Why did obama vote against the infant liability act?

Question

I am trying to find information on it but it is all really negative. I understand that Obama is a staunch supporter of a woman's right to choose. Thanks in advance for your help

Answer 1

He voted for it in 2002 then flip flopped to get votes. He is a sellout and will do whatever to get votes. Did you know he supports s*x education for kindergarterners? http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/07/1...

Answer 2

because he obviously believes that live born babies are not us citizens... i guess life begins when you are named now?

Answer 3

Because if doctors were required to provide medical care to babies accidentally born as a result of a failed abortion, that would defeat the purpose of an abortion.  

Answer 4

In 2002, Obama voted against a bill to create the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act to provide that if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent or public guardian of the child may recover damages for costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney’s fees against a hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after it is born. Obama voted against a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Further defines “born alive” to mean “the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that 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 of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.” Obama predicted the bills would be struck down by a federal court were they to become law. Obama said, “Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, we’re saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to term…That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

Answer 5

He doesn't care if a baby lives or dies. He may say one thing but his actions defy his words.

Answer 6

Because he is a fail. To bad Mike Huckabee get kicked out of the race.

Answer 7

yes he did

Answer 8

    Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – 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 physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

    Obama, Senate floor, 2001: 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 – a child, a nine-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 antiabortion statute.

Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/...

Answer 9

He doesn't want to have women get stuck with a  mistake or a problem..that's how democrats refer to children

Answer 10

this is not about him tonight

what's up with that crappy speech?

Answer 11

First of all, I think that people need to stop inserting their own personal opinions into remarks they make about politicians. Republicans do not want to take away women's rights, and nor do democrats think of babies as "mistakes." Obama voted against the act because he felt it was a republican act to get abortion outlawed. Many republicans believe that fetus delivered after pre- term induced labor are people as well as developing fetuses. Many Democrats believe that if a woman is not in the position to take care of and provide for a baby, and she knows it, it is HER OWN RIGHT to choose the end the pregnany before the child is born. Incompletely developed fetus are not humans. Sure, they are darn well on their way to being one, but they are not living citizens. Some people wrongly believe otherwise, but that is just their opinion. Those references to Obama's speeches are just that-really good references. Look into the full versions.

Answer 12

Because the wording in The Illinois Bill was set to outlaw abortion.

Republicans refused to change the wording.

Some Republicans voted against it fo the same reason.

Answer 13

The issue came up three times in the IL state legislature. The first time, in 2001, he voted "present" and during discussion questioned whether the bill would hold up constitutionally, and whether the bill was in essence an attempt to outlaw abortions. He stated that he wanted to find a compromise that would be more specific about how a doctor was to treat a fetus that was alive following an induced abortion but previable (meaning it would not survive no matter how much the doctor did). On that day, 34 legislators voted aye, 6 nay, and 12 (counting Obama) voted as present (which is not a no).

It passed, but must have been vetoed? Because it was back in 2002 and 2003. In 2002, he voted no after discussing more concerns about specific parts. He at no point suggested anyone should kill a viable infant that survived an abortion.

So, the basic point is that the bill was adding restrictions and liability to doctors and trying to define a previable fetus that was alive following an induced labor as a full citizen of the US, entitled to all the same rights and protections we would expect a full term infant to have. As you can see, that kind of language is dangerously close to suggesting that no woman should have the right to abortion because it violates the rights of the child.