The kerfuffle of Obama defending the killing of alive just born premature children who survive abortion attempt is being down played by careful misdirection. The truth of what Illinois Senator Obama was protecting is far more demonic.
In the news of late is one Gianna Jessen, in her thirties now, survivor of a saline scalding abortion hired by her mother to attempt, in order to kill Gianna in her mother's womb then deliver her scalded and burned. Had the abortionist succeeded, the delivered corpse would have been 'less fit' for fetal tissue harvesting. But Gianna's case occurred at a time when the fetal tissue industry was off the radar, though we know it was around because fetal tissues were used in the development of vaccines in use then.
What Senator Obama was seeking to protect was the increasing in popularity form of killing the alive unborn via forced premature birth, then discarding the alive, struggling child to die unattended, alone, to produce more 'pristine' fetal tissues for harvesting by the then (in the nineties) billion dollar tissue industry. The thing Obama was protecting is so evil, it defies credulity. And yet, that method of killing the unborn was becoming a popular way to avoid killing the children in utero, and to delivering more usable fetal tissues for dissection and shipping.
That is the hideous truth of the evil Barack Obama was seeking to protect with his ardent Illinois Senate work to block born alive infant protection bills. As a constitutional law student, he knew the treatment of alive just born preemies didn't endanger Roe v Wade ... he was purposely protecting the killing-by-neglect of born alive infants!
In typical deceitful democrat style, Barack Obama offered as his excuse for this embrace of evil the tired mantra of protecting a woman's right to choose. And the current media fail miserably to call him on even that, much less expose the true depth of the evil he was seeking to protect.
Ask yourself, Catholic brethren, If Senator Barack Obama actually believed he was protecting a woman's right to choose, wasn't he in fact then trying to protect some right he perceived for women to kill alive, born children? Wasn't he in fact seeking to protect infanticide? Of course he was! That is the actual conclusion, but the sycophantic media will not draw public attention to it, so Catholic and Protestant Christians are misdirected and end up embracing a man so twisted that he would defend infanticide for his own political empowerment.
If evil was freshly painted, Barack Obama would have paint on the front and arms of his suit where he has embraced it.
ping