The Kansas City Star endorses Barack Obama for president

Stunning silver jewellery from tiffany, Gucci, Links of London; quality designer silver jewelry at online prices. We have silver Bracelets, Solid Silver ...

Shop creations of timeless beauty from cheap tiffany jewelrythat will be treasured always. You can buy cheap tiffany jewelry but high quality from us

العاب ستروبري شورت كيك
العاب رقص
العاب بنات
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب تلبيس
العاب اولاد
العاب براتز
العاب باربي

العاب طبخ
العاب مكياج وميك اب
العاب اطفال
العاب سيارات
العاب قص الشعر
العاب
العاب فلاش
العاب ماريو
العاب بنات
العاب g9g
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب طبخ
العاب اكشن
العاب سيارات
العاب باربي

العاب طبخ
العاب باربي
العاب بنات جديدة
العاب
موقع العاب
العاب سيارات
العاب سبيستون
العاب براتز
العاب اولاد
العاب بنات فقط
العاب قص شعر
العاب مجانيه
العاب ستروبري شورت كيك

العاب رقص
العاب بحرية
العاب زوارق
العاب جديدة

العاب فلة
العاب هانا مونتانا
يوتيوب
العاب
العاب بنات
girls games
العاب g9g
العاب براتز
العاب اولاد
hguhf
عيش سفارى
العاب تلبيس باربي
العاب براتس
العاب بنات شمس
يوتيوب
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب
العاب بنات
العاب تلبيس

Interface: thanks for posting Sen. Obama's own words on BAIPA. I assume that, because you highlighted certain sections of his speech regarding the constitutionality of the bill, you are sympathetic to his position. If I am misreading your intent, please forgive me.

First, to respond to Sen. Obama's arguments: regarding the contention that any sort of recognition of personhood before nine months gestational age is simply stunning. The Supreme Court never defined personhood simply via gestational age, but instead used that as a measure of the state's interest in pre-natal life as opposed to the mother's interest in personal autonomy. The presumption always was that, after birth, any autonomy interest of the mother in terminating the life of her child was necessarily subordinate to that of the now-born child in remaining alive. Thus, Sen. Obama was arguing that, even after a child was born, it still did not have a right to life, or even to basic comfort care as it was dying--as opposed to being left naked in a utility closet for its last minutes and hours. Sen. Obama listened to detailed testimony by registered nurses testifying that babies surviving abortions were being so treated. He also was surely aware that the State's Attorney General explained that current Illinois law was inadequate to allow the state to prosecute hospitals who treated born infants in this fashion (contrary to his assertions in the 3rd presidential debate). Instead of protecting those children, though, Sen. Obama created a legal fiction that only children at 9 months gestation are "persons." Thousands of babies are born pre-term every year, some as early as 25 weeks. Are they not persons?

Further, the law which Sen. Obama killed had specific language which stated that it would have no effect on Roe v. Wade (in fact, Sen. Obama lied about this aspect of the law, using it as cover for his actions until he was called out on it this summer--at which time he switched his justification. You can see the account here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/763/ ). The Federal government enacted a law which was almost word-for-word identical to BAIPA (see the two laws compared side by side here: http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Comparisonof2ILBAIPA.html ), it was supported by every member of the U.S. Senate and wasn't even opposed by NARAL. The law was enacted over five years ago and has yet to be successfully challenged in court.

Sen. Obama's actions against BAIPA weren't just confined to a characteristically wishy-washy "present" vote (which, under the Illinios constitution has the same effect as a "no" vote, just without any moral backbone). He also chaired the committee which considered the bill and voted against it 3 times there, including once just after he had voted to include language in it which would explicitly make clear that it had no effect on Roe v. Wade.

Either Sen. Obama is incompetent in his understanding of Constitutional law (and, given that he taught the subject, I doubt it), or he simply has no regard for the moral implications of abortion whatsoever and is more interested in posturing on the issue. Surely even those who are pro-choice can agree that a child outside the womb should be treated with basic human kindness and respect and not left to die in a utility closet. Sen. Obama, sadly, apparently cannot so agree with such a basic level of human decency. And that is why he will not receive my vote.

Tony's Kansas City:

http://www.tonyskansascity.com/2008/10/big-surprise-kansas-city-star-is.html

This isn't really a big surprise to anybody but it speaks to the hypocrisy of Kansas City's paper of record.

Any reasonable person could contend that The Star can no longer offer objective news, opinion, insight or analysis on the subject of the Presidential race now that their leadership has publicly pledged their support.

We've seen it before - The Star made up their mind for Mayor Funky (look where that got Kansas City), The Stadium Tax, Light Rail and so many other ballot issues and their coverage was OBVIOUSLY skewed to support the decisions of their top level staff.

Abortion abortion abortion... good God give it a rest. If you want to base your choice of the future of America on this one issue go ahead. For me, I would like to vote for the candidate that will do more for the unborn child now and after it is born. I want to see abortions reduced and I want to see the lives they lead after birth to be of a higher quality. I don't want to vote for a candidate who says they are prolife but then cuts funding for programs that help poor mothers or sends our children off to fight wars in the name of capitalism, or wants to inevitably degrade the quality of life for the children who are born. I know a social workers who work tirelessly to convice mothers to keep their unborn childrenn by helping them provide and care for their children - they are the same ones facing funding cuts by the so-called Prolife candidate. A vote for McCain will increase abortion and only has a slight chance of ever overturning Roe vs Wade.

From Obama’s March 30, 2001 remarks on the Illinois Senate floor:

OBAMA: This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won’t belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was — is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?

O’MALLEY: Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the — the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a — a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.

OBAMA: Well, it turned out — that during the 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 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 or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit 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. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re 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. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. 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 this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion 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 necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be 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. I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and — and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a — a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present.

I'm afraid I'm short on time, so please forgive me if I don't respond thoroughly (or if the brevity of my response in places comes across as incivility, though I hope that won't be the case).

1) You can read about the impact of FOCA (which includes eliminating parental consent/notice laws--which, by the way, do include the "judicial bypass" option you identified, allowing a minor to get a judge's consent if a parent, for some reason, would not be appropriate) at several different sites. Here's a few: http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html (Quotes Planned Parenthood as saying "Parental consent or notification statutes have been used as a tool to deny access to abortion services for minors. When such laws deny or interfere with the ability of minors to access abortion services, they would violate FOCA." I tried to track down that quote from Planned Parenthood myself, but the FOCA fact page had been taken down: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/foca-questions-12445.htm)

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmQzOTYxNjIzOGMwNWJmYTUzNDFmZGJiNzEzMTJjYjE=

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml (This article is by one of Princton's premier professors of jurisprudence; I'd highly recommend this article.)

Also, here's an article outlining the direct impact of parental consent/involvement laws on rates of abortion:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmVjMmQ2NzA1NjkyNDA2OGExZjM0MDgwYTU1NmFkM2U=

In sum, while FOCA doesn't directly state which laws would run afoul of its overwhelmingly broad language (which is probably why your research had difficulty pulling that up--I sympathize!), parental consent/notice laws would unquestionably be among them (see PP quote above). NARAL states that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."

2) The Constitution does protect the right to privacy. All agree on that point; the argument is whether it protects only those rights to privacy actually in the Constitution (ie, ones that the people got to vote on) or also those that judges make up as they go along (ie, ones that a majority of 5 judges got to vote on). Thus, Gov. Palin's answer was appropriate.

3) Sen. Biden's description of the state of abortion law was accurate about 17 years ago. Since 1992, abortion jurisprudence explicitly discarded the trimester framework (which was artificial, anyhow) and instead adopted a straight "viability" standard. And regardless, current law on the subject requires a "health" exception at ANY stage of the pregnancy--including hours before birth. Since "health" can literally be defined to mean anything (physical, psychological, emotional, relational and even financial), NO laws can effectively restrict abortion which include a health exception. The only law ever allowed to directly limit abortion without a health exception was the Partial Birth Abortion Act, which the Supreme Court found to be constitutional and which Sen. Obama voted against (in his state legislature). If you really want to understand what partial birth abortion is, read the Supreme Court's two decisions discussing it, Stenberg v. Carhart and Gonzalez v. Carhart. But be warned--don't eat anything beforehand.

4) It is constitutional to treat abortion different from other medical procedures. The U.S. Supreme Court itself said, “The medical, emotional, and psychological effects of an abortion are serious and can be lasting” and that “it is desirable and imperative that [the decision to abort] be made with full knowledge of its nature and consequences.” See H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398, 411 (1981) and Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52,67 (1976). Further, exactly the trimester framework you identified Sen. Biden discussing is evidence of this; there's no other medical procedure which the Court has ever identified a constitutional right to while recognizing the State's competing interest in "potential life" (a dishonest phrase--a fetus is certainly alive. The point of abortion is simply to kill it). Finally, as a matter of reason, of course abortion differs from all other medical procedures--the removal of an appendix effects no one but yourself. However, the termination of a fetus' life at least affects (1) the fetus, (2) the mother, and (3) the father (after all, appendixes don't have fathers!).

4) To stay somewhat focused (please stop laughing!), though, allow me to quote Prof. George about Sen. Obama's abortion extremism: "Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is ''pro-choice'' rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it."

5) And to conclude, back to BAIPA--again, from Prof. George: "In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide."

Sorry for the length! I guess things got a bit out of hand...

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc//Natl_Debt_Chart.html
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

1) When was Ronald Reagan president ? 81-89
2) When was GHW Bush president ? 89-93
3) When was Bill Clinton president ? 93-01
4) When was GW Bush president ? 01-08

1) National debt increased from about 1 Trillion to 3 Trillion dollars and a ratio of 33% to 50some precent of GDP - a tripling of $$$ and a 50% increase in ratio.

2) I just stopped doing the math . It is grotesque .

I started college in the Carter years.
Interesting how the numbers have changed since then.

Please help me read the growth patterns - did the debt increase during Carter ?
Did the debt increase during Clinton ?
How about those "red" colored presidents ?

I can't afford another RED president, nor can my children. You must have money underground in your back yard and it can't be US currency.

I don't think it can get any simpler.

I just remembered the Katie Couric interview where she talked about Roe v Wade. We heard all about how Sarah Palin stumbled around, and how Palin said that she believed there WAS a right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution (which is at the heart of Roe v Wade - I don't think Palin understood that).

But what got largely overlooked was Biden's response. I will try to paraphrase it.

He said basically that in the first 3 months, the courts have rules that the woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body. In the next three months the court says that there is overlap between the woman and the government and that in the last three months the courts are more in power than the woman.

This is a clumsy restating of what Biden said. I encourage you to go to CBS and find the Couric interview, but I felt it was a thoughtful response.

I do not believe that Obama and Biden are pro-abortion, and I do not understand how you arrive at that based on the information you have provided. I read the first post from heritage.org and I don't see how it draws a line from Obama to pro-abortion. Since I don't read FOCA the way you do, maybe there is the disconnect. I see FOCA as an attempt to codify the original interpretation of Roe v Wade. I do not see it as some sweeping radical implementation of "pro-abortion" doctrine.

I note, for instance, that the co-sponsors on this bill include Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is hardly a "left-winger". He was almost McCain's running mate, after all.

Link to Couric interviews with Palin and Biden on Abortion

I am reading about FOCA "Freedom of Choice Act". I googled around and I found pages from the Obama website and from Thomas (the site for senate bills). Here's a link.

Google Freedom of Choice Act

The second link I see is from http://thomas.loc.gov. This is a good site for finding information about bills in congress. I tried reading through the "Freedom of Choice Act (Introduced in Senate) S 2020 IS" and I don't see where in this bill it legislates that minors can get abortions without parental consent.

What causes you believe that Barack Obama is against parental consent? I can see rare circumstances where a child is being sexually abused by a parent and would need shelter from that parent. In those cases, I would think a judge would need to be involved to protect the child. Abortion is a serious medical procedure. I am surprised that Obama has taken a stance against parental consent. I will continue researching this.

Oh and btw, Senator Hillary Clinton is one of the sponsors of FOCA in the Senate. I presume Bill Clinton is aware of this. :)

I want to be clear here. I support using taxpayer money for medical procedures in certain circumstances, and I reject the idea that we would use taxpayer money to treat a person suffering from cancer, or from a broken arm, or requiring some other medical treatment, but specifically deny it just for abortion. I do not favor abortion, but it is clearly unconstitutional to separate out this medical procedure from the others.