McCarthy: Obama’s moral failing on infanticide

posted at 9:20 am on August 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Note: Andrew McCarthy will be my guest on today’s Ed Morrissey Show at 3 pm ET!

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 occuring 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?

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 as I noted yesterday in my post on this subject from Obama’s debate in April 2002.  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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Leaving a baby to die a cold, hungry death in a closet is inhuman. Publicly advocating the practice is worse. I can’t imagine many voters could see that picture and not think worse of this guy.

Think_b4_speaking on August 22, 2008 at 9:23 AM

As He said in the passage you proudly quoted, inasmuch as you do it to the least of these, Senator Obama, you have done it to Jesus, the true Messiah. Don’t go around telling people that you’re His follower when you, in a sense, kill Him over & over.

jgapinoy on August 22, 2008 at 9:25 AM

I wonder who the Catholics are going to support now.

JetBlast on August 22, 2008 at 9:25 AM

Obama didn’t just answer wrong at Saddleback, he answered as wrong as one possibly could. That the mask slipped off of the messiah-pretender inside a church is ironic, and mysterious, and all part of this wonderful object lesson that is Barack Obama.

JiangxiDad on August 22, 2008 at 9:25 AM

This was my argument her last week- why don’t newborns qualify for being “the least among us”?

drjohn on August 22, 2008 at 9:29 AM

This takes the “abortion” argument to new heights. I find it shocking & disgusting that this behavior has been practiced in my country. It’s even more shocking to find out that a person that fought for this type of behavior is within reach of becoming the leader of America, the leader of the free world!

I really don’t like this Barack Obama person. This man is morally reprehensible.

Keemo on August 22, 2008 at 9:31 AM

…there’s movement there, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.

That’s just chilling. I can’t even comprehend saying that.

Typhoon on August 22, 2008 at 9:31 AM

“that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”

http://www.obamaschool.org/

yakwill83 on August 22, 2008 at 9:33 AM

And what is America’s greatest moral failure again?

digitalintrigue on August 22, 2008 at 9:33 AM

Am I the only one to cringe every time I read that these “procedures” were taking place at Christ Hospital?

Longhorn Six on August 22, 2008 at 9:38 AM

It turns my stomach to even think of this “Infanticide”.

Geronimo on August 22, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Am I the only one to cringe every time I read that these “procedures” were taking place at Christ Hospital?

Longhorn Six on August 22, 2008 at 9:38 AM

And didn’t the Rev. Jeremiah “G##**** America” Wright sit on the board of said hospital?

Wethal on August 22, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Disgraceful. When does start lobbying for legalized euthanasia?

Hey Barry, how’s your brother doin’?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 22, 2008 at 9:43 AM

You can always tell when you’ve scored points against a liberal candidate. He and his minions, following the combined examples of Bill Clinton and John Kerry, immediately assume counterattack mode — rather than addressing the allegations — and accuse the accusers of “swift boating,” by which they mean smearing with false charges.

John Kerry’s handlers adopted the technique when Kerry’s fellow swift boat veterans unveiled his true military record after Kerry brazenly made his record an essential campaign issue. They attempted to turn the table on the truthful swiftees by painting them as liars.

The episode proved that the mainstream media will go to any lengths to save a floundering Democratic presidential campaign, including conspiring to manufacture a new word for our political lexicon designed to discredit and silence the accusers. Henceforth, “swift boating” would describe the untrue smearing of a political opponent.

The irony and injustice is that the swiftees — not John Kerry — owned the truth. Never did Kerry or the mainstream media refute any of their allegations. But the swiftees did expose Kerry, objectively, as having lied about his record in a surprising number of particulars. Kerry never even attempted to answer the allegations, despite repeatedly promising that he would. He didn’t because he couldn’t. The only option left open to him was to launch a diversionary and fraudulent counterattack.

Which brings us to the present campaign. The Democratic Party, acting like a man in heat who is driven by anything but his rational mind, lusted after Barack Obama and made him its nominee when it should have known better.

Even before the primary season was over, it was obvious not only that Obama was an unknown quantity but also that what we did know about him was very troubling. And many Democratic primary voters were beginning to realize it, which is why Hillary Clinton won the majority of the late-term primaries.

Every week, a new disturbing revelation surfaces about Obama, each arguably more damaging than its predecessor. Having no substantive response, Obama and the liberal media are reduced to accusing the McCain forces of dirty politics, when any reasonable person knows there is nothing unfair about exposing your opponent’s character flaws and policy weaknesses.

Increasingly, these desperate Obama defenders have been accusing McCain of swift boating Obama, which signals that McCain has been scoring heavily with incontrovertible allegations.

The most damning one yet is Obama’s disgraceful record on abortion. Obama enabled infanticide while in the Illinois legislature and has been dissembling about it.

David Freddoso, author of the excellent new book, “The Case Against Barack Obama,” points out that Obama has repeatedly made the false claim that he only spoke out against an Illinois bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons” because it would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. Yet “every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb.”

Obama’s own words, circulating in transcript form and on YouTube, are even more incriminating, as he articulates his opposition to the bill seeking to protect a baby born alive as a result of a botched abortion. “Essentially, adding 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.”

Translation: Obama will not theoretically burden a woman’s right to abort her child, but he will actually burden an already-born infant’s chances of surviving.

Obama is so slavishly obedient to the abortion lobby’s cultish protection of a woman’s right to terminate her own offspring’s life, that he opposed measures designed to protect an already-born baby’s chances to survive. And you wonder why we say pro-abortion liberals have made abortion a ritualistic religious sacrament!

On “Hannity & Colmes,” Democratic strategist Bob Beckel indignantly stated: “Are you suggesting Barack Obama wants babies to die? . . . I’ve never thought the Republicans would go this far . . . This is about as low as you can go.”

Yes, Bob. Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois Senate to speak against a bill that would have granted legal protection to already-born babies still alive after a failed abortion. He used his power to prevent those innocent babies from having the best chance to survive. The evidence speaks for itself. It doesn’t get much colder than that.

In the face of this latest smoking gun, Obama and his beleaguered defenders have no arrow left in their quiver except to attack their accusers and label them as “swift boaters.”

Because swift boating really amounts to truth telling, the targets of those accusations should consider this an affirmation that the Obama forces know the charges are true. (David Limbaugh)

Keemo on August 22, 2008 at 9:44 AM

All anyone has to do is just check into B.O.’s voting record to see where he stands on the subject of abortion and infanticide. Even better, check to see where his wife stands on the issue. That is all the proof anyone would ever need.

pilamaye on August 22, 2008 at 9:45 AM

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.


The very same people who support this barbaric practice are the same people who have been screaming and crying about how evil we are to pour water over a terrorist’s head.

How could anybody with an ounce of compassion or dignity take a live infant child and throw it away with the garbage.

I read a post from Ace(Ace of spades) the other day that I think sums liberals up pretty well:

This isn’t politics for the left. It’s some sort persecuted-messiah psychodrama fantasia they’re playing out in their own badly addled heads.* Politics are just the vehicle for acting out this consensual mass hallucination. If there weren’t any politics to shape their delusions, they’d just be talking about Men in Black and Voice-to-Skull technology the same as any other muttering, eye-twitching schizophrenic.
Casting these paranoid delusions in terms of political oppression gives them the veneer of sanity. But only the veneer.

Liberals are sick,narcissistic manic depressives obsessed
with gaining political power to indoctrinate their twisted
ideology.

Baxter Greene on August 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Keemo on August 22, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Great breakdown,agree 100%

Baxter Greene on August 22, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Didn’t Jesus say “Suffer the little children”? Barack just misread it to “make the little children suffer”.

TooTall on August 22, 2008 at 9:53 AM

Ed–you continue to tell only half the story. See http://mediamatters.org/items/200808200003

Illinois already had a “born alive” bill, and so did the Federal government. The Illinois bill would have covered this situation.

Jill Stanek’s stories about infants being left to starve could not be substantiated by Jim Ryan–a pro-life Republican Attorney General of Illinois–and so he couldn’t bring any charges.

In addition, Jill Stanek was fired by
“In his book The Case Against Barack Obama, author David Freddoso misrepresents findings by the Illinois state government to claim that a statement by Sen. Barack Obama explaining his opposition to a bill that amended the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 was “not true.” Claiming that Obama’s assertion — that “measures mandat[ing] lifesaving measures for premature babies” were “already the law” in Illinois — was false, Freddoso falsely asserts that the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and a July 2000 letter from Illinois’ then-Attorney General Jim Ryan’s office refute Obama’s statement. They do not; indeed, a reported statement by IDPH supports it.

The July 2000 letter was a response from Ryan’s office to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. In a letter on Ryan’s letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote in part:

On December 6, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH’s internal review did not indicate [emphasis added] a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act.

No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.

[...]

While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.

From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that “[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois.” But the state’s conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims — IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law. (The word “indicate” is in italics above because in his quotation of the letter, Freddoso substitutes the word “include” for the word “indicate.”)

In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: “[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. … We took (the allegations) very seriously.” Zorn wrote further: “Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, ‘The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.’ “

And, Ed, Catholic hospitals do something very similar (see http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/szy/szy_01prenatalethics.html)

“An Our Sunday Visitor investigation has revealed that some Catholic hospitals perform a procedure called “early induction for fetuses with anomalies incompatible with life” known by its acronym, EIFWAIL, or simply as “early induction.” This procedure induces a woman into labor after her unborn child reaches viability around 23 to 26 weeks in cases when the child is known to have a condition that makes death inevitable soon after even a full-term birth. The child born in this way is made comfortable and often held by the mother until death.

The two most common conditions for which this procedure is performed are anencephaly, in which the child’s brain and skull fail to develop beyond the brain stem, and renal agenesis, in which the kidneys and lungs are underdeveloped. Children with these conditions generally do not live beyond a few minutes to a few hours outside the womb (although some anencephalic children have lived for months after birth).

Neither presents an immediate danger to the mother. Anencephaly by itself causes no complications to the mother, according to medical experts consulted by OSV. Renal agenesis may lead to complications if the child dies in the uterus, but close monitoring greatly reduces this risk.

Early induction was first brought to national attention when it was reported that Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., was performing the procedure and leaving the newborns to die unattended. Jill Stanek, a nurse at the hospital who blew the whistle on the practice, later helped persuade Congress to pass the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which requires medical professionals to give care and comfort to such newborn patients.

Those Catholic hospitals that OSV found using the EIFWAIL procedure are Providence Alaska Medical Center in Anchorage, Alaska, part of the 10th-largest Catholic health system in the country, and Loyola University Health System in Chicago. Spokespersons for the other nine largest Catholic health-care systems contacted for this story were either vague about their hospitals practices or did not return calls. Only Catholic Healthcare West, which is based in San Francisco and has 41 hospitals in California, Arizona and Nevada, responded unequivocally that it does not allow the procedure.

The Catholic hospitals OSV spoke with that use this procedure emphatically denied they are anything like Christ Hospital, which is not Catholic-run. But pro-life and other Catholic leaders say the EIFWAIL procedure resembles abortion too closely and many called it abortion outright.

A 1998 statement on early induction for anencephalic children, issued by the U.S. bishops Committee on Doctrine, clearly sides with the latter opinion.”

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 9:54 AM

It is nothing short of absolutely horrifying that this information is part of the debate, but there it is.
Obama’s phrases “burdened with a baby” or even “punished with a baby” are unforgettable. He is playing God, just like the Alinksky playbook suggests.

“The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach – to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God.” (Rules for Radicals pg. 61)

Is Obama a Christian?

Lord Jesus said (Matthew 7): 15:Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16: Ye shall know them by their fruits.

rishika on August 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Am I the only one to cringe every time I read that these “procedures” were taking place at Christ Hospital?

Longhorn Six on August 22, 2008 at 9:38 AM

No you’re not. I can’t think of too many better uses for a building demolition crew. Either change the name of that shithole or tear it down!

CurtZHP on August 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM

I don’t care how much you publicize this, it’s like water on a duck’s back to the starry eyes-glazed-over masses of mentally ill people called liberals. The MSM will do all it can to obfuscate on this and other things coming out.

wepeople on August 22, 2008 at 10:04 AM

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” Obama said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.” - Barack H. Obama

carbon_footprint on August 22, 2008 at 10:09 AM

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.”

How dare Obama PUSH Christianity as a National Religion!

/s

PappaMac on August 22, 2008 at 10:13 AM

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 9:54 AM

jim, the gaping hole that is the flaw in your entire argument is…

Why then did Obama lie about his vote?

fossten on August 22, 2008 at 10:17 AM

It looks like a minstrel show with all the obamapologists suddenly tap dancing at 78 rpm.

whitetop on August 22, 2008 at 10:23 AM

fossten on August 22, 2008 at 10:17 AM

Further more, Obama’s campaign has openly admitted that Obama lied about his vote…

Study up jim m….

Keemo on August 22, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Reuters/Zogby Poll:

Obama loses ground among Dems, women, Catholics & even younger voters

…Obama’s loss of support between the July and August Reuters/Zogby polls among some significant sub-groups (the margin of error is greater for sub-groups than the sample as a whole).

Democrats 83% down to 74% drop of -9

Women 50% down to 42% drop of -8

Catholics 47% down to 36% drop of -11

Ages <35 59% down to 47% drop of -12

College Grads 51% down to 40% drop of -11

Live in Cities 54% down to 43% drop of -11

Income <$50,000 53% down to 46% drop of -7

Southerners 46% down to 35% drop of -11

INC on August 22, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Fossten, the official Illinois gov website shows the bill as having been held in committee and referred to the Rules Committee. See http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=3910&SessionID=3&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=93.

Maybe he just didn’t remember. It was five years ago.

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Jill Stanek was on Hannity & Colmes the other evening.

Here’s the interview with Hannity.

INC on August 22, 2008 at 10:26 AM

Oh boy, we are even getting Media Matters trolls over here now. We must be over the target as we are taking a lot of flak!!

rockmom on August 22, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Why then did Obama lie about his vote?

Ballgame!!

[And did anyone else agree with him in Illinois Senate? The US Senate passed similar/same legislation that Obama voted and spoke out against - with Boxer leading the charge - unanimously... Jim?? Jim??... ;-]

Shivas Irons on August 22, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Clinton had his bimbo eruptions unit. Obama’s going to need a full-time, 24-hour sanitation patrol to follow him around with shovels and anti-stink spray and clean up all the infanticide and anti-American poop piles he drops daily.

whitetop on August 22, 2008 at 10:31 AM

Um, this is probably a dumb question, but doesn’t a hospital (or, by implication, the unintentional parent) leaving a baby to die violate some sort of criminal law?

pussum207 on August 22, 2008 at 10:35 AM

Um, this is probably a dumb question, but doesn’t a hospital (or, by implication, the unintentional parent) leaving a baby to die violate some sort of criminal law?

pussum207 on August 22, 2008 at 10:35 AM

It’s not a dumb question, and it’s important to understand the answer. It depends on whether it is legally defined as a baby. At that time, under Illinois law, it wasn’t. That is what Jack Ryan found – that under existing Illinois law it was just a fetus and not entitled to mandatory lifesaving efforts by the hospital. That is what the new law was intended to correct and what Barack Obama opposed.

rockmom on August 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM

Maybe he just didn’t remember. It was five years ago.

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Weak, jim. Very weak. Scooter Libby had a better explanation, and was convicted.

fossten on August 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM

Team Obama acknowledges infanticide lie
posted at 8:00 am on August 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/18/team-obama-acknowledges-infanticide-lie/
Russell Berman reports in the New York Sun that the Barack Obama campaign has acknowledged that Obama himself lied about the bill he torpedoed in 2003 that would have required medical providers to give normal medical attention to infants born alive during an abortion.

The admission comes with a new spin, as the campaign finally admits that the bill Obama defeated in committee was all but identical to

the federal law that passed the Senate unanimously in 2002:
Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”
His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.
In 2005, the campaign noted, a “Born Alive” bill passed the Illinois Legislature after another clause had been added that explicitly stated that the legislation would have no effect on existing state abortion laws.

In this version, Obama finally acknowledges that the bill he shot down as committee chair had the neutrality clause, but now he voted against it because it would have had some deleterious effect on abortion law

The National Right to Life Committee now claims that Obama lied about the bill in order to provide cover for his support of infanticide:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/infanticide-revisited/
When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting “infanticide.”

Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill.

As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, “Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. . . .

The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.”

However, the NRLC discovered in working through the Illinois bill’s path that their version of the BAIPA bill did have the neutrality codicil attached — and it got attached in Obama’s committee:
For the moment we can set that debate aside, however, for this reason: Documents obtained by NRLC now demonstrate conclusively that Obama’s entire defense is based on a brazen factual misrepresentation.
The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the “neutrality clause” (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.
The amendment with the neutrality language identical to that in the federal law is here. In the record of the vote taking on March 12, 2003, the amendment was adopted unanimously by Chairman Obama’s HHS subcommittee. That added the neutrality clause to the bill — which then went down to defeat on a party-line 6-4 vote, with Obama voting against protecting infants born alive during abortions.

You can try and spin this all you want,but the facts are clear.

Obama put his political interests ahead of the life of a new born baby.Then he lied about why he did it.

Much the same way he put his political interests ahead of what was best for the Iraqi people,our Soldiers,and Freedom
by voting against the surge and denying that it has brought success in the War on Terror.

This may be “hope” and “Change” to liberals,but I call it blind, self-centered ambition to achieve political power no matter what the costs to the people around him.

Baxter Greene on August 22, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Um, Rockmom and others: the US federal bill became law in August, 2002. It would have covered this.

The Illinois 1975 Abortion Law already covered this:

No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any CHILD BORN ALIVE as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; in such a case, the physician shall describe the basis of this judgment on the form prescribed by Section 10 of this Act. Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a CHILD IS BORN ALIVE, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.

And Stanek admits on her website that the 1975 Illinois law may well have covered this:

“The problem I had with Jim Ryan was the way he handled live birth abortion at Christ Hospital. Rather, how he didn’t handle it. He didn’t do anything. He punted the politically volatile football to the Illinois Department of Public Health.

This can now be confirmed as true due to information just received this past Friday from Attorney General Jim Ryan’s office via the Freedom of Information Act, which makes this piece even harder to write.

The AG’s office admits it never opened an investigation of Christ Hospital. There is no investigation number. There is no paperwork.

And strangely, the AG refuses to hand over any opinion he may have rendered on the two-part constitutional question, “Is a live aborted baby a legal person, and if so, is it legal for Christ Hospital to leave live aborted babies to die?” The AG’s opinion is ever more important now that the federal Born Alive bill is law, because we need to know the AG’s thinking so as to begin enforcing this law in Illinois.

I think the reason the AG refuses to hand over its opinion is because there is no opinion. Contrary to FOIA law, a law that the AG himself helped write, the FOIA response took two months, three certified letters, and several phone calls to obtain from the AG’s office.

So, I think it will be awhile, or maybe never, before we find out what the highest legal official in the State of Illinois was thinking when his office said on July 19, 2000, “We have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.”

So why do you need another law to cover this when you already have two?

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 11:02 AM

Just another example of how far liberals will go to achieve
political power.

Obama was going to end the war,now the troops stay based on
conditions on the ground.

No Problem

NSA wiretapping was trampling on the Constitution,illegal,and serious enough violation that liberals wanted to impeach the President over it,until Obama
decided he was for it.Now:

No Problem

Obama promised Campaign finance reform and promised he would join McCain if he agreed to it,until “Mr. Change” saw
that he could make a lot more money,so he broke his promise
to chase the money:

No Problem

He wanted to ban guns,now supports the 2nd Amendment:

No Problem

Wanted to change NAFTA,now he supports it:

No Problem…on…and…on…and…on….and..on

liberals are getting bent over more and more every day
by “Mr. Hope and Change”.

No Problem though,because what ever Obama says,they will follow:

Is This What It Means To Be An Obama “Progressive?”
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:05:15 PM EST
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/8/13/17515/4808

I am an Obama supporter. Who could not be when McCain is the other choice? But pols are pols and do what they do. That’s why I rip them all when they do the wrong thing, by my lights. For example, as Obama did on FISA Capitulation. But a new breed of Democrat and “progressive” is emerging. Glenn’s Greenwald’s interview with Mort Halperin allows us to coin a new phrase – a Halperin “Progressive.” What is a “Halperin” progressive? One who decides what the right position is for progressives based on what Barack Obama does. Glenn writes:
[T]here was only one meaningful change that occurred between Halperin’s June 9 opposition [to FISA Capitulation] and his July 8 support [for FISA Capitualtion]: namely, it was in that interim — on June 20 — that Barack Obama announced that he would support the FISA bill . . .
There are many “progressive” blogs and Obama supporters who are Halperin “progressives.” I am not one of them.

Infanticide just another example of the incredible hypocrisy that makes up the democratic party and moral crusaders who cry and yell about terrorist being kept up past their bed time and having water poured over their sensitive whittle heads,but have no problem pulling an infant out of a nurse’s arms and sending it off to the trash
bin.

Baxter Greene on August 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM

Ed, if you have time during the show, please ask Andrew to comment on the ISNA speaker at the Dem convention.

Connie on August 22, 2008 at 11:17 AM

So why do you need another law to cover this when you already have two?

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 11:02 AM

Because babies were still being killed.

And again, why did Obama lie about his vote? You still have yet to answer that question. “He forgot” isn’t an answer.

fossten on August 22, 2008 at 11:18 AM

We must be over the target as we are taking a lot of flak!!

rockmom on August 22, 2008 at 10:27 AM

Bomb bay doors open!

CurtZHP on August 22, 2008 at 11:20 AM

The bill was brought forth for a reason,if it was already covered than it seems like common sense that all of the Illinois senate would not be debating it and “Mr. Constitutional law genius” Obama would have simply said so.

Instead he states his fear that it would weaken Roe vs. Wade and that provisions of protection were not in there (which they were).

Either way,Obama voted against a bill that would have protected the rights of a new born child.

Baxter Greene on August 22, 2008 at 11:20 AM

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 10:24 AM

Well, Jim, if he didn’t know for sure (I know you really don’t believe that) then I would recommend he take a page from John McCain when asked how many houses he owned.

It would be one thing if this was an unusual occurence from Obama but it’s not. Time and again he has to massage his asnswers in the following days.

Be honest, is this really the Hope and Change you were looking for? I said be honest…

MarkABinVA on August 22, 2008 at 11:27 AM

How do doctors live with themselves after doing this? They should be hanged from the nearest tree!

sabbott on August 22, 2008 at 11:30 AM

I am being honest. To me, Obama is better than McCain.

And, no, babies were not “still” being killed. The Federal and earlier Illinois law was in effect in 2003. The stuff Stanek described at Christ Hospital (assuming that she was telling the whole truth, which I doubt) was in 1999.

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Can anyone doubt the abortion litmus test Obamacide would apply to his SCOTUS appointments?

this. man. Must. NOT. BECOME. PRESIDENT!

Fishoutofwater on August 22, 2008 at 11:38 AM

This is not indicative of the Demo Party that my mother was a member of. She spins in her grave over this.

Christine on August 22, 2008 at 11:42 AM

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 11:33 AM

I didn’t ask if you thought he was better. I asked if you thought he is displaying the new kind of politics that was central to his platform. Maybe you should check out the Blackwell thread before you answer, it’s getting interesting.

As far as babies no longer being killed. Did you notice you said “killed” and not “died” or “aborted”? Anyway, what would be wrong with having an extra layer of protection? Especially when Obama was the only one opposed to the bill? Riddle me that….

MarkABinVA on August 22, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Why do you want to waste money and time, Mark? You must not be a true conservative.

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 11:46 AM

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 11:46 AM

That all you got? Really?

MarkABinVA on August 22, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Plus which, the OB/GYN performing the abortion is likely not well-qualified to look after a newborn preemie. Another doc, a neonatologist, would be necessary for good care.

mikeyboss on August 22, 2008 at 11:49 AM

I fault many on the left for pretending this practice is not infanticide

Hospital Motto: Hope It Dies Before Lunch

Baby Motto: Hope Dies Before Lunch

I fault many on the capitalist right for pretending there aren’t political prisoners in China working as slaves in prison camps making Christmas lights and other garbage we buy

The SS motto: Arbeit macht Frei

Consumer motto: This stuff is crap but it’s not costing me

I can’t stomach writing this stuff. How could Obama make that vote?

entagor on August 22, 2008 at 11:54 AM

I am being honest. To me, Obama [Above My Pay Grade] is better than McCain.

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Fixed.

fossten on August 22, 2008 at 12:00 PM

Maybe he just didn’t remember. It was five years ago.

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 10:24 AM

The most AWESOME rebuttal EVAH!!!!!

In your face, NObamacans………

/yes sir

omnipotent on August 22, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Even a moderate on abortion has to be horrified about this.

PattyJ on August 22, 2008 at 12:34 PM

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.

Barry doesn’t want to burden the doctors. He doesn’t want his daughters punished for a “mistake.” But the helpless babies that survive an abortion: “eh, screw ‘em. I’ve got a base to protect.”

Mallard T. Drake on August 22, 2008 at 1:08 PM

[Obama] is playing God, just like the Alinksky playbook suggests.

The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach – to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God.” (Rules for Radicals pg. 61)

rishika on August 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM

I wasn’t sure whether that was parody, but I looked it up and nope, the guy’s serious as cancer.

Did you know that the only job Obama had before running for Senate was something called a “Community Organizer”? Don’t feel bad if you didn’t – the media apparently believe such piddling details as a resume are irrelevant when evaluating an applicant for such a menial task as President of the United States of America.

And I’ve never once heard anyone try to explain what in the Hell a “Community Organizer” actually DOES – until now.

logis on August 22, 2008 at 1:18 PM

logis on August 22, 2008 at 1:18 PM

And to think, this guy is the best of the best the Democrats had to offer the country. Let’s take a look at the list of absolute losers Democrats have given us:

Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Boxer, Feinstein, Edwards, Kucinich, and now Obama…

Keemo on August 22, 2008 at 1:42 PM

jim m
Your objections only make sense if you know little hospital practice, procedures and culture. Very basically if it isn’t on paper, it didn’t happen. Since the infant was not registered as a patient there would have been no chart started and no documentation. This does not mean it did not happen. It just means that it was not documented and would have been nearly impossible to prove. This would have required the knowing acquiescence of everyone in the room except for the one nurse who testified at the state legislature. This would not be unusual in a hospital or in most small closed groups with shared values. This was a group of nurses, doctors and techs whose shared value is that the rights of the mother trump those of the child. They would have stood together and lied to protect their common value system. I was a nurse for over twenty-five years and I find their lack of real ethics rather despicable. But I am also aware that the majority of nurses and doctors who take part in abortions would lie and cover up such things. The way I see it, once you’ve gone over to the dark side you’re, “in for a penny, in for a pound.”

snaggletoothie on August 22, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Then snaggletoothie, if there’s no proof that would stand up in a court, then all the laws in the world won’t stop this. Correct?

jim m on August 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM

And what is America’s greatest moral failure again?

digitalintrigue on August 22, 2008 at 9:33 AM

Barack Obama.

Right_of_Attila on August 22, 2008 at 8:51 PM