First read what Senator Obama says on the Illinois Senate floor regarding their states Abortion Law concerning Health Services for an aborted child who has a heart beat and other signs of life. Then, take the time to think about what he said.In a speech delivered on the Illinois state Senate floor before that second vote, Obama said: “Whenever we define a pre-viable 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. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. 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.” What could this statement imply? What problems could result with this line of thought? I can think of two immediately. I want to hear readers opinions before I tell you mine.
It is clear that Obama believes in abortion on demand and would not extend 14th Amendment rights to these "pre viable fetuses", which are humand beings in reality.Moreover, under his logic ANY restriction within any of the trimesters would somehow invalidate Roe, in his estimation.Hence, partial birth, infanticide, etc. are countenanced by law.He is on record as saying he would sign the Freedom of Choice act immediately, if elected.
Post a Comment