|
Is Planned Parenthood an ‘Equal Opportunity’ Provider of Abortion on Demand? Obama supports infanticide Blog for the Conservative Voters or Conservatives in general Still waiting for an answer. December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
Obama supports infanticide
Nurse says Obama supports infanticide2/16/2008
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com) Jill Stanek is a nurse who discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms in Illinois
WASHINGTON DC (CNA) - A pro-life nurse is seconding a statement made by Alan Keyes that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, pointing to his support for infanticide.
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.” In a recent USA Today opinion piece, Obama admitted being "nagged" by the Jesus-wouldn't-vote-for-him statement, but only because he wished he'd given a different comeback. Obama’s initial response, as stated in USA Today was “that we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another.” He added that he was running to be the U.S. senator of Illinois, and not a minister. Stanek summarized Obama’s second response saying that “Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to ‘explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.’” “I don't recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash,” she told WorldNetDaily. Yet, Stanek pointed out that religion was never part of the abortion ban debate. “I recall comparisons made to U.S. laws ensuring animals being killed are treated humanely. I recall testimony that late-term babies feel excruciating pain while being aborted.” Stanek concluded by asking Obama, why do “you think Jesus should vote for you?” 29 comments from 13 users
posted by
hammer
on Feb 19, 2008 at 09:06 PM
Save America. Defeat the socialists. http://www.youtube.com/rnc posted by
concernedcitizen
on Feb 19, 2008 at 07:28 PM
Good point oohchild! Thank goodness we do live in a country where we are allowed to make our own decisions....not like in China where women are TOLD to eliminate pregnancies. Me? I could never get an abortion and would have to really think hard about a late term abortion. I do not believe it is what God intended for me to do. But I do strongly support every women's right to choose. What may be best for me may not be for you. posted by
oohchild
on Feb 19, 2008 at 03:14 PM
This debate right here is a perfect example of why this kind of decision should be made by the family involved, with the consultation of the doctors chosen to treat the particular medical problem. Look at the kind of folks who have been involved in this kind of decision. Yes, countygirl, it's a decision. Aren't you glad you had a choice, instead of the government telling you what to do? What if the government had decided it's too risky to allow you to continue your pregnancy? Of course you knew best. As any pregnant woman knows best. That's my point! Why do you want to get the government involved in this kind of personal choice? Isn't that against the Republican Way? Why can't the government stay out of this, too? Who are you, countygirl, to determine what's "valid" in this sorrowful time? I wouldn't go so far as to accuse you of riding a high horse. I would accuse you of trying to inflict your judgements on other people without consideration of that same judgement coming back to bite you. Leave medical decisions to the family, else you may regret your position later. posted by
countygirl
on Feb 19, 2008 at 02:46 PM
posted by
Joty
on Feb 19, 2008 at 02:34 PM
lol...hypocrisy...yawn...that's funny coming from you, and talk about old and unoriginal. Carrying to term a brainless litte body is pretty pathetic and extremely selfish, would you have a halo for your martyrdom? Your remark didn't surprise me. I'm glad my friend opted to do the right thing for herself and her family. You, your religion AND the government need to stay the hell out of every woman's womb!! posted by
countygirl
on Feb 19, 2008 at 02:21 PM
Breathing that rarified air up on that high horse countygirl is always on must make her dizzy at times. She never seems to climb down...........Ahhh, the hypocrisy!! Joty you really need to find a different angle this one is getting old. Would I have carried that baby to term?? ......yes, whether or not YOU think that makes me better than you friend is up to you because I never said such a thing. Here is a good read. A reminder of what once was........... I highlighted the really interesting parts..........
Representative Charles T. Canady, Republican of Florida, who is to re-introduce the House bill this week, said in an interview, ''The President is getting in more and more of a box on this, defending something which fewer and fewer people are going to be willing to defend.'' The renewed hope for abortion opponents came last week in the unlikely form of Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, a lobbying group based in Alexandria, Va., that represents 200 abortion clinics. He told American Medical News that he had ''lied through my teeth'' when he said earlier, in an effort to bolster the abortion-rights movement, that the ''partial-birth'' procedure was performed rarely, no more than 450 times a year. Now he says it is performed more frequently, perhaps as often as 5,000 times, and in the late second trimester, not only in the third, as he and other abortion-rights advocates had led the public to believe. He also says it is performed on healthy women carrying healthy fetuses, not just on those in medical emergencies, as President Clinton has contended. Neither side is disputing the facts that Mr. Fitzsimmons presented. Mr. Fitzsimmons's statements managed to reopen a seemingly intractable debate, heartening those who oppose abortion and sending abortion-rights advocates scrambling to try to salvage their credibility on Capitol Hill. ------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, a Democrat from Saugerties, N.Y., who supports abortion rights and voted with the President last year, was one of the few lawmakers who would discuss his reaction on the record. ''It has hurt our cause because all of us took what was told to us, at the time the bill was up, at face value,'' said Mr. Hinchey, a Catholic whose vote against the ban was an issue in his re-election. ''That we were given information that turns out to be deceitful will cause everyone to reassess their position.'' ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- Dr. Richard Schwarz, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at New York Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, said the ''partial-birth'' method was developed in part as an alternative to dismembering the fetus, piece by piece, which he said could perforate the woman's uterus. ''Both sides of this issue have so badly overstated the case, it's ridiculous,'' Dr. Schwarz said. ''The President vetoed the bill because he was led to believe that this procedure was the only way to save the life of the woman. It may be the best way, but it's not the only way.'' http://query.nytimes.com/gs... posted by
Joty
on Feb 19, 2008 at 01:25 PM
Thanks awsmom. My friend was lucky enough to get pregnant again and delivered a healthy baby boy. She made the choice however, that she would not have anymore. lol, yes, brainless wonders indeed!!!! I really didn't want to get involved in this blog because of who posted it and the link he provided. I should have just considered the source and gone on my way. But there is a certain smug someone who, well...let's just leave it at that. Sigh, I'm in trouble with my anger coach... posted by
awsmom8
on Feb 19, 2008 at 01:10 PM
Yes TK--they are rarely performed but are a necessary option that needs to remain available. And countygirl and joty, my heart goes out to you and your friend. And Joty--maybe I'm wrong and you CAN live without a brain. There are brainless wonders walking around everywhere! posted by
TK
on Feb 19, 2008 at 01:04 PM
Didn't researchers try to find statistics on the so called 'partial birth abortion' and they could only find 3 procedures like that had been performed in the entire nation in 2005? Wow, the floodgates are open. This government listens to our phone conversations, reads our emails, tracks our internet surfing, and looks up our skirts. Enough already! posted by
awsmom8
on Feb 19, 2008 at 01:01 PM
Everyone here in the US has choices. One of these choices is to have the freedom to decide whether or not these pregnancies should continue to term. Several yes ago a friend of mine was 5 mths pregnant then diagnosed with a baby that had a birth defect that was not compatable with life. I went with her as she explored the options available.--carry the baby to term or a late term abortion. We went to an MD who did late term abortions and she discused the situation with him. My friend ultimently chose to carry the baby to term and delivered a 4 lb girl. Instead of leaving the baby at the hospital to die as some parents do, she chose to leave the hospital with the baby 6 hrs after birth. She and her family cared for the baby at home til she died on day 3. She felt it was the right decsion for the baby and her family. But she did have the right to chose what she felt what was right for the baby and her family. And the right to chose is something that is between a woman, her family and God. If she feels it is the right descion, who are we to tell her no? posted by
Joty
on Feb 19, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Breathing that rarified air up on that high horse countygirl is always on must make her dizzy at times. She never seems to climb down. I wish she could speak to my friend who at four months was told after an ultrasound her baby had no brain. I suppose cg would have had her carry it to term anyway...then again, there seems to be a plethora of people born brainless. Posting that illustration Smokey was so unnecessary. What was your point? posted by
awsmom8
on Feb 19, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Let's try to put our emotions aside for a few min. Late term abortions are usually done to save the life of the mother. Women who undergo these procedures either have a preexisting medical condition such as organ transplantation, hypertension, or diabetes, just to name a few. Many have given birth without much complications before, but this particular pregnancy has pushed their bodies over the edge. Now they have developed eclampsia and are seizing from being pregnant or their high blood pressure has increased so high they are going to stroke. Or they went into renal failure from the pregnancy and their kidneys have shut down. The only way to save mom's life is to deliver the baby. Occasionally, a baby has a birth defect incompatible with life that is not diagnosed until late in the pregnancy. Some mothers and their doctors decide that they want to end the pregnancy instead of giving birth to a dead baby or go thru watching a baby struggle to stay alive,crying, listening to mewing sounds, seizing, turning blue, and have severe respiratory distress till the baby dies. Watching and waiting for a baby to die is something some parents just can not do. Occasionally these babies, esp. the girls as they are fighters, will live from a matter of min to 3 days til they die. Some parents just do not want to witness this and have a late term abortion and the baby is born dead. As to late term abortion babies being born alive, this does not happen. Either way, it is a sad ending to what should have been a joyous event. Tears are shed not only by the mom but staff members as well. It's been many years since I have held a dying baby, but I can still remember their little faces and how they were cradled in my arms. Life is not fair. And sometimes it just plain sucks. posted by
anonnymous
on Feb 19, 2008 at 10:31 AM
countygirl just because you had a bad diagnosis doesn't mean that's the norm. I am very happy that I never was faced with this tragic situation. I do believe that it is not used as a birth control tool. Do you know that they must kill the baby while the baby's head is still in the mother. Its only murder if you kill the baby after it is born. posted by
countygirl
on Feb 19, 2008 at 10:01 AM
There's always a medical reason to late-term abort, ladies & gentlemen. Yup, there is now because there has to be one in order for it to happen. Whether or not that "reason" is valid is another story. posted by
countygirl
on Feb 19, 2008 at 09:54 AM
I am disturbed by people who pretend to know what they are talking about also. Honestly you can tell me what you want! I HAVE been in this woman's position! DO you know what Trisomy 18 or 13 is oohchild?? If so how does it make the mother at risk?? I was told my child had Trisomy 18 or 13 and I was never told that it would affect my health NOT ONCE! While I feel sorry for her she had carried the baby for 8 months, at that point even if she had it then it could have survived (if it was healthy) so again how did this put her life in danger?? |