Pajamas Media

71 Comments

1. idov:

Interesting story out of Israel today. An Arab woman in her fifth month began bleeding internally so they removed the baby, which was pronounced dead. They put it in a cooler. Five hours later the father showed up and asked to see the baby. They opened the cooler and saw vital signs. In Israel you don’t have to ask twice, they’ll do all they can to save the baby, although it is very premature. Why would anyone even think to do otherwise?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3584270,00.html

Aug 18, 2008 - 8:08 am 2. Consanescerion:

Nice summary. Looks like taking responsibility is above Sen. Obama’s pay grade.

Aug 18, 2008 - 8:10 am 3. Boris:

“This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush.”

So Obama was right that there was already a law in place and that this move was just anti-abortion grandtsanding and wasting legislative time, right?

Aug 18, 2008 - 8:21 am 4. Consanescerion:

Boris, the law you’re mentioning happened later.

The federal law you mention defined such acts as murder, as they clearly are. Even Senator Boxer said so. When Sen. Obama deep sixed the Born Alive bill in Illinois… he allowed murder to continue in his state until the federal government could act against these atrocities.

Aug 18, 2008 - 8:30 am 5. Boris:

Um, this article says the fed bill was 2002 and the Illinois bill was 2003.

Aug 18, 2008 - 8:41 am 6. Akatsukami:

As a good authoritarian, Boris, you are of course ignorant about and disinterested in the constitutional status of the states vis-a-vis the Federal. And, to be sure, your fellow thugs have often successfully hijacked Federal law to carry out your fascistic designs.

However much you squirm and twist, however, you cannot conceal that Obama was engaged, heart and what passes for his soul, in an effort to redefine murder for his ends.

Aug 18, 2008 - 8:51 am 7. Vivienne Avare:

Obama is not a true Christian. It’s bad enough to allow abortions but late term is violent abuse! While exceptions should be made to permit some to be aborted early, never allow one still “alive” to die without an attempt to save it.

Aug 18, 2008 - 8:59 am 8. OLDPUPPYMAX:

Ain’t it a bummer when absolutely everyone connected with the media will not shill for you? That’s when ugly things like the truth gets out. Obviously just another case of racism.

Aug 18, 2008 - 9:07 am 9. Kevin:

Boris,
Try reading the article.

“Among those “present votes,” of course, were the votes Obama cast concerning the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, while a senator in Illinois (March 2001).
But then the Illinois state Senate changed majority hands to the Democrats in the 2002 election, and Barack Obama took over the chairmanship of the Health and Human Services Committee, which had authority over the bill that would protect those babies that survived induced abortions or accidents or other medical procedures. He held the bill in committee for over a year and then voted against it”

Aug 18, 2008 - 9:07 am 10. Kevin:

Oh yeah. Forgot about my original reason for posting. Obama will never admit anything, for that would require him to actually make a stand and defend in earnest his positions and beliefs. No politician likes that, and it is clear Obama thoroughly hates the idea of actually having to defend himself without a teleprompter.

Aug 18, 2008 - 9:10 am 11. George Clarke:

If we define a human being as soneone with human DNA that is a combined mixture of father and mother no one can disagree that they were the same human being there are now when they were in their mother’s womb. No one seriously believes a baby in the womb is not a human being any more than the Nazis really believed their lies to themselves that Jews were sub-human, or that the slave owners, sleeping with their slaves believed their slaves were subhuman. They were lying to themselves for ulterior motives.

So who’s kidding whom? You want to kill your baby as unwanted before she is born, you probably still want to kill her just as much after she’s born. Her choice or her body herself, is of no concern to the person wanting to get rid of her as an imposition on their freedom. So whether you vote to kill her before birth or after birth your moral position is the same. Please everyone who favors abortion, please make that clear.

Aug 18, 2008 - 9:44 am 12. tanstaafl:

Obama’s slipping, sliding, and squirming over his votes on this bill are beginning to closely resemble Bill Clinton’s problem with the meaning of the word “is.”

That “above my pay grade” thing at Saddleback church over the weekend was a smack of malarkey in the face.

“Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade,” Obama answered. “But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.”

Aug 18, 2008 - 10:18 am 13. Boris:

Kevin,

The bill from 2001 did not contain the language that Obama thought was unconstitutional. The clarifying language was copied from the federal bill.

Akatsukami,

Grow up or calm down. Geez.

Aug 18, 2008 - 10:18 am 14. Boris:

“The bill from 2001 did not contain the language that Obama thought was unconstitutional.”

That should be

The bill from 2001 contained the language that Obama thought was unconstitutional.

Aug 18, 2008 - 10:19 am 15. Marty Kay Zee:

Life begins when God takes note of a couple’s sincere desire to produce a child. At that moment He selects and reserves a soul for that child and upon its birth imbues it with purpose. Regardless of its appearance, an unintended embryo/fetus is simply not God’s will and therefore has no soul or heavenly status.

Aug 18, 2008 - 10:34 am 16. tanstaafl:

Whatever his personal thoughts,(beyond not wanting his daughters to be “punished with a baby”)Barack Obama is absolutely required by the platform of “The Left” to support a woman’s right (blah blah blah) and roe v. wade.

That’s about all there is to his “position”.

It’s the one thing he can’t fudge on or dissemble about.

If he’s bothered the least bit by the fact of 40-50 million abortions performed since passage of “roe” in 1973, he can’t show it.

(gee, statistics quoted vary by 10 million human beings…)

What a complete travesty this abortion thing is.

Aug 18, 2008 - 10:34 am 17. Consanescerion:

tanstaafl: The funny thing is this isn’t about abortion. It’s infanticide. And Obama will not apologize or retract his support for infanticide, although he will clearly lie about it.

Aug 18, 2008 - 10:58 am 18. jenna:

Marty Kay Zee — you aren’t serious are you?

I’m pro-choice (with some restrictions as to the timing and purpose of abortions) out of viewing it as a “necessary evil”, but what Senator Obama has condoned is infanticide, is positively inhumane (those babies did not die soft deaths; thy suffered). Even Kennedy and Hillary agreed with that, the entire Congress agreed. What Mr. Obama, and apperantly you, are speaking of is disgusting and reminiscent of the mindsets that created Auschwitz and Treblinka.

Aug 18, 2008 - 11:29 am 19. Akatsukami:

The truth hurts, doesn’t it, Boris? You progressives are just as vulnerable to Alinskian tactics as us human beings — more so, as what you say about us is slander, whereas what we say about you is the truth.

Aug 18, 2008 - 11:48 am 20. Obama Digs Himself Deeper « Tai-Chi Policy:

[...] in Abortion, Democrats, Dishonesty, Obama, Politics. trackback Maybe he’s planning on hiding the bodies of those live babies in the hole he’s just dug himself – he called the Right to Life Coalition liers, and then [...]

Aug 18, 2008 - 12:32 pm 21. Boris:

“What Mr. Obama, and apperantly you, are speaking of is disgusting and reminiscent of the mindsets that created Auschwitz and Treblinka.”

Thank you Godwin.

Now, for people who actually care to think, how did Obama voting against a law in committee that was already covered by Illinois law and an exact duplicate at the federal level–how does that equate with shoving Jews into the gas chamber? I find it sickening that people like you crap on the memory of the six million to justify your own paranoia. Can you actually make an argument without poisoning the well. I would be surprised.

Aug 18, 2008 - 1:18 pm 22. Believer:

It’s taken me some time to calm myself over the feelings of revulsion that I have for this person who would presume to lead our great nation.

There is something so disturbingly wrong with a man who cannot see or sense the obvious evil in the things he would allow. A shocking detachment from reality. Nor is he aware of the evil of his own words and actions: he lies — and calls others the liars — while in a House of God, no less.

But it should come as no surprise to any of us. He has surrounded himself with men – and women – who think and act on evil impulse. His history of childhood influences and adult associations are who he is. Which is why concerted efforts have been made to hide them from us.

These are people with skewed thinking — lacking conscience — souls so lost one wonders if they will ever be awakened.

And Senator Obama is a man so blind to what is true and right and good — a man so lost in sin — that it will be the mark of how far we’ve fallen, if we – as a nation – have become so blind and lost ourselves that we allow him to lead us.

Aug 18, 2008 - 1:31 pm 23. Valerie:

Ya think the Barack Obama campaign has figured out yet that it was a mistake to destroy all his legislative records?

Aug 18, 2008 - 1:35 pm 24. Dane:

“Life begins when God takes note of a couple’s sincere desire to produce a child. At that moment He selects and reserves a soul for that child and upon its birth imbues it with purpose. Regardless of its appearance, an unintended embryo/fetus is simply not God’s will and therefore has no soul or heavenly status.”

So you’re saying an unintended child is soul-less?

…I mean seriously, think about the ramifications of what you’re saying.

Aug 18, 2008 - 1:53 pm 25. Akatsukami:

“Now, for people who actually care to think, how did Obama voting against a law in committee that was already covered by Illinois law and an exact duplicate at the federal level–how does that equate with shoving Jews into the gas chamber?”

Once again, Boris you pretend not to know — or just don’t care — that the Federal government is not allowed to usurp the legislative functions of the state of Illinois — or any state, for that matter.

You cannot cite any legislation or judicial decision in Illinois that covered this — because there was none.

And how do we equate Obama’s doing all in his power to block this legislation with shoving Jews in the gas chamber? Simplicity itself; his apparent reasoning was: “Since there is a Federal law against shoving Jews in the gas chamber, I can block state legislation forbidding it”. That’s how.

Aug 18, 2008 - 3:06 pm 26. Dave:

Marty is off base in scriptural terms. Bible says God invents us before we are born, that we are first a complete idea in His infinitely creative mind, THEN we are conceived and born.

There are no babies who are not God’s will.

Certainly there are some miserable circumstances in which pregnancies occur, and even I cannot find it in my heart to blame a young girl for desperately wanting to not be pregnant.

But well over 90% of abortions are measured decisions that are more about convenience than about crises like ‘risk to the life of the mother’. I’ve known a lot of women who’ve had them, and every one of those women wished, later, she hadn’t done it. I knew one who cried every time she saw children playing.

Aug 18, 2008 - 3:11 pm 27. Boris:

“You cannot cite any legislation or judicial decision in Illinois that covered this — because there was none.”

You know, the information is available people. Maybe look for it before looking dumb?

–
For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when “there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,” an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes “it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique “most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus” and perform the abortion in the presence of “a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.”
–
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/01/from-the-archiv.html

Now’s the time when you claim it’s all a conspiracy and the evil newspaper is wrong because your cousin is from Illinois and a doctor threw his baby into a dumpster and then hive-fived Al Franken. Or something. You know, making stuff up like you types always do.

Aug 18, 2008 - 3:36 pm 28. Texas Pete:

Marty: Wow! That’s pretty kooky. Accidental children are soulless and have no heavenly purpose? Just walking around this earth must be like living an installment of Night of the Living Dead for you: soulless dead people everywhere.

Now I have to go tell my soulless daughter that because her Mom and Dad did not intend to have her, that she’s drawn the “Go Straight to Hell” card.

Get a grip!

Aug 18, 2008 - 3:41 pm 29. jenna:

I believe that the idea of certain segments of the population “have no souls” (and therefore are, I suppose, ok to dispense with at whim and with no reason or remorse) is indeed exactly what caused the killing in the Holocaust. They are somehow less than us (humans), therefore it is ok to do away with them for that. That is, unless I’m very incorrect in my history, precisely what helped to slaughter the millions. I realize that many call upon that history to make exaggerated claims of victimhood (which is wrong), but the claim of soulless-ness/un-humanity is was one of the lubricants on that crushing wheel.

Even a mortal enemy, one who means you the gravest of harm, should still be seen as human and therefore possessed of some sort of soul/human-ness.

and truly, there must be many, many soulless people walking about today; our entire human history must be one great mass of soulless-ness.

There is no way to equivocate what Mr. Obama was suggesting by way of his voting on this imho.

and by the by, do not label me as something I am not: I’m neither a conservative nor a pro-lifer; this judgement of Obama’s just goes beyond the pale, as do the opinions of those who would support it. Just my opinion though, granted.

Aug 18, 2008 - 5:23 pm 30. Boris:

“and by the by, do not label me as something I am not: I’m neither a conservative nor a pro-lifer; this judgement of Obama’s just goes beyond the pale”

I never called you a conservative or pro lifer. I called you someone who uses the Holocaust to make some political point. Obama never made the comments about souls that you ascribe to him, and it’s clear to anyone who is paying attention that Obama argued–and was right–that Illinois laws already covered the case involved. I don’t know how you can say that someone is like a Nazi for pointing out that there are already sufficient laws on the books and for shooting down the grandtsanding of the anti-abortion lobby.

So pay closer attnetion and don’t conflate Obama’s words with those of someone posting here.

Aug 18, 2008 - 5:53 pm 31. Tom:

Obama lied, babies died

Aug 18, 2008 - 7:07 pm 32. Zbigniew Mazurak:

This is a good article. There’s nothing in it that anyone could criticise. You’re an exceptional columnist. Thank you for reviewing the docs and for writing your dozens of articles.

Aug 19, 2008 - 2:39 am 33. Boris:

“This is a good article. There’s nothing in it that anyone could criticise. You’re an exceptional columnist. Thank you for reviewing the docs and for writing your dozens of articles.”

No one is even debating the points I’ve raised, not even the author of this “article.”

Aug 19, 2008 - 3:44 am 34. Irish Alex:

I googled for ‘”born alive infant protection act” illinois’ and the second hit was this (also by Jill Stanek): http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html
which is mostly comprised of quotes by Barack Obama establishing the position that he voted against this legislation not for any high minded reasons, but simply to follow liberal dogma.
Some examples:
“What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.”
“Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade”

My personal favourite is this:
“Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. 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 antiabortion statute.”
By this statement, Mr. Obama is claiming that premature(before 9 months) babies are not entitled to protection, even if they are ‘viable’. This must be his position otherwise he would be claiming that a baby is a person and that is not permitted by dogma. However, “kill the babies” is not a slogan that will win elections, so whilst claiming that pre-nine months a baby is inherently not a person he is also trying to claim that this is only the case if it has not been born naturally or with medical assistance where that medical assistance was not intended to kill the child. If the purpose of said medical assistance was to kill the child then it is not a child even if it has been born and is alive.
And liberals try to claim the religious are irrational.

Aug 19, 2008 - 5:15 am 35. rocketeer:

I’m just voting “present” for Obama!!

Aug 19, 2008 - 6:40 am 36. rocketeer:

Marty – Where’d you dig up these beliefs? I don’t believe there is a Biblical reference to reserving souls for the unborn until the parents express a desire to have the child. I don’t remember filling out the request-for-a-soul-card with God when we had our children.

The moral argument for abortion cannot be made that the fetus is not a person. You can make other arguments, but you cannot say that a fetus is not a person. One cannot say that it is the mother’s choice what to do with her body, since it is not her body that is going to be terminated. But that’s not the point of this article or Obama’s arguments. Pretty much everyone agrees that a fetus, once separated from the mother, becomes an individual and is guaranteed all of the rights and privileges thereof. Obama would deny these rights to the survivors of these late term abortions.

Yet another nail in the coffin of Obama’s campaign.

Aug 19, 2008 - 6:52 am 37. Boris:

“By this statement, Mr. Obama is claiming that premature(before 9 months) babies are not entitled to protection, even if they are ‘viable’.”

Um, Obama is clearly talking about fetuses that are “previable.”

Aug 19, 2008 - 7:47 am 38. Obama on Abortion « The View from Alexandria:

[...] any rate, that’s how he’s voted in the past, no matter how much that fact causes him to wriggle now. Thomson explains why someone might hold Obama’s position: There are some people who will [...]

Aug 19, 2008 - 8:33 am 39. tanstaafl:

The original Hippocratic Oath (where a physican swears to guard his patients from “harm and injustice”) also includes an avowal to not give to a woman an abortive remedy.

Modern versions of the Oath (taken at graduation from medical school) don’t include that phrase.

People must have been a lot smarter in the 4th c. BC than they are today.

Today, instead, we have

3rd rate physicians making fortunes destroying viable life in the womb

Dr. Tiller has, also, very likely violated his state’s regulations on “late term” abortions.

Aug 19, 2008 - 10:02 am 40. JAY:

Boris: “Um, Obama is clearly talking about fetuses that are “previable.”

No, again you are wrong, keeping your streak alive. We all know what he meant. Anyone who would not defend the rights of a baby deserves our scorn. Obama is disgusting and if you’re taking up for him then you’re disgusting too.

Aug 19, 2008 - 10:13 am 41. JAY:

I have to get out of this site. The more I think about Obama’s stances on abortion and morons like “Boris” the more pissed I get.

Aug 19, 2008 - 10:16 am 42. TomFromTN:

I have to agree that Obama’s abortion policy is very troubling for this registered Democrat.

Oh, for a candidate that is Pro-Life, Anti-War, Pro-Working Poor and Green.

The base of both parties would never allow this to happen.

Aug 19, 2008 - 10:24 am 43. Boris:

“We all know what he meant. Anyone who would not defend the rights of a baby deserves our scorn.”

Come on, he uses the word “previable” in the very quote that Alex gave. Learn to read before calling someone a moron.

Aug 19, 2008 - 10:29 am 44. JAY:

When I use the term “moron” that basically covers all your posts. And yes, we all know what he meant and yes he does deserve our scorn.

Aug 19, 2008 - 12:32 pm 45. Irish Alex:

“a previable fetus” “they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term”
His definition of child, in his own words, is a nine month old delivered to term. This is the qualifier he has placed on “a previable fetus”. Arguing about letting “a previable fetus” die is less repellent than the same said about a baby, but in his own words he states the position that a child is not a child, not a *person* and thus not entitled to protections until they are nine months and delivered to term. He may have tried to hide his true beliefs behind weasel phrases, but Mr Obama follows liberal dogma to the letter: a baby is not human until it is born.

Aug 19, 2008 - 12:41 pm 46. Boris:

Is this really that difficult a concept? When you give a previable fetus the same protection as a full term baby, then abortion would be illegal. You guys are trying desperately to turn it around and say that Obama is saying a viable fetus does not have the same rights as a full term baby. He does not say this.

The fact that you have to make stuff up and deliberately misread someone’s words to make an argument is pathetic.

Oh, yeah, you KNOW what he really means. Your psychic delusions are both funny and sad.

Aug 19, 2008 - 1:14 pm 47. JAY:

Boris: You now bore me. Believe what you will.

Aug 19, 2008 - 1:47 pm 48. Sue:

Is this the bill that prevented doctors or nurses from just putting a live being on a shelf or in the trash can and just waited for expiration? Sick, sick, sick and sicker.

Aug 19, 2008 - 2:19 pm 49. Mary:

John the Baptist, while still in Elizabeth’s womb, recognized Jesus while Jesus was in Mary’s womb. That’s what Luke chapter 1:36-44 tells us. Any truly thoughtful ones who wants to know when a baby has human rights would be wise to consider these verses:
36: And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37: For with God nothing shall be impossible.
38: And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
39: And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
40: And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
41: And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43: And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44: For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Aug 19, 2008 - 7:52 pm 50. Kevin:

tanstaafl,

Nothing will happen to Tiller. As of July 2, 2008 the Grand Jury that had been convened no-billed him. In short, the state legislature can’t get it’s act together to write a concise law and with Phill(this is the proper spelling) Kline losing re-election, and his successor Paul Morrison being forced out because he couldn’t keep his pants zipped up, the new AG, Steven Six(not a typo either), most likely will not seek to continue this, my opinion. This whole situation was as badly executed as the Texas CPS attempt to take the kids away from that polygamist group this summer.

Aug 19, 2008 - 10:35 pm 51. Consanescerion:

Boris, reread Obamas attack on the Born Alive law. Obama calls any child under nine months “previable”, even if the baby has already been born and is breathing fine. Obama has thus already established when life begins (even if nowadays the question is above his pay grade). He has not retracted this unique position.

That’s certainly a very interesting position… I’ve never heard its like before. Do you share this view? Like him, do you feel that a baby can be tossed in the trash, as happened at Christ Hospital? Several of my nephews and neices were preemies. Under Sen. Obama’s regimen, anyone could have pureed them at any time up until day 271 after conception without consequence. Now that’s CHANGE.

Say, didn’t Obama’s pastor, Rev. Wright, sit on the board of that hospital? Fascinating! I wonder if we’ll hear more about this in the weeks leading up to the election?

Aug 20, 2008 - 12:45 am 52. Zbigniew Mazurak:

Yet another betrayal of the GOP on McCain’s part: now he’s about to nominate a pro-abortion candidate for the VP. McCain should be warned that there is a red line – a limit to the GOP’s readiness to support that RINO for the sake of foreign policy – and that abortion is behind that red line. In the event that McCain ignores this warning and nominates an abortionist anyway, Republicans should either vote for a 3rd party candidate or stay home.

American Catholics alone could punish McCain. They are the USA’s largest single denominational group, consisting of 69 mn people. Without them, no one can win an election these days. Since 1960, no one can.

American Catholics are a truly unique group of Americans. They have an uncompromisable, unequivocable set of moral principles. Their leader, Benedict XVI (who is also the leader of all non-American Catholics incl. myself), is the world’s ONLY universally recognised moral authority. The CC has established simple, unequivocable, uncompromisable, sacred principles, incl. the right to live for all unborn kids without any exceptions.

I trust American Catholics (or at least my friend Kyle-Anne Shiver) that they will not compromise on abortion; that they will not vote for a pro-choice Vice Presidential candidate like Romney, Ridge or Lieberman, whatever McCain’s foreign policy credentials (if he has any) may be.

Finally, to Mary: John the Baptist did not recognise Jesus, he recognised Saint Mary. Jesus did not utter the greeting – Saint Mary did. Your quote, nevertheless, is one of the Biblical quotes that have made the case for socially conservative policies. Abortion is like same-sex marriage. Only God can legalise it. We humans, are not permitted to change what is not supposed to be changed. The reason that kids deserve legal protection is that God made them deserving that. God created humans this way, not the other. It is illegal for humans to change something that is not supposed to be changed.

Aug 20, 2008 - 1:05 am 53. Consanescerion:

Mazurak: If it’s a choice between a pro-life presidential candidate who has promised to appoint conservative judges, and a pro-infanticide candidate, there’s not much contest, no matter who the VP is. And McCain hasn’t named one yet anyway.

Besides, Obama supports FOCA, the “Freedom of Choice Act”, which would certainly shut down every Catholic hospital in the nation and would put out of work any Catholic medical professionals who refused to facilitate abortions. Depending on how courts interpret it, it could also shut down any religious school that taught against abortion.

Catholics who voted for Obama would be voting to discriminate against themselves.

Aug 20, 2008 - 7:29 am 54. tanstaafl:

Kevin, I lived in Wichita KS for a long time, within a few miles of Tiller’s clinic.

I remember when he was shot, as I recall, in the arm. (I think people who shoot abortion doctors are nuttier than the doctors themselves.)

I developed a very strong idea of the kinds of doctors who go into specializing in performing abortions.

Even today, I think reputable and skilled doctors would avoid doing them, not to mention building an entire practice around performing such a “service”.

I also think, for the record, that notions of when life begins or arguments about assigning human rights at which point in gestation…are bogus.

I don’t have to do any delicate legal dances to have a complete and visceral aversion.

I’m sorry to hear that the action against Tiller may be dropped.

Aug 20, 2008 - 8:44 am 55. Zbigniew Mazurak:

Con: It WOULD HAVE BEEN if McCain was the kind of person you spoke of. But he’s not. He will NOT appoint conservative judges; he will appoint judicial activists like Ginsburg and Breyer (both of whom received his votes in 93 and 94, respectively). He will not repeal Roe v. Wade, either. In 1999, he said, “certainly in the short term, nor in the long term, I would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade”. He’s a pro-abortion extremist pandering as a conservative. He’s such a disgrace to himself, his family, his state, his country and his party that he should withdraw from the presidential race immediately. His next step should be to free the US from him and go back to Vietnam.

Aug 20, 2008 - 10:32 am 56. Boris:

“and a pro-infanticide candidate”

We just cant stop lying in the conservative movement, can we?

Aug 20, 2008 - 1:24 pm 57. Consanescerion:

Boris: During that Illinois debate Barack stated when life begins… it’s after a wanted child is born AND it has gestated for nine months. That is a definition that allows for killing babies that are already born.

Here’s what Obama said in 2001 about premature babies that have already been born:

“Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. 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. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional”

Obama’s a constitutional scholar, his position on infanticide is very well thought out. Has he changed this position, Boris? I missed that.

Mazurak: McCain’s been consistently pro-life in his voting, and now says he’ll overturn Roe v. Wade. His actions count more to me than his indecision.

He voted for some Dem judges that were going to pass anyway out of politeness. Ginsburg passed 96-3, Breyer passed 80-10. So what?

As for the rest of your comment: You need help; your hatred will hurt you.

Aug 20, 2008 - 1:51 pm 58. Boris:

God, another person who can’t read. How do you people make it in everyday life?

Previable babies cannot survive by definition. If you are confused about the meanings of words, use a dictionary.

Previable is not the same as premature.

Aug 20, 2008 - 6:47 pm 59. Zbigniew Mazurak:

McCain’s actions are anti-life. McCain voted to confirm Ginsburg and Breyer; he shouldn’t have made any polite gestures toward them, he should’ve vehemently opposed them. Anyone who voted for them is a RINO traitor.

3 senators were courageous enough to vote against Ginsburg. 10 were courageous enough to vote against Breyer.

McCain also said that he would NEVER support the repeal of Roe v. Wade, neither in the short term nor in the long term.

McCain is a traiterous liar. The RNC should not nominate such a person for the Presidency. Now, 11 days before the start of its convention, the RNC still can nominate a different candidate: an honest, consistently pro-life, candidate. (E.g. Duncan Hunter, who has a 92% lifetime rating from the ACU and a 100% rating for the year 2007 from the ACU.)

Aug 21, 2008 - 12:36 am 60. Consanescerion:

Boris: Newborns certainly cannot survive if they’re thrown, crying and squirming, in the trash. Does that make them pre-viable? Obama’s definition of previable is so deliciously vague, it can mean whatever an abortionist wants it to mean. And that’s exactly Obama’s intention.

Aug 21, 2008 - 3:48 am 61. Boris:

“Boris: Newborns certainly cannot survive if they’re thrown, crying and squirming, in the trash”

Really? Thanks for the science lesson. Now that you’ve poisoned the well and created a straw man argument what else are you going to do to logic today?

Obama was not defining previable. It’s a medical definition. You guys can’t win the debate on abortion, so you have to make up lies that people who believe in choice would throw babies into a dumpster. It’s like debating a creationist. Why are you afraid of honest debate? I respect the pro life position even if I disagree with it in most cases. But I don’t respect people who lie about Obama for their own political ends.

Aug 21, 2008 - 4:57 am 62. The Honor Of God » Obama Slips, Slides, and Squirms on Abortion:

[...] Interestingly enough, a diligent Washington Post Fact Checker shed a good bit of light on this during the primaries, due to NOW’s endorsement of Clinton and questions raised over Obama’s voting record on abortion. The National Organization for Women was pushing hard for a Clinton victory then and was making quite an issue of Obama’s “present” votes in the Illinois Senate, especially those on abortion-related bills. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-slips-slides-and-squirms-on-abortion/ [...]

Aug 21, 2008 - 6:37 am 63. tanstaafl:

Barack Obama is the first previable puppet Presidential candidate.

He cannot survive outside of the protection of teleprompters and a prepared speech.

(credit to raymond pronk)

Aug 21, 2008 - 9:33 am 64. FreedomLover:

Note BO’s words in 2001: “…the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this [the pre-viable] is a child ….”

If? If? What else could “it” possibly be – a dog? a squirrel? Also, what does BO do with medical science which keeps making advances in preemie survival? Babies who were pre-viable in 2001 are viable in 2008. Babies who just crossed the viability line in 2001 would have not survived birth in 1940.

BO’s argument here, along with his speech on the floor of the Illinois state house, logically leads to the truth about abortion and abortion rights backers: a baby is only a baby when I say it is. We abort because we can – we’re bigger and stronger than these tiny human beings, and they are in our way.

Aug 21, 2008 - 5:09 pm 65. lea fredericksburg va:

YOU WILL NEVER STOP ABORTIONS

I am 60 now and even in Italy ,where I come from, a catholic country, there were many abortions going on 50 years ago,
Number one you will never stop abortions just as you will never stop men from raping women or women selling themselves for many reasons.
You make it illegal then the mother may die also, as it happened before.
What may help is birth control, education and support and adoption made easier in AMerica.
The GOP has given lip service to the issue for 8 years and changed nothing.
Obama knows the best way is to reduce abortion, but you will never stop them.
You get lost in this crap of before and after. Who is better able to run the country and work toward reducing abortions?
McCain can care less about the country he is in the race for his ambition and is truly the spitting image of BUSH, ingnorant, rich, spoiled and shallow.
It will be a great embarassement if he is elected for the entire country and the beginning of the draft.
I am sure McCain killed a few babies when he dropped those bombs.
So far Bush’s war has killed over 100 thosand Iraqi…so are we competing for who killes the most people.

Aug 22, 2008 - 5:54 am 66. Boris:

“A sizeable brouhaha began last week over nurse Jill Stanek’s full compilation of documents showing Barack Obama’s Illinois Senate votes and floor statements regarding the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.”

Well, it looks like Corsi isn’t the only nutjob you guys swallow with your eyes closed. Stanek is a “wow” kind of stupid. She called Barbara Bush a eugenicist and supports anti-condom ads in Africa. Oh, and she thinks Chinese people eat aborted fetuses. Wow.

Aug 22, 2008 - 7:01 am 67. Zbigniew Mazurak:

All of you folks are kidding.

If McCain wins, then abortionists will get their best friend ever. The McCain admin will be the most pro-abortion admin since the Nixon admin.

In the unlikely event that McCain loses, abortionists will not fear Obama.

Aug 22, 2008 - 8:28 am 68. jdwill:

The GOP has given lip service to the issue for 8 years and changed nothing.

Would it hurt to show some facts? Wiki graph say different

If McCain wins, then abortionists will get their best friend ever. The McCain admin will be the most pro-abortion admin since the Nixon admin.

What utter bollocks.

Refutation: McCain’s answer on when a life begins and has rights Side by side with Obama’s answer. Judge for yourself.

As for Jill Stanek, let her lf speak for herself

I don’t pretend to know all the details of this issue, but a little more respect for human life seems a good thing to me. A little more respect for facts wouldn’t hurt, either.

Aug 22, 2008 - 6:30 pm 69. lucidpenny:

Obama says WORDS MATTER, but I believe ACTIONS MATTER MORE. He supports abortion and voted not to protect babies who were born alive as the result of a botched abortion. He says he is a supporter of Martin Luther King’s ideals, but his ACTIONS concerning the unborn purport the exact opposite.
In the past, slaves were deemed as second class citizens, and as such were the property of their “masters”. In the present, unborn babies are not yet considered citizens by all, and as such are the property of their “mothers”. Slaves and unborn babies…categorized as mere property. Fortunately, slaves had the ability to speak. Unfortunately, unborn babies cannot speak up and denounce abortion. I’d wager that if unborn babies had the power of speech, they would say they have a dream, too: They dream that one day their pregnant mothers will rise up and see a reflection of themselves in their unborn children: a human being who has just as much right to live as anyone else, regardless of where they presently reside or how much life they have or have not yet lived.
Martin Luther King believed in equality for ALL people. Maybe Obama should follow King’s example and abandon mere WORDS, re-evaluate his proprietorial tendencies toward the unborn, and EMBRACE A “CHANGE” OF HEART.

Aug 22, 2008 - 8:40 pm 70. Neo:

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.

In Obama’s own words: I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. [W]henever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause…[t]hat determination, if accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place…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 antiabortion statute.

Aug 30, 2008 - 11:31 pm 71. KAYLA:

I have a question for everyone that took the time out of their busy life today on election day to vote for this sorry SOB Barock Obama. Why in the hell would someone want to waste a vote on someone like him that does not care about the well being and the welfare of unborn children? Granted those women wanted to have an abortion but those are innocent little babies that had no choice in what happened so if they didnt want them they should have gave them up for an adoption NOT TO KILL IT OR TO LEAVE IT IN A DIRTY LAUNDRY CLOSET!If he is going to do some sh*t like this when he was just a senator what is he going to do to this country now that he is president? please someone reply and u can send it to my email kisliter@yahoo.com

Nov 4, 2008 - 8:58 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: