tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352772427071370287.post152794599580034448..comments2014-11-10T00:41:43.196-05:00Comments on i know, RIGHT?: BAIPA and Mr. AnonymousMellanKellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14320579992178151530noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352772427071370287.post-31796357753769273552008-08-27T13:08:00.000-04:002008-08-27T13:08:00.000-04:00Both Federal and State bills imputed full rights t...Both Federal and State bills imputed full rights to infants "born alive" and both have identical wording in a key paragraph which defines "born-alive" as meaning "breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles."<BR/><BR/>HOWEVER, the State bill contained this: "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."<BR/><BR/>Bearing in mind that there is no such thing as "born alive abortions" and that the State bill was included with several other bills aimed at restricting access to abortion in Illinois, it is no wonder that a pro-choice Senator would not support it. It is also worthy to note that the Illinois State Medical Society also opposed this paragraph.<BR/><BR/>The Federal Bill contained the following: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section". Pro-choice lawmakers approved this bill only after this paragraph was added.<BR/><BR/>In 2005 the following was added to the State bill: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion" and "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards." and it passed.<BR/><BR/>Clearly you are blinded by your bias (or perhaps you're just really lazy and rely on others to "feed" you what they deem relevant information) and have no qualms whatsoever about distorting the truth in order to attempt to get the point across that you just don't like abortion. Unfortunately you're left with zero credibility at that point.MellanKellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14320579992178151530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352772427071370287.post-39700099678119680162008-08-21T16:43:00.000-04:002008-08-21T16:43:00.000-04:00"I have said repeatedly that I would have been com..."I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported."<BR/><BR/>To Obama:<BR/>Then why did you oppose the 2003 bill Obama? which had the neutratlty clause? and was identical to the federal version?<BR/><BR/>There was language in the 2003 version that would not effect Roe or state laws. It's a smoke screen Obama. If you can't defend little babies that happen to survive the violent act of abortion, how are you going to protect on country as President? You're unfit to be President and you're a radical infanticide supporting monster.<BR/><BR/>JasperAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com