BAIPA sailed through the US Senate unanimously. NARAL took no position on it. In Illinois, though, Obama fought it hard. It didn’t pass until after he left office.

I’ll give you a couple links to some of the information.

I understand a pro-choice point of view. Disagree, yes, but I understand. But opposing BAIPA is literally supporting infanticide.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html

And another one, but I feel like I must warn you … WND is, well, … not diplomatic in its Rightist perspective. Let’s put it that way.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121

I like a number of things about Sen. Obama. He’s got as much class than anyone else in the field for either party, putting him there with my man, Huckabee. (Who isn’t, I admit sometimes, going to win the nomination.) He relates to people because he is one of them — unlike McCain, Clinton, etc.. While Edwards was forcing populism, Obama really is a populist.

But I can’t get over the flagrant disregard for life … up through and including the willingness to have babies killed who survive abortion.

I’m wondering, you seem like you’d be amenable to Senator Obama, why not?

From the Clintons? I never would have guessed …

I certainly hope that we’re watching the implosion of the Clinton regime. Sadly (from my point of view), that will just about assure Sen. Obama’s promotion to President.

This is another of those things that I think won’t resonate with real people. It looks like what it is — a desperate cheap shot from the Clinton campaign.

Obama’s handling this with class and grace, while Clinton looks like a raving lunatic. With the person on the street, I think it’s all a net gain for him.