Held in Health & Human Services
3/14/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Rules
3/14/2003 Senate Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Rules
1/11/2005 Senate Session Sine Die
You'll see the first few steps of the Illinois Senate Body. The submitted bill had the original text from the 2001 bill but with the intent of amending it. You'll also note that the bill was sent to the Rules Committee whose function in this stage of a bill is to be sure that the bill does not violate any procedural items. The bill was handed to the Health and Human Services Committee a few days after submission to Rules from the Senate. This is all procedural and never disputed by any party.
Once the 3/11 review of the document occurs, this is the point at which the issue presents itself. What occurred. To come to the end of the pathway, you'll note that the bill never left the committee as it had been designation 'Sine Die' due to the end of the 93rd Congressional session.
What did occur?
As you'll note in the bill tracking, on 3/11 verbiage was submitted by Sen. Richard Winkel to amend the original 2001 text to that of the federal bill. I won't repost the original verbiage again but it was exactly as the 2001 bill. This was the starting point and the text would be amended from that original text. What, then, was the amendment to the bill. Below is the Amendment verbiage:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082sam...
SB1082 Amendment Verbiage:
Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by
3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:
4 "(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to
5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal
6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at
7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this
8 Section.".
In removing the previous text and replacing it, as the directly above Amendment does, the Illinois bill now becomes ostensibly the same bill as the federal bill (the text in the 2001 bill posted earlier). Recalling that Senator Obama advised he would have voted for the 2001 bill were it to have been like the federal bill.
Since this never made it out of the Senator Obama chaired Health and Human services committee; how did that occur?
The suggestion is that Senator Obama had actually voted for the Amended bill. This answer is only part of the story. When the Amended bill was proposed, it must first be voted as to allow the bill to add the amended language. Once the language is approved, then the bill, in total and amended, is voted on as to whether to pass the bill to the At-Large Senate floor.
The Senate Committee Action Report:
http://www.nrlc.org/obamaBAIPA/ObamaKills2003amendedBAIPASenateCommitteeActionReportre.jpg
What you see are two actions occurring:
1) An up or down vote on adding the verbiage denoted by the motion 'DP #1' in the CA (Committee Action) column to the left. As the expanded legend shows, this is a call for a 'Do Pass' vote on Amendment#1 and thus DP#1 as the Committee Action. The resulting vote was 10-0 in favor of adding the amended verbiage (note that Committee member Iris Martinez was not available for the vote).
2) The next action was the Final Action of the bill (in the column to the right). Essentially, will it pass out of the Committee to the Senate At-Large. Again, as the expanded legend shows, this is a vote call to see if it will pass from the Committee with Amendment#1 now as part of the bill and thus DPA (Do Pass as Amended) as the Final Action.The result of this vote was substantially different. The result was 6 to 4. The majority 6 votes were against passing the bill from committee as amended. You'll note that Senator Obama was one of the 6 Senators to vote 'No' to pass as amended and that the vote was specifically a party line vote.
To the assertion by Senator Obama that he would vote for a bill that was like the federal bill, he specifically did not do so in committee and a committee that he was a chair of.
The bill essentially died in committee under rule 3-9(a) which states that if a bill exceed its preset approval deadline, that it is to be re-referred to the Rules Committee. However, the bill was held, then sent to the rules committee. (reference Illinois legislative rules: http://www.ilga.gov/senate/95thSenateRules.pdf pg 20)
It should also be noted that the committees report the bills that were passed to the Senate At-Large. From the 3/13 transcript (the actual reported day of the vote results that SB1082 was not reported as passed in committee:http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans93/09300019.pdf
Senate Health and Human Serviced Committee 'Do Pass, as Amended' reporting:
Senator Obama, Chairperson of the Committee on Health and Human Services, reports Senate Bills 127, 167, 199,371, 376, 467, 633, 810, 882, 1031, 1045, 1064, 1081, 1190, 1198, 1202, 1331, 1332, 1364, 1366, 1418, 1430, 1492, 1523, 1542, 1543, 1548, 1589 and 1882 Do Pass, and Senate Bills 263, 306, 359, 377, 378, 402, 459, 460, 552, 809, 1033, 1079, 1109, 1156, 1414, 1417 and 1649 Do Pass, as Amended
This is the history and sourced process from the issue of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Act and is essentially showing that Senator Obama had not done as he represented. Whether you agree or disagree with his position on this issue, it is important to note that how he and his campaign are presenting his position is not in sync with the above sourced and specified history.
Senator Obama stated that he would have voted for federal act driven bill verbiage but when presented with that opportunity, that is not what he had done and not what he has publicly disclosed.