Obama's Infanticide By Neglect continued.

Let us now pick up the verbatim transcript in the Illinois Senate regarding SB 1093:
Senator O'Malley: "Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the way children are treated following their birth under these circunstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane [ Do you see what great courage the Senator displays in describing infanticide by neglect as "less than humane?" Here's a man for all seasons!] and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States."
Presiding Officer, Senator Karpiel: "Senator Obama."
Senator Obama: "Well, it turned out-- that during testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns [ Can you imagine- pro-abortionists actually "concerned" about new-borns being neglected until they died? What a display of heart.] that your - you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses [ a new-born infant is not a fetus, Obama] or children [No, infants, Obama] who are delivered in this manner.
Unfortunately, this bill goes a little further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive
constitutional scrutiny [Wow! You know a lot about the Constitution don't you?]. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus [ Here Obama deliberately lies about whom is being discussed, hoping to wiggle out of the rightful charge of supporting infanticide by neglect and
hoping the attract the attention of the pro-choicers whom he wants to support him over Hillary Clinton, his greatest adversary in the 2008 presidential primaries.] as a person that is protected
by the equal protection clause or some other elements in the Constitution, what we are 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 [What is this- some game in which if you are born after nine months in the womb, you have rights, but if you are born before that, you have no rights and can be ignored until you finally die?]. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place [Obama, this has nothing to do with abortions but births!] 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 it would be an antiabortion statute [No, it wouldn't because abortions kill fetuses, that is, unborn children while this proposed bill would provide medical care to born children totally separated from their mothers. How weak!].
For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional [There you go again, misusing the Constitution.] The second reason that it would be unconstitutional [ It wouldn't.] is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child or fetus, however you may want to decribe it [There you go again, calling a newborn a previable fetus. And why do you refer to human beings as "that" and "it?" It must be because you value human beings so highly.] Viability is the line that has to be drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion [There he goes again, talking about abortions when the bill is concerned with new-borns] can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necesssary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality [Don't we try to keep all humans alive as long as possible?]. Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion [Birth, Obama, not abortion.], we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional [Is everything except what Obama wants unconstitutional?] and it was struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I --I won't, as I said, belabor the point. TO BE CONTINUED.
Again, let me make the point that you are not on the path of love if you say nothing about someone who wanted to keep allowing infanticide by neglect to happen. You are on the path of love. peternickerson12@yahoo.com