Obama and partial birth abortion: Please provide proof and sources for ur input. What's his stance on it?

Question

I want to know his stance, not anyone's opinion or misinformed input. Please provide sources that specifically explain in detail what his exact stance is on it. Does he want just for anyone to able to do it or does he only want it for women whose lives r in danger by continuing to carry the baby to full term? Does anyone know how he feels about it once the baby could actually have a chance of surviving outside the mother's womb? Such as 6 months along? Please educate me on this and provide fact based evidence and sources not lies, distortions, or exaggerations. The more objective u seem to be the more seriously I will take ur answer. Hope u can help, thanks.

Answer 1

Go to Obama's website and read his stance.  You want facts go find them because you probably won't believe anything put here anyway.

Answer 2

Everyone is up in arms about the abortion stand. Okay women line up and we are going to interogate each and everyone of you and see which one of you have had an abortion. Please we women have worked and fought for the right over our bodies. Why not bring in the Taliban that is where womens rights will be going.

Answer 3

It is horrendous and should be outlawed.

http://www.lifeissues.org/pba.html

Obama:

Voted against banning partial birth abortion

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother..., . The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack...

Liberals as the one above me prefer to pretend it doesn't exist and attempt to obviscate the issue becasue of its Nuremberg like attitude.

Answer 4

Stop being lazy do your own research.

Answer 5

why would an inteligent candidate have a position on procedure that doesn't exist?  There is no such medical procedure as partial birth abortion. It's a made up term.  

Answer 6

Just as a preface for what you're asking about, before getting into sources, Obama said at Saddleback Church (transcript here:http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript... ) that his being pro-choice doesn't mean he's pro-abortion.  Obama wants to reduce the abortion rate, just like the rest of us.  He's just unwilling to take his anti-abortion stance so far as to make illegal a woman's choice in the matter, including in cases of rape, incest, or even the endangerment of the life of the mother.  He has come out strong on reducing the number of abortions.  See here: http://mediamatters.org/items/2008040200...

I don't find a whole lot out there on his stance on partial birth abortion.  When it was brought up in a debate, he basically said, It's a concerning issue, despite being less than one percent of abortion procedures.  Nevertheless, he continued, let's not get so caught up in one procedure but look at two larger issues: whether to trust women not to take such procedures lightly, and what can be done so women don't find themselves in such situations in the first place.

http://mediamatters.org/items/2007061500...

By the way, the procedure has had a low rate of usage, representing 0.17% of all abortions in the United States in 2000.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dila... )  I mention such an old statistic because since 2003 federal law prohibits in use in several cases, thus further tempering that number.  

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Bir... )

As for the Born Alive Infant Act, such protection of the child is granted by federal law, including during the time Obama was in the Illinois legislature, which was an explanation for why he didn't support it -- plus that provisions in it would erode a woman's right to choose.

In fact, the need to protect babies after they're born with legislation itself seems phony.  Sure, mothers' abandoning babies in dumpsters is bad, but that's illegal.  It was even a Dragnet episode in the '60's.

The perception of a need from protection of the baby right after birth was triggered by a nurse called Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room.  The Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims, because what she was alleging were violations of existing law, supporting Obama's position that Illinois law already prohibited the conduct.  Illegalities aside, Ryan was naturally quite concerned that such heinous activity could be going on in a hospital, as any sentient human being would.  But as one might expect, the story that was so heinous that it couldn't be true, in fact was not true.  The investigation concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone."  Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that her testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance her anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.  Nevertheless, not too credible, huh?

Jill Staneck also says domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions.  She also supports billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili, written next to a large skeleton, to discourage condom use.  She claims that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China, to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening."

So why was the legislation put forth in the first place, given that the baby-protection part was redundant?  The act was designed as "wedge" legislation.  It was designed for just for the sort of attack that the journalist you link is making.  When a bill-authoring group does this, they put in one horrible provision (the "infanticide" part of the bill) and package it with a bunch of other provisions that assault a woman's right to choose. Then, when someone votes against the bill to protect that right, they say the vote was over the "infanticide."

Articles that spin such legislation as infanticide are little more than gullibility tests.  

Furthermore, this story has been debunked dozens of times in Yahoo Answers. It still somehow keeps rearing its head.  But I guess this is to be expected.  Look how long it took for the belief that outer-continental-shelf drilling would significantly drop gas prices within a year to finally die off!

By the way, I appreciate your specifically asking for sources when posing this question.  The misconceptions wouldn't last so long if people posed questions with this stipulation.