Even Hillary Clinton and NARAL are in favor of giving abortion survivors medical rights.
And by 'abortion survivors' we mean babies who survive being ripped out of their mother's wombs by abortionists and, despite being left alone to die in sterile metal basins, have the audacity (as some have called it) to breath and cry and urinate and flail their precious arms and legs around in search of SOMEBODY to cling to despite their attempted murder.
Are you crying yet? Did you even know this happens? Where are the tissues?
Hillary and NARAL and other liberal pro-choicers may be in denial about personhood within the womb, but at least they are willing to admit that if it looks like a baby and sounds like a baby then it must be a baby and is therefore entitled to medical attention... just like the preterm babies that are being born 3 floors up in the same hospitals.
But Obama is a freaking radical. As Illinois Senator, Obama has BLOCKED legislation that would require doctors to give immediate medical attention to babies who survive abortions!!!!!!! Come ON!!! Talk about a sicko!
I wish i could say it more intelligently, but i am really angry about this new piece of info i came across and cannot help but post something about it, in hopes that any of my pro-life-but-still-Obama-for-Change-readers will do more research about the basic human rights violations that this man has aided in permitting.
Don't you dare overlook this or pass it off as subordinate to all the other "changes" he promises the nation.
Still want to give him power over the rule of our precious country?
Comments? Links?
19 comments:
Hey, I've been really thinking about this since I saw your post and I decided to do some research. I've found that the situation is rather open to interpretation. I think it is ludicrous for anyone to believe that an infant who survives abortion shouldn't be considered a person and given proper care. That is heartless and sick. I do believe that Obama is most certainly pro-choice, but in the case of the born-alive bills, it seems to me that it was a technical legislative problem that he had with the bill, not a moral one. It reads to me from the several websites and interpretations I've come across, that he wanted an amendment to the bill that would explicitly state that it in no way undermined Roe v. Wade. Hence the present vote, which in Illinois it has been explained as "no, with an explanation or specific objection." The proposed fix was probably not added if his subsequent votes were no. The problem I've had is that there isn't ready access to state records on the net like there is to the federal Senate records so it's hard to fact check without more time.
Anyway, Obama being a father himself, I don't think it's possible for him to disagree that a crying baby needs attention, no matter who takes responsibility. I still have doubts about both candidates, personally--some more serious than others. This is just what I found, again it could be interpreted the other way, but I have a hard time not thinking he's human.
Thanks for chiming in, R!
In fact, after posting this yesterday morn, i heard it discussed at length on the radio later that afternoon... which i thought was crazy, since my sources were published back in July (yes, i am just now catching up.;))
I have no doubt that Obama's problem was legislative, but we ought not doubt it was also a moral one. How can determining at what age a baby can and cannot be murdered legally NOT be a moral problem? Here's the quote i refer to:
"… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
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."
Sorry so long. To continue my own blog:
Yes, he's a father, but many people, Obama among them, put the "convenience" and "freedom to have" and abortion above empirical evidence or even their own experience as parents. [Sadly, in my work at a Crisis Pregnancy Center in eastern Ohio, i have personally spoken with women who, despite having other living children already, have defended their decision to abort other children down the road. One woman in particular had 2 toddlers and murdered her 3rd b/c the babe was a "side-effect of an affair." So it can be done, and defended, by fathers and mothers alike.]
No doubt Obama's human - noone denies that - but he's legislating in a way that undermines human dignity at its foundation. And that i can't tolerate... no matter what. None of us should.
Links:
Transcript of the IL Senate where this all comes from. See pgs 86-87:
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
Commentary
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647
Somewhere I read a detailed analysis of Obama's "excuse" about opposing protection for an already "aborted" (born) child. IF I come across it, I'll include the link. For me, it's not that critical because I know what he promised the pro-abortionists & I know what his voting record is. He is pro-abortion to the core, but he knows that he needs to present himself as more "moderate" if he wants to be elected. Let us remember: he does have a voting record & he has made verbal commitments to pro-abortion groups who are supporting him with lots of money. IF we think he is going to actually do "pro-life" types of things if he is elected, I fear that we are being very foolish. With my prayers- Mom S>
i was giving further thought to what you said, Rachel, about Obama wanting, as you said above, "...an amendment to the bill that would explicitly state that it in no way undermined Roe v. Wade."
Many liberal news articles make this same arguement.
My response: OF COURSE the Born Alive Bill "undermines Roe v. Wade"!!! It ought to, Obama!
My final conclusion on this point is that, no matter how he qualifies/legitimizes/defends his vote AGAINST the Born Alive Bills, this man **thinks it should be perfectly LEGAL to let a baby who lives beyond the abortion attempt die unattended.** He's RADICAL on all life issues, and i dont think this should be brushed aside or excused by anyone in the least.
(...Even if voters arent McCain fans.)
I dont see any ambiguity in his vote AT ALL.
(As an aside, and i'm just putting this out there to everyone, i dont get how an intelligent voter could desire a radical pro-abortionist, pro-socialized health care man to hold the office of the President.I mean, maybe McCain isnt the ideal, but he's the obviously better choice for anyone who thinks critically about our liberties and rights.)
oy, and not seem like i'm picking on you, but i just learned more today regarding your statement that,
"The proposed fix was probably not added if his subsequent votes were no."
In fact, it WAS amended to Obama's standards and he STILL voted against it.
Clearly, no excuses of his work here.
And to add to the dramaticalness of it all, i heard a sound bite of Obama himself arguing that he doesnt think a second doctor should be brought in to attend to the abortion survivor because it would demean the decision that the mother made to abort the baby in the first place.
And that is not an interpretation by some columnist. I heard Obama say this himself with my own ears.
Radical
Radical
Radical
Abortion is such a delicate subject besides. I don't take it that you're picking on me :D, just presenting more of what you learned. Like I said, I haven't had near enough time to do proper research.
He is definitely pro-choice and if signing the born alive bills would indeed result in a change to Roe v. Wade, it is conceivable he would block it. It is really taking his principles to their conclusion, harmful though it may be.
If you look at it from McCain's side, politically (and objectively) speaking, he will not get a law passed that overturns Roe v. Wade simply because the Congress is going to be swept by Democrats due to the generally dissatisfied feeling the country has with the administration and through them, Republicans. The best he can hope for is for the Supreme Court judges to resign or pass away, in reaching a pro-life end, and that they will eventually take a case that would undo Roe. Not that this makes Obama a better or like choice on this issue (or at all depending on one's views), just a general conundrum for the pro-life community. Sadly, I think the backlash against the war is not working in pro-life's favor. Odd, isn't it? To stop wasting life we have to pick the pro-choice party. To stop wasting life, we have to pick the pro-life party. *shakes head* Too big of a picture for my poor preggie brain right now. Happy pondering...
Rachel, It would be nice to think that it's not possible for Obama to disagree that a crying baby needs attention, but I think you underestimate the man.
"The first thing I'd do as president," he told a cheering audience, "is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
The audience cheered enthusiastically. And well they might. As NARAL enthuses on its website, this act would "codify Roe v. Wade's protections and guarantee the right to choose for future generations of women."
In short, if we are to take Obama at his word, his first priority as president would be to serve an early death sentence on millions of unborn Americans.
from Can a Catholic vote for Obama? by Jack Cashill on WorldNetDaily.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57643
Not to belabor any points, but for the information of all:
Here's the document trail on the Obama/NRLC dispute (regarding the born-alive bill): http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Index.html
And here's the narrative:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaCoverup.html
To elaborate on Justine's post, that Obama promises to sign the FOCA is significant. It would overturn every current state law that places any kind of restriction on abortion whatsoever, including, for example, parental notification. Radical and extreme are appropriate descriptions.
While religion doesn't enter this for me personally, I do argue the pro-life cause from an ethical standpoint. Denying someone the right to exist vs. denying someone the right to be comfortable for a very short period (plus it is the burden of responsibility is on them to ensure that a life they don't want isn't created by either contraception or the foolproof method of just not doing it) doesn't compare.
But, I can see the other side from a societal standpoint, usually secular--which is where Obama is coming from. The problem is that personal responsibility has become something that is no longer ingrained in young people. If something gets messed up and they can wiggle out of it with little to no consequence, many (and this is my experience with 12 years public school and one year living on campus at a public university) would choose to shirk it. I do disagree with Obama's choice to uphold Roe v. Wade no matter the cost. No arguments there, but I can understand with his viewpoint why he would act in such a way.
People look at me like I'm crazy when I say this, but feminism, in many ways, failed. It should not be a choice in the mind of a woman who is not in exceptional circumstances to kill what is made of herself. To say that men are not bound by this is completely true, but to be equal we must also regard creation as something we can leave behind us is false. I think it takes true character to realize that, as Dr. Seuss put it, "A person is a person, no matter how small."
Anyways, this was just to clarify my position, since I seemed to be alone on my side of the debate. I will not vote for McCain. But I will ponder Obama more seriously and consider going third party, since I'm independent anyway. Sorry to be long! :D
Rachel,
You're not crazy when you say feminism failed. You're absolutely right!
Aww, dont throw away your vote on an unelectable third party. Cast it for whom you may see as 'the lesser of two evils.'
*Coughmccain*
My (imperfect) analogy of the presidential election is a tug of war. There are two sides pulling on the rope, and one of those two will win. If you vote third party, it's like you're standing on the sidelines talking to the onlookers. You might be expressing your political convictions very clearly, but you're not actually participating in the election.
ON INFANTICIDE
Did you know that infanticides (not just after failed abortions) have been happening in our hospitals for years? Mostly on disabled children
http://www.christianliferesources.com/?library/list.php&categoryid=14
Unfortunately, it no longer surprises me that there are those (like Obama) who would not defend legislation protecting infants who survive an abortion.
There are even those--notable and respected by their colleagues at prestigious hospitals and universities (eg. Peter Singer of Princeton)--who advocate postponing legal protection for newborn infants to one month after the date of birth, so there is time to eliminate them if there are health problems or other concerns. Is it a surprise that someone like Obama, who so adamantly supports abortions--even late-term-- would have little problem accepting infanticide after a failed abortion?
Obama's views on the value of human life are as "obamanable" as they get!
------
ABORTION STAT COMPARISON
Putting abortion statistics in perspective in comparison to other threats to life: 1.2 MILLION abortions are done per year (4000 per day) in the US alone. Take a moment realize how great those numbers are. There is nothing that compares in terms of intentional or otherwise culpable destruction of human life. Unfortunately, the US has also been a model for other nations and impacts the number of abortions worldwide (46 MILLION per year).
Compare it to military conflict, as horrific as it is, the numbers do not compare--even considering the non-fatal impact on life for refugees and others. Do not forget the victims of abortion who live still, after their babies have been slaughtered.
While the concern of pro-lifers certainly extends to military conflict, the ethics or justifications of war are much more complicated and in some cases much more difficult to determine than for cases of abortion. In regard to current military conflicts, I don't see how a vote for Obama will save any lives. (Yes, I'm being somewhat vague, because this subject is another whole can of worms.)
While a reversal of US abortion law may not be likely in the foreseeable future, we must ever be prepared for the opportunity to change abortion law (which may or may not take the form of a judicial reversal of Roe v. Wade). A pro-abortion president would likely have the power to trump any such efforts. There is too much at stake to risk that. In addition, a president who vocally supports abortion will only encourage people in deciding to abort their children. It will have an impact on opinions about abortion and on abortion numbers.
--------
Why NOT vote for McCain? Even putting aside the matter of abortion?
As one example, McCain's plan for healthcare is viable and reasonable.
It is pretty universally agreed that our current healthcare system is in need of reform. Of course promises of health cost reductions sound great, but Obama's plan to lower healthcare costs is really a counterproductive plan. The economic impact (most notably because is does not take into sufficient consideration the impact on employers, and in turn, employees) would be stymying. Obama's healthcare plan would be a disaster.
Obama's views, across the board, are detrimental to the promotion of personal responsibility, to families and our freedoms. Whether religion is important to an individual or not, is it not still frightening that religious freedom is threatened in our country? The ACLU gives Obama a high grade..and we know all too well how the ACLU protects freedom.
The numbers don't compare until your spouse could be one of them. I appreciate your views, but I hold different priorities.
I thought McCain was a really good politician way back when he ran against Bush, but he hasn't had the same resolve to follow his principles even if it conflicts with the party. In short he agrees with Bush (now), and I don't.
You know I was just thinking the other day of how many babies were killed by abortion & how it was so very many more than were killed by abortion and/or capital punishment. I know that numbers are not the only important issue here, but it did make sense to me that if people do believe that abortion does kill a baby, that perhaps they might consider that as being more of a pressing issue than captial punishment or the war because of the more massive destruction of human life. I know this next point might be bringing religion of some sort into the picture, but I just don't believe we can have peace without obeying God's laws about not killing innocent human beings. There has always been that understanding that "Thou shall not kill" refers to killing innocent human beings which is why self-defense ( & thereby sometimes war) is in a different category than murder( killing an innocent person). As long as this country allows abortion and promotes it, I just don't believe there will be an end to war and conflict. And, I do believe that it is very possible that such war could be an actual attack on us. I just pray that the Lord will be merciful. Mom S.
Rachel,
I can only image how stressful it would be to have one's spouse in Iraq or to have the possibility of his being deployed ever hanging over you, esp. when you have young kids. I detest war and am praying the the conflict in Iraq ends as soon as possible (not that it ends in 2010 or whenever certain conditions are met, but very soon.)
Having recently read the last of the "Anne of Green Gables" series to the kids, I find the situation of the people on the homefront during WWI, in stark contrast to our present situation. Though the book is fictional, I think it paints a realistic picture of WWI conditions and sacrifices. Everyone sacrificed greatly, not just those on the battle front; they all felt the war keenly, though they were far removed from the weaponry. Today, most of us could go through the whole day oblivious to the reality of the war. We've not tighten our belts nor calloused our hands in sacrifice. This seems both a consolation and a cause of shame.
I don't believe it is clear that Obama would get us out of Iraq any sooner than McCain (and there are many, many factors at play here). I don't pretend to know what is the best/right approach. I would, however, be somewhat surprised if McCain--be he elected--did not bring an end to the Iraq conflict fairly quickly; as would Obama.
I am curious--though perhaps you would not wish to share--whether your husband agrees with your views. I am always wondering what military personnel think about the war. I often don't know what to think, myself.
I have and will pray for the safety of your family and am grateful for the sacrifices you all make for our safety. And I always hope that our leaders will not call for sacrifices that exceed the need. May you all be blessed.
From my husband...
"First - there can be no such thing as a global war on terror (GWOT). Terror is not an ideology, it's a tactic. Don't let anyone tell you different. There are two very distinct conflicts - Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF - The War in Afghanistan), and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF - The War in Iraq). They need to be examined separately.
That said - OEF - good to go. This is as black and white as you can get. It was a direct response to the attack on 9/11. None of the Marines I have served with or talked to have any misgiving about this one.
OIF - the basis on which we invaded was ridiculous. It was sold to the American people on the basis of unsubstantiated links to WMD and between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This is demonstrated looking at the war planning as documented by General Trainor, LtGen Newbold, and countless other officers and officials in "Cobra II," the account and code name of the war plan.
In the days after 9/11, the administration was looking for a way to use the attack as a route into Iraq. The intent was to send a message to the entire Middle East that the U.S. was willing to take the fight beyond Afghanistan. I say again, from the beginning, our Commander-in-Chief wanted us to launch a pre-emptive invasion of another sovereign country to send a message. In addition, the "faulty intelligence" was not so much faulty as misrepresented - the CIA reports noted in detail that "Curveball," the informant claiming Iraq had WMD's, was highly suspicious and drunk during his interview. Other secondary sources were also tenuous at best. The negative half of the report, however, was not presented during the sales pitch for the war.
This all might seem a little deep, but trust me, most Marines (and soldiers I'm sure, too), enlisted and officer, became pretty interested in these details when they came to light after the invasion. And most don't really buy into the angle of knocking over a tin-pot dictator to spread democracy - from our countless MEU deployments, we've seen just about every dickhead country on this planet, and know that other places are far worse off - if we really wanted to spread democracy and alleviate the most human suffering, we'd start in the Horn of Africa.
Basically, most Marines and soldiers I've talked feel lied to, sold out, and exploited. They're tired of going to Iraq, and want to get back to Afghanistan. We know the Taliban has, according to our own intelligence analysts, returned to pre-9/11 strength - they are able to launch complex attacks against us again.
I, personally, am tired of hearing about my friends dying in Iraq because some people in charge wanted to send a message to the rest of the Middle East.
Most servicemembers, I'd guess, feel the same way - evidenced first by Ron Paul receiving 5 to 6 times the amount of donations from servicemembers as every other candidate, and now by Obama receiving twice the donations from servicemembers than McCain.
To summarize - OEF good, OIF really, really bad, GWOT just plain stupid. Stay motivated."
Obviously I could not have expressed his opinion so... eloquently and he has a much greater motivation to know everything about this war than I do.
Anyway, different priorities don't make either of us wrong, just focused on different issues. The lives lost to either (abortion or war) don't negate the other or make them less significant. I do believe that the war can be ended in the least amount of time, thus stopping at least one.
Rachel,
Regarding: "...different priorities don't make either of us wrong, just focused on different issues."
I think you've been duped. And i want to clarify for you, since this point seems to be one of the main factors influencing your future vote.
Of course the death of a soldier in war is always a tragedy. The death of anyone in any circumstances is a tragedy. But it is a common misconception to equivocate the death of a soldier with the murder of an innocent human being. The two can never be put on the same plane, no matter what the rhetoric.
Religion or no, I know of no other source or institution to speak so clearly and concisely on these two issues than the Catholic Church. So i offer for your consideration this link to the Her Catechism:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml
(esp. regarding 2263-2265 and 2270-2275)
And i dont think there's much evidence for legitimately arguing that one presidential candidate will get us out of the war faster or more responsibly than the other.
***
A big thank you to everyone for contributing to the dialogue. :) No doubt the comments took a lot of time and effort to think out and compose.
I'm grateful to Brian for his comments.
Post a Comment