Abortion is a topic that I hate to get into, it is one issue that draws out the irrational passions on both sides of the aisle, that it is impossible to leave a discussion of it with a satisfied and productive feeling. Additionally, it is a topic that I think too much emphasis is placed on by the right, for many it is the ONLY issue that matters and I find that going a little too far for an issue that is hardly a scourge in our country.
All that being said, I came across a post this morning on Race 4 2008 by Kavon Nikrad that discussed a very, very disturbing stance by Barack Obama on live birth abortions. Jill Stanek from World Net Daily (a site I am not a huge fan of by the way) gives us the following:
As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.
Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother’s right to “choose” stopped at her baby’s delivery.
The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.
I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women’s rights or abortionists’ rights. Obama’s clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
She continues:
Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to “explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
I don’t recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash.
Neither do I recall religion being brought into the partial-birth abortion ban debate. I recall comparisons made to U.S. laws ensuring animals being killed are treated humanely. I recall testimony that late-term babies feel excruciating pain while being aborted.
Obama stated pro-life proposals must be “amenable to reason.”
Amenable to reason, eh? There is absolutely nothing reasonable about supporting either partial-birth or live-birth abortion (aka infanticide), especially the latter. How much of a heartless and horrible person do you have to be to support such measures. It is one thing to support abortion in the first trimester when the baby is barely formed (although I would never support it), but to think it is acceptable when the baby is fully developed or even “officially alive” is preposterous and shows a complete lack of judgement on the part of Barack Obama and others like him.
I am not one to allow one single issue to dictate my vote for President, I prefer to look at the candidate as a whole and then decide, but this is one instance that is a complete deal breaker. It is my impression that Obama is a good person (and Hillary is not), for me that is a big deal. I want someone with integrity leading our country. However, good judgement and upholding some sort of a moral standard is absolutely essential and that takes more than integrity and being a good person, one’s policies make a difference.
Assuming the claims made in this article are true, Barack Obama has a lot to answer for and if he indeeds supports such positions he is no longer tied with McCain for my top choice of those remaining, but now even Hillary would prove to be a better option. Live or partial birth abortion is never acceptable, never.
11 Comments
February 21, 2008 at 11:08 am
Thanks for posting this. I had no idea he was this heartless.
You’re right that there are some things that are complete deal breakers–and with good reason!
Kathy
katsyfga.wordpress.com
February 21, 2008 at 2:38 pm
This is certainly controversial, I’ve spent some time trying to find the real story. The problem with the article you’ve cited is that it’s full of marketing terms rather than information. As soon as I saw the writer classified herself as a “pro-lifer” I had to start sifting through the fluff to find the content. “Live birth abortion”, is an interesting term. The author portrays it as if it were full-term babies being delivered, but then the mother changes her mind and lets the child die. Whereas by her own admission in later articles that isn’t the case at all.
Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion allow me to state the following. I absolutely oppose abortion as a form of birth control. I do support abortion in some medical cases where a competent medical professional has determined there is significant risk to the life/health of the mother. There are also extreme cases non-medically when I would support it, such as rape or incest. I believe that to be a rational stance on an emotionally super charged topic. I oppose abortion in cases that don’t qualify for either of the exceptions specified.
That being said, I can see where someone that openly supports a woman’s right to choose abortion rationally opposing a bill (depending on how it’s worded). On Ms. Stanek’s own website she relays the story of a Catholic family that had a fetus stricken with anencephaly (the baby didn’t have a brain). The doctor recommended they perform an “intact dialation and extraction”, a “live birth abortion”, or in other words they induce labor for the child they know will not survive. The parents ultimately agreed to the procedure, they induce labor on the fetus, after it’s delivered it’s heart beats for a small amount of time (yet it has no brain activity to speak of). One of the reasons the doctor recommended intact extraction was that the skull had not formed fully and could injure the mother, consequence being infertility.
In that singular case it seems that intact extraction is the most humane way to terminate a situation that has no positive outcome. At least with an intact extraction the parents would be able to hold the child as parents and try to harness that moment of beauty and peace during their grieving process. There isn’t any clamoring of murder when family members are forced to “pull the plug” in other situations in the hospital, nor do I believe that Barack would be crucified for his support of DNR orders. For some reason we believe it to be more humane to allow our elders to die, but not the kids despite the fact that most time neither have a mental capacity to make that decision for themselves.
I realize that Obama is satan himself to certain portions of the population because of some (if not all) of his social stances which are unambiguously more liberal than the rest of the candidates. I do understand his concern for an absolute ban on procedures that medically, psychologically, emotionally and physically seem like they are the best option for everyone involved.
What I like about Obama in that regard is that he doesn’t pretend to be anything other than he is, a social liberal. McCain and Clinton are socially liberal as well, whether it be homosexuality, amnesty, abortion or other they are ALL liberals pretending to be “moderates”. Ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing if you ask me.
The really good thing about this election is that the president can’t go in and single handedly reverse that which has already passed by our law makers. That’s not an executive branch decision. The most he can do is appoint a supreme court justice that may fall in line with his own stance on the issue, wait for the issue to make it to the SCOTUS for review and then be overturned as well. His ability to affect the abortion law passed in this country is weakened by his election into the executive branch, not the other way around. Checks and Balances was such a good idea
Also, we should remember that in recent history some of our most liberal justices were appointed by conservative presidents.
February 21, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Rational Zen,
I didn’t get that impression of the article at all–that women at full term decide to have an abortion….but then, I have been reading a lot about abortion lately.
When women go into premature labor and the baby is born very early, millions of dollars will be spent on his or her care, trying to let him/her survive. Yet this article highlights that some of these babies that live after the abortion procedure (and are therefore guaranteed the right to life under the Constitution, as far as I can tell) are set aside to die, just as if a full-term infant were abandoned in a dumpster.
I would ask you to think about the question of abortion in the case of a baby with lethal birth defects. On my blog I’ve written about babies who were misdiagnosed, their mothers were pressured into abortion but refused, and the babies were born absolutely healthy (including one diagnosed with anencephaly). Even in the case of true diagnoses, I would argue that while it would be a difficult mental situation, it is hardly imperative for the mother to kill her baby who would not otherwise live. She could choose to carry her baby to term and still have time after the birth to hold her baby and grieve.
February 22, 2008 at 2:22 am
This is a truly disturbing blog entry about Barack Obama and the murdering of innocent children through infanticide.
Either human beings are protected under our constitution or not. Either human beings should be protected at the state level or not. Either human beings are endowed by their Creator with inaliable rights or not. Either human beings are created in God’s image or not. Either human beings should be protected whether they are small, defenseless or wanted by their mother or not. Either God sent His Son Jesus, who was the Word of God, into the world as a human being to bring whomsoever believes, recieves and continues in Him to be with God forever or not. And either God gives children as gifts from him that are not to be given back to Him bloodied and resting in city dumps all across America or He doesn’t.
If the answer to the questions above is yes, then we surely have about 40,000,000 reasons to be very worried about our future. Death never says “enough.”
Even John the baptiser lept in his mother’s womb when Jesus, who was in Mary’s womb, came near.
February 22, 2008 at 4:01 pm
@Woman…..:
Yet this article highlights that some of these babies that live after the abortion procedure (and are therefore guaranteed the right to life under the Constitution, as far as I can tell) are set aside to die, just as if a full-term infant were abandoned in a dumpster.
I think it’s terrible cognitive reasoning to think that a healthy baby left in a dumpster to starve/freeze to death is equal to a baby with no viable brain activity that happens to have spontaneous organ function for a short time.
That’s not even apples to oranges, it’s more like applies to onions.
I would ask you to think about the question of abortion in the case of a baby with lethal birth defects.
Above I already articulated when I believe abortion to be a possible line of action.
Lethal birth defects wouldn’t fall into that category, unless the lethality of the birth defect was to the mother not the child.
February 22, 2008 at 4:03 pm
@Denny:
Either human beings are protected under our constitution or not.
Pro-life, pro-choice or somewhere in between, it doesn’t matter. Our Constitution doesn’t absolutely protect human beings, the whole premise of your argument is a little short sighted.
February 22, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I would never date/marry a woman who choose to have an abortion (other then on the issue of rape, incest, death)
It is a horrible process and the choices of ’safe sex’ is free and numerous, there is no reason not to have safe sex.
February 22, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Rational Zen,
Actually, the whole premise of my comment is not if our Constitution absolutely protects humans, because obviously, it does.
The main thrust of my argument is that either abortion-by-demand is murder and ought to be treated like it is, or it is not. I was on the side of the argument that tried to demonstrate by reasoned explaination that abortion-on-demand is murder, and therefore should be stopped by legal methods available.
Go McCain-Romney 2008!
February 25, 2008 at 6:01 am
@Denny:
Actually, the whole premise of my comment is not if our Constitution absolutely protects humans, because obviously, it does.
The constitution does not absolutely protect humans, it conditionally protects them.
Otherwise, putting someone in prison would be unconstitutional, as wood the death penalty etc etc.
So the crux of your argument regarding abortion on demand lies on the moment when that particular member of the species receives it’s conditional set of rights.
May 17, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Rational Zen’s posts and points are excellent. I also appreciated that while all of the posters thus far haven’t agreed, everyone has remained civil and respectful.
As a mother of two young children I can’t imagine terminating a pregnancy and also chose not to do any testing because neither my husband nor I had any idea what we would do if we were told our child had a birth defect. Aborting a child because s/he isn’t “perfect” didn’t seem like something we could do so we figured if we tested and were told there was a problem it would only stress us out needlessly for the remainder of the pregnancy.
That said, now that I have gone through 2 pregnancies I could not even fathom being told that one of my children was going to die immediately after giving birth and then continue to grow the child in me. So I think we need to tread lightly on extremely sensitive issues such as a woman who finds out that her child will be stillborn or die shortly after death. It is a very different scenario (and far less frequent) than a woman deciding that because she and her mate did not practice safe sex she would use the after conception form of birth control and simply abort the child.
May 29, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I’m moderately Pro-Choice, and lean left on most issues. But I think that Obama’s opposition to this bill is sickening. Even if Stanek’s story was BS, the principle still matters. No woman would have every been denied the right to an Abortion because of this bill. The bill merely defines human rights as beginning at full birth, something which was enshrined in the 14th Amendment. A Constitutional Scholar like Obama should know that!! At the moment of birth, it stops being a Abortion issues and becomes a human rights issues. That said, Obama’s record on human rights is absolutely lousy. But I certainly can’t bring my self to vote for the war monger McCain, and I’m no Libertarian, so Bob Barr is out of the picture. The only reasonable choice is Nader.
PS, Rational Zen is wrong, an Intact Dialation and Extraction is “Partial Birth Abortion” not “Live Birth Abortion”
Leave a Reply