Obama A Baby Killer

[nohil-billy]

The title of this post may seem rather harsh but I was hard pressed to describe his actions any other way.

As a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama was the only senator to speak out against a proposed law which gave constitutional protection to babies who survived late term abortions. He later voted against passage of this law. Now Obama claims that he voted against it because it didn't protect abortion rights as spelled out by Roe vs. Wade, but that has also been proven to be untrue. It appears that it's Barack's intention that any woman who wants an abortion is guaranteed a dead baby, regardless of the means.

Barack is a LIAR & BABY KILLER.


[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.

[nohil-billy]

Obama's respect for life must have come from his associations with former terrorists.

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.

[nohil-billy]

According to this transcript, Obama was more concerned about the inconvenience of calling in another doctor to check on the newborn's viability than he was about the life of the baby. He even suggests that the doctor who performed the botched abortion be given carte blanche to determine whether or not the baby is viable.

This a very interesting suggestion. Let the doctors who made the mistakes determine if a mistake was actually made and allow him to cover it up. This would certainly cut down on the number of malpractice lawsuits. Let's run this past John Edwards and see what he thinks about it.


Unearthed transcript shows Obama backed infanticide
[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.

[nohil-billy]

Open question to posters.

What do you think Obama meant when he said it was "...above his paygrade."

[nohil-billy]

Obama: 110% Pro-Choice
By [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.
Published 8/22/2008 12:08:20 AM

Planned Parenthood and NARAL hail Barack Obama as "100 percent" pro-choice. But perhaps they should create a special new category for pols who go above and beyond the call of duty to vote for abortion rights even when they are not in legislative play.

Barack Obama would deserve a place of honor amongst these 110 percent pro-choicers, as he sees abortion rights threatened almost everywhere, including in anti-infanticide bills.

It has now been established that his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act rested on an excess of pro-choice zeal, as evident in the fact that 100 percent pro-choicers such as Hillary Clinton voted for the Senate bill. That's the sort of enthusiasm which should earn Obama the Margaret Sanger Award.

Obama feared that the legislation could cause Roe v. Wade to unravel, though no such threat existed, since the legislation didn't pertain to unborn children.

But no matter: his pro-choice heart was in the right place. Abortion rights can never be safe enough.


THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY has long made abortion its organizing principle and came close four years ago to naming an actual Planned Parenthood doctor (early in his career Howard Dean worked there for a time and served on its board) its nominee.

Obama is its ideal standard bearer. He's a candidate who won't apologize for voting against an anti-infanticide bill even on fictitious reasons while apologizing for not doing more to support activists who wanted Terri Schiavo dead.

Remember that statesman-like moment in one of the Democratic primary debates? Asked about his biggest mistake in the Senate, he grandly abased himself by saying: "When I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decision making process of the families.

"It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake..."

The Democrats are the party of socialized medicine -- a system which assumes the right of the state to meddle in the health care decisions of families -- but they would never dream of "interjecting themselves" into such minor health care matters as abortion and euthanasia.

Obama's Schiavo apology is worth recalling in light of this current controversy. Even if one were to put the most generous possible construction on his maneuverings around the Born Alive Infants Protection Act -- he now claims he would have supported it and favors health care for babies that survive abortion -- his support for euthanasia establishes that he accepts the principle of denying care to those outside the womb.

What does it matter if the human is nine months old or 90 years old? If there are "good" reasons to deny care to the disabled or elderly, similarly good reasons can be concocted to deny care to babies that survive abortion.


EXTENDING THE LOGIC of abortion and euthanasia to infanticide is not very hard, and explains why the Democrats drag their feet on bills banning it except when immediate political reasons necessitate their support.

Obama's casual comment at the Saddleback forum -- he dismissed a question about the beginning of human life as "above his pay grade" -- suggests he doesn't like to exert himself on the abortion issue. But he does.

Obama more than earns his pay as a Democrat by advancing pro-abortion certitudes, based on what he now admits is a doubt that he can't bother himself to study up on, and by treating abortion as his first legislative priority.

"The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," he assured the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in 2007. That Act would impose an abortion-on-demand regime on every state in the country, sweeping away all existing regulations.

Nor was coming up with sophistical reasons for opposing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act -- reasons which pro-lifers note Barbara Boxer couldn't even bring herself to fake up -- above his pay grade.

Should that outlier category for 110 percent pro-choicers ever be created, a President Obama will no doubt occupy it.

[nohil-billy]

When Does a Baby Get Human Rights?
by Ken Connor

"At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Most people have a ready answer to this question. A "pro-life" supporter will generally point to conception, while a "pro-choice" proponent will often point to birth. There are a variety of opinions, but the average person does have an opinion. Not Barack Obama. He wouldn't answer this most basic question about human rights.

Senator Obama's [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. to Reverend Rick Warren's question during the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency was, "Well, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." He went on to state that he is "pro-choice", but that both sides should "find common ground" by seeking to "reduce the number of abortions." Still he refused to answer the question of what constitutes a human being worthy of rights and protections.

You would think a man who studied at Harvard and Columbia and who is running for the office of President of the United States would have taken the time to figure out his position on this controversial question. After all, abortion remains one of the most polarizing issues of our time. This single issue is dispositive—one way or the other—for millions of voters. Perhaps that accounts for the ambiguity.

If Mr. Obama is ambiguous about the issue, the scientific evidence is not. Science demonstrates unequivocally that life begins at conception. Within 24 hours after fertilization the human egg [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. , producing more and more cells. Through this process, the embryo and the outer membranes which nourish and protect it are formed. When the egg is fertilized, 23 chromosomes from each parent join to form the 46 chromosomes of a unique new person. These [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. many of the child's physical characteristics, including sex, eye and hair color, height, and even intelligence to some extent. This process is simple, yet profound, and it occurs at conception.

Notwithstanding the uncontroverted scientific evidence, Senator Obama insists he simply is not qualified to form an opinion on when a baby becomes a human. Perhaps his refusal to answer the question is rooted in a desire to hide the implications of his voting record. While in the Illinois Senate, he first [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. the Induced Infant Liability Act, and later [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. in committee for a vote. [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. would have mandated medical care for babies who survive an attempted abortion (they are "born alive"), and it would have prevented hospitals and doctors from putting these babies aside to die. The national version of this bill—the Born Alive Infant Protection Act—passed through the U.S. House with only fifteen dissenting votes, and it passed through the U.S. Senate unanimously. Even the extremist abortion advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. passage of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Nevertheless, Senator Obama, proving to be more extreme, opposed the Illinois bill, thereby denying legal protection for these babies.

Refusing medical care to babies who are born alive after a failed abortion is infanticide, plain and simple. Barack Obama's rhetoric and voting record indicate he believes otherwise. The Senator, who [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. having a baby to being punished, feels that denying a woman and her doctor the right to kill her newborn child would wrongly burden the woman. He summed up his opposition by [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. , "What we are doing here [with this bill] is to create one more burden on a woman and I can't support that."

Senator Obama's [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. doesn't end there. In the Illinois Senate, he [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. the partial-birth abortion ban, and in the U.S. Congress he [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. the Freedom of Choice Act which would have removed nearly all state and federal restrictions on abortion. He also [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. legislation in Congress which would have required an abortionist to notify the parents of an underage girl seeking an abortion. If Senator Obama is incapable of determining when a baby gains human rights, why is he capable of making these weighty legislative decisions?

Truth be told, Senator Obama appears to have preferred bobbing and weaving to offering a straight answer. A straight answer was inevitably going to alienate at least one group of voters who hold strong views. But is that the kind of leadership America needs? Ambiguous answers in the face of hard questions?

Please Mr. Obama. Tell it to us straight. At what point does a baby get human rights? Lives depend on the way you answer that question.

[nohil-billy]

Voters Should be Troubled by Obama's Abortion Stance

By [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.

Can we just listen to ourselves? We're debating whether some babies born alive have a right to medical attention.

How have we come to this? Can't we all agree that everyone whose heart beats, brain functions and lungs respire at birth should have a chance to live? If we're a compassionate, rational and just society, we would say, "Of course, every infant has a right to lifesaving medical attention. Even if it's not wanted."

But an unthinkable debate is raging as a part of the presidential campaign, centering on how Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted while he was an Illinois state senator on legislation designed to protect the lives and health of all newborns. The debate over Obama's voting record has grown so arcane that we've lost sight of why this question ever came up: Some infants that survive abortion are denied medical assistance. They are left to die.

Jill Stanek, a former nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, described in 2001 during congressional testimony how it happens: In a "live-birth abortion," doctors "do not attempt to kill the baby in the uterus. The goal is simply to prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward." Medication stimulates the cervix to open, allowing the baby to emerge, sometimes alive. "It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital, one . . . lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift." Some actually are born healthy because they are aborted to preserve the "health" of the mother, or because the pregnancy was due to rape or incest. At best, they are left in a "comfort room," complete with a camera (for pictures of the aborted baby) "baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, footprinting equipment and baby bracelets for mementos and a rocking chair," where they are rocked to death. "Before the comfort room was established," Stanek said, "babies were taken to the soiled utility room to die."

Yes, there ought to be a law against this, and Congress passed one unanimously. It declares that a person is defined as "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." Born alive means any human being that after "expulsion or extraction" from the mother "breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, Caesarean section, or induced abortion."

Pretty simple, right?

Well, not really. Some people fear that this fundamental protection, ensuring to all the first of the rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," is in reality a sneak attack on a woman's right to choose an abortion. To prevent this "Trojan horse," they insisted, and got, in the federal law a guarantee against construing the law to "affirm, deny or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive'. . ." This mumbo jumbo is supposed to mean that abortions can't be restricted.

To mollify pro-choice concerns, including Obama's, this was inserted in several versions of the Illinois legislation. But it didn't matter, because the legislation died anyway, with Obama's help. Whether or not he refused to vote for a version that contained the right-to-an-abortion provision isn't what's important here. What is important is that Obama put the supposed and vague threat to an abortion right ahead of a real and concrete threat to the most innocent of human lives.
Obama's response to all this is to sidestep any discussion about when human personhood begins, the key question in the abortion debate. Some say it begins at the moment of conception; others say it begins at birth. (Still others look for a middle ground, suggesting it begins when brain activity starts.) But by arguing against the born-alive legislation because it might in some distant and ambiguous way obstruct abortion, Obama implies that the right to an abortion trumps an infant's right to life, even after he is born.

Such logic is breathtaking. It says that even after birth, a mother's right to rid herself of the baby supersedes any right that a child, now independent of the mother's body and domain, has a right to live. Where America stands on this issue truly is a measure of its sense of justice and compassion. On this score, Obama fails.

[nohil-billy]

Pope Pelosi At the Gate
by Kathleen Parker

When Democrats decided they wouldn't let the GOP be "God's Only Party," they weren't kidding. Thanks to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, none other than St. Augustine has been summoned to Denver.

He was resurrected as Pelosi was trying to respond to the question that refuses to die: When does human life begin? This time, it was Tom Brokaw asking on Sunday's "Meet the Press." Citing Barack Obama's recent pass on a similar question -- "At what point does a baby get human rights?" -- Brokaw asked Pelosi what she would say to Obama were he to ask her advice.

Pelosi didn't finesse her answer, as Obama did when he said the question was above his pay grade, but she may wish she had.

"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time," Pelosi began. "And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctrines of the church have not been able to make that definition. ... St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on a woman's right to choose. ... I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

Few paragraphs have contained more falsehoods. The reaction was swift from Denver's archbishop, the Rev. Charles J. Chaput, among others, who condemned Pelosi's comments during Mass that same evening. Blogging on Monday, Chaput quoted Jesuit John Connery, author of "Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective," who concluded that "The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm anti-abortion attitude."

It is true that laws and penalties concerning abortion have evolved through the ages. "Right to life" is a relatively new concept. It is also true that Augustine -- and St. Thomas Aquinas eight centuries later -- subscribed to a "delayed hominization" theory, meaning that abortion couldn't be homicide because the fetus doesn't receive a soul until a certain point in its development.

Augustine even thought that "hominization" occurred earlier for males than for females. Is it possible that the same authority whom Pelosi invokes to justify her belief in choice also ranked the female fetus below the male on God's "Ensoulments To Do" list?

We may forgive Augustine, of course, because people didn't know much about nascent life in the early 400s. The ovum wasn't discovered until 1827. Fetal imaging, now routine for expectant parents, was unimaginable.

If Augustine had known then what we know now, would he stand by Pelosi as she asserts that when life begins should have no bearing on a woman's right to choose?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled as much in Roe v. Wade, obviously, but Justice Harry A. Blackmun dodged the question of when life begins using the same rationale as Pelosi -- that because scientists, theologians and others couldn't agree on when life begins, then a woman's privacy trumped the unborn's right to due process.

One may choose to believe that out of convenience or conscience, but the logic of the court was both self-contradictory and incorrect, according to Robert P. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. By its ruling, says George, the court implicitly determined when life begins (against the fetus), while ignoring science that long before had determined the facts of human embryogenesis.

In his new book, "Embryo," George and co-author Christopher Tollefsen, associate professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina, left religion behind and set out to establish the embryo's personhood by reviewing all the major scientific works on human embryogenesis and early intrauterine development.

Included was American medicine's most prominent human embryology text, "The Developing Human," whose authors are not imprecise on the matter of life: "Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell -- a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

In other words, human life begins at conception. That is not a religious posture, but a scientific fact that the lowest paid laborer on the planet can assert without qualm. What we do with that understanding is another matter, but no one in the 21st century should pretend not to know when human life begins.

On this matter at least, the church and science are in agreement.

From Townhall.com

[nohil-billy]

NOT OBAMA VOTERS!!!

NBRA At Pro Life Rally Of Black Ministers Outside NAACP Convention


Black pro-life ministers and NAACP members protest the NAACP's and Senator Barack Obama's support of funding for Planned Parenthood, the organization that targets poor black neighborhoods. [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. The photos below are of the pro-life rally outside of the NAACP convention in Cincinnati, Ohio.

[nohil-billy]

Different problems, Same phony solutions!

The New, New Democratic Platform on Life
No real change.

By Chet Arthur


There’s a great deal of buzz in certain circles about the “new” Democratic platform language on abortion. The new, new language calls for reducing the need for abortions. So is that new? That’s the very same formulation used by Governor Jimmy Carter to sway Evangelicals, Catholics, and Lutherans in the Iowa Caucuses in January, 1976.

It worked then. That year, President Gerald Ford let his outspokenly pro-abortion wife Betty address the issue for him. Mrs. Ford would later boast in her memoirs that Jerry was “smart” to let her do all the talking on abortion. Voters could be forgiven for never knowing that the Republican-party platform that year was pro-life. Mrs. Ford’s quotable pro-abortion remarks helped ease her husband out of the White House in `76.

As for Jimmy Carter, journalist Elizabeth Drew in her book, American Journal: The Events of 1976, commended him for wrapping a liberal policy stance in conservative rhetoric. The Democrats of 2008 have not even done that.

So what does this new, new language mean? It means we will continue to have abortion-on-demand. It means that a father has the right to pay child support for 18 years, but not the right even to be informed that his unborn child will be killed. It means parents have the right to pay for their minor daughter’s health care, but not the right to know she is about to make a decision for abortion. It means abortion to the ninth month will be included in a nationalized health-care plan. It means we will all have the right to pay for abortions with our taxes. It means that the Hyde Amendment and all other protective legislation will be repealed. And we have the right to believe that we will have fewer abortions when they are free. That’s what Democrats mean by “abortion rights.”

Let’s compare this to another nettlesome question that bedeviled Democrats for half a century: lynching. In 1924, the Democratic convention came within one delegate vote of condemning the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan was, believe it or not, a major force in the Democratic party. The Klan terrorized by means of lynching.

Friends of New York Governor Al Smith tried to put the party on record against the immigrant-bashing, black- Catholic- and Jew-baiting Klan. It didn’t work. The forces backing William Gibbs McAdoo, a rival of Al Smith’s for the presidential nomination and a son-in-law of Woodrow Wilson, prevailed by a floor vote of 543-542. The Klan was not condemned. Lynching continued.
Then, as now, the Democratic party was proud of avoiding “moralizing” language in its platform. Then, as now, Democrats refused to go on record affirming a fundamental principle. Equal justice under law then. Equal right to life now. Lynching was the issue of the day. Thousands of people, mostly black men, were lynched in those days.

Republican congressmen introduced the first federal anti-lynching law in 1922. Year after year, it was reintroduced, only to be defeated by Democrats’ filibusters in the U.S. Senate. Not until 1957, with Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower in the White House, was a federal anti-lynching law finally passed.

But anti-lynching Democrats missed the boat. They should have been arguing those 35 years for a platform plank that would “reduce the need for lynching.” Then, they would have credulous Christians climb on board their platform. Don’t actually stop lynching; don’t brand lynching morally wrong, avoid moralizing language, but eliminate the need for lynching. It could have been their winning formula.

Eliminating the need for abortions could be their winning formula today — if we’re not wary. It worked for Jimmy Carter. That was 32 years ago. It seems like a lifetime ago. Or perhaps 48 million lifetimes ago.