13 2 mins 14 yrs

I had this brought to my attention by an eagle eyed ATW redaer and I think it is one which merits some debate. Do you think that Obama and fellow Democrats are right to argue for the right of a mother to have her baby killed AFTER birth?

“When Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer was pressed to affirm that she opposed the medical killing of children after birth, she refused to commit, saying that children deserve legal protection only “when you bring your baby home.” It was unclear whether this included the car trip.”

OK, so that’s not Obama, just one of his most revered Dem colleagues. But then there is this exchange to consider

Hannity “You go into Obama’s far-left domestic policies, income redistribution, his Global Poverty Act.
Corsi: His support of abortion, even late term.
Hannity: After a child was born.
Corsi: A child was born…
Hannity: In Chicago.
Corsi. Obama, in the state senate, wanted the child killed if the mother desired an abortion.

So, it seems that Democrat abortion mania extends to AFTER the actual birth of a child.

Suffer little children if the Obamessiah cometh to power…..

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

13 thoughts on “SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN…

  1. Post-birth termination – logically the next step up from partial-birth abortion. I have little doubt that the left will argue that the baby is still legally a foetus until it leaves the hospital. In fact, that is precisely what was said by Barbara Boxer and Barack Obama.

  2. Lie would appear to be the apt word here.

    What Boxer actually said:

    "Boxer: I would make this statement: That this Constitution, as it currently is – – some of you want to amend it to say that life begins at conception. I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born – – and there is no such thing as partial-birth – – the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights. But I am not willing to amend the Constitution to say that a fetus is a person, which I know you would."

    No doubt the Obama smear is similarly bullshit.

  3. Here’s the Washington Post report on Barbara Boxer

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html

    And here’s a link relating to Barack Obama’s actual record on abortion in the Illinois state legislature:

    http://www.knowobama.org/abortion.php

    "So, what are we to make of Obama’s votes against protecting the right to life for living babies who have survived attempted abortions? Such babies are sometimes born alive as a result of late-term induced labor abortions, often sought when babies are believed (sometimes in error) to have genetic defects such as Down syndrome.

    "Earlier this decade, such living, breathing, babies who survived labor were "shelved" – left to die and disposed of with other medical waste, or were "aborted" – killed outside the womb. The practice was ultimately banned by unanimous Congressional votes, as even the most pro-abortion Senate Democrats – including every defender of partial-birth abortion – recognized that killing these breathing babies is no longer abortion in any real sense. It crosses the line; it is infanticide. Yet, incredibly, Obama repeatedly worked to deny these living babies any right to life.

    "Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse, testified in the US Congress in 2000 and 2001 – and before Obama’s Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee – about how induced labor abortions were handled at her hospital, relating this story: "One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn’t bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived." Powerful stuff. Obama, however, was reportedly "unfazed" by her testimony.

    "Various state and federal attempts ensued to curb the gruesome practice, including the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, passed unanimously by both the House and Senate in 2002 (It did not immediately become law.)

    "In essence, these acts state that, whether wanted or not, once a baby is fully born, it is recognized as fully human and is entitled to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. Even pro-abortion Democrats supported the BAIPA because it contained explicit language that it would not infringe on any abortion rights. Democrat Barbara Boxer, arguably the Senate’s most zealous pro-choice advocate, agreed that, with this language, the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

    "But not Obama. In March of 2001, Obama’s Illinois Judiciary Committee considered a law substantially identical to the BAIPA. It passed the Committee, with Obama voting against. In front of the full Illinois Senate, Obama was the only senator to speak against the bill, arguing that life protection extended to any (!) preterm babies (ponder that) could jeopardize abortion rights. He voted "present," tantamount to a "no" vote. In March of 2002, Obama’s Committee passed the Induced Birth Liability Act, requiring medical care for babies who survive induced labor abortions – Obama again voting "present," arguing that the Act would "create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that."

    "In 2003, the Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became Chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. A Committee member sponsored an Amendment that would adopt the exact same language in Illinois’s proposed BAIPA that Senator Boxer was satisfied did not curtail any abortion rights in the federal BAIPA. But as Chairman, Obama unilaterally killed the bill by never allowing a Committee vote, thereby preventing it from being voted on by the full Senate and becoming law.

    Obama’s position essentially boils down to this: a "woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby. A dead baby must result, even if that baby had already been a distinct living being. The killing of some live babies is just part of the price we must pay in order to keep the sacred right to an abortion supreme and absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt. [A]"

    So there it is. If a baby which was to be aborted at any late stage survives the late-term induced abortion, then it is certainly a viable baby, otherwise it would not have survived the induced
    abortion. Yet Obama would have it starved to death.

  4. Thanks for that link Allan – now then Frank and Peter, where exactly is the bullshit?

  5. Thank you for clarifying this absolute hate-filled bullshit with reference to the actual quote Frank. All that was needed.

  6. The BS is in Allan’s post David, and the quotes you provided.

    For example:

    "Obama was the only senator to speak against the bill, arguing that life protection extended to any (!) preterm babies"

    …is a lie. He referred to "previable fetuses".

    "Obama again voting "present," arguing that the Act would "create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that."

    …is the usual half-quote and half-truth. Here’s the full quote:

    At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

    "Obama’s position essentially boils down to this: a "woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby. A dead baby must result, even if that baby had already been a distinct living being. The killing of some live babies is just part of the price we must pay in order to keep the sacred right to an abortion supreme and absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt. [A]""

    …is a lie (completely fabricated quote).

    "If a baby which was to be aborted at any late stage survives the late-term induced abortion, then it is certainly a viable baby, otherwise it would not have survived the induced
    abortion."

    Is A grade premium bullshit of the sort only Allan can come up with.

  7. "If a baby which was to be aborted at any late stage survives the late-term induced abortion, then it is certainly a viable baby, otherwise it would not have survived the induced
    abortion."

    Is A grade premium bullshit of the sort only Allan can come up with.

    Why is that, Frank?

  8. Allan, because premature children are very often not viable and die in short order, no matter what interventions occur. And the more premature they are the more likely that is. There is more to being viable than surviving birth.

    You might as well say that guy who got poisoned with the pollonium-210 was ‘viable’ afterwards, since he took a while to die.

  9. Well Frank, I would reckon that any baby which could survive the trauma of an abortion by induced birth must be hardy enough to have been viable without that destructive intervention, and it is a destructive intervention so, as on so much, I’ll have to remain in disagreement with you.

Comments are closed.