Hwww.dakotavoice.com/2008/06/nurse-obama-defends-infanticide.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2008/06/nurse-obama-defends-infanticide.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\s59c.akmx{^IZgfOKtext/htmlUTF-8gzipBgfJ}/yFri, 02 Jan 2009 08:31:05 GMT"a5083d20-e8a9-49f8-b5f1-f029e5fff544"i+Mozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, en, *y^Itgf Dakota Voice: Nurse: Obama Defends Infanticide

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Nurse: Obama Defends Infanticide

The Catholic News Agency has a piece on Barack Obama today and his opposition to a bill that would have protected babies that were born alive...despite attempts to abort them while they were still in the womb:

Jill Stanek is a nurse who discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms while working at a hospital in Illinois and since has been a strong advocate against partial-birth and live-birth abortions.

According to her commentary on WorldNetDaily.com, Stanek explains why Keyes made his statement.

At the federal level, legislation was presented called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) which stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote and by an overwhelming majority in the House. President Bush signed the bill into law in 2002.

Stanek wrote that, “in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.”

“Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.”

“So, the reason Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama was because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide.”

On one hand, you might ask yourself, "How could Barack Obama support such utter barbarity?!"

But he's really just being logical. If we recognize that these children we tried and failed to abort end up living and are faced with the reality that they are indeed people, then we might just follow the logic and realize that when we abort a child in the womb, we are killing a human being.

Supporters of abortion can't even go near allowing that kind of "chain of logic" to begin. They know it will take rational people to a place where the barbarism of abortion would likely be outlawed.

So in a twisted, myopic sense, Obama is being logical.

But in the end, he's still supporting utter barbarity.


4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Obamas entire attitude towards babies is known to be cold so why would this surprise anyone?
Hillary needs to stay as far away from this train wreck as she can
I guess the Obamas find children to be a load on their backs but maybe someone should tell MO to quit carrying that big kid of hers around all the time
I couldnt beleive it when I saw an apperance by the BOS the other day and she struggled to carry her daughter
Why would any one carry around a big kid like that?
So ya she probably does think kids are a burden

Dr. Theo said...

But BO is a Christian, you know. He keeps telling us so and the Revs. Wright and Farrakhan haved assured us it is so. So we know that he is motivated only by his love and compassion for the poor and the meek. If it means murdering a few million babies to advance his ministry, well, who am I to criticize?

How do YOU spell EVIL?

Anonymous said...

The reason that Obama did not agree with the law is that many fetuses that are aborted while they are alive are not "Viable" which means that they would not be able to live outside the womb. The lower limit of viability is considered around 5 months age. It is true that what was happening at this hospital is truly atrotious and I believe that there are more "Humane" ways of treating this but by giving these fetuses full constitutional rights is not the answer. I lean pro-life btw.

Dr. Theo said...

I believe you anonymous when you say you lean toward being pro-life, so I will take some time to explain a few things about premature deliveries. You said that the fact that fetuses (a small correction, once outside the womb it is called an infant, irrespective of age)) "around 5 months" gestation should not be given the full rights of citizenship. I know your heart is in the right place, but if not five months how about six? Or seven? Or twelve months post-partum as has been proposed by some pro-abortion groups?

The definition of a human and who has the protection of the law cannot be arbitrary or capricious. Besides, as technology improves the age of viability gets earlier and earlier.

As an ER doc I know that if a woman presents in labor in my ER and delivers a 1 kg infant of perhaps 21 or 22 weeks gestation I had better do everything in my power to save that baby lest I face a wrongful death charge, or even manslaughter. Now why shouldn't the abortionist be held to the same professional standards?

Obama opposed this legislation because he has made a committment to the extreme Left, which includes the pro-abortion forces. He will never support any legislation that can be seen as resticting a woman's right to kill her baby, in or out of the womb.

EVIL, I say.

 
Clicky Web Analytics