The Elderly and Infirm Should Fear Obama

[Opinion]

Obama voted against a law that would require care for babies that survived an abortion. His reasons for doing so were to not impede on a woman's right to choose and that there were already federal laws requiring care.

Ok,
The abortion was completed. The woman exercised her right to choose and now Obama wanted to deny health care to a living human being until they died.

If there was already a federal law providing health care for these human beings then why would he vote against it?

Now Obama wants to set up universal health care. The bureaucrats will then determine health care and standards. I wonder how long it will take for the argument to be made to deny health care to the elderly and infirm and let them die a peaceful death.

In Nazi Germany the retarded were euthanized in order to save the state money, perhaps for the more healthy citizens.

I recently spoke to a man from England he stated that if an operation was not necessary you could wait a few years. So I guess you had to wait with your pain or debilitating condition until your number was called. I would think most surgeries are needed in a reasonable time because it needs to be an important reason in order to be cut open!

Now I imagine one could always go private except private care will probably become very expensive and with the taxes needed for public health care money will be tighter for the average citizen.

wow, government health care, just like the DMV!

What's the saying?
You can tell a lot about a society by how it treats it's most helpless?
Obama voted to deny health care to live birth infants
Now he wants control over your and your parents health care

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by Opinion

Obama voted to deny health care to live birth infants

Can you elaborate on this one, please. zg

[Unshake]

From FactCheck.org

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion."

[Opinion]

Originally Posted by Unshake

From FactCheck.org

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion."

Ok, you seem to know more on this then I do
What was the law/resolution that Obama voted against to provide assistance to live birth abortions?

Obama said what you said.
Laws already exist
I defended a woman's right to choose blah blah blah
He stated his opinion in an actual vote (non binding?) to deny live birth abortions health care!

If the law already existed and he was for it, then why not vote tooooo! provide care to live birth abortions!!!!!

If he wants to deny the definition of "life" to babies; nice choice of words fetus, surviving abortion, then I would not want that man in charge in any form of my health care!!!!!

[Unshake]

Originally Posted by Opinion

Ok, you seem to know more on this then I do
What was the law/resolution that Obama voted against to provide assistance to live birth abortions?

Obama said what you said.
Laws already exist
I defended a woman's right to choose blah blah blah
He stated his opinion in an actual vote (non binding?) to deny live birth abortions health care!

If the law already existed and he was for it, then why not vote tooooo! provide care to live birth abortions!!!!!

If he wants to deny the definition of "life" to babies; nice choice of words fetus, surviving abortion, then I would not want that man in charge in any form of my health care!!!!!

I think he was voting to defend Roe V Wade and felt that the definition of life involved in the bill he voted against undermined Roe V Wade. I'm not really sure his exact reasoning, I remember him talking about it in one of the debates, I think the last one.

[Opinion]

I believe infants should receive health care. I don't get sidetracked with verbage, political aims or what if's.

Obama does not feel the same, verbage and what if's matter to him!

History tells us; Nazi Germany, that government health care leads to government sanctioned killings or perhaps in this country the denial of health care leading to death.

Perhaps to infants and then the elderly. None of us reading this are infants but with luck we will all become elderly!

[Opinion]

If defending Roe V Wade means one has to vote against providing live birth babies health care then to He## with Roe V Wade!!!!!

If someone thinks protecting Row V Wade means denying live birth babies health care until they die then I question their judgement and morality!

[Unshake]

Originally Posted by Opinion

I believe infants should receive health care. I don't get sidetracked with verbage, political aims or what if's.

Obama does not feel the same, verbage and what if's matter to him!

History tells us; Nazi Germany, that government health care leads to government sanctioned killings or perhaps in this country the denial of health care leading to death.

Perhaps to infants and then the elderly. None of us reading this are infants but with luck we will all become elderly!

Although I am unsure that government health care is a good thing in the United States, many countries that are closer in comparison than Germany has decades ago have government health care and have no "sanctioned killings or denial of health care."

If by "verbage, political aims, and what if's" you mean defending supreme court rulings, then maybe it does matter to him.

[Unshake]

Originally Posted by Opinion

If defending Roe V Wade means one has to vote against providing live birth babies health care then to He## with Roe V Wade!!!!!

If someone thinks protecting Row V Wade means denying live birth babies health care until they die then I question their judgement and morality!

There was ALREADY a law in place defending this. The new law undermined Roe V Wade while introducing nothing new so he voted against it.

[GeorgeD]

I believe all Americans should receive health care. I don't get sidetracked with verbiage, political aims or what if's.

Obama feels the same, verbiage and what if's matter to him!

History tells us: Nazi Germany, under Hitler, banned abortion primarily to support it's "superior race" concept and to assure enough bodies to support and die in it's wars.

In the US, we have found that anti-abortion zealous are primarily religious fanatics who will stop at nothing including violent protest and the assasination of doctors that they may promote their agenda of denying others their constitutional rights.

The agenda of the religious right is clear: First abortion, then birth control, then mandatory religion, then death to all gays then death to all infidels. Exactly like extrermist islam

Amen.