Barack Obama is so pro-abortion, when he was an Illinois state senator, he fought against passage of a bill to protect the lives of babies that were born alive, despite attempts to abort them.
In other words, someone tried to kill them in the womb, and failed, and the child still managed to survive, only to be left to die with no care or support after being born...and Obama thought this was a procedure worth fighting for.
From LifeSiteNews:
In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was first introduced in Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion. (To view the original 2000 BAIPA, http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/OriginalFederalBAIPA2000HR429...)
In 2002, the bill was enacted, after a "neutrality clause" was added to explicitly state that the bill expressed no judgment, in either direction, about the legal status of a human prior to live birth. The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/BAIPAFederal.pdf)
In 2003, Obama fought against an attempt to pass similar legislation for the state of Illinois:
Douglas Johnson, NRLC spokesman, explains: "Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language…explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion."
So just what kind of procedure are we talking about?
From another LifeSiteNews piece, nurse Jill Stanek describes what happens to the babies who are killed after being born alive:
Jill Stanek was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois in 1999 when she discovered that babies born alive after failed abortions purposely were being left to die in the "soiled utility room," which, says Stanek, is a room where biohazard materials and soiled linens are disposed of.
"That's where nursing staff took these babies and left them to die."
She continues:
"Christ hospital - and we now know other hospitals and clinics around the country - are involved in an abortion procedure called 'induced labor abortion,'" says Stanek in the video, entitled "Kill and Destroy". In this type of abortion, she says, the abortionist inserts a medication into the birth canal of the mother and induces premature labor.
"My experience was that they [the babies] survive as short as a few minutes, to once, almost as long as an eight hour shift.
"To be clear these were living babies who were left out to die. And they were issued both birth and death certificates according to Illinois state law."
Stanek relates the story of how one night she saw a nurse bringing a baby to the soiled utility room to die, because the parents of the child did not want to hold it. The other nurse also did not have the time to hold the child. "When she told me what she was doing I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone," says Stanek. "And so I cradled and rocked him for the forty-five minutes that he lived."
Can you get your mind around a practice like this going on in a place called "Christ Hospital"?
Here is a video of Stanek telling about this procedure, with a dramatization of nurses leaving a newborn child to die on a table in a storeroom.
"Kill and Destroy" Synopsis:
Featuring an interview with Jill Stanek, "Kill and Destroy" explores Barack Hussein Obama's support of infanticide in Illinois, an alarming decision that was opposed by every Democrat and Republican in the U.S. Senate.
"What does it take to make a man a monster any more?" Illuminati Pictures president Molotov Mitchell recently wrote. "If Americans can watch this video and still support Barack Obama, then America is...beyond all hope."
I don't know about you, but when I heard Stanek tell about the cold-hearted deaths of these children, I felt a heavy chill. I spent several years in law enforcement, so I've seen some pretty cold, heartless behavior; still, this left me moved in a heart-wrenching way.
How even the most strident abortion advocate can defend a practice like this still claim to retain a measure of humanity is beyond my ability to comprehend.
And millions of Americans are considering electing such a man President of the United States...
4 comments:
The Liability Act: The Illinois Statute Obama Voted Against
Like the Born Alive Act, the Illinois Liability Act also concerns itself with the interests of those who are “born alive as the result of … abortion.” Unlike the Born Alive Act, however, the Illinois law does not define its terms. It therefore seems likely that Obama refused to support the Act because of its ambiguity.
The Illinois Liability Act does not tell us, for example, at what point during the process of birth the infant can be said to have been “born alive.” This is important, because so-called “Partial-Birth Abortion” laws regulate the process of terminating a pregnancy, not simply the rights of an infant who survives that process. The difference between regulating abortion and protecting surviving infants who are born alive turns on when in the process of birth the law says that an infant has already been “born.”
One could read the Illinois Liability Act as unclear on the question of whether it applies more broadly than the Born Alive Act – to include the fetus still inside its mother’s womb, with part of its body expelled, and regardless of how early in pregnancy the abortion occurs.
There is, in fact, good cause for concern about ambiguity in the Liability Act, given what it does say about the meaning of “born alive.” It explains that “[c]hildren who are born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion or any other abortion are in special need of protection due to the fact that the intent of their birth is to cause the death of the born child.” If one is speaking of all abortions, as the statute purports to do, this statement is not quite accurate. An abortion provider’s intent is generally not to cause the death of a born child.
The provider’s intent, on the contrary, is ordinarily to cause death prior to the emergence of a “born child,” assuming that “born child” refers to a live birth following complete expulsion or extraction from the mother’s body. We are thus left to guess at the meaning of “born child,” because the statute – unlike the Born Child Act – does not tell us that the definition entails complete expulsion or extraction and at least hints at the possibility that it does not.
Therefore, when Obama’s critics claim that he opposed a statute that is “similar” to the federal Born Alive Act, they are missing (or perhaps disregarding) a critical distinction between the two statutes and, accordingly, between infanticide (the act of killing of an infant who has completely exited the mother’s body) and abortion.
Another Difference Between the Born Alive Act and the Illinois Liability Act
In addition to its lack of clarity on the subject of its protection, the Illinois Liability Act is distinct from the federal Born Alive Act in another respect that ought to concern conservatives. The Born Alive Act requires that a child born after a failed abortion be treated like every other child under existing laws. The Liability Act, by contrast, would authorize a parent or guardian to bring a lawsuit against a doctor or hospital for failing to take care of the child that survived the failed abortion. Stated differently, the Liability Act would create a new cause of action for money damages.
It is not clear what such a threat of litigation is intended to accomplish, particularly if it only applies in the relatively rare case of a baby who is actually born alive after an attempted abortion. As Senator Obama pointed out in disputing the need for such a law, there is no evidence to support the proposition that doctors stand by and let viable infants die. One might guess, however, that the purpose of the proposed law is to chill the practice of abortion – to deter doctors and hospitals from terminating pregnancies at all – by creating yet another associated risk for providers to take into account.
That being the case, it is hardly surprising that a pro-choice Senator, even one who supports the Born Alive Act, as Senator Obama does, would take a principled stand against the Illinois Liability Act. Contrary to right-wing accusations, his position in no way reveals support, either express or tacit, for infanticide.
This is pure gobbledygook, Anonymous.
I don't see anything in the Illinois bill that would add the threat of litigation any more than the federal bill--not that either bill would.
Despite your contention to the contrary, the Illinois bill also explicitly states the point at which the child is considered "born." Maybe you should re-read it--this time with a mind that is open and not desperate to justify the barbarous behavior of your candidate Barack Obama.
Obama was afraid that if babies who survived despite attempts to abort them were protected, people might start to actually think logically and realize that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being in the womb.
The practice of abortion can only survive in a vacuum of logic.
Bob Ellis,
You need to stop being so narrow minded, as most Republicans are. "Anonymous" is right, and obviously educated enough to make an informed decision for themself. A decision based on all of the facts, not based on what Rush Limbaugh or any of the other brainwashing Right Wingers that have lost all ability to reason tell them. Supposedly you want less government interference, except when it suits you. Do you want the government telling you what to do with your body? You are not female, so you really don't even have a say. If the church told you (or any Republican) that the sky was falling, and it was due to the "Liberals" then you would probably believe that, too.
Hattie, I don't take my marching orders from Rush Limbaugh or even the church.
Unlike most liberals who will swallow any pablum that excuses them from moral responsibility, I think and evaluate for myself.
It's how I went from being pro-abortion to becoming pro-life.
As a conservative, I definitely want less government; it's how our nation was designed to be--including that laws be passed by lawmakers, not judges as was done in 1973.
The protection of human life, though, is the first and foremost responsibility of government; if it fails to safeguard human life, all other rights a good government should protect and all the services it provides aren't worth much. If you're dead, rights and services don't do you much good, do they?
Perhaps this is why Thomas Jefferson stated the obvious: "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction
is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
The issue of abortion really comes down, not to the rights of a woman, but to whether the child growing inside her is human life. After all, if it is not, then removing it would be no different than removing a tumor, would it?
But if it is human life, then the child has rights and is entitled to the same protection of life as any other human being.
And science speaks very strongly to the fact that the child in the womb IS human life.
From the moment of conception, the unborn child has human DNA. Not cat DNA, not fish DNA, not pine tree DNA, but HUMAN DNA.
Also, from the moment of conception that human DNA is unique DNA. It isn't the DNA of the child's father, it isn't the DNA even of the child's mother--which means the child is not a part of her body with which she is entitled to do as she pleases. The child has unique human DNA which means it is a separate and unique human being.
As if this were not enough evidence of the unborn child's distinct humanity, by the time most women even know they're pregnant, the child already has a developing nervous system, a brain, and a heartbeat.
So again it really comes back to the life inside the woman. If it is a distinct human being--which the science clearly indicates it is--it is entitled to protection from the government, as all human beings are entitled to be protected by the government from having their lives ended.
And this is what Barack Obama vehemently defended. Not even the killing of a distinct human being in the womb, but a distinct human being who actually survived an attempt to kill it, and Obama says we should kill that life, too.
Post a Comment