Barack Obama has decided to respond to Gianna Jessen’s powerful ad on his opposition to a bill that would have protected the lives of infants born from botched abortions. In essence, he accuses John McCain of lying, when the record speaks so clearly that Obama’s campaign had to admit they lied about his position on the Illinios version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This has produced a hysterical reaction from Team O that pretty much has become a One-Note Charlie when responding to any criticism:
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.
Christ Hospital is partly owned by Obama’s former church. Jeremiah Wright at one time helped make policy for the hospital.
Wright also follows Black Liberation Theology, whose chief speaker, Cones, says that a God who doesn’t hate white people has to be killed.
Obama referred to children as being a “punishment”,and any God who would punish a Black woman with a baby she doesn’t want has to be killed right alongside the child He forced upon the woman, in the name of the (non-biblical) Black Theology “Christ”.
That ad linking Obama to Venezuela’s Chavez is a killer! It needs to be shorter, with less repetitive ranting from Chavez, then say that McCain/Palin will drill American oil, and we won’t need oil from Chavez!
One point I think is getting missed in this conversation.
If an abortion is proformed solely to protect a mother’s health, and then the baby is alive, why in the world would it be necessary for the baby to die afterwards? Once it’s out of the mother and alive it wouldn’t pose a risk to the mother’s health. You’d think the mother would be greatfull that her health risk was averted and she has a living child.
Or is the “mother’s health” claim just a convenient excuse to justify killing?
at the end of her ad it ALREADY says both via printed words on screen and voiceover that the 527 [its name escapes me] “is responsible for the content of this ad”
Yes, except it was the SupremeCourt who said it for Blacks, in Dred Scott. They said a Black person could never be anything more than human livestock.
The American people chose to give legal protections to “all persons” in the 14th Amendment. If that means “biological” persons then that would be a Constitutional re-definition of all human beings as legal persons.
If it meant only “legal persons” (as decided in Roe) it would have done nothing to define *which* biological persons are legal persons. So Dred Scott would still stand.
Scrappy at 1:43 Or is the “mother’s health” claim just a convenient excuse to justify killing?>>
In Doe v Bolton “health” is said to include emotional, familial, social, financial health…. anything that affects the mother’s well-being.
A living child at any age affects a woman’s financial health. The SCOTUS acknowledges that it is not the pregnancy, but the CHILD which threatens the woman’s health. That doesn’t change just because the child is outside the womb.
Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure they’re looked after.
Obama has confidence that the doctor who was hired to kill the fetus in the first place is going to make sure that the infant, once he or she has been born alive as a result of the abortion doctor’s incompetence, stays alive???
That makes no sense at all. The abortion doctor has every incentive to make sure that the baby dies.
I saw Ms. Jessen in an interview on FNC the other day. In her case, an abortion (by saline) was attempted at 7-1/2 months gestation. When she was born alive (despite the abortion doctor’s efforts to kill her), the abortion doctor was not present in the clinic; he had left a nurse in charge. The nurse called 911 and they took Ms. Jessen to a hospital, where she was treated. She was later adopted.
Obama tires to associate McCain with Jensen, Limbaugh, and Bush and yet screams like a pig when he is linked to long time friends, associates, and neighbors: Ayers, Johnson, Wright etc.
About that exception for rape and incest thing. If you are making any kind of distinction on those points, then you are implying that the child of a rapist has inherently less right to live than any other child or you are implying that pregnancy is just punishment for unchaste women, but unjust for chaste ones.
Which is why I am split between the “always legal” and the “only to save the mother” stances, but think the “exception for rape and incest” stance is immoral, one way or the other.
Which is why I am split between the “always legal” and the “only to save the mother” stances, but think the “exception for rape and incest” stance is immoral, one way or the other.
Count to 10 on September 19, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Indeed. Senator Coburn has spoken about the fact that his own grandmother was conceived of rape and what a wonderful woman she was.
Also, the health of the mother thing is complete crap. In the case of partial birth abortion the baby is partially delivered and the doctor STOPS to kill the baby before he or she is fully born. If they really need to get the baby out in a hurry, why not skip the step where the baby is killed?
Wow, I never really thought about it that way. You are right. I always felt that way, but couldn’t think of a rational way to express it. Thanks.
Any data on how often this occurs?
Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure they’re looked after.
A doctor performing late-term abortions botches the abortion and the baby is born alive. What’s likely to happen to the doctor? Among other things, he or she will probably be sued for malpractice.
But Obama is confident that the abortion doctor is going to keep the baby (soon to be known as “Exhibit A” in the malpractice suit against the doctor) alive.
The majority of these aborted alive infants would probably not live, but to fail to provide comfort measures such as warmth and medication to minimize the pain they have secondary to being bathed in and burned by the saline solution is beyond cruel and heartless. Obama is beneath contempt and I pray will never lead this nation. My disgust with Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin no matter how much he tries to tie any opposition to him as racially motivated.
Abortions of pregnancies due to rape? Not a clue. Presumably, it’s somewhat less than one-third of all cases of male-on-female rape.
Its only rhetorical, though as I don’t think there is currently any enforced law against abortion that leaves an exception for incest or rape. Maybe outside of the US?
Yes, except it was the SupremeCourt who said it for Blacks, in Dred Scott. They said a Black person could never be anything more than human livestock.
That was a fair reading of the Constitution on the part of the Court.
The American people chose to give legal protections to “all persons” in the 14th Amendment. If that means “biological” persons then that would be a Constitutional re-definition of all human beings as legal persons.
The 14th Amendment was not legally ratified, so it’s not accurate to say that the American people chose to do anything. It was “passed” at gunpoint.
But the original point still stands. It was the Democrats who argued that blacks were not persons, in the moral sense rather than the legal sense.
In Doe v Bolton “health” is said to include emotional, familial, social, financial health…. anything that affects the mother’s well-being.
A living child at any age affects a woman’s financial health. The SCOTUS acknowledges that it is not the pregnancy, but the CHILD which threatens the woman’s health. That doesn’t change just because the child is outside the womb.
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 1:48 PM
That would certainly not be my understanding of the meaning of the term, I can’t speak for others but I think many might agree with me. To me it makes sense to argue about abortion in terms of a mothers health as it pertains to the idea that continuing the pregnancy or the act of giving birth puts a specific risk the the mother’s survival of that pregnancy or birth. I don’t buy that any practical description of the word “health” is pertaining to one’s financal situation.
About that exception for rape and incest thing. If you are making any kind of distinction on those points, then you are implying that the child of a rapist has inherently less right to live than any other child or you are implying that pregnancy is just punishment for unchaste women, but unjust for chaste ones.
Which is why I am split between the “always legal” and the “only to save the mother” stances, but think the “exception for rape and incest” stance is immoral, one way or the other.
by the way. I have a 2 year old that is putting a pretty substantial financial strain on me. I think I’d still be a murderer if I decided to kill him.
To have to imagine that to make the point makes me sick to my stomach. And it seems like financial or emotional convenience is a pretty sick way of determining the life or death of a living (outside the womb) child.
I would add that it wouldn’t surprise me if doctors were influenced by the possibility of being hit with wrongful birth suits if they failed to ensure that the “fetus” they delivered did not survive. Or if it did but had problems, they might be on the hook for that also.
Obama seems to be using the Big Lie strategy. The one where he says something so outragious that no one believes he would lie about it, and so they don’t bother to check. He is doing this by shouting “Liar!” and whispering “Racist.” over and over again. What a debt we owe the Germans.
I have an interesting story from a good friend of mine in my St. Vincent de Paul conference in Huntsville, AL.
She used to work as a nurse’s assistant at a clinic where abortions were performed. She said that one time a woman came in at around 8 months pregnant for an abortion. When the baby came out, they told her the baby was gone. They secretly found a couple who adopted the child.
Later, the bio-mother found out and went before a judge a couple of years later to get her child back. The judge of course tossed the case out.
Could you imagine that? The bio-mother tried to use the court system to get her baby back after she found out the baby was not dead, but alive, after trying to have him killed.
Within a year, she just couldn’t do that work anymore.
The child is I believe in his early teens and now knows that his bio-mom tried to abort him.
Also – Since majority of Americans would be in favor of banning abortion – by lying and saying McCain wants to Ban abortions would do nothing but help McCain…. also IF McCain came out and said he was for banning abortion.. then he would easily win too bad he is a chicken crap pansy …. and im surprised he is actually attacking The One… thought he was gonna just lay over and die. (thank god for HMILFS ) (hockey moms id….)
It is really important that this 2nd ad gets out to Hispanics. Too many are being tricked into voting democrat and by doing so they are voting against their own Christian/ Catholic beliefs. They should be reminded of what they’re doing to themselves. Before 11/4/08. Someone needs to run this ad in Hispanic markets. DD
I learned something new today. Thank you!I hadn’t realized the controversy behind that ratification – that it was actually declared to be ratified even though not all states were represented. A lot for me to think about as I get the time.
I think the Dred Scott court did base the citizenship issue on a fair reading of the Constitution at the time, considering the compromises necessary to pass the Constitution in the first place – that slavery couldn’t be abolished until a certain time.
But the ruling that no state could grant legal protections (”legal personhood” in today’s lingo) was based on their own moral views rather than law. By their ruling, that moral view also became the law of the land.
1). 1975–Illinois passes into law an earlier “born alive” abortion law.
2). 2002–Federal born alive law goes into effect.
3). 2003–The Illinois committee vote occurs.
Why was there a need for another Illinois law on this when there already was another Illinois law as well as a U.S. federal law that required medical care be given to children alive?
What’s remarkable, Ed, is that you continue to spew falsehoods about how Obama was in favor of infanticide and and providing healthcare to children born alive when in fact there were two existing laws requiring medical care for them.
This link has the Alan Guttmacher Institute (connected with Planned Parenthood) survey on reasons for abortion. You might want to skim through the analysis. AGI claims 1% of abortions result from rapes, but Johnston thinks the numbers should be more like 0.35%.
Why was there a need for another Illinois law on this when there already was another Illinois law as well as a U.S. federal law that required medical care be given to children alive?
jim m on September 19, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Because a nurse came forward to notify authorities that babies were being put in the mop closet of the hopital to die. Alone.
It is disgusting and you are distgusting for pretending like it does not happen.
The stuff Jill Stanek wrote about happened in 1999. If the existing Illinois law didn’t apply, then the federal law adopted in 2002 would have applied.
But, as far as I can tell, Jill could only get one person to partially collaborate her story. Even the pro-life Republican Illinois attorney general decided there wasn’t enough evidence to even charge the hospital.
Newborn Found Alive in Trash Can at Phoenix Middle School. The article says the child had its umbilical cord still attached and was found because it was crying.
What would Obama say the child’s mother was guilty of? Abandonment? If this baby can be claimed by authorities because its mother abandoned it, refusing to care and provide for it, then why not any other child whose mother refuses to care for it in an abortion clinic or hospital?
If the custodian found the child crying there and just left it there to die, would he/she be commended for supporting this girl’s “right to privacy”? Minding his own business like Obama thinks we should all do?
Obama, I believe, thought the new state law was likely to be unconsitutional. That’s not inconsistent with it also being unneeded, although I have no idea what he may have been thinking, justin.
Obama, I believe, thought the new state law was likely to be unconsitutional. That’s not inconsistent with it also being unneeded, although I have no idea what he may have been thinking, justin.
jim m on September 19, 2008 at 4:23 PM
I appreciate your honesty for acknowledgement of not knowing the thoughts of The ONE. However, there is a massive flaw in your logic about the consistency…
Obama has shown he knows how to vote three ways… one of them being present. In a capacity in which “he thinks” a bill is going to be unconsititutional or unneeded, it would make more logical sense to vote PRESENT. That way, he wouldn’t be seen as aiding and abetting unconstitutional legislation. As for it being needed, it is irrelevant – he purposefully made a “stand” verses the over 129 times he voted present, to make a point.
Seems the abortionists in Illinois made such a stink of lawsuits over the abortion law, that everybody in charge of enforcing the law agreed they wouldn’t enforce the law if the abortionists wouldn’t sue them over it.
How do you like that? If you’re willing to create a big enough stink in the courts the authorities will agree to let you do whatever you dang well please. Surprise, surprse.
I’d like to hear Obama explain how he feels about his state agreeing to not enforce abortion laws intended to keep abortions safe and reporting accurate.
And agreeing not to enforce the medical care requirement for survivors of abortion which had already (before the abortion) been deemed to be “viable” (the only ones covered under the earlier IL law).
IOW, the entire IL government – like Obama – agreed to look the oher way rather than protect either women or babies. And Obama wanted to keep it tha way.
Here’s Section 6 of the 1975 Illinois law. The consent decree you provided says that this Section is enjoined only to the extent related to the method of abortion and the basis for the physician’s judgment that a medical emergency existed. It does not enjoin eliminate the need for immediate medical care for any child born alive.
(720 ILCS 510/6) (from Ch. 38, par. 81‑26)
Sec. 6. (1) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.
(b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act, the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing the method employed.
(c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(2) (a) 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
Turns out that the pro-life AG didn’t even need to look at evidence to know there would be no prosecution. His hands were tied by a legal settlement where abortionists would stop suing the government as long as the government didn’t enforce the law – binding on government for as long as that abortion law was in effect.
De-legislating from the bench, literally.
The only way to have a law enforced was to come up with a new law that didn’t fall under that gag order. And now it makes sense why IL didn’t fight it: the ACLU threatened to put up a legal stink that would shut down the government again if another law was passed.
This is a whole ‘nother can of worms. Just like with drilling – anyody willing to file perpetual lawsuits can control everything. Lawyers are hacking the government’s ability to do anything.
jim m: “although I have no idea what he may have been thinking”
Indeed, you do not. That’s what most people here are expressing too. It’s unfathomable to most decent people that the testimony that Jill Stanek provided could be met with string after string of petty excuses and rationalizations. I share your confusion and disbelief, but it’s nice to have a forum of caring human beings with whom to commiserate.
Yes, a law was on the books. No, the law was not applicable to the situation at Christ Hospital, because that law left a “viability” loophole. Because the babies were pronounced non-viable pre-birth, so long as no one was required to examine these newborn infants and confirm, or possibly change, that diagnosis, they could be scuttled off to closets until viability was no longer at issue.
Neat.
The issue of the necessity of passing the bill once the federal act was passed does seem murky. Since Obama never raised that issue, and still hasn’t as far as I know, would be an interesting one for you to research and let us know about. After all, if you’re going to put yourself in the position of providing rationalizations on the Senator’s behalf, particularly rationalizations for such an egregiously inhumane stance, I’d think you’d want to know what you’re defending.
Obama didn’t argue that the bill be dropped because it was redundant, then or now. He’s offered quite a variety of arguments, but that one seems to be all yours.
If you found evidence that your neighbor was doing something evil, alerted your state rep, then found that the current state laws contained a loophole that made it possible for your neighbor to continue, would you consider your representatives juggling the needed legislation for years, with trivial and easily remedied excuses, as good government? Really?
Justin, go back and look at the consent decree and look at the parties to it. Don’t blame a judge when the state of Illinois agreed to the consent decree. Not enforcing a valid consent decree would be legislating from the bench.
And only portions of the 1975 law weren’t being enforced.
anyone else think we should refer to the Obamanation as the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz, I mean, they both are in search of a heart, since there is no possible way someone with a heart could make the statements he makes… completely infuriating…
Continue your research, Jim. Just remember to watch the videos and listen to Barack’s own words. When you do this, you will understand that to Barack Obama, an unplanned pregnancy is not a human life, it’s a burden…
And here’s an excerpt from a discussion with an Illinois Dept of Public Health employees:
“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.’ ”
From Zorn’s 2004 blog post:
As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General’s office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker.
Why?
“Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law,” IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. “We took (the allegations) very seriously.”
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.”
Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views — simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.”
Bottom line: Jill’s testimony couldn’t be substantiated. And without evidence that would hold up in a court, you can never have a successful prosecution, no matter how many statutes you write.
And, yes, I would consider it good government not to pass an additional law in this situation given the facts as I understand them.
I hate PDF format; how the heck do you copy and paste?
Anyway, at page 12
“Defendants in their official capacities, their successors in office, their officers, agents, servants, contractors, employees, and attorneys, and tose people in active concert and particpation with them, are hereby enjoined from initiating any prosecution, including but not limite to crimial proceedngs or imposing ny sanction for violation of, or enforcing in any way, any of the provisions of the IL Abortion Law of 1975 as amended by Public Act 83-1128 and as codified at ILL Rev. Stat Ch 8, par 81-21, et seq. (1991), set forth in subparagraphs (A) – (N) below, against any physician ffering or performing abortions or pregnancy terminations”
And then (B) refers to section 6 (which you gave). This is what (B) says:
“Par 81-22 (6) referred to as section 2(6) (definition of fetus” and “unborn child”.
It sounds to me like officials are forbidden to prosecute section 6 at all. Granted, I’m not a lawyer. But where are you finding this to say something different about section 6?
They had to say there were no enforceable allegations because they were forbidden to prosecute or enforce anything.
It’s the lawyers who de-legislated from the bench in this case. They stunk the place up with lawsuits so the State of IL basically gave in and agreed not to follow their own laws.
It’s the Chicago mob on open display through their lawyers.
Right click on your mouse in Adobe. It should bring up a cut and paste button. But this site doesn’t seem to allow the importing of Adobe exercepts.
Answer: Go to page 13 of your link and look at (F) and (G). I admit the enjoinment of the definition of fetus and unborn child is a bit puzzling, but (G) is clear that the born alive section is enjoined only in one respect.
You’re right, I apologize. I guess I have unrealistic expectations of politicians. I can see how, hearing that this was going on, but having no way to stop the practice, whether because the hospital staff was covering it up, or no one was interested in prosecuting aggressively, the State Legislature’s hands were tied. Of course Obama wouldn’t want to say publicly that, despite finding these acts horrifying and unconscionable, there was nothing he could do, so he’d have to come up with some argument about constitutionality or the rights of the woman and her doctor, to protect his own, private, pain and frustration. After all, he knew what was happening. He must have been going mad with grief; all those dead and dying babies, and there was nothing he could do against the powerful and monolithic Christ Hospital.
We should lay off you guys. Hasn’t Obama suffered enough?
No harm done, guys. I hadn’t seen the consent decree and the part about the definitions not being enforced confused me as well, until I read the whole thing, so that was a great catch, justin and rat. And I am a lawyer.
What you posted is 81-26. 81-22 and 81-25 are also included in this agreement; I don’t know what they say.
81-26 (2a deals with abortion of a fetus predetermined to be viable. There must be another physician present unless the abortionist says there’s a medical emergency, BUT nobody can enforce the medical emergency requirement. So basically there doesn’t have to be another physician there.
81-26(2b)isn’t excluded from prosecution (that’s the one saying medical care must be given) – but it only applies to the extra physician if there is one. Since there doesn’t have to be one if the abortionist thinks there’s a medical emergency (and reasons can’t be verified by anybody), nobody is there who is required to give medical care to a viable fetus born alive.
So….babies born before viability have no protection. Viable babies have protection only if the abortionist wants them to and thus has another physician there. The abortionist is NOT required to give medical care even to a viable fetus born alive.
Ed, I think you may have even missed another lie here… Since when is McCain running on a platform of “banning abortions, even in cases of rape an incest” as the ad claims.
But good catch on the fact that McCain didn’t even put out the ad this is retaliating against… that was the first thing I noticed. What an unbelievable POS B. Hussein is.
The fact that the murder of infants is taking place everyday in this country with full support of the left is both sickening and enraging, when will the decent people of this nation stand up and stop this.
One doctor…two doctors…who the h*** cares about how many doctors have to be involved here? This whole argument begins to sound like “how many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?” The fact – the MORAL fact – is that no baby, no matter how defective or un-viable, should be dropped off in a laundry room to die because to do otherwise would be “inconvenient”. My grandson was born in August, at 37 weeks, with multiple deformities which were “incompatible with life”. My daughter’s doctors had suggested a late term abortion, which she refused. (That’s my girl.) Austin lived for just over an hour, loved and cuddled and caressed by his mom and dad and I. I can’t imagine a person who could have taken that baby away and leave him alone to die. No, he wasn’t going to make it, but while he was here, he was HERE, a living person who deserved all the care and dignity that any other dying person gets.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Tim Burton at 1:32PM
Christ Hospital is partly owned by Obama’s former church. Jeremiah Wright at one time helped make policy for the hospital.
Wright also follows Black Liberation Theology, whose chief speaker, Cones, says that a God who doesn’t hate white people has to be killed.
Obama referred to children as being a “punishment”,and any God who would punish a Black woman with a baby she doesn’t want has to be killed right alongside the child He forced upon the woman, in the name of the (non-biblical) Black Theology “Christ”.
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Vile scum sucking demon. I can’t really say what I think of him without getting banned so I’ll just leave it at that.
Darth Executor on September 19, 2008 at 1:42 PM
That ad linking Obama to Venezuela’s Chavez is a killer! It needs to be shorter, with less repetitive ranting from Chavez, then say that McCain/Palin will drill American oil, and we won’t need oil from Chavez!
Steve Z on September 19, 2008 at 1:42 PM
One point I think is getting missed in this conversation.
If an abortion is proformed solely to protect a mother’s health, and then the baby is alive, why in the world would it be necessary for the baby to die afterwards? Once it’s out of the mother and alive it wouldn’t pose a risk to the mother’s health. You’d think the mother would be greatfull that her health risk was averted and she has a living child.
Or is the “mother’s health” claim just a convenient excuse to justify killing?
Scrappy on September 19, 2008 at 1:43 PM
“Steve Z on September 19, 2008 at 1:35 PM”
at the end of her ad it ALREADY says both via printed words on screen and voiceover that the 527 [its name escapes me] “is responsible for the content of this ad”
Buckaroo on September 19, 2008 at 1:44 PM
flenser at 1:36pm
Yes, except it was the SupremeCourt who said it for Blacks, in Dred Scott. They said a Black person could never be anything more than human livestock.
The American people chose to give legal protections to “all persons” in the 14th Amendment. If that means “biological” persons then that would be a Constitutional re-definition of all human beings as legal persons.
If it meant only “legal persons” (as decided in Roe) it would have done nothing to define *which* biological persons are legal persons. So Dred Scott would still stand.
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 1:44 PM
“Or is the “mother’s health” claim just a convenient excuse to justify killing?”
shh! don’t blow the secret!
:-(
Buckaroo on September 19, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Scrappy at 1:43 Or is the “mother’s health” claim just a convenient excuse to justify killing?>>
In Doe v Bolton “health” is said to include emotional, familial, social, financial health…. anything that affects the mother’s well-being.
A living child at any age affects a woman’s financial health. The SCOTUS acknowledges that it is not the pregnancy, but the CHILD which threatens the woman’s health. That doesn’t change just because the child is outside the womb.
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Mother’s ‘health’ is a cover reason to get most abortions, especially late ones.
Obama DID vote against the BAIPA in Illinois even AFTER they added the neutrality language like the federal version.
McCain better get to this in one of the debates. Americans don’t all know about Obama’s push for infanticide.
This one is true.
Sapwolf on September 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Obama has confidence that the doctor who was hired to kill the fetus in the first place is going to make sure that the infant, once he or she has been born alive as a result of the abortion doctor’s incompetence, stays alive???
That makes no sense at all. The abortion doctor has every incentive to make sure that the baby dies.
I saw Ms. Jessen in an interview on FNC the other day. In her case, an abortion (by saline) was attempted at 7-1/2 months gestation. When she was born alive (despite the abortion doctor’s efforts to kill her), the abortion doctor was not present in the clinic; he had left a nurse in charge. The nurse called 911 and they took Ms. Jessen to a hospital, where she was treated. She was later adopted.
AZCoyote on September 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM
They are sending the little ones to Jesus. By the millions.
csdeven on September 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Obama tires to associate McCain with Jensen, Limbaugh, and Bush and yet screams like a pig when he is linked to long time friends, associates, and neighbors: Ayers, Johnson, Wright etc.
jerseyman on September 19, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Obama is simply evil. That counter add is pure shit. He is one sick bastard.
Somebody has got to get this into primetime news ASAP.
Sapwolf on September 19, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Obama is evil.
Plus, he likes terrorists and racists!
VolMagic on September 19, 2008 at 1:51 PM
About that exception for rape and incest thing. If you are making any kind of distinction on those points, then you are implying that the child of a rapist has inherently less right to live than any other child or you are implying that pregnancy is just punishment for unchaste women, but unjust for chaste ones.
Which is why I am split between the “always legal” and the “only to save the mother” stances, but think the “exception for rape and incest” stance is immoral, one way or the other.
Count to 10 on September 19, 2008 at 1:52 PM
…also, I find it absurd that 20% of pregnancies aborted.
Count to 10 on September 19, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Indeed. Senator Coburn has spoken about the fact that his own grandmother was conceived of rape and what a wonderful woman she was.
Also, the health of the mother thing is complete crap. In the case of partial birth abortion the baby is partially delivered and the doctor STOPS to kill the baby before he or she is fully born. If they really need to get the baby out in a hurry, why not skip the step where the baby is killed?
Elizabetty on September 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Wow, I never really thought about it that way. You are right. I always felt that way, but couldn’t think of a rational way to express it. Thanks.
Any data on how often this occurs?
redshirt on September 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM
A doctor performing late-term abortions botches the abortion and the baby is born alive. What’s likely to happen to the doctor? Among other things, he or she will probably be sued for malpractice.
But Obama is confident that the abortion doctor is going to keep the baby (soon to be known as “Exhibit A” in the malpractice suit against the doctor) alive.
Right.
AZCoyote on September 19, 2008 at 2:02 PM
The majority of these aborted alive infants would probably not live, but to fail to provide comfort measures such as warmth and medication to minimize the pain they have secondary to being bathed in and burned by the saline solution is beyond cruel and heartless. Obama is beneath contempt and I pray will never lead this nation. My disgust with Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin no matter how much he tries to tie any opposition to him as racially motivated.
Pat in NC on September 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Abortions of pregnancies due to rape? Not a clue. Presumably, it’s somewhat less than one-third of all cases of male-on-female rape.
Its only rhetorical, though as I don’t think there is currently any enforced law against abortion that leaves an exception for incest or rape. Maybe outside of the US?
Count to 10 on September 19, 2008 at 2:05 PM
That was a fair reading of the Constitution on the part of the Court.
The 14th Amendment was not legally ratified, so it’s not accurate to say that the American people chose to do anything. It was “passed” at gunpoint.
But the original point still stands. It was the Democrats who argued that blacks were not persons, in the moral sense rather than the legal sense.
flenser on September 19, 2008 at 2:06 PM
That would certainly not be my understanding of the meaning of the term, I can’t speak for others but I think many might agree with me. To me it makes sense to argue about abortion in terms of a mothers health as it pertains to the idea that continuing the pregnancy or the act of giving birth puts a specific risk the the mother’s survival of that pregnancy or birth. I don’t buy that any practical description of the word “health” is pertaining to one’s financal situation.
Scrappy on September 19, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Nicely put.
geckomon on September 19, 2008 at 2:12 PM
by the way. I have a 2 year old that is putting a pretty substantial financial strain on me. I think I’d still be a murderer if I decided to kill him.
To have to imagine that to make the point makes me sick to my stomach. And it seems like financial or emotional convenience is a pretty sick way of determining the life or death of a living (outside the womb) child.
Scrappy on September 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM
“Mother’s health” means spiritual, emotional, and political health. It is politically unhealthy to bring any baby to term…or something.
stonemeister on September 19, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Thanks.
/preening
Count to 10 on September 19, 2008 at 2:24 PM
redshirt on September 19, 2008 at 2:25 PM
oops, forgot to close quotes! My bad.
redshirt on September 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Is my netiquette incorrect?
The “/preening” was supposed to be self depreciating.
Count to 10 on September 19, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Time for an “It’s a Burden” ad from Team McCain:
They can use The One’s own words and everyone will see the false prophet that he is.
Honestly, if Obama is some kind of diety he’s more like the Angel of Death than a messiah.
CliffHanger on September 19, 2008 at 2:45 PM
I would add that it wouldn’t surprise me if doctors were influenced by the possibility of being hit with wrongful birth suits if they failed to ensure that the “fetus” they delivered did not survive. Or if it did but had problems, they might be on the hook for that also.
OBQuiet on September 19, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I think I’m going to be sick…
CliffHanger on September 19, 2008 at 2:48 PM
I am put in the mind of someone suing an assassin for failing to take out his target…
Count to 10 on September 19, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Obama seems to be using the Big Lie strategy. The one where he says something so outragious that no one believes he would lie about it, and so they don’t bother to check. He is doing this by shouting “Liar!” and whispering “Racist.” over and over again. What a debt we owe the Germans.
AnotherOpinion on September 19, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Scrappy at 2:12pm
I don’t buy it either but it’s been interpreted into the Constitution.
And in Roe, legal personhood isn’t granted until “at least” birth, which does leave the door open to it being sometime after birth.
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 3:01 PM
I have an interesting story from a good friend of mine in my St. Vincent de Paul conference in Huntsville, AL.
She used to work as a nurse’s assistant at a clinic where abortions were performed. She said that one time a woman came in at around 8 months pregnant for an abortion. When the baby came out, they told her the baby was gone. They secretly found a couple who adopted the child.
Later, the bio-mother found out and went before a judge a couple of years later to get her child back. The judge of course tossed the case out.
Could you imagine that? The bio-mother tried to use the court system to get her baby back after she found out the baby was not dead, but alive, after trying to have him killed.
Within a year, she just couldn’t do that work anymore.
The child is I believe in his early teens and now knows that his bio-mom tried to abort him.
Thank God for adoptive parents.
Sapwolf on September 19, 2008 at 3:06 PM
well, heres a nice Would you Rather question –
Would you rather be Aborted , or grow up to be a Liberal?
Donut on September 19, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Amen
CliffHanger on September 19, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Also – Since majority of Americans would be in favor of banning abortion – by lying and saying McCain wants to Ban abortions would do nothing but help McCain…. also IF McCain came out and said he was for banning abortion.. then he would easily win too bad he is a chicken crap pansy …. and im surprised he is actually attacking The One… thought he was gonna just lay over and die. (thank god for HMILFS ) (hockey moms id….)
Donut on September 19, 2008 at 3:22 PM
It is really important that this 2nd ad gets out to Hispanics. Too many are being tricked into voting democrat and by doing so they are voting against their own Christian/ Catholic beliefs. They should be reminded of what they’re doing to themselves. Before 11/4/08. Someone needs to run this ad in Hispanic markets. DD
Darvin Dowdy on September 19, 2008 at 3:34 PM
flenser at 2:06
I learned something new today. Thank you!I hadn’t realized the controversy behind that ratification – that it was actually declared to be ratified even though not all states were represented. A lot for me to think about as I get the time.
I think the Dred Scott court did base the citizenship issue on a fair reading of the Constitution at the time, considering the compromises necessary to pass the Constitution in the first place – that slavery couldn’t be abolished until a certain time.
But the ruling that no state could grant legal protections (”legal personhood” in today’s lingo) was based on their own moral views rather than law. By their ruling, that moral view also became the law of the land.
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Timeline, Ed:
1). 1975–Illinois passes into law an earlier “born alive” abortion law.
2). 2002–Federal born alive law goes into effect.
3). 2003–The Illinois committee vote occurs.
Why was there a need for another Illinois law on this when there already was another Illinois law as well as a U.S. federal law that required medical care be given to children alive?
What’s remarkable, Ed, is that you continue to spew falsehoods about how Obama was in favor of infanticide and and providing healthcare to children born alive when in fact there were two existing laws requiring medical care for them.
jim m on September 19, 2008 at 3:40 PM
This link has the Alan Guttmacher Institute (connected with Planned Parenthood) survey on reasons for abortion. You might want to skim through the analysis. AGI claims 1% of abortions result from rapes, but Johnston thinks the numbers should be more like 0.35%.
Quisp on September 19, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Jim M at 3:40
Why wasn’t Christ Hospital being prosecuted for its mistreatment of fully-born infants, if an Illinois bill wasn’t needed?
What it comes down to is whether mothers and/or doctors would be prosecuted for neglect of infants who survived abortions.
Furthermore, what was Obama talking about when he said the bill would cause undue pressure on women? What would the undue pressure be?
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Because a nurse came forward to notify authorities that babies were being put in the mop closet of the hopital to die. Alone.
It is disgusting and you are distgusting for pretending like it does not happen.
Elizabetty on September 19, 2008 at 3:50 PM
I keep trying to tell myself that I’m only joking when I say Obama is the anti-Christ, but he is making it harder and harder for me to believe myself.
This man is a horror!
pannw on September 19, 2008 at 3:56 PM
The stuff Jill Stanek wrote about happened in 1999. If the existing Illinois law didn’t apply, then the federal law adopted in 2002 would have applied.
But, as far as I can tell, Jill could only get one person to partially collaborate her story. Even the pro-life Republican Illinois attorney general decided there wasn’t enough evidence to even charge the hospital.
jim m on September 19, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Newborn Found Alive in Trash Can at Phoenix Middle School. The article says the child had its umbilical cord still attached and was found because it was crying.
http://digg.com/world_news/Newborn_Found_Alive_in_Trash_Can_at_Phoenix_Middle_School?OTC-widget
What would Obama say the child’s mother was guilty of? Abandonment? If this baby can be claimed by authorities because its mother abandoned it, refusing to care and provide for it, then why not any other child whose mother refuses to care for it in an abortion clinic or hospital?
If the custodian found the child crying there and just left it there to die, would he/she be commended for supporting this girl’s “right to privacy”? Minding his own business like Obama thinks we should all do?
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 4:14 PM
jim m at 4:07
If this law was already in effect, then why did Obama vote against the bill because it would be unconstitutional?
He can’t have it both ways. Either it was the same and not needed, or it was different and unconstitutional. Which was it, Jim?
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Obama, I believe, thought the new state law was likely to be unconsitutional. That’s not inconsistent with it also being unneeded, although I have no idea what he may have been thinking, justin.
jim m on September 19, 2008 at 4:23 PM
I appreciate your honesty for acknowledgement of not knowing the thoughts of The ONE. However, there is a massive flaw in your logic about the consistency…
Obama has shown he knows how to vote three ways… one of them being present. In a capacity in which “he thinks” a bill is going to be unconsititutional or unneeded, it would make more logical sense to vote PRESENT. That way, he wouldn’t be seen as aiding and abetting unconstitutional legislation. As for it being needed, it is irrelevant – he purposefully made a “stand” verses the over 129 times he voted present, to make a point.
That is being deliberate and it speaks volumes.
SkinnerVic on September 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/FedCourtDecree1993BlockingIllinoisLaw.pdf
Seems the abortionists in Illinois made such a stink of lawsuits over the abortion law, that everybody in charge of enforcing the law agreed they wouldn’t enforce the law if the abortionists wouldn’t sue them over it.
How do you like that? If you’re willing to create a big enough stink in the courts the authorities will agree to let you do whatever you dang well please. Surprise, surprse.
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Touche!
Tim Burton on September 19, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I’d like to hear Obama explain how he feels about his state agreeing to not enforce abortion laws intended to keep abortions safe and reporting accurate.
And agreeing not to enforce the medical care requirement for survivors of abortion which had already (before the abortion) been deemed to be “viable” (the only ones covered under the earlier IL law).
IOW, the entire IL government – like Obama – agreed to look the oher way rather than protect either women or babies. And Obama wanted to keep it tha way.
Change you can believe in. Right.
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Here’s Section 6 of the 1975 Illinois law. The consent decree you provided says that this Section is enjoined only to the extent related to the method of abortion and the basis for the physician’s judgment that a medical emergency existed. It does not enjoin eliminate the need for immediate medical care for any child born alive.
(720 ILCS 510/6) (from Ch. 38, par. 81‑26)
Sec. 6. (1) (a) Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus.
(b) The physician shall certify in writing, on a form prescribed by the Department under Section 10 of this Act, the available methods considered and the reasons for choosing the method employed.
(c) Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(2) (a) 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
jim m on September 19, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Jim M at 4:07
Turns out that the pro-life AG didn’t even need to look at evidence to know there would be no prosecution. His hands were tied by a legal settlement where abortionists would stop suing the government as long as the government didn’t enforce the law – binding on government for as long as that abortion law was in effect.
De-legislating from the bench, literally.
The only way to have a law enforced was to come up with a new law that didn’t fall under that gag order. And now it makes sense why IL didn’t fight it: the ACLU threatened to put up a legal stink that would shut down the government again if another law was passed.
This is a whole ‘nother can of worms. Just like with drilling – anyody willing to file perpetual lawsuits can control everything. Lawyers are hacking the government’s ability to do anything.
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 5:18 PM
jim m: “although I have no idea what he may have been thinking”
Indeed, you do not. That’s what most people here are expressing too. It’s unfathomable to most decent people that the testimony that Jill Stanek provided could be met with string after string of petty excuses and rationalizations. I share your confusion and disbelief, but it’s nice to have a forum of caring human beings with whom to commiserate.
Yes, a law was on the books. No, the law was not applicable to the situation at Christ Hospital, because that law left a “viability” loophole. Because the babies were pronounced non-viable pre-birth, so long as no one was required to examine these newborn infants and confirm, or possibly change, that diagnosis, they could be scuttled off to closets until viability was no longer at issue.
Neat.
The issue of the necessity of passing the bill once the federal act was passed does seem murky. Since Obama never raised that issue, and still hasn’t as far as I know, would be an interesting one for you to research and let us know about. After all, if you’re going to put yourself in the position of providing rationalizations on the Senator’s behalf, particularly rationalizations for such an egregiously inhumane stance, I’d think you’d want to know what you’re defending.
Obama didn’t argue that the bill be dropped because it was redundant, then or now. He’s offered quite a variety of arguments, but that one seems to be all yours.
If you found evidence that your neighbor was doing something evil, alerted your state rep, then found that the current state laws contained a loophole that made it possible for your neighbor to continue, would you consider your representatives juggling the needed legislation for years, with trivial and easily remedied excuses, as good government? Really?
ral514 on September 19, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Justin, go back and look at the consent decree and look at the parties to it. Don’t blame a judge when the state of Illinois agreed to the consent decree. Not enforcing a valid consent decree would be legislating from the bench.
And only portions of the 1975 law weren’t being enforced.
jim m on September 19, 2008 at 5:27 PM
anyone else think we should refer to the Obamanation as the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz, I mean, they both are in search of a heart, since there is no possible way someone with a heart could make the statements he makes… completely infuriating…
righthanddrive on September 19, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Continue your research, Jim. Just remember to watch the videos and listen to Barack’s own words. When you do this, you will understand that to Barack Obama, an unplanned pregnancy is not a human life, it’s a burden…
CliffHanger on September 19, 2008 at 5:37 PM
Here’s a link to the letter from the Illinois attorney general in 2000: http://judiciary.house.gov/Legacy/73696.pdf#page=46. He says the investigation showed no violation of law.
And here’s an excerpt from a discussion with an Illinois Dept of Public Health employees:
“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.’ ”
From Zorn’s 2004 blog post:
As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General’s office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker.
Why?
“Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law,” IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. “We took (the allegations) very seriously.”
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.”
Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views — simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.”
Bottom line: Jill’s testimony couldn’t be substantiated. And without evidence that would hold up in a court, you can never have a successful prosecution, no matter how many statutes you write.
And, yes, I would consider it good government not to pass an additional law in this situation given the facts as I understand them.
jim m on September 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM
I agree with him. An unplanned pregnancy is not a gift from God. It is a burden.
jim m on September 19, 2008 at 5:44 PM
I hate PDF format; how the heck do you copy and paste?
Anyway, at page 12
“Defendants in their official capacities, their successors in office, their officers, agents, servants, contractors, employees, and attorneys, and tose people in active concert and particpation with them, are hereby enjoined from initiating any prosecution, including but not limite to crimial proceedngs or imposing ny sanction for violation of, or enforcing in any way, any of the provisions of the IL Abortion Law of 1975 as amended by Public Act 83-1128 and as codified at ILL Rev. Stat Ch 8, par 81-21, et seq. (1991), set forth in subparagraphs (A) – (N) below, against any physician ffering or performing abortions or pregnancy terminations”
And then (B) refers to section 6 (which you gave). This is what (B) says:
“Par 81-22 (6) referred to as section 2(6) (definition of fetus” and “unborn child”.
It sounds to me like officials are forbidden to prosecute section 6 at all. Granted, I’m not a lawyer. But where are you finding this to say something different about section 6?
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 5:44 PM
They had to say there were no enforceable allegations because they were forbidden to prosecute or enforce anything.
It’s the lawyers who de-legislated from the bench in this case. They stunk the place up with lawsuits so the State of IL basically gave in and agreed not to follow their own laws.
It’s the Chicago mob on open display through their lawyers.
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Right click on your mouse in Adobe. It should bring up a cut and paste button. But this site doesn’t seem to allow the importing of Adobe exercepts.
Answer: Go to page 13 of your link and look at (F) and (G). I admit the enjoinment of the definition of fetus and unborn child is a bit puzzling, but (G) is clear that the born alive section is enjoined only in one respect.
jim m on September 19, 2008 at 5:50 PM
jim m:
You’re right, I apologize. I guess I have unrealistic expectations of politicians. I can see how, hearing that this was going on, but having no way to stop the practice, whether because the hospital staff was covering it up, or no one was interested in prosecuting aggressively, the State Legislature’s hands were tied. Of course Obama wouldn’t want to say publicly that, despite finding these acts horrifying and unconscionable, there was nothing he could do, so he’d have to come up with some argument about constitutionality or the rights of the woman and her doctor, to protect his own, private, pain and frustration. After all, he knew what was happening. He must have been going mad with grief; all those dead and dying babies, and there was nothing he could do against the powerful and monolithic Christ Hospital.
We should lay off you guys. Hasn’t Obama suffered enough?
ral514 on September 19, 2008 at 6:11 PM
No harm done, guys. I hadn’t seen the consent decree and the part about the definitions not being enforced confused me as well, until I read the whole thing, so that was a great catch, justin and rat. And I am a lawyer.
Have a good weekend to all.
jim m on September 19, 2008 at 6:25 PM
What you posted is 81-26. 81-22 and 81-25 are also included in this agreement; I don’t know what they say.
81-26 (2a deals with abortion of a fetus predetermined to be viable. There must be another physician present unless the abortionist says there’s a medical emergency, BUT nobody can enforce the medical emergency requirement. So basically there doesn’t have to be another physician there.
81-26(2b)isn’t excluded from prosecution (that’s the one saying medical care must be given) – but it only applies to the extra physician if there is one. Since there doesn’t have to be one if the abortionist thinks there’s a medical emergency (and reasons can’t be verified by anybody), nobody is there who is required to give medical care to a viable fetus born alive.
So….babies born before viability have no protection. Viable babies have protection only if the abortionist wants them to and thus has another physician there. The abortionist is NOT required to give medical care even to a viable fetus born alive.
That’s how I read what I’ve seen so far.
justincase on September 19, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Jesus wept again.
Fuquay Steve on September 19, 2008 at 6:52 PM
God, how liberals suck.
13Girl on September 19, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Ed, I think you may have even missed another lie here… Since when is McCain running on a platform of “banning abortions, even in cases of rape an incest” as the ad claims.
But good catch on the fact that McCain didn’t even put out the ad this is retaliating against… that was the first thing I noticed. What an unbelievable POS B. Hussein is.
RightWinged on September 19, 2008 at 8:48 PM
So why all the other comments (yours)? In a nutshell, you just affirmed what others had been engaging you about. Sheesh.
Now if Obama could be as honest . . .
geckomon on September 19, 2008 at 10:05 PM
The fact that the murder of infants is taking place everyday in this country with full support of the left is both sickening and enraging, when will the decent people of this nation stand up and stop this.
Viper1 on September 20, 2008 at 7:53 AM
Once Obama gets your vote, he will treat you like that gasping infant on that bloody towel. You think you are more to him than that? Fool!
SKYFOX on September 20, 2008 at 10:16 AM
One doctor…two doctors…who the h*** cares about how many doctors have to be involved here? This whole argument begins to sound like “how many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?” The fact – the MORAL fact – is that no baby, no matter how defective or un-viable, should be dropped off in a laundry room to die because to do otherwise would be “inconvenient”. My grandson was born in August, at 37 weeks, with multiple deformities which were “incompatible with life”. My daughter’s doctors had suggested a late term abortion, which she refused. (That’s my girl.) Austin lived for just over an hour, loved and cuddled and caressed by his mom and dad and I. I can’t imagine a person who could have taken that baby away and leave him alone to die. No, he wasn’t going to make it, but while he was here, he was HERE, a living person who deserved all the care and dignity that any other dying person gets.
uncivilized on September 21, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »