Skip to comments.Obama’s Infanticide Votes (Newt wasn’t 100 percent right — but he was about 95 percent right)
Posted on 02/29/2012 2:28:57 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
In last Wednesdays debate, when the Republican candidates were asked about their positions on birth control, Newt Gingrich parried with one of his usual tactics, a fusillade against the mainstream media. He told CNNs John King, You did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If were going to have a debate about who is the extremist on these issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.
Two points of Gingrichs barrage warrant assessment. First, did Barack Obama, as a state senator, vote in favor of legalizing infanticide, by voting to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion? And second, has no one in the elite media ever discussed his record on the issue? Yes; and no, but essentially yes.
Gingrichs assertion rests on thenState Senator Obamas opposition, in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to successive versions of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that was meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions.....
And they deserve scrutiny, for two reasons. First, as explained above, Obama has offered deceptive explanations of his own pro-abortion legislative work, while simultaneously accusing his pro-life opponents of being dishonest. More important, Obamas record as a state senator was not merely pro-choice, but radically pro-abortion. His voting record indicates that he does not believe infants deserve protection even once they have emerged from the womb if they are deemed to be below the age of viability, and he did in fact, three times, vote to keep a form of infanticide legal.
KING: Welcome back to the Mesa Arts Center and the Arizona Republican Presidential debate. Let's get right back to questioning the four contenders for the Republican nomination. We take a question now from cnnpolitics.com. You can see it up on the screen here.
Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why? As you can see -- it's a -- it's a very popular question in the audience, as we can see. Look, we're not going to spend a ton of time on this but it is -- please.
GINGRICH: Can I just make a point?
KING: Sure. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These guys are giving you some feedback here, John.
KING: I see that. I see that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think they're making it very clear.
GINGRICH: No, I think -- look, I think there's -- I want to make two -- I want to make two quick point, John.
The first is there is a legitimate question about the power of the government to impose on religion activities which any religion opposes. That's legitimate.
KING: Sure is.
GINGRICH: But I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. OK? So let's be clear here.
GINGRICH: If we're going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion. It is not the Republicans.
i jumped up and down and screamed about this in ‘08 but that pu$$y McLame campaign NEVER made this an issue...
then i laughed when the fools in the Catholic church, which i belong to, blindly when along with a “healthcare” plane from the most pro-abortion clown to ever occupy the WH...the fact they now protest his free contraception mandate is their own stupidity for not researching his past..
"The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not actual persons and do not have a moral right to life. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journals editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the articles authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.
The article, entitled After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?, was written by two of Prof Savulescus former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.
Rather than being actual persons, newborns were potential persons. They explained: Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a person in the sense of subject of a moral right to life.
Now, my hunch is that for the vast majority of the civilized and, frankly, uncivilized world, the only thing these authors have demonstrated is their own moral irrelevance.....................
EXCELLENT! Thank you very much, Cincinatus’ Wife!
Surely Gingrich knows that the main stream media - including MSNBC, the NY Times, the Washington Post, NBC and CNN all love the killing of babies.
Why else would they not cover the annual protest against baby killing every January in Washington by HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PROTESTORS?
That was one of the best moments in ANY of the debates this season. I cheered Newt.
We have an open and unrepentant advocate of child murder in the White House, and no one cares.
Isn't that how Hitler treated the Jews?