However, on the question of abortion he is very solidly pro-life.
I suppose that he’s so solid on the right to life that the National Right to Life gave him a 75% rating. This means that John doesn’t even fit Reagan’s 80% standard of being a friend (or something along those lines) on the abortion issue even. I suppose that you didn’t read that either.
Whatever on the adoptions. I posted the link on here during the primary season (before Michigan and probably is in the December - January 15 threads). I can’t help it if you have such a poor memory. Obviously you either choose to ignore my link that I did at the time or you are like the left wing wackos on here that keep on saying that Bush should be impeached due to not giving Geneva Convention rights to the terrorists when it’s been posted that the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to the terrorists multiple times on here (some posters either can’t read or are deaf and dumb).
I suppose that he’s so solid on the right to life that the National Right to Life gave him a 75% rating. This means that John doesn’t even fit Reagan’s 80% standard of being a friend (or something along those lines) on the abortion issue even. I suppose that you didn’t read that either.
I explained that to you Ralph. Surely you are smart enough to understand this: NRTL counts campaign finance reform votes and votes on stem cells in their over-all score. If you look at the votes on abortion, his pro-life record is 100%. Do you understand now?
Whatever on the adoptions. I posted the link on hree during the primary season (before Michigan and probably is in the December - January 15 threads). I can’t help it if you have such a poor memory. Obviously you either choose to ignore my link that I did at the time or you are like the left wing wackos on here that keep on saying that Bush should be impeached due to not giving Geneva Convention rights to the terrorists when it’s been posted that the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to the terrorists multiple times on here (some posters either can’t read or are deaf and dumb).
Yeah, I tend to ignore long winded rants against McCain coming from supposed conservatives. That’s why I didn’t read your earlier posts on the subject. I’m only responding to your crap now because you are polluting my thread. This thread was supposed to be dealing with Obama’s abysmal record on protecting un-born children. Instead, I have to waste time dealing with you because you can’t get over your dislike for McCain. If you are pro-life, then you should put aside your animosity for McCain and help work to defeat Senator Obama. Obama is a real pro-abortion extremist who could do serious damage to the cause of life.
You probably didn’t read my thread about McCain wanting to slash defense spending (yep I documented it and will only do it once so then you can say go look it up again this fall). So talk about lame!!!!!
What is really pathetic is you admitting that you don’t open up posts that you disagree with and then asking the person to find a thread once again when the thread in question is months old.
BTW most of my posts are rather short so if I have long winded rants, then you filibuster to death with even longer posts.
I have people on ignore but I don’t go around asking them to post their links again when they’ve tried to make their point in the past.
The search function sucks on here and you can only go back 2 pages at a time. Google goes by the most recent hits for the most part. One of my favorite links has moved off the top 10 pages so I had to put it in my favorite list. I have 750 or more links in my favorite lists so I don’t feel like adding any more than necessary to fill up categories that I have formed already.
Does Barack Obama still support Partial Birth Abortion?
In February 2004, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the “alarming news” that “right-wing politicians” had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.
Michelle called partial-birth abortion “a legitimate medical procedure,” and wouldn’t supporters please pay $150 to attend a luncheon for her husband, who would fight against “cynical ploy[s]” to stop it?
Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother’s right to “choose” stopped at her baby’s delivery.
The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women’s rights or abortionists’ rights. Obama’s clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics. (As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois’ drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)
This is the man that doesn’t bother to show up for votes on National Security but slams Hillary Clinton for making a hard and conscienous decision that he couldn’t or wouldn’t take a stand on. However he will break his neck to rally and vote for partial birth abortion and denying the right of a living breathing child to life.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl…
I happen to be pro-life. However, regardless of your position on abortion, I cannot imagine how anyone could be pro-partial birth abortion. Apparently Obama and his wife are. It is not enough for them to suck a baby’s life out of a woman womb. They want to make sure that jamming a pair of scissors into the head a partially formed baby and killing it is legal, and obviously moral (to them), right thing to do. How this man and his wife call themselves Christians is beyond me.
Catholics make up about a quarter of the electorate. They are split on abortion, but not necessarily on partial birth, which I can’t imagine their supporting. They are swing voters, and usually pick presidents (except when they went for Gore).
Obama is “underperforming” among Catholics. His support of partial-birth abortion, which will have to come out during the campaign, will hurt him (as it should).
