Jump to content

Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide


silentbob1272
 Share

Recommended Posts

During the Saddleback Church forum last weekend, Barack Obama made a point to scold America for its failure to follow the precepts of Matthew in “that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.” Andrew McCarthy takes that premise and applies it to Obama’s infamous position on Illinois legislation designed to prevent the deliberate infanticide occurring in hospitals in which live infants were left to die after surviving the abortion process. Wouldn’t these children qualify as “the least of my brothers”, almost literally? I know this was argued through nuances and questions'; ("we don't know what he said and when he said it" type bs, well now we do) with Bartkowski a few months back, but it has finally caught the attention of some mainstreamers who likewise find this practice to be nothing short of macabre and disgusting. It is not even about abortion rights, the BABY is already out of the "mother" , it can cause her no more stress, depression, or any other reason she felt justified killing her child, it is likewise no longer about "her body, and her choices about it" the baby has his\her own body and every bit of the right to life and help that all of us enjoy under the law. Some argued back then with SB that the baby could not have survived anyway............ridiculous argument, we do not put a child to bleed out in a linen closet because we do not want to see this baby's last retching moments in person and we do not think it will make it anyway. I know few people will take the time to read the entire article, and the senate debate, its a shame because whether or not you are pro-life or pro-choice this is a reprehensible practice and we should all be aware of it.

National Review Online

article excerpts are in blue----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings. …

Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.

The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery.

Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McCarthy picks up the same text. Instead of setting himself up as the defender of the “least among us”, Obama worries about the liabilities of the doctors who suddenly find themselves with two live patients instead of one. Obama’s biggest concern was that a second doctor would have to make a determination of the status of the infant, fully out of the birth canal and alive despite the attempts to abort the child.

It’s too burdensome, Obama argues, to have a second doctor check on the infant. But why was this “burden” of a second examination added? Because the doctors who aborted the children were the ones ordering the staff to discard them after they were born alive. Stanek made that extremely and explicitly clear in her testimony, which Obama attended. He acts as if she had never spoken, and that the subsequent investigation hadn’t shown evidence that Christ Hospital wasn’t alone in this practice.

McCarthy points out the scope of the problem:

As Obama spoke these words, he well knew that children were being born alive but precisely not looked after by the abortion doctors whose water the senator was carrying. As Stanek put it, as many as one in five — twenty percent — were left to die. That was what prompted the legislation in the first place.

Obama wanted to protect the abortion industry from acknowledging this disgusting practice, and so he just pretended in his speech that the issue was purely academic. He refused to stop infanticide in order to shield the multi-billion-dollar abortion lobby. How does that square with Matthew’s call, Senator Obama?

Or maybe that’s above his pay grade, too.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the entire state senate debate

Don’t take my word for it. There’s a transcript of a state senate debate, which took place on April 4, 2002. That transcript is available here (the pertinent section runs from pages 31 to 34). I quote it extensively below (italics mine). After being recognized, Obama challenged the Born-Alive bill’s sponsor as follows:

OBAMA: Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously, this is an issue that we’ve debated extensively both in committee an on the floor so I — you know, I don’t want to belabor it. But I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what’s going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements you’ve set forth?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: First of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the … practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that … an attending physician be brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where … there’s a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child … may be [viable,] … the attending physician would make that determination as to whether that would be the case…. The other one is where the child is actually born alive … in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability.

SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: In the first instance, obviously the physician that is performing the procedure would make the determination. The second situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and then there’s an assessment — an independent assessment of viability by … another physician at the soonest practical … time.

SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (B) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

One time.......stick to the point, this is horrible in every conceivable way.

All abortion is horrible to me. but I ask you..... you being a true conservative, answer me this. Should the baby live are you willing to allow money from your taxes to feed it and provide healthcare?

I am.. but I am no conservative, remember.

You can't say you want it to live but then say you don't want tax dollars to feed this motherless child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All abortion is horrible to me. but I ask you..... you being a true conservative, answer me this. Should the baby live are you willing to allow money from your taxes to feed it and provide healthcare?

I am.. but I am no conservative, remember.

You can't say you want it to live but then say you don't want tax dollars to feed this motherless child.

Reminds me of the war cheerleaders. They shout, "These colors don't run" as they sit in their air conditioned SUVs on their way to their air conditioned cubicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, knowing that anyone who is viable is already protected under federal law (under EMTALA) to receive necessary life saving treatment, and knowing that this bill does not do anything to lessen the legality of abortion... what exactly does this bill do?

It gives conservatives something to bat around like they respect life. They don't want to feed the child or provide healthcare for it, they just want to tell you they love it . :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All abortion is horrible to me. but I ask you..... you being a true conservative, answer me this. Should the baby live are you willing to allow money from your taxes to feed it and provide healthcare?

I am.. but I am no conservative, remember.

You can't say you want it to live but then say you don't want tax dollars to feed this motherless child.

You assume much, NO ONE I know has ever begrudged their taxes being used for the care of children, and of the two foster home grown ups I now know as adults, neither have said they would have rather been aborted....quite the opposite. My wife and I were beginning to research the adoption process when she FINALLY became pregnant, and after we get our feet back beneath us, we very well may do so again. The point is this (at least for me), regardless of perceived selfishness of conservatives in regards to their tax money, or perceived abortion happy liberals in regards to the pro-choice debate.....both are meaningless in this instance. There were live, breathing, viable (to what degree is immaterial) babies who were not given the care that they needed and were in every way entitled to under basic human decency, they were instead placed out of sight so that their death gasps would not offend the sensibilities of those of us deemed by these "health care professionals", and law makers (Obama among them) to actually be entitled to their next breath. This vote in indefensible, and it is right, good, and just that it comes back to haunt this man who used his considerable influence and power to make sure of it's continued practice, and then to actually defend that vote when presented with these facts as illustrated in the aforementioned senate debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All abortion is horrible to me. but I ask you..... you being a true conservative, answer me this. Should the baby live are you willing to allow money from your taxes to feed it and provide healthcare?

I am.. but I am no conservative, remember.

You can't say you want it to live but then say you don't want tax dollars to feed this motherless child.

How charitable of you to have money taken from you under the threat of force with no control over how it's allocated for programs you have no involvement in or understanding for who or how it's helping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gives conservatives something to bat around like they respect life. They don't want to feed the child or provide healthcare for it, they just want to tell you they love it . :rolleyes:

lol it doesn't even really do that. All it does is say that if a person, who is medically alive but is not viable, has to have life saving treatment? That doesn't make any sense. A doctor has already determined that this person is nonviable. By the way, this isn't something that just happens to fetuses, this happens across the lifespan. If a person cannot be saved then doctors let them die. The only thing this does is open the door for holding doctors responsible for not saving the lives of people who can't be saved anyway.

If your problem is with the abortion, then fine, i can agree with that, ban the abortion. This bill does not do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You assume much, NO ONE I know has ever begrudged their taxes being used for the care of children, and of the two foster home grown ups I now know as adults, neither have said they would have rather been aborted....quite the opposite. My wife and I were beginning to research the adoption process when she FINALLY became pregnant, and after we get our feet back beneath us, we very well may do so again. The point is this (at least for me), regardless of perceived selfishness of conservatives in regards to their tax money, or perceived abortion happy liberals in regards to the pro-choice debate.....both are meaningless in this instance. There were live, breathing, viable (to what degree is immaterial) babies who were not given the care that they needed and were in every way entitled to under basic human decency, they were instead placed out of sight so that their death gasps would not offend the sensibilities of those of us deemed by these "health care professionals", and law makers (Obama among them) to actually be entitled to their next breath. This vote in indefensible, and it is right, good, and just that it comes back to haunt this man who used his considerable influence and power to make sure of it's continued practice, and then to actually defend that vote when presented with these facts as illustrated in the aforementioned senate debate.

no, they were not viable. anyone who is viable is already protected under federal law. These people were determined to be nonviable. that is the key point right there. No one is for killing viable babies.

Just b/c you are breathing does not mean you are viable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote a paper in college in support of infanticide. It wasn't necessarily what I believe, but it's a defensible position in a world that can keep pretty much anyone alive.

The problem is the "slippery slope" that it creates. I normally can't stand slippery slope arguments, but I prefer a pretty hard line when it comes to termination of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, they were not viable. anyone who is viable is already protected under federal law. These people were determined to be nonviable. that is the key point right there. No one is for killing viable babies.

Just b/c you are breathing does not mean you are viable.

But just because a baby is breathing means that a family can blow their entire savings trying to keep it alive. That eliminates resources that could be use to educate, feed, or medically treat other children who are not in a futile state of health. I get it. If I were a parent, I don't know the decision I would make, but I couldn't fault a parent who helps a child with -say- tay sachs to die comfortably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol it doesn't even really do that. All it does is say that if a person, who is medically alive but is not viable, has to have life saving treatment? That doesn't make any sense. A doctor has already determined that this person is nonviable. By the way, this isn't something that just happens to fetuses, this happens across the lifespan. If a person cannot be saved then doctors let them die. The only thing this does is open the door for holding doctors responsible for not saving the lives of people who can't be saved anyway.

If your problem is with the abortion, then fine, i can agree with that, ban the abortion. This bill does not do that.

The doctor made no such judgment. The mother decided that she still wanted to have the abortion in this late stage and the doctor had to induce birth in order to bring the baby's head outside the womb in order to be killed by shoving scissors into the skull. If it wasn't viable, ala alive, it wouldn't require a coup de grace with a pair of scissors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gives conservatives something to bat around like they respect life. They don't want to feed the child or provide healthcare for it, they just want to tell you they love it . :rolleyes:

You say that like it's a fact, what do you base that on? Conservatives favor PARENTS taking responsibility for the care of their children, I have heard no one say that children who fail to receive that care from those parents (AS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE) should not be cared by the state, how about directing some of the selective outrage you feel at the people who deserve it, the ones who fail their children......stop with the blanket and untrue generalities and again for once, address the issue of the thread.....which is\was the horrid practice of infanticide that the guy you support (though do not plan to vote for :wacko: ) voted for and fought to protect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But just because a baby is breathing means that a family can blow their entire savings trying to keep it alive. That eliminates resources that could be use to educate, feed, or medically treat other children who are not in a futile state of health. I get it. If I were a parent, I don't know the decision I would make, but I couldn't fault a parent who helps a child with -say- tay sachs to die comfortably.

I see what you are saying there but that isn't even what this bill deals with. This bill deals with babies who have already been determined to be nonviable. Miracles do happen, but there is essentially no chance at life.

The argument could be made that the baby would be viable if the pregnancy wasn't aborted, but that's not the issue here. This bill deals with the time after the abortion happens. This bill doesn't prevent the abortion from happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The doctor made no such judgment. The mother decided that she still wanted to have the abortion in this late stage and the doctor had to induce birth in order to bring the baby's head outside the womb in order to be killed by shoving scissors into the skull. If it wasn't viable, ala alive, it wouldn't require a coup de grace with a pair of scissors.

that's not the issue in this bill. I agree that should be illegal. This bill doesn't do anything to prevent the abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, they were not viable. anyone who is viable is already protected under federal law. These people were determined to be nonviable. that is the key point right there. No one is for killing viable babies.

Just b/c you are breathing does not mean you are viable.

Preemie babies are born every day that would be non viable if it weren't for modern science and it's capabilities. The only difference is the parental intention with those babies, which is why they need the type of protection being discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How charitable of you to have money taken from you under the threat of force with no control over how it's allocated for programs you have no involvement in or understanding for who or how it's helping.

So I ask you. These babies that are not aborted..I assume you are willing to provide for their healthcare and feeding?

I mean, if you wish them to live, surely you realize they must be fed.

I just don't understand why many conservatives wish for the babies to live but are dead set against feeding and providing for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preemie babies are born every day that would be non viable if it weren't for modern science and it's capabilities. The only difference is the parental intention with those babies, which is why they need the type of protection being discussed.

No, premature births are still considered viable. It doesn't matter what happened 100 years ago, what happens today is that we can still save premature babies.

Again, we are talking about babies who have been determined to be nonviable, even with today's modern medicine.

Noone is killing viable babies legally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, knowing that anyone who is viable is already protected under federal law (under EMTALA) to receive necessary life saving treatment, and knowing that this bill does not do anything to lessen the legality of abortion... what exactly does this bill do?
The purpose of the bill was to paint late term abortion as extremely as possible, using examples of practices that are already illegal under current Federal law, in an effort to have legislation which defined a fetus and a viable human life. The idea is to then take that legislation as the premise for future legal action defining all abortion as murder.

I am glad Obama voted as he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I ask you. These babies that are not aborted..I assume you are willing to provide for their healthcare and feeding?

I mean, if you wish them to live, surely you realize they must be fed.

I just don't understand why many conservatives wish for the babies to live but are dead set against feeding and providing for them.

The money could come from churches and individuals.

Of course the woman might not be assoicated with any churches but the Govt. is not the solution to anything 99 times out of a 100.

I think the private sector could build roads better, teach better, and probably do just about everything better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...