How could anyone do this?
Hospital nurse Jill Stanek – the woman who held that late-term Downs Syndrome baby in her arms for 45 minutes as it suffered and took its last breath and then later testified before the Illinois state Senate and Congress – was on Hannity & Colmes last night.
She said that in her experience, babies survive 10 to 20% of all late term abortions and could survive if given the proper medical care.
And she said that even after hearing her detailed testimony about what had gone on in this hospital, Obama still spoke out against the Born-Alive law in no uncertain terms.
Obama stated (and I heard the sound byte played this morning, exactly as she represented it) that having another doctor come in to evalute and save a born-alive baby after a botched abortion is “too cumbersome because…it burdens the original decision” i.e. it overrides the mother’s decision to abort.
In other words, Obama knew exactly what had happened – and would happen again – without the passage of the Born-Alive Act and he still voted against it when not one other member of the Senate did.
Obama has given us (at least) four explanations for his vote and still has not admitted the truth. Clearly, he realizes that what he knew, when he knew it, and why he did what he did is so unthinkable to the average person that it is basically political suicide to admit it.
Focus group studies on this issue have shown that even people who are “pro-choice” are repulsed and sickened by the thought of someone standing by and doing nothing while a living, breathing baby dies. The average person possesses a primary, deep-seated instinct to help a suffering, dying creature and cannot understand or relate to someone who would not do so if given the chance.
Obama once said his definition of “sin” was to be “out of alignment with my own values.” This past Sunday at Saddelback, he lamented that we do not do enough to live out the value of doing well unto “the least of these.” (As you have done unto the least of these, so you have done unto Me.” Matthew 25:40)
When all this has passed, I hope Obama contemplates his present failures and the grave errors which preceded them, that he feels the sting of shame and remorse, and that he begs mercy from the Maker he says he believes in…for doing nothing to stop the suffering and dying of “the least of these.” For who is more powerless and helpless than a tiny baby unwanted and abandoned by its own mother?
Peter Kirsanow is on fire today over on the Corner. Here are his remarks from blog post entitled “The Seminal Question Regarding Obama and Born-Alive”:
Even if one accepts any one of Obama’s (four and counting) explanations for his vote against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, his position remains problematic, if not untenable. Consider:
Obama sits through testimony that babies born alive after an unsuccessful abortion are left to die alone in a utility closet. The babies are provided neither comfort, care, nor sustenance during their brief lives. When this practice was brought to public attention horrified citizens petitioned their legislators to address the matter. Proposed legislation is drafted.
Obama examines the draft of the Born-Alive Act and declares it deficient. Obama maintains that he would vote for the legislation if it did not curtail or derogate extant abortion rights.
Remedying the alleged defect in the draft legislation is not a difficult task. It requires merely the insertion of a “neutrality clause” that says, in effect, ”this legislation won’t affect existing abortion rights.”
Obama, lecturer in constitutional law at the prestigious University of Chicago Law School, former Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review and undoubtedly the one most qualified in the entire Illinois state legislature to address the issue lifts not one finger to remedy the alleged defect in the draft.
Instead, when the draft is amended to include the neutrality language, Obama votes against it.
Obama is the agent of change and compassion. He can heal the planet and lower the oceans. By stating that he would’ve voted for the bill had it contained the neutrality clause, he conveys that he supports the principles of the Born-Alive Act. Yet he takes no action whatsoever to make it happen.
Therefore, even if we accept any one of Obama’s explanations regarding his vote against Born-Alive, we’re holding him to an incredibly low standard for someone who intends to lead the nation. If he supports the principle of Born-Alive, the question isn’t why he voted against it — the question should be, “Sen. Obama, given your education, skills and background why didn’t you take the relatively simple step of amending the draft so that the bill would work?” Isn’t that what we expect from a leader?
Obama voted “present” more than 100 times in the Illinois state legislature. Why did he rouse himself to vote “No” on this one?
Obama has found time to ponder the habeas rights of foreign terrorists but no time to ponder the rights of babies born alive? Is it that far above his pay grade?
Completely disgusted with Obama’s lack of intellectual honesty and/or anything resembling a moral center, I indulged in a bit of name calling yesterday. I don’t believe in justifying things on tit-for-tat basis, but Peter Kirsanow on The Corner does remind us of this:
…Obama calls those who have pointed out his false explanations regarding his Born-Alive vote “liars.”
Obama has a penchant for pejoratives unique among modern presidential candidates. Last week he called Republicans “ignorant.”
Several times during the campaign he’s implied that his opponents are racist.
Earlier he derided rural, blue collar Americans as bitter, bible-clinging, gun-toting racist xenophobes.
Meanwhile, he yelps at imaginary slights directed at him: yesterday, he once again complained about Republicans questioning his patriotism.
Asked on CBN about his past opposition to an Illinois bill protecting babies born after surviving botched abortions, Obama replied, “I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”
Someone IS lying, but is it “folks” or is it Obama? Here are the facts:
In 2000, when Congress took up legislation clarifying that infants born alive after abortions are Persons under the law, the bill passed the House 380 to 15…yet in 2001, when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate, he verbally opposed and then voted “present” – effectively a ”no” – on a similar bill.
(Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a “no” vote because only “yes” votes count toward the passage of a bill. Legislators vote “present” rather than “no” for a variety of reasons, including making it harder for political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.)
In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a “neutrality clause” saying it didn’t affect Roe one way or another. The bill unanimously passed the House and Senate and was signed into law…yet in 2003, back in Illinois, Obama still opposed the state version of the law.
Obama has been saying he voted against that bill because it didn’t include the same “neutrality clause” as the federal form – but the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has now found documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted against it anyway.
Confronted about this, Obama said the NRLC was lying…but his campaign has since admitted Obama is “mistaken.” Once again, Obama either doesn’t know his own record or is so comfortable lying that falsehoods roll off his tongue with ease.
When asked by Pastor Rick Warren @ Saddelback when a baby has rights, Obama said, “I’m absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue.” Apparently Obama’s predictable equivocating is exceeded only by his ability to state the obvious with all the seriousness of a self-styled Socrates.
In that same forum at Saddleback, Obama said that deciding when a baby gets the rights of Personhood is “above his pay grade.” But shouldn’t our chief executive have an opinion about the legal definition of a Person…especially if he says he is willing to permit abortions in ANY circumstance?
Put another way, what kind of morally bankrupt and moronic person says he realizes there is a serious ethical aspect to an issue, and then says it is beyond the scope of his capabilities to decide the matter, but then goes ahead and makes a choice anyway? I mean, doesn’t any sane and reasonable person stay neutral on issues of which he is unsure?
One would think so, but in 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation he’d sign into law as our president. The act would end ALL current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the federal funding of abortions.
I usually avoid name-calling here on E!! but today I make an exception.
Barack Obama is either an Idiot or Pathological Liar or Both. I cannot think of any candidate in recent times who was/is less deserving of the presidency.