LifeNews.com

Obama on Obamacare vs. Obama on Partial Birth Abortion Ban

by Jill Stanek | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/5/12 3:10 PM

Opinion

Responding to a question on Obamacare during an April 2 press conference, President Obama admonished the U.S. Supreme Court not to take the “unprecedented and extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”

Legal experts and politicos are tearing Obama’s statement up as obtuse, particularly since Obama prides himself as having been a “constitutional law professor” (although that title is disputed), and also false, since 219-212 is no “strong majority,” particularly since the former were all Democrats.

But I’d like to hearken back to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, a federal law that actually does qualify as having been passed by a “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Vote tally on Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010

House: 219 aye (all D) , 212 no (178 R, 34 D)

Senate: 56 aye (all D) , 43 no (40 R, 3 D)

Vote tally on Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

House: 281 aye (218 R, 63 D), 142 (4 R, 137 D, 1 I)

Senate: 64 aye (47 R, 17 D), 34 no (3 R, 30 D, 1 I)

Before the Supreme Court had even heard the case, Obama deemed the PBA Ban “clearly unconstitutional” in a 2004 fundraising appeal signed by surrogate Michelle, “that must be overturned.”

When the Supremes upheld the ban, by as narrow a vote as is anticipated in the Obamacare decision, Obama protested. When speaking at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 2007 he said:

For the first time in Gonzales vs. Carhart, the Supreme Court held – upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court – not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong.

In that case Obama was condemning the Supreme Court for upholding a federal law, which was actually a healthcare law of sorts, since it sought to protect half-born children from being stabbed to death.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

 

In a statement on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 2008, Obama again condemned the Court for upholding this broadly passed federal law (which was also broadly supported by the American public, which Obamacare is not):

Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women’s health.

And about Roe v. Wade, Obama didn’t mind the titanic upheaval of legal precedent when the Supreme Court overturned abortion laws in all 50 states in its 1973 decision. At the time abortion was illegal in 30 states and legal only in certain cases in 20.

Don’t forget Obama also anticipated Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act would be declared unconstitutional (pgs 84-90) because…

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.

Barack Obama is so tangled up internally he can no longer keep himself straight externally.

LifeNews.com Note: Jill Stanek fought to stop “live birth abortions” after witnessing one as an RN at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. That led to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation, signed by President Bush, that would ensure that proper medical care be given to unborn children who survive botched abortion attempts.