June 05, 2008

Surviving Barack Obama

The pro-life movement has often referred to abortion advocates as "baby killers" for supporting the deaths of inconvenient and unwanted pregnancies, though rarely has that criticism been as valid as when applied to radical left-wing freshman senator, Barack Obama.

Obama supports the negligent homicide—and I use that term after careful consideration as being the most accurate descriptor—of babies that survive the best efforts of abortionists and accidentally enter the world alive.

As Michael Gerson noted with obvious revulsion in the Washington Post in April:

Obama has not made abortion rights the shouted refrain of his campaign, as other Democrats have done. He seems to realize that pro-choice enthusiasm is inconsistent with a reputation for post-partisanship.

But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

Yes, you heard that correctly. Even though wealthy and quite capable of supporting an inadvertent pregnancy, the Democratic Party's choice for President would consider his own grandchild a punishment. Should the child somehow survive the abortion "Grandpa Barack" apparently wants, Obama would support withholding medical care to his born grandchild. Barack Obama would let him or her die in the hospital through purposeful neglect after having been born alive.

There is no hope here. This is not the kind of radical, dehumanizing change that most Americans realize Obama supports.

Daniel Allott continues shredding Obama's radical support of postpartum infanticide in the Wall Street Journal's The Audacity of Death today, beginning with an interview of Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor that Obama would have seen die, and then launches into the specifics of Obama's chilling record:

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.

When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama's candidacy, she paused, then said, "I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme."

"Extreme" may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama's autobiography have been left with. In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama's presidential manifesto, he calls abortion "undeniably difficult," "a very difficult issue," "never a good thing" and "a wrenching moral issue."

He laments his party's "litmus test" for "orthodoxy" on abortion and other issues, and even admits, "I do not presume to know the answer to that question." That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has "moral weight."

Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.

To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.

Then there's Mr. Obama's aforementioned opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies?

It is of course, infanticide.

If Barack Obama is smart, perhaps he can restart the false "Obama is a Muslim" meme to distract us away from his far more damnable short-comings as a father, presumptive grandfather, and human being.

Update: Read this, via Rightwingsparkle in the comments at Ace of Spades:

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies' being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony "did not faze" Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, "I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!"

"And those pictures didn't faze him [Obama] at all," she said.

It's not that Obama didn't know. It's that he doesn't care.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at June 5, 2008 09:03 AM

Democrats pretend to care about the 4,000 Americans that have died, in Iraq, protecting our freedoms but fully supported the murder of 289,650 babies in 2006. Calling them brain dead is being kind to them.

Posted by: Scrapiron at June 5, 2008 12:04 PM

A terrific if frightening post.

Posted by: mekan at June 5, 2008 12:38 PM

Nicely done. You just got another reader.

Posted by: captkidney at June 5, 2008 01:31 PM

Much has been made of the fact that NARAL supported the federal Infants Born Alive Act, but this was not the law that Obama opposed. He opposed similar legislation on the Illinois state level.

The recent overturn of the Virginia ban on so-called partial birth abortion, while the federal law survived, may suggest why this could be. Differences in the phrasing of the Virginia law made it less defensible. The federal law only criminalizes doctors who set out to perform an intact dilation and extraction, but the Virginia law also applies to doctors who set out to perform a legal procedure but end up delivering the fetus intact by accident. Because the only way a doctor could be sure to obey the Virginia law was to refrain from performing any second trimester abortions, it was considered to put an undue burden on women.

I suspect there was something similar going on with the Illinois laws, and I would like to see for myself. There was probably something in the Illinois law that was more about scaring doctors than it was about protecting babies born alive--because once they're born, they're babies.

Posted by: DRF at June 5, 2008 01:35 PM

Have these people never heard of adoption?

If we're so enlightened these days where's the shame in adoption if there isn't any in abortion?

I feel old, and morally out of date.

Posted by: Retread at June 5, 2008 02:19 PM

But adoption requires that the person carry the baby to term and we wouldn't want the poor darlings to feel guilty about giving away the child, would we?

/obvious sarcasm

Posted by: ECM at June 5, 2008 03:31 PM

If Barrack Hussein Obama had been conceived a few years later, judging by what his mother did with him in his lifetime, he surely would have ended up in the waste receptical at a Planned Parenthood clinic. I wonder if Obama believes in post natal abortion. If so, he should get in line.

Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at June 5, 2008 03:57 PM

DRF, the Illinois bill had an amendment added to make it precisely identical to the bill that was passed at the federal level.

Obama still voted "present" on the amended bill.

Therefore, it is quite logical and reasonable to assume that he'd have opposed the federal bill as well.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 5, 2008 06:11 PM

From what I've seen of B(H)O, he hasn't seen an abortion procedure he didn't like. Of course, I highly doubt he's ever SEEN an abortion which might actually explain his views on the subject.

Posted by: Mark at June 5, 2008 09:18 PM

It's sad how many don't understand nuance and context. Abortion doesn't exterminate valued life, as some here suggest. It removes undesirables from the gene pool. Poor white offspring, immigrant filth, and god forbid, a zebra from a trust fund daughter's one-time fling with an exotic African man.

While it may be puzzling to Obama that he's the very ilk abortion intends to protect the sophisticated culture from, most others on the left have little difficulty decoding what abortion is really about.

Posted by: redherkey at June 5, 2008 10:10 PM

You gotta wonder if BO is gonna shed his skin color ala M. Jackson.

Posted by: torabora at June 5, 2008 11:33 PM

Now as amazing as it sounds there are no requirements to report and abortion being performed for statistical purposes.

Based on voluntary reporting

49,523,945 abortions 1973-2007

The clock is ticking....

One baby is aborted every 26 seconds
137 babies are aborted every hour
3,304 babies are aborted every day
23,196 babies are aborted every week
100,516 babies are aborted every month

Every day almost enough babies to equal the total death toll in Iraq.

Yet in the same breath these are also the same people who believe the death penalty is excessive.

Posted by: JustADude at June 6, 2008 02:16 AM

Abortion positions aside, if this is what he'd do the weakest and most vulnerable of us when against all odds they manage to emerge alive rather than a much more convenient dead, what chance does anyone else stand with him?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 6, 2008 08:21 AM

Reading these comments you'd think he performed all these abortions personally and is favorite personal hobby. This is all a red herring to stir up the zoo. Obama isn't forcing anyone to have these abortions. Republicans talk big about taking responsibility for one's own actions but instead of blaming the women who are having the abortions or the doctors performing them, it has to be Obama's fault that these things are happening because he voted no/present on bills that might have made it illegal. If he had voted yes, the bill was passed and these abortions still happened (as they did when it was illegal) wouldn't it still be his fault? The reality is that laws aren't designed to save lives, they are designed to punish those that break them. Why didn't the doctors and nurses try and save the babies after they were born? Why did Jill Stanek simply take pictures of these babies dying and not try and prevent it? Why isn't someone arresting these medical professionals for negligent homicide? Are there laws on the books that state that if a mother wants the fetus dead, even after its born then doctors HAVE to let it die? I don't think there are (maybe I'm wrong on this). How long after birth then do the mothers have this right, till the kid is 18?

Posted by: matt a at June 6, 2008 10:18 AM

How long after birth then do the mothers have this right, till the kid is 18?

In some societies, until around age 4 or 5.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 6, 2008 03:22 PM

matt a:

Well, Peter Singer has argued that you should be able to kill off severely handicapped children after birth for at least a year or two, if not longer.

Separately, the courts have ruled that parents may deny their children medical care on religious grounds. The most prominent example is Christian Scientists. That would apply through the age of 18.

Posted by: Lurking Observer at June 6, 2008 04:20 PM

It's really all about religion. I would like to think you are rea!ly concerned about killing a SINGLE cell. It's not! It's all about what your bible quoting leaders say. What I find interesting is that throughout history religions have been in the forefront of most wars. And all these wars were about enforcing religious views. You seem to ignore that. Or are you in denial?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 7, 2008 03:55 PM

1. Where is Obama's campaign money coming from? He says the average citizen and will not take money from special interst groups? Average citizens do not have THAT much money. I think it is coming from the middle east.
2. How much foreign affairs experience does he have? None
3. Look at his voting record. Apparently his strings are being pulled by some powerful people. He is very careful and does not vote unless he thinks it would better him. Be damned with the voters.
4. Like it or not, look at who the first lady would be. This woman cannot keep her foot out of her mouth! Do we want her representing America?
5. Sure he is charismatic but so was Hitler. Do we want a president that is charismatic but no experience?
6. Obama has seemed to pop out of nowhere. Do we dare risk him running the country until he has proven himself in the trenches? NO!!

Posted by: ListeningIntently at June 7, 2008 04:00 PM

If Snobama were in a car wreck and I just put him in a quiet corner and neglected to give him the required medical care till nature took its course what would I be charged with?

Nuff said. People who support this type of bill are no better than those who manned the ovens the Germans operated.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at June 7, 2008 04:53 PM

Republicans pretend to care about all the fetuses ever to have been aborted, Scrapiron, but fully supported the murders of 1,103 inmates since 1976. I see. Apparently, the right to life ends at the moment of birth.

Posted by: Kat at June 8, 2008 02:50 AM

No Kat, it doesn't end at the moment of birth, but rather upon conviction of a capital offense.

Nice try though.


Posted by: Jason Coleman at June 8, 2008 07:38 AM

Conviction by a justice system populated by mostly well-intentioned, but fallible, human beings. Though I'm sure the murders of dozens of *real* criminals would make up for any one innocent person accidentally being put to death.

But this is veering slightly off the point. The point is that many liberal individuals (such as myself) don't believe that life begins at conception. Call it "infanticide" and all the other horrible things that you use to stir up passion among pro-lifers, but our stance is that you're wrong.

I don't want fetuses to be aborted. I think it's a horrible decision for a young woman to have to make. But I'm not going to tell someone, "Congratulations that your condom broke/you were raped/you didn't understand the consequences of having sex because you've only been exposed to abstinence teachings. You're going to be going into hours of labour after straining your body's resources for nine months! But take heart. Afterwards, you're going to make the decision to either raise this child you're not equipped to deal with, or put him/her in a crowded, overworked foster care system full of children who will never be adopted. Cheers!"

Posted by: Kat at June 8, 2008 05:09 PM

"Conviction by a justice system populated by mostly well-intentioned, but fallible, human beings."

I'll take my chances with the law of man administered by man and through a jury of my peers over any other alternative.

The point remains that one does not lose their rights at birth, as you asserted, but rather when a capital offence has been committed, tried and convicted.

Personally, I believe that life begins at viability, and as science makes such viability younger and younger, we must adjust to guarantee the rights of all men (generic sense) until such time as they may lose them via the rules we have all previously agreed to and codified.

Abortion is a matter for the states in my view, and BO failed my test (not my only one, and not the only one he's failed), AND since we are playing this out in various federal arena's I also notice he is failing there too.


Posted by: Jason Coleman at June 8, 2008 06:38 PM

I wouldnt get too emotional on BHO for Pres. He will not win anyway. To be politically correct I will not say exactly why he wont but not to worry. Americans can see through him and see where is wife and his pastor and many of his aquaintences are coming from. A place I dont ever want to revisit from the past.

Posted by: bob at June 8, 2008 06:45 PM

Two questions, Kat.

First, please name for me even one person who has been executed who has now been proven innocent. Just one. And don't give me the excuse that the investigation stops after execution... with all the anti-death-penalty lawyers and activists out there, surely one of them could have found one case by now.

Two, please provide your source for the assertion that a child put up for adoption will never be adopted. Given the number of people who are adopting children from outside the US, including a number of quite famous people, it seems unusual that there'd be huge numbers of adoptable kids (meaning their legal status is clear of impediments to adoption) who are waiting. So you will please provide your evidence, since I cannot prove a negative, i.e., I can't prove that such a waiting list doesn't exist.

Or, you'll just call me names and/or spin. I kinda suspect that's the tactic you'll take.

Posted by: C-C-G at June 9, 2008 06:36 PM

So, Kat, here's a twofer:,2933,364765,00.html

First, how many did she kill? Four? Or five?

Second, how fallible was the jury in her case?

Third, are you prepared to guarantee that this person will never be paroled? That liberals, perhaps even yourself, in 30 or 40 years won't be claiming that this woman, who will have behaved herself in jail all this time, who will have earned a college degree, who will have written children's books to atone for her sins, should, in fact, be paroled?

Posted by: Lurking Observer at June 10, 2008 12:23 AM