Skip to comments.Deniers for Obama (Abortion, Infanticide Extremist, Charen)
Posted on 09/18/2008 11:10:38 PM PDT by unspun
Appearing on C-SPAN last weekend I mentioned that Barack Obama had opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act when he was an Illinois state senator — a position he has attempted to deny or obfuscate ever since. The liberal blogger who appeared on the program with me erupted with indignation. She didn’t deny that Obama had opposed the bill. She denied, hotly, that babies are ever born alive after an attempted abortion. Since I have actually met Gianna Jessen, who survived an attempted abortion, I invited viewers to contact me directly if they wanted evidence. My inbox has been bursting.
The denial goes very deep. Any number of e-mailers expressed their contemptuous certainty that “born alive” infants were an invention of pro-life activists. OK, enter “abortion survivors” into your browser and see what you get. Or, if you prefer a traditional media source, consult the Daily Mail in Britain. The Mail has reported that in just the past year 66 infants had been left to die after abortions in Great Britain.
When Congress was considering the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Jill Stanek and Allison Baker, two nurses at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. They described several instances in which babies who were moving and breathing after induced abortions were left to die. The committee report quoted Jill Stanek: “Mrs. Stanek testified about another aborted baby who was thought to have had spina bifida, but was delivered with an intact spine. On another occasion, an aborted baby was left to die on the counter of the Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel.” The committee report also quoted Shelly Lowe, a lab technician at Bethesda North Medical Center in Cincinnati. A young woman who had undergone just the first cervix-opening phase of a partial-birth abortion gave birth in the emergency room. The doctor placed the 22-week-old baby in a specimen dish to be taken to the lab. According to the report, when Ms. Lowe “saw the baby girl in the dish she was stunned when she saw the girl gasping for air. ‘I don’t think I can do that,’ Ms. Lowe reportedly said. ‘This baby is alive.’” Lowe asked permission to hold the baby until she died. She wrapped the child she dubbed “Baby Hope” in a blanket and sang to her. Breathing room air without any other supports, Baby Hope lived for three hours.
I’ve received a number of letters from viewers. This one caught my eye: “I am a pediatrician. When I was a pediatric resident on a neonatal intensive care rotation, we were routinely called to … resuscitate infants. In one instance I was called to pronounce a baby dead who had been born an hour earlier after a failed abortion. We were not called to resuscitate the baby immediately after the delivery as the intent was abortion. … I write to attest that babies are sometimes born alive after abortion and then put aside to die.”
The BAIPA was designed to ensure that in those rare cases in which a baby marked for abortion happens to survive — that the child will be immediately accorded full human and constitutional rights. The measure passed the U.S. House by a vote 380 to 15 but was blocked in the Senate. When a “neutrality clause” was inserted to the effect that the law should not be construed to limit the scope of Roe v. Wade, the measure was passed by unanimous consent and signed into law in 2002.
At the time, Barack Obama was an Illinois state senator. An almost exact copy of the federal bill was introduced in 2001. Obama opposed it, saying, “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.” Even though the baby would be completely separated from the mother. In 2003, the Illinois legislature added a neutrality clause to the bill, making it a virtual clone of the federal legislation. As chairman of the committee considering the bill, Obama again opposed it, saying, “… an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman …”
Barack Obama is a charming and intelligent man. But there is no other way to interpret his position on BAIPA than this: A woman who chooses an abortion is entitled to a dead child no matter what. That is an abortion extremist.
The Marxist Messiah wants to guarantee it -- after birth -- and five years after the "the right thing to do" is to teach the child sex education.
I guess some Christian voters are actually going to need to see horns sprout from this token’s head before they decide not to vote for him.
No NORMAL human being could stand there and watch a defenseless baby, gasping for air, die. These people are hateful, evil bass turds. They deny these babies of their constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pretty sick people if you ask me.
...so when they reach puberty can conceive as many children as possible...
...and make Planned Parenthood and company as much money as possible...
Follow the money, folks!
If the American people understood the real character of Barak Obama, they would boil him in oil.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Thank you for posting this!
I watched a bit of CSPAN with Mona Charen vs a vicous disgusting lefty blogerette. Mona was great and the contrast between her aand the lefty was very stark.
Thanks Mona, good job!
How on earth would that have affected Roe vs. Wade or any other abortion? Is there ANY plausible basis at all for Obama's explanation and argument? And even if there were, wouldn't the baby's constitutional right to life trump that? He's saying that he can't vote for a law that protects infants born alive in botched abortions because that might have some impact on Roe vs. Wade? The child is already alive, whatever "right" the mother had to abort the child ended when it left her womb alive. That's just common sense.
Pretty much what one would expect from a man trained from childhood by a mix of people who are atheist, or hard core Muslim, or Communist.
"Original intent" in the interpretation of Barack Obama.
It was originally intended for the child to be murdered, so murdered he must be!
Even if the little guy has managed to be "freed" from his "mom!"
It is time that we demand real change, and real change means the end of Roe vs. Wade.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
He poses it as a hypothetical. Everyone would be able to see with their own eyes, as a matter of empirical and scientific fact, that it was a child. Whatever the original intention was, it ended when the child left the birth canal. At that point, it's infanticide (a homicide) which would meet ALL the legal requirements of habeas corpus. For Obama to try to waffle around that is absurd.
“Is there ANY plausible basis at all for Obama’s explanation and argument?”
Of course there is. You just need to read between Barack’s Uh’s Er’s and Ah’s.
This is the same Barack Obama that in one of the Hillary debates, stated that his “chief regret” in Congress is that he didn’t take a stand to kill the measures they took attempting to (afford Terri Schiavo her 14th Amendment right to Life).
He, like Hitler and Himmler has a specific taste for blood of innocents, it would seem.
Despite the claims, he’s not Christian. The Christian tradition is very clear about the immorality of abortion and euthanasia. The Schiavo case was an immoral and unlawful homicide.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Sounds to me like it would be an open and shut case for SCOTUS. I don't think even Anthony Kennedy could obfuscate that wording.
But who will bring the case...???
I would have a heart attack if he was ever that honest!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.