Apparently he was against giving babies that survived abortion care. This has be revealed by a people in Illinois.

one more you tube from the O'Reilly Factor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9duXeLahkV4

Seems that every time the subject is Obama, some partisan Obama supporter comes around and tries to change the subject.

Hey, let's talk about O'Rielly's purported sex talk now because such things matter now that Clinton is no longer President. Back then, the operative truth was that such things were a "private matter" and that the rape accusations all came from "bimbos".

Barack who? We don't need to talk about him. It's not like he's going to be President anyways.

This is just more lies piled on to some mischaracterizations:

Obama was asked HIS OPINION on the question. He doesn't know because he is not Go, despite how much you wish we believed that.

On the interview he wasn't asked about a bill and what impact the bill would would have in a legal sense, if it were to be passed.

If you read the article that traces back from your link you can see that the bill Obama was supporting specifically asked that the bill NOT make a determination when a child gets human rights.

"…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 anti-abortion statute."

That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because this language was added: "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."

So it was supported by all….98-0.

Yawn.

[quote]and if this is a child,

If it's not a child, what else could it be? And if it is a child, why doesn't it have the same rights as others?

Should read:

Are you suggesting someone might think it is a dog? The question is, what was Obama talking about when he argued if a child should these rights? His argument was to suggest that language was needed in order not to create a war on Roe v. Wade.

His comments were not related to when a child should receive rights. This was a particular case that, in the end, stated this law would specifically not speak to answer the question of when life should receive legal status.

This quote only affirms Obama's position. You just have to be smart enough to understand.

if it is a Human baby, then why shouldn't the human baby have the rights the rest of us do?

Well that is a different argument than what they were voting on. I suppose that could be an interesting debate were it up for discussion.

Rob,

Let's not confuse the discussion (and H) with facts. His purview is strictly rhetorical.

While Liberals voted to support the bill, as they should, they were specific to not make any claims legal or otherwise when a child is to receive human rights.

It is pretty straight forward, unless you are dishonest or slow. The question is which one are you fellas?

Reb,

You might have a point if the bill to give rights to the new-born wasn't supported 90-0.

But…….

Yes, Hannitized. We all know the bill passed unanimously. Which means Barack Obama is more pro-death than even Naral, NOW, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

What a turd.

For the sake of others reading this, I want to explain the issue b/c "smear-o-cons" have filled the web with this for weak minded people to fall prey to. In the interest of full disclosure, most of this is already at Factcheck.org. I have summarized some of the points made there and added a few of my own:

At issue is Obama's opposition to Illinois legislation that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive. Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade aka "the neutrality clause."

The National Right to Life Committee ("NRLC ") released a statement Aug. 11 saying it had obtained proof that Obama was misrepresenting his 2003 vote by stating that the Illinois "born alive" bill that he voted against in committee lacked the neutrality clause. Obama, then said the NRLC were "not telling the truth. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion.

Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent because it contained the neutrality clause. The NRLC accuses Obama of infanticide and offers evidence that the bill Obama voted against in committee (SB 1082), was amended to contain a "neutrality clause". The documents NRLC put out are a "Senate Republican's staff analysis" and a handwritten roll call confirming that the amendment was adopted.

The assertion that the Bill was amended turns out to be true, however, the amendment was a last minute change done in Obama's absence by the Illinois republicans. Brock Willeford, an Illinois Senate Republican, stated that he wrote the document immediately after the committee meeting and that he was in the room at the time of the votes. Assuming Obama knew of the amendment, he still voted against the Bill but offered a different explanation. He asserts that even with the same neutrality clause, the state bill would have a different effect than the federal bill. He argues that the state bill is state law, not federal law, and so it actually regulates the practice of abortion in Illinois. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level. Obama also argues that the bill was a political game because there are already laws in Illinois 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." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. Not surprisingly, the NRLC and Illinois republicans calls this law "loophole-ridden."

And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 after Obama joined congress, not only included the neutrality clause, it included an additional protective clause that states that: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." This statute, supported by Illonois repblicans, gives stronger protection to the Roe v Wade decision.

The fact is that this is an attempt to smear Obama by suggesting that he supports infanticide. Nothing more, nothing less b/c the very Bill that Obama said he would support with the changes he suggested was passed a year later after he left for congress.
Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.