actually, it wasn’t doctor keep the baby alive…it was provide medical care to a baby born alive. Obama voted against it because it went against the original intent to kill the baby. The other bill would have required a 2nd physician to determine if the baby was viable, or something like that. He did not like eitherI don’t see how any Catholic could possibly vote for Obama-- I was never a fan of his but when I heard on the radio about a situation when he was a State Senator there is NO WAY I could even think of voting for him.
Apparently a bill was brought up in their Senate(I think it must have been Illinois a/c I believe he comes from Chicago) that if an abortion didn’t turn out right (the baby was alive) the doctor could try to keep the baby alive – and Obama voted AGAINST the bill – how could he??? – the baby was alive!!! it was a baby!!! Unbelievable!!!
=Catholic Press;9989218]President Barack Obama won a slim majority of votes from self-identified Catholics, according to exit polls conduct by CNN. The polls shows that 50% of voters who identified themselves …
SHAME ON THEM!
Good law does not come from attempts to use rare and unusual situations to embarrass one’s political opponents. Politicians are not required, even Catholic politicians, to respond positively to every legislative proposal that is in line with Church teaching. You cannot conclude that voting against this means that the politicians think that babies should die. You can only conclude that they think the law is not needed. What did Obama actually say about this?I don’t see how any Catholic could possibly vote for Obama-- I was never a fan of his but when I heard on the radio about a situation when he was a State Senator there is NO WAY I could even think of voting for him.
Apparently a bill was brought up in their Senate(I think it must have been Illinois a/c I believe he comes from Chicago) that if an abortion didn’t turn out right (the baby was alive) the doctor could try to keep the baby alive – and Obama voted AGAINST the bill – how could he??? – the baby was alive!!! it was a baby!!! Unbelievable!!!
A fair question. The bill could have been a stunt (packaged with poison pills to force opponents to vote against it). You see pols playing these games all of the time.Good law does not come from attempts to use rare and unusual situations to embarrass one’s political opponents. Politicians are not required, even Catholic politicians, to respond positively to every legislative proposal that is in line with Church teaching. You cannot conclude that voting against this means that the politicians think that babies should die. You can only conclude that they think the law is not needed. What did Obama actually say about this?
That’s not what CAF apologist, Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. said.SHAME ON THEM!
They are now in MORTAL SIN as is everyone who voted for ANY Democrat![]()
All people have an obligation to inform their consciences regarding the moral choices they make in life. For Catholics to deliberately refuse to inform their consciences with the teachings of the Church or if they deliberately disobey the moral teaching of the Church, they can sin mortally if the choice is a serious one. But if people sincerely follow their consciences, whether their consciences are well informed or through not fault of their own they are not, they do not sin by acting on them.
I doubt that. NARAL did not oppose the bill (bills, there were more than one). Obama, however, did. It is my understanding that the reason he gave was that the bills would impose too great a burden on the abortion doctor.A fair question. The bill could have been a stunt (packaged with poison pills to force opponents to vote against it). You see pols playing these games all of the time.
Oh, there is more to the story. You are right.A fair question. The bill could have been a stunt (packaged with poison pills to force opponents to vote against it). You see pols playing these games all of the time.
I’m stridently pro-life and a Romney voter, but I half suspect the information posted is only part of the story.
no, put an undue burden on the WOMAN…you know, he’s all about the WOMAN…(vote with your specialty, ladies! not saying what he REALLY SAID)I doubt that. NARAL did not oppose the bill (bills, there were more than one). Obama, however, did. It is my understanding that the reason he gave was that the bills would impose too great a burden on the abortion doctor.
Here is a fact checking article on the Illinois bill, how the President voted, and the accuracy of the claims made:actually, it wasn’t doctor keep the baby alive…it was provide medical care to a baby born alive. Obama voted against it because it went against the original intent to kill the baby. The other bill would have required a 2nd physician to determine if the baby was viable, or something like that. He did not like either
Sadly, they are Catholics.No real Catholic could vote for Obama…soon…very soon…the persecution will begin…THEN the real Catholics will step forward.
Without knowing what is going on in their head, it is extremely difficult to determine if any particular sin is mortal or not.SHAME ON THEM!
They are now in MORTAL SIN as is everyone who voted for ANY Democrat![]()
ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/sbgroups/sb/900SB0230LV.htmlA fair question. The bill could have been a stunt (packaged with poison pills to force opponents to vote against it). You see pols playing these games all of the time.
I’m stridently pro-life and a Romney voter, but I half suspect the information posted is only part of the story.
Noted.Here is a fact checking article on the Illinois bill, how the President voted, and the accuracy of the claims made:
washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-obama-vote-to-deny-rights-to-infant-abortion-survivors/2012/09/07/9852895a-f87d-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_blog.html
But as can be clearly seen by a brief search of the legislation text for the quotes, the source is wrong.The anti-Obama claims from Huckabee and Ohden refer to a series of Illinois bills known as the Born Alive Infant Protection acts, which would have defined the term “born alive infant” as “any member of the species homo sapiens” expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits “a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.”
Even NARAL did not oppose the bill! Obama did!ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/sbgroups/sb/900SB0230LV.html
No stunts.
No poison pills.
Just a pro-death vote.