Handy Guide to why Obama voted "present" because Planned Parenthood wanted him to

[zulchzulu]

What this post offers is not only how Hillaryworld distorts Obama's pro-choice record (with 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood), but illustrates precisely how voting "present" in the Illinois legislature as Senator works to STOP BAD LEGISLATION and amend the legislation before passing it into law.

This example shows how Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, worked with Barack Obama and used the "present" vote as a strategy to stop the Republicans from adding an amendment to a bill that would have made partial birth an issue in the legislation.

This is a warning for the less-thinking to perhaps click off this thread because their head might explode. For people who are fair, honest and have a reasonably working brain, continue on.

Pam Sutherland starts:

"We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."

Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood's national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.

"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,' " said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."

"What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."

While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting "present," rather than "no," she was quick to note that "it's also not a 'yes' vote."

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, some of the specific abortion votes in question include two occasions in 1997 (HB 382 and SB 230) when he voted "present" on bills which would have prohibited a procedure referred to by its critics as "partial-birth abortion." In 2001, he voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if he or she survived a failed abortion.

(snip)

But while he competes for the Democratic presidential nomination, he can use his cooperation with Planned Parenthood in Illinois to help assure supporters of abortion rights across the country that he will not cross them.

"Obama made sure those bills got as few votes as possible for passage," said Sullivan .

From the December 4 Sun-Times article:

On the abortion bills, legislators who supported women's rights to the procedure were encouraged to vote "present" on bills that would have required parental notice before minors could obtain abortions and that would have barred what abortion foes call "partial-birth" abortions, a leading abortion-rights advocate said. The goal was to entice moderate Republicans and Democrats to also vote present, helping to defeat the bills.

"The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did," said Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140004

The critical point of this OP is to let people know that if Hillaryworld makes an issue of the "present" vote (Obama voted "present" about 3% of the time when Illinois State Senator) or makes an issue that Obama is not really "pro-choice", you can fully realize they are LYING.

[robbedvoter]

1. 130 times?

[Kittycat]

5. Over the course of HOW MANY YEARS and HOW MANY VOTES?

[zulchzulu]

7. Here's a 4th grade math quiz for you

Divide 4000 by 136.

Can you do that?


OK.


The answer is below. Don't cheat.























3.25%

Explanation:

The number 4000 represents the approximate number of votes that Obama made while Illinois state senator for 8 years. The times he voted "present" to stop bad legislation and amend it to be better legislation is 136.

[Cha]

2. Thanks, Zulch..that's all I'm

seeing now..little hilarys espousing "present" "present" "present"..nevermind the clintons are lyin' again.

[jackson_dem]

3. What about all his "present" votes on topics other than abortion?

What does PP have to do with his present votes on gun control or sex shops?

[zulchzulu]

11. If you are really interested in the whole story...

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.php

[Cha]

4. I see one head exploded.

such a pity. Oh make that 2..

[joshcryer]

6. So basically Planned Parenthood felt Obama being spineless was the best course of action.

[zulchzulu]

10. Whoops! Another exploded head in Aisle three...

Take a reading class. Then come back.

[joshcryer]

17. What, because I consider "playing it safe" in politics, spineless? OK.

[ccpup]

8. more honesty for you, zilch

An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.

...

Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote yes or no on a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted present on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence.

On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote.

...

In 2000, Mr. Obama was one of two senators who voted present on a bill on whether facts not presented to a jury could later be the basis for increasing an offender’s sentence beyond the ordinary maximum.

State Representative Jim Durkin, a Republican who was a co-sponsor of the bill, said it was intended to bring state law in line with a United States Supreme Court decision that nullified a practice of introducing new evidence to a judge in the sentencing phase of the trial, after a jury conviction on other charges.

The bill sailed through both chambers. Out of 174 votes cast in the House and Senate, two were against and two were present, including Mr. Obama’s.

“I don’t understand why you would oppose it,” Mr. Durkin said. “But I am more confused by a present vote.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

[zulchzulu]

9. Coming right back at you with more truth vs. your distortions

The funny thing about Obama is that he respects the US Constitution. On the sex crime bill:

B 854 -- OBAMA VOTED PRESENT BECAUSE A BILL WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Obama Voted Present On The Floor And In Committee On A Bill That Would Seal Sexual Assault Victims' Court Records; Illinois Press Association And Obama Argued That The Bill Was Unconstitutional. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Criminal Identification Act by allowing certain assault victims to petition to have their court records sealed, only to be opened for public inspection if good cause is shown.

Under the bill the trials involving sex crimes would remain open, but upon a conviction, a victim of a sex crime could ask a state's attorney to petition a judge to seal the records of the case. If the judge agreed, the public could not open those records unless someone petitioned the court and showed good cause. The State Journal-Register reported, "But the Illinois Press Association argued that the measure violates the First Amendment.

The U.S. Constitution does not allow judges to seal the records of trials that have been held in open court, said association attorney Don Craven. Besides, Craven argued, the legislation does not allow defendants the same opportunity if they're found not guilty. And there's no indication what would happen to the case files if the verdict were appealed. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, agreed that the bill probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster, although he said it's not unusual for his colleagues to pass such measures to show political resolve." <91st GA, HB 0854, 5/11/99, 3R P; 58-0-1; State Journal-Register, 4/28/99>

3 Of The 4 Democrats On The Judiciary Committee Voted Present On This Bill. In committee, Senators Shadid and Silverstein joined Obama in voting Present on HB 854. <91st GA, HB 854, Jud Committee, 7-0-3, 4/28/99>

When Similar Measures Were Passed In Other States Following A Scandal, The Press Raised Similar Constitutional Objections. The AP reported, "News executives in both states said the legislation was unnecessary and would hinder freedom of the press. 'It's another case where in order to achieve some possible good, legislatures are often willing to run right over basic constitutional rights,' said J. Randolph Murray, editor of The Anchorage Times in Alaska. 'We are against the thing because of the blanket restrictions it would impose,' said Doug Crews, executive director of the Missouri Press Association. 'Once a restriction such as this is made, where is the line drawn and where does it stop in the area of law enforcement records?'"

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.php

[hayu_lol]

12. Was a time that Dorothy was no longer in Kansas...new rules applied...

Obama is no longer in Illinois...and new rules apply. He continues to vote present with controversial bills/resolutions that might tarnish his skirts.

We pay these people to vote yes or no...and then to stand behind their votes.

Mr Obama does not do this.

[zulchzulu]

14. US senators can't vote "present" and besides, here's a simple lesson for you

You still don't get how the "present" vote works?

OK. You're a state senator. Wouldn't it be nice to pass a bill that gives kids in the rural community more books and maybe get some money to fix up the school. Cool! So you write the legislation and are ready to pass it when Wally Dumbfuck, a Repug, decides to add an amendment saying that no sex education will be allowed in those schools.

What do you do? Pass the bill? Yes, if you are a dumbass.

Do you vote "present" and thus not let the bill pass with the stupid amendment? Yes, if you are smart.

Then you lop off the stupid amendment from Wally Dumbfuck and THEN pass the bill.

Get it?

:shrug:

[ccpup]

13. my distortions?

show me where I edited what I posted from the original article before you accuse me of distorting something. One might begin to question your honesty when you throw around words like that, zilch.

You insinuated in your OP that Barack's Present votes were based on a plan by Planned Parenthood, I offered information from a NY Times article showing that there were votes which didn't include that and which went against what his Party was doing.

What you call "distortion" sounds more like "inconvenient fact" in light of the assertion you made in your OP.

[zulchzulu]

16. Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem

Crack a book someday. I hope you know what that means. Don't hit your head with a book, OK?

:rofl:

[ccpup]

18. see, now you're just being unnecessarily rude

I asked you to point out where I distorted what I posted from the original article and you respond by attempting to mock and belittle me.

I assumed I was working with an adult here. Perhaps not.

[zulchzulu]

20. see, now you're just being unnecessarily inept

Same ol' Same ol' from you...

[TwilightZone]

19. If it was unconstitutional, why didn't he just vote "No"?

:shrug:

[Lucinda]

15. " was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so"

That's not leadership.