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.
19 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”
October 2, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Thank you Observer for your insight. I write in response….long after the comments on this blog have been posted in the hopes that maybe someone will stumble on here just as I have and see the other side – as each issue does indeed have two sides. I focus primarily on the more general issue of infanticide as it appears the Federal bill would not have affected children with lethal defects.
The truth is that nobody will ever know what they would do until they are placed in that situation. In my younger years I was somewhat pro-choice (I have NEVER agreed with abortion as a form of birth control and never thought I would ever have one), but my feelings on the matter changed dramatically after I lost my first pregnancy. My husband and I had not planned that child and we were scared, but we were very happy and couldn’t wait. Unfortunately I miscarried at the end of my first trimester. How could anyone “get rid” of the precious life they created? After my Dr cleared us, we started trying for #2. We got pregnant right away and were thrilled. Little did we know our world would come crashing down 5 months later when we learned our son had spina bifida.
At 15 wks we learned of our son’s condition. We immediately began seeking out the best drs to treat our son after his birth. We were not going to terminate. His condition kept worsening – they kept finding more and more things wrong. At 21 wks we finally agreed to let them do an amnio – they suspected a chromosome abnormality. Shortly thereafter we were given the worse news of our lives – our son had a rare and lethal chromosome abnormality: triploidy. They said the amnio was 99.9% accurate. Oh, but that wasn’t it. We knew he had triploidy, but what they didn’t know was whether this was a partial molar pregnancy. Triploidy exists by itself, but is more commonly seen in cases of partial molar pregnancies of which I had many of the symptoms. Partial molar was more common…thus more likely….but they couldn’t be sure until they autopsied the placenta. The risk – the longer we carried him, the greater chance I would develop cancer from his placenta if it was a partial molar pregnancy. Cancer! It wasn’t a definite, but it was a risk. All we could think about was how much we loved our son, but would never bring him home. And what about future babies? Would the chemo live me infertile? We were told our much wanted and loved son would likely die in utero before he was term and we would have to deliver a stillborn child. Or that if he survived to term and was delivered alive they would have no choice, but to take extreme measures to keep him alive – while he wouldn’t live for long, he would only know tubes, machines, IVs, NICU, etc. Not the love of his family. We were faced with that hard decision….do we want to terminate the pregnancy? And if we decided to terminate – how? Go to a dirty clinic and let them stop our baby’s heart and then proceed to dismember our baby while sucking it out? Or deliver our child? We obviously choose the later as it was more humane. I will never forget the day my son was born. He was so small, but so beautiful. I never knew I could love another person as much as I love him. He lived for 2 wonderful hours in my arms and those of my husband. He died surrounded by family and friends who loved him so much.
While many will not agree with our decision, they have no right to judge me or my decision. Walk a day in my shoes, feel the heartache I feel. Feel my longing desire to carry a healthy baby. Wipe away the endless supply of tears. Not a day goes by that I don’t miss my son and cry for him, but if I had to go back, I wouldn’t change that decision. Many believe that you should wait for these babies who are terminally ill to die in-utero, but then they die alone. And a stillborn babies skin (depending on the length of time it has been deceased in the amniotic fluid) is sometimes too fragile to touch….so those parents don’t get to hold their babies very long, if at all, and probably not the 6+ hours we held our son after he died. While they get to look, they can’t touch. How hard is that for a parent? And the resentment that comes along with carrying a baby waiting and/or wanting it to hurry up and die. What do you think that does to that parent’s psyche?
Please, don’t think you are morally superior until you have been in that situation. It isn’t always black and white, there are many shades of gray…..gray that many people against live birth abortions have thankfully never had to think about. Maybe they would see things different if they had – I know I do.
October 14, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Thanks to Rational Zen for the great posts and points! I couldn’t agree with you more! Grieving mother, bless your heart! You are absolutely right that NOBODY knows what they would do in that situation unless they experienced it first hand. I loved hearing your story because it gives you a totally different way to think/imagine about that situation. Who wouldn’t want to spend their child’s last hours with them in their arms? What a beautiful time for a parent to get to have. I am truly sorry you had to go through that …or anybody for that matter but thanks so much for sharing!
October 17, 2008 at 6:54 am
Grieving Mother,
Thanks for your comment, it was very touching and am also very sorry that you went through that.
November 3, 2008 at 8:37 pm
AS OBAMA SAID NUMEROUS TIMES IN THE DEBATES IF ANY OF YOU REPUBLICANS BOTHERED TO WATCH, HE OPPOSED A BILL GIVING MEDICAL CARE TO “FAILED ABORTION” BABIES BECAUSE THERE WAS ALREADY SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS THAT DID THE SAME THING! OF COURSE HE WAS IN FAVOR OF PROVIDING MEDICAL CARE TO A BABY WHO CAME OUT OF THE WOMB ALIVE. HE’S NOT THE PAGAN YOU MAKE HIM OUT TO BE. (NO OFFENSE, PAGANS)
November 4, 2008 at 9:44 am
Treadmarkz,
You may be interested in hearing and reading the full discussion where Obama discusses the Illinois Senate bill, available on this blog post.
If there were already a bill on the books that did the same thing, then why oppose it? And if a doctor is intent on killing a baby before it is born, why should he have a change of heart when it is accidentally born alive? He *ought* to do everything to preserve its life, because that is part of the code of ethics of doctors; but if you read the post I linked to, you’ll find documented evidence of many doctors who refused to provide care to post-birth fetuses (called babies, by everyone except the “pro-choice” or pro-abortion crowd), and a few cases in which abortionists actually killed these born-alive babies — one by strangulation, another by drowning, and one by putting it into a plastic biohazard bag and throwing it on the roof (so policement couldn’t find it until the baby was too decomposed to tell if it had truly been born alive or not). Many others were neglected until they died — including at least one mother who was locked in the bathroom with her tiny moving baby (she had a change of heart when she saw him born alive) until he stopped moving, and an ambulance summoned for her by a friend was sent away by the abortion staff.
This stuff happens, and everybody (with rare exception) finds it to be most abhorrent, so what is wrong with being explicit in the law? If he was “in favor of providing medical care to a baby who came out of the womb alive,” why did he say that the legislation seemed intent only on “burdening the original decision“?
November 5, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Don’t you think the MOTHERS of these babies are killing their children?? Shouldn’t they be responsible for what is happening here? Obama is not giving them a ride to the hospital. It’s the parents that are killing their babies.
November 5, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Of course the mother’s should be blamed. But so should people who support such an action.
December 17, 2009 at 12:39 pm
в итоге: прелестно!!