He was willing to not protect real live-born babies because he thought doing so might possibly have been used to restrict the killing of pre-born babies some day in the future. Read what he wrote. You can judge for yourself whether that is barbaric. I think it is a natural consequence of denying when human life obviously begins.

I think he meant that the people who were going to vote for it rather than take the time to rewrite it to make it Constitutional would vote that way no matter what he said.

What do you think he meant?

Not that it matters since he was misinformed on what the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution was on the issue he was (not) voting on.

Perhaps he was, but nevertheless, that was his reason. He said repeatedly that he would have voted for a bill to protect the born-alive infants if he believed it would hold up. He said he would have voted for a federal bill that passed Congress before he was elected to the Senate, because it was well-written and avoided what he believed would be a Constitutional roadblock.

You keep insisting that you know his “real” motives or whatever, but his own statements don’t jibe with what you think.

He is not an anti-abortion candidate and nobody is trying to pretend he is. But neither is he the heartless barbarian that you seem to want to believe he is.

Bingo.

Obama said that the constitutional issue would not make a difference in how they voted. That’s what he said. Otherwise, what did he mean?

Not that it matters since he was misinformed on what the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution was on the issue he was (not) voting on.

No, you don’t understand. The fact that it could, in his opinion, be read so as to ban all abortion was precisely why he thought it wouldn’t hold up under challenge.

I repeat my question from earlier, which nobody answered: Would it make more sense to vote for a bill that sounds more sweepingly “pro-life” but which is probably not going to survive the appeals process … or one that is less encompassing but also more likely to stay in effect?

Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can take place.

I wouldn’t put much effort into determining Obama’s abortion position based on this non-vote. He actually thought abortions after viability were not allowed. He is, or was, a creature of the party and voted accordingly.

Obama would have voted against it with or without his constitutional objection:

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 regard to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny

He would have voted against it even if he thought it would pass constitutional muster apparently because he thought it could be used to ban abortion.

You just did. Your sentence should have read, “Obama supports murdering unborn children.”

That is the the awful truth which you now obfuscate with the euphemism “abortion rights.” That is also why you people are so afraid to view pictures of the hideous handiwork of your abortion mills. Such pictures are like what we saw coming out of places like Auswitch in 1945. But of course, it is much easier to make your case when you hide things like that and only speak of rights and fetuses and fake constitutional issues, etc.

Your whole case hase been based on lies from the very beginning. The principal in Roe v. Wade and her attorney’s lied from the start with her fabricated gang rape story. They committed perjury in order to gain the sympathy of the court and manufacture a constitutional “right” that never existed—a “right” that now gives Obama and his ilk legal cover to hide behind.

Don’t talk to me about lies. Your case is full of them.