Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on October 27, 2008, 11:56:03 AM
-
I know it's graphic. And I'm literally in tears after capturing the pics. :'( But I want you Obama fans to get this as vividly as can be. This is the candidate who supports this type of procedure. The Freedom of Choice Act will be one of the first executive orders that a potential Pres. Obama would exercise. No one wants to cover this tragedy, but it's real people. Obama will bring all of this back. >:( Read this article and tell me if you can stomach supporting someone who will allow this to go on. And don't give me any of the "but Bush....blah blah...the war....blah blah blah crap!!!! >:( >:( >:( >:(
Commentary: Obama's Abortion Extremism
by Robert George
His views on life issues mark him as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals — even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals — who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.
What is going on here?
I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as 'pro-abortion' rather than 'pro-choice.'
According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.
The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people — Thomas Jefferson was one — reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.
Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as 'pro-choice'? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were 'personally opposed' to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were 'unnecessary,' or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said 'Against slavery? Don't own one.' We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.
Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being 'pro-abortion' and being 'pro-choice.' Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called 'pro-choice,' then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.
The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.
But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that 'the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, 'a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."
It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many 'pro-choice' legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a 'punishment' that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing 'pro-choice' about that.
But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.
It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.
You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.
For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.
But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.
Can it get still worse? Yes.
Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.
They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.
They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! 'pro-choice'-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.
This is delusional.
We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, "abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased." In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that "abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent." No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies -- so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.
But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.
Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.
But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.
What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: 'that question is above my pay grade.' It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy — and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.
In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.
-
>:(
-
I am pro choice, but to an extent. Needless to say, this is just another reason why I couldn't live with myself if I voted for this clown.
-
>:( :'( >:( :'( >:( :'(
-
I am pro choice, but to an extent. Needless to say, this is just another reason why I couldn't live with myself if I voted for this clown.
You're not alone. Even a majority of the pro-choice community will not support this act of pure evil. But Obama has no problem whatsoever with it. On this fact alone I cannot vote for someone like Sen. Obama.
-
Yeah, this is NOT good. How could a doctor do something like this?
-
Yeah, this is NOT good. How could a doctor do something like this?
Man, it tears me apart to even think of this act let alone look at the pics.
-
Man, it tears me apart to even think of this act let alone look at the pics.
no no no no Dont bring that weak ass shit in here...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168163
'Partial-Birth Abortion:' Separating Fact from Spin
by Julie Rovner
Getty Images
Protesters demonstrated outside the Supreme Court in 2000, when the court last considered the issue of "partial-birth" abortion. The court plans to take up the issue again by weighing the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act.
NPR.org, February 21, 2006 · The Supreme Court's decision to consider the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act has once again pushed the abortion issue into the spotlight.
The law, which was signed by President Bush in 2003 after an eight-year-long congressional fight, prohibits doctors from knowingly performing a "partial-birth abortion," a procedure it defines as one in which the person performing the abortion "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."
But "partial-birth" is not a medical term. It's a political one, and a highly confusing one at that, with both sides disagreeing even on how many procedures take place, at what point in pregnancy, and exactly which procedures the law actually bans.
So to better understand the facts behind the controversy, we asked NPR health correspondent Julie Rovner to explain the origins of both the name and the procedure.
Where does the term "partial-birth" abortion come from?
The term was first coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb. Alternately known as "dilation and extraction," or D&X, and "intact D&E," it involves removing the fetus intact by dilating a pregnant woman's cervix, then pulling the entire body out through the birth canal.
After a physician presented a paper at a conference of the National Abortion Federation describing the new procedure, the NRLC commissioned drawings to illustrate it and published them in booklet form, as well as placing them as paid advertisements in newspapers to build public opposition. In an interview with The New Republic magazine in 1996, the NRLC's Douglas Johnson explained that the term was thought up in hopes that "as the public learns what a 'partial-birth abortion' is, they might also learn something about other abortion methods, and that this would foster a growing opposition to abortion."
In 1995, Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL) included the term as part of a bill he proposed that would make it a federal crime to perform a "partial-birth" abortion. (That year, the Ohio state legislature also passed the first state ban, but it was struck down by a federal district court; the Supreme Court later refused to hear an appeal.)
If this procedure is so controversial, then why was it developed in the first place?
The further along a pregnancy is, the more complicated -- and the more controversial -- the procedures are for aborting it. Abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy typically require that the fetus be dismembered inside the womb so it can be removed without damaging the pregnant woman's cervix. Some gynecologists consider such methods, known as "dilation and evacuation," less than ideal because they can involve substantial blood loss and may increase the risk of lacerating the cervix, potentially undermining the woman's ability to bear children in the future.
Two abortion physicians, one in Ohio and one in California, independently developed variations on the method by extracting the fetus intact. The Ohio physician, Martin Haskell, called his method "dilation and extraction," or D&X. It involved dilating the woman's cervix, then pulling the fetus through it feet first until only the head remained inside. Using scissors or another sharp instrument, the head was then punctured, and the skull compressed, so it, too, could fit through the dilated cervix.
Haskell has said that he devised his D&X procedure because he wanted to find a way to perform second-trimester abortions without an overnight hospital stay, because local hospitals did not permit most abortions after 18 weeks.
How often is the D&X procedure performed?
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.
And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.
Under what health circumstances are D&X abortions performed?
There is currently no statistical information available on why "dilation and extraction" abortions are performed.
In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development.
Yet the procedure is also performed in cases where the woman's health is at risk, or when the fetus shows signs of serious abnormalities, some of which don't become apparent until late in pregnancy.
Take, for example, cases in which the fetus develops hydrocephalus (commonly known as water on the brain). Often undetectable until well into the second three months of pregnancy, the condition causes enlargement of the skull up to two-and-a-half times its normal size. It not only results in severe brain damage to the fetus, it can also create severe health risks to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally.
Some doctors say D&X abortion is a preferable method for ending such pregnancies without damaging the woman's cervix. Those in the anti-abortion camp, however, argue that the procedure is never medically necessary, noting that enough fluid can be drained from hydrocephalus babies in the womb to ensure a safe delivery.
Indeed, many abortion opponents believe even severely deformed fetuses should be delivered regardless of their prospects for a healthy life.
"We don't believe that sick babies -- babies with disabilities -- should be pulled out by the legs and struck through the head," Right to Life's Johnson told The New Republic. "We believe they should live out their life -- whether it's a few minutes or six hours."
Are there any alternatives to these procedures?
Sometimes. Labor can be induced, or the fetus can be removed by caesarian section in some cases.
Has the Supreme Court weighed in on this issue before?
Yes. In the year 2000, the court struck down a Nebraska law banning any abortion procedure that "partially evacuates fetal material through the cervix into the birth canal."
By a 5-4 ruling, the majority in Stenberg v. Carhart said Nebraska's ban was unconstitutionally vague and lacked a needed exception allowing the procedure to be used to protect the health of the pregnant mother.
How does all this relate to the larger abortion debate?
Activists on both sides of the issues see the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act as pivotal to the larger debate. Abortion-rights backers say the ban is a first step toward trying to outlaw all abortions. Even some supporters of the ban say that if it is upheld, they could then move on to try to outlaw the far more common D&E procedure, whose description is nearly as unpleasant as that of the D&X.
The court could also use the law to address the "health" exception currently required for all abortion restrictions. Abortion foes say the current health exception upheld by the court is so broad -- encompassing mental health problems as well as physical ones -- that just about any abortion-procedure ban would have to be invalidated. But abortion-rights supporters say that without a health exception, women could be forced to carry to term fetuses with no chance at life, but whose birth could leave the pregnant women unable to carry a later pregnancy, or could exacerbate serious ailments such as diabetes.
-
no no no no Dont bring that weak ass shit in here...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168163
'Partial-Birth Abortion:' Separating Fact from Spin
by Julie Rovner
Getty Images
Protesters demonstrated outside the Supreme Court in 2000, when the court last considered the issue of "partial-birth" abortion. The court plans to take up the issue again by weighing the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act.
NPR.org, February 21, 2006 · The Supreme Court's decision to consider the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act has once again pushed the abortion issue into the spotlight.
The law, which was signed by President Bush in 2003 after an eight-year-long congressional fight, prohibits doctors from knowingly performing a "partial-birth abortion," a procedure it defines as one in which the person performing the abortion "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."
But "partial-birth" is not a medical term. It's a political one, and a highly confusing one at that, with both sides disagreeing even on how many procedures take place, at what point in pregnancy, and exactly which procedures the law actually bans.
So to better understand the facts behind the controversy, we asked NPR health correspondent Julie Rovner to explain the origins of both the name and the procedure.
Where does the term "partial-birth" abortion come from?
The term was first coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb. Alternately known as "dilation and extraction," or D&X, and "intact D&E," it involves removing the fetus intact by dilating a pregnant woman's cervix, then pulling the entire body out through the birth canal.
After a physician presented a paper at a conference of the National Abortion Federation describing the new procedure, the NRLC commissioned drawings to illustrate it and published them in booklet form, as well as placing them as paid advertisements in newspapers to build public opposition. In an interview with The New Republic magazine in 1996, the NRLC's Douglas Johnson explained that the term was thought up in hopes that "as the public learns what a 'partial-birth abortion' is, they might also learn something about other abortion methods, and that this would foster a growing opposition to abortion."
In 1995, Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL) included the term as part of a bill he proposed that would make it a federal crime to perform a "partial-birth" abortion. (That year, the Ohio state legislature also passed the first state ban, but it was struck down by a federal district court; the Supreme Court later refused to hear an appeal.)
If this procedure is so controversial, then why was it developed in the first place?
The further along a pregnancy is, the more complicated -- and the more controversial -- the procedures are for aborting it. Abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy typically require that the fetus be dismembered inside the womb so it can be removed without damaging the pregnant woman's cervix. Some gynecologists consider such methods, known as "dilation and evacuation," less than ideal because they can involve substantial blood loss and may increase the risk of lacerating the cervix, potentially undermining the woman's ability to bear children in the future.
Two abortion physicians, one in Ohio and one in California, independently developed variations on the method by extracting the fetus intact. The Ohio physician, Martin Haskell, called his method "dilation and extraction," or D&X. It involved dilating the woman's cervix, then pulling the fetus through it feet first until only the head remained inside. Using scissors or another sharp instrument, the head was then punctured, and the skull compressed, so it, too, could fit through the dilated cervix.
Haskell has said that he devised his D&X procedure because he wanted to find a way to perform second-trimester abortions without an overnight hospital stay, because local hospitals did not permit most abortions after 18 weeks.
How often is the D&X procedure performed?
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.
And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.
Under what health circumstances are D&X abortions performed?
There is currently no statistical information available on why "dilation and extraction" abortions are performed.
In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development.
Yet the procedure is also performed in cases where the woman's health is at risk, or when the fetus shows signs of serious abnormalities, some of which don't become apparent until late in pregnancy.
Take, for example, cases in which the fetus develops hydrocephalus (commonly known as water on the brain). Often undetectable until well into the second three months of pregnancy, the condition causes enlargement of the skull up to two-and-a-half times its normal size. It not only results in severe brain damage to the fetus, it can also create severe health risks to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally.
Some doctors say D&X abortion is a preferable method for ending such pregnancies without damaging the woman's cervix. Those in the anti-abortion camp, however, argue that the procedure is never medically necessary, noting that enough fluid can be drained from hydrocephalus babies in the womb to ensure a safe delivery.
Indeed, many abortion opponents believe even severely deformed fetuses should be delivered regardless of their prospects for a healthy life.
"We don't believe that sick babies -- babies with disabilities -- should be pulled out by the legs and struck through the head," Right to Life's Johnson told The New Republic. "We believe they should live out their life -- whether it's a few minutes or six hours."
Are there any alternatives to these procedures?
Sometimes. Labor can be induced, or the fetus can be removed by caesarian section in some cases.
Has the Supreme Court weighed in on this issue before?
Yes. In the year 2000, the court struck down a Nebraska law banning any abortion procedure that "partially evacuates fetal material through the cervix into the birth canal."
By a 5-4 ruling, the majority in Stenberg v. Carhart said Nebraska's ban was unconstitutionally vague and lacked a needed exception allowing the procedure to be used to protect the health of the pregnant mother.
How does all this relate to the larger abortion debate?
Activists on both sides of the issues see the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act as pivotal to the larger debate. Abortion-rights backers say the ban is a first step toward trying to outlaw all abortions. Even some supporters of the ban say that if it is upheld, they could then move on to try to outlaw the far more common D&E procedure, whose description is nearly as unpleasant as that of the D&X.
The court could also use the law to address the "health" exception currently required for all abortion restrictions. Abortion foes say the current health exception upheld by the court is so broad -- encompassing mental health problems as well as physical ones -- that just about any abortion-procedure ban would have to be invalidated. But abortion-rights supporters say that without a health exception, women could be forced to carry to term fetuses with no chance at life, but whose birth could leave the pregnant women unable to carry a later pregnancy, or could exacerbate serious ailments such as diabetes.
This IS the procedure, mal! Spin it all you want, dude, but this is it!!!! And there is ABSOLUTELY NO DATA that supports having to perform such an act when the mother's life is in danger. Not one. The child can still be delivered regardless. So, your argument is not only weak, but it's PATHETIC!!!!
-
Letter from a FORMER abortionist:
Anthony P. Levatino, M.D., J.D.
5406 Remington Rd.
Las Cruces, N.M. 88011
March 4, 2003
Mr. Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life
S12-10th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20004
Mr. Johnson:
I am a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist and a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. I performed both first and second trimester abortions from 1977 until 1985 including D&E abortions up to twenty-two weeks gestation. I was Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Albany Medical College from June 1993 to September 2000 during which time I served as both Residency Program Director and Medical Student Education Director. I also served as the ACOG District II, Section IX Vice Chaimlan from 1995 unti11998. Currently I am engaged in the private practice of obstetrics and gynecology in New Mexico. My resume is attached. The partial-birth abortion illustrations that I have forwarded to you were painted by Mrs. Tanja Butler who is currently a professor of art at Gordon College in Massachusetts. They were prepared under my supervision and, in my professional
judgment, they accurately depict the D&X abortion described by Dr. Martin Haskell in his 1992 paper entitled "Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion". This type of late-term abortion later came to be known by the legal term of art "partial birth
abortion" because of its similarity to full-term delivery of infants in breech position. The images are size-appropriate to a fetus of approximately 24 weeks gestation. This is a typical gestational age for partial-birth abortion although many of these procedures are
performed at even later gestational ages. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions
Very truly yours,
~~~
Anthony Levatino, MD, ill
-
Mal that was sad attempt to make ur point.
By the way what point are you trying to make? Do you support partial birth abortion?
-
Anyone who supports this, should be beat the fuck down.
-
Anyone who supports this, should be beat the fuck down.
check it out..i dont support no abortion at all.. but i would say i did in order to watch you try to beat my ass...teh mal loves a good fight
Now as i dont support abortion of any of my potential kids..i am pro choice...
Partial Birth Abortions are a myth in the way 500 is trying to frame it..It happens but thats is the mothers health is at risk. Its not the kind of "i fucked up one friday night and let me get rid of this problem" abortion..Thats not the case..
But incase you want to make good on the threat...im in between LA and ATL a lot...
-
So this type of abortion so Only in cases where the mother's life is at risk?
-
They are done when it's a matter of life and death.
Most of the abortions done in this area are cases of incest or rape of minors.
-
Looks to me like those babies can be saved based on those pictures. Is that true?
-
I thought late term abortions are illegal unless the health of the mother was at risk.
-
yup
-
They are done when it's a matter of life and death.
Most of the abortions done in this area are cases of incest or rape of minors.
We're talking about less than one half of one percent. So what justifies the 46,000,000 million other abortions???????
-
We're talking about less than one half of one percent. So what justifies the 46,000,000 million other abortions???????
all those are late term/partial birth
-
Im in West Palm Beach , Fl.
You ever come my way pm me ill give you my number. More then happy put people in there place.
-
Gruesome.
But you know what? I don't it's any more gruesome than a second trimester abortion, which involves dismembering the baby. :-\
-
I thought late term abortions are illegal unless the health of the mother was at risk.
They ARE illegal. But Sen. Obama has promised to retract that law, not to mention the other pieces of legislation that are anti-abortion (Mexico legislation prevents American tax money going to abortions in that country). Even Planned Parenthood admits to this. They're excited because they know that this will mean more taxpayer revenue for their organization.
Good Grief, People! Wake UP!!! Do you even know what this guy's all about?
-
Gruesome.
But you know what? I don't it's any more gruesome than a second trimester abortion, which involves dismembering the baby. :-\
I think it's an horrendous procedure. Some people characterize it as just another medical procedure no different than removing a tumor.
-
They ARE illegal. But Sen. Obama has promised to retract that law, not to mention the other pieces of legislation that are anti-abortion (Mexico legislation prevents American tax money going to abortions in that country). Even Planned Parenthood admits to this. They're excited because they know that this will mean more taxpayer revenue for their organization.
Good Grief, People! Wake UP!!! Do you even know what this guy's all about?
So Obama is for abortion on demand under any circumstance?
-
I think it's an horrendous procedure. Some people characterize it as just another medical procedure no different than removing a tumor.
Anyone who characterizes a second trimester abortion as "no different than removing a tumor" needs to crack a book and look at a few pictures.
-
So Obama is for abortion on demand under any circumstance?
Yep.
-
Yep.
When did he say that?
-
all those are late term/partial birth
No, but an abortion is no less of a tragedy than partial birth abortions. Get real, bro!
-
I am against abortion but I do believe in pro choice. If someone wants to be irresponsible that is there choice.
But I do think there needs to be a certain length of time when an abortion is no longer allowed.(very early in the pregnancy)
-
When did he say that?
Please don't tell me you're getting down to semantics or explicit statements, bro? Is that the road you're wanting to go down?
-
I think it's an horrendous procedure. Some people characterize it as just another medical procedure no different than removing a tumor.
Horrendous isn't the word, Deck. :-\ :'(
-
Please don't tell me you're getting down to semantics or explicit statements, bro? Is that the road you're wanting to go down?
I'm not spoiling for a fight C-500.
It's a simple question. I'd like to see where he directly said: I am for abortion under any circumstance including late term abortion.
Please try and show me in something that's not some long winded slanted op-ed piece. There should be an easy quote/link you can find.
-
They ARE illegal. But Sen. Obama has promised to retract that law, not to mention the other pieces of legislation that are anti-abortion (Mexico legislation prevents American tax money going to abortions in that country). Even Planned Parenthood admits to this. They're excited because they know that this will mean more taxpayer revenue for their organization.
Good Grief, People! Wake UP!!! Do you even know what this guy's all about?
Most do not know what he is about. Only that he promises to bring change.
The others who do know. live by a complete diff set of views on how life should be lived and how much the govt should be allowed to dictate your life to you.
-
I am against abortion but I do believe in pro choice. If someone wants to be irresponsible that is there choice.
But I do think there needs to be a certain length of time when an abortion is no longer allowed.(very early in the pregnancy)
me too...
-
Yep.
Do you really believe that he can amend the constitution to make that happen?
If it were that easy, why wasn't abortion outlawed under the Bush administration (rubberstamp republican congress included)?
-
I'm not spoiling for a fight C-500.
It's a simple question. I'd like to see where he directly said: I am for abortion under any circumstance including late term abortion.
Please try and show me in something that's not some long winded slanted op-ed piece. There should be an easy quote/link you can find.
Ok, I'll find something for you.
-
Decker, whats to stop him? dems will have full control.
-
I'm not spoiling for a fight C-500.
It's a simple question. I'd like to see where he directly said: I am for abortion under any circumstance including late term abortion.
Please try and show me in something that's not some long winded slanted op-ed piece. There should be an easy quote/link you can find.
That's what the Freedom of Choice Act does: guarantee abortion under any circumstanced, including late term abortion. Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act.
-
Do you really believe that he can amend the constitution to make that happen?
If it were that easy, why wasn't abortion outlawed under the Bush administration (rubberstamp republican congress included)?
Deck, OzmO, you gotta read the article. I'll find some more information and post it for you. Might not be until later tonight.
-
Decker, whats to stop him? dems will have full control.
EXACTLY- That is the problem. If he is elected your going to see this country become another member of the EU. There will be no checks and balances because the dems will have complete and unfettered control. This clean sweep will potentially destroy the country. Whens the last time the dems had the presidency and both houses?
-
Decker, whats to stop him? dems will have full control.
2/3 support is still 2/3 support.
If the republicans really believed abortion should be done away with, why didn't it happen under Bush? He had both houses of Congress under his belt along with the SCT. He had 90+% approval rating.
Why didn't he force the ban on abortion through if he held such an earnest and profound belief?
-
Deck, OzmO, you gotta read the article. I'll find some more information and post it for you. Might not be until later tonight.
Thanks C-500
-
I dont think there should be a law banning abortion outright. There should be a law banning late term abortion.
The republicans did not have the kinda of control that the dems might end up with. If all goes the way it looks like it will. Republicans will not be able to stop much of anything.
-
I dont think there should be a law banning abortion outright. There should be a law banning late term abortion.
The republicans did not have the kinda of control that the dems might end up with. If all goes the way it looks like it will. Republicans will not be able to stop much of anything.
It was the same way a few years ago, just in reverse. I didn't see them do much. I wonder how the dems will do.
-
I dont think there should be a law banning abortion outright. There should be a law banning late term abortion.
The republicans did not have the kinda of control that the dems might end up with. If all goes the way it looks like it will. Republicans will not be able to stop much of anything.
Late term abortions are already regulated by RvW.
If the Republicans couldn't ban abortion with a stranglehold on all three branches of government plus the overwhelming support of the people, what makes you think the democrats have a chance w/ their agenda?
-
So C-500, basically this is something you "think" will happen?
I don't see it changing. People would be outraged.
-
check it out..i dont support no abortion at all.. but i would say i did in order to watch you try to beat my ass...teh mal loves a good fight
Now as i dont support abortion of any of my potential kids..i am pro choice...
Partial Birth Abortions are a myth in the way 500 is trying to frame it..It happens but thats is the mothers health is at risk. Its not the kind of "i fucked up one friday night and let me get rid of this problem" abortion..Thats not the case..
But incase you want to make good on the threat...im in between LA and ATL a lot...
Did you say you are going or are in medical school?
-
Did you say you are going or are in medical school?
im in medical school. Finishing my second year.
-
Deck/OzmO, I'm still working on a list of the items that Sen. Obama has promised to Planned Parenthood money-machine business, but here's a direct quote from him in 2007 when he spoke in front of the organization. These are HIS words, and NOT what I "think might happen":
"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." -- Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007
While I am doing that, I want to ask the two of you to answer this question for me.
Regardless of Sen. Obama explicitly claiming that he will support abortion under any circumstances or not, I want you to justify your argument as to why you believe he will not follow through on his promise. How will you justify your vote for him should everything that I've told you will come to fruition? You've both argued about the "atrocities" committed upon Iraqi war prisoners and their so-called "rights" that we Americans have. What about the rights of the unborn? Lacy Peterson received justice by way of her sicko husband, Scott, being imprisoned for life. But, what about her unborn son? Or was he merely a fetus. I'm not sure if you guys have read my personal account of the first time that I saw the ultrasound of my first-born at only 8 weeks of life. She was but a mere speck and a heartbeat. No arms, legs, eyes, ears...no hint whatsoever that this was a child as we know it out of the womb. At that very moment, I connected with my child. A speck and a heartbeat, guys! And I was immediately in love with her. I can't even describe it. And it's been since that very moment that I no longer can sit idly by as people argue over when life actually begins. And to know that people want to back a potential president who has all but guaranteed that he will repeal virtually every law that has been put in place to protect the unborn truly sickens me. You know I respect both of you personally. But, I can't understand it. The stance that Sen. Obama takes with this issue alone should be enough for you to reconsider why you would vote for him. It's your right, nonetheless, to vote for him. And I can respect that fact.
-
I know it's graphic. And I'm literally in tears after capturing the pics. :'( But I want you Obama fans to get this as vividly as can be. This is the candidate who supports this type of procedure. The Freedom of Choice Act will be one of the first executive orders that a potential Pres. Obama would exercise. No one wants to cover this tragedy, but it's real people. Obama will bring all of this back. >:( Read this article and tell me if you can stomach supporting someone who will allow this to go on. And don't give me any of the "but Bush....blah blah...the war....blah blah blah crap!!!! >:( >:( >:( >:(
Commentary: Obama's Abortion Extremism
by Robert George
His views on life issues mark him as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals — even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals — who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.
What is going on here?
I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as 'pro-abortion' rather than 'pro-choice.'
According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.
The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people — Thomas Jefferson was one — reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.
Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as 'pro-choice'? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were 'personally opposed' to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were 'unnecessary,' or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said 'Against slavery? Don't own one.' We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.
Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being 'pro-abortion' and being 'pro-choice.' Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called 'pro-choice,' then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.
The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.
But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that 'the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, 'a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."
It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many 'pro-choice' legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a 'punishment' that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing 'pro-choice' about that.
But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.
It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.
You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.
For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.
But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.
Can it get still worse? Yes.
Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.
They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.
They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! 'pro-choice'-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.
This is delusional.
We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, "abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased." In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that "abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent." No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies -- so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.
But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.
Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.
But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.
What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: 'that question is above my pay grade.' It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy — and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.
In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.
I tried explaining this to the cult members and they could care less. The Obambots are no different than the Jim Jones and Charles Manson cult.
-
The "Freedom for Partial-Birth Abortionists Act" --
Pro-Abortion Lawmakers Propose "FOCA" to Invalidate All Limits on Abortion
WASHINGTON (April 25, 2007) – In response to the April 18 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, prominent Democratic members of Congress the next day reintroduced the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), a proposed federal law to nullify virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion.
NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson commented, "In the interests of truth in advertising, the bill should be renamed the ‘Freedom for Partial-Birth Abortionists Act'."
The House bill, H.R. 1964, was introduced by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who in the new Democratic-majority Congress is the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee that has jurisdiction over such legislation. At NRL News deadline on April 25, his bill had 71 cosponsors (70 Democrats, one Republican). (To view an always-current list of co-sponsors, arranged by state, click here.)
The Senate bill, S. 1173, introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.), had 13 Democratic cosponsors, including presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY), plus independent Joseph Lieberman (Ct.). (To view an always-current list of co-sponsors, arranged by state, click here.)
The lawmakers proposing the legislation, and groups endorsing it, repeatedly emphasized that the bill would, among other things, completely nullify the national ban on partial-birth abortion that the Supreme Court upheld on April 18 in Gonzales v. Carhart.
Congressman Nadler issued a statement harshly attacking the Supreme Court ruling. "Overturning a decision only a few years old, the Court has, for the first time since Roe v. Wade, allowed an abortion procedure to be criminalized," Nadler said. The FOCA, he noted, "would bar government – at any level -- from interfering with a woman's fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy."
Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, also tied the FOCA directly to the Supreme Court ruling, explaining in an e-mailed alert that the bill "would legislatively reverse the Court's damaging decision and will enshrine in federal law our right to safe, legal abortion. . . . Our ultimate success depends on electing a president who will sign the legislation and electing a Congress that can withstand any challenge or filibuster."
"Those promoting this bill intend to use it as a litmus test for those who seek congressional office, or the White House, and as a fund-raising tool," NRLC's Douglas Johnson explained. "They know they cannot enact anything like this, so long as a pro-life president is in the White House."
Not Only a "Codification of Roe"
The promoters of the FOCA sometimes claim that its purpose is to "codify Roe v. Wade," the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion on demand. But the key binding provisions of the bill would go further than Roe, invalidating all of the major types of pro-life laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the decades since Roe.
"The claim that the bill would ‘codify Roe' is just a marketing gimmick by the proponents," explained Johnson. "The sponsors hope that journalists and legislators will lazily accept that vague shorthand phrase – but it is very misleading. The references to Roe in the bill are in non-binding, discursive clauses. The heart of the bill is a ban that would nullify all of the major types of pro-life laws that the Supreme Court has said are permissible under Roe v. Wade, including the ban on partial-birth abortions and bans on government funding of abortion."
The bill flatly invalidates any "statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official (or any person acting under government authority) that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" abortion, or that would "discriminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information."
This no-restriction policy would establish, in Senator Boxer's words, "the absolute right to choose" prior to fetal "viability."
The no-restriction policy would also apply after "viability" to any abortion sought on grounds of "health." The bill does not define "health," but in some past abortion cases the Supreme Court has sometimes used the term to apply to any physical or emotional consideration whatsoever, including "distress."
The term "viability" is usually understood to refer to the point at which a baby's lungs are developed to the point that he or she can in fact survive independently of the mother – currently, about 23 or 24 weeks. However, the bill contains no objective criteria for "viability," but rather, requires that the judgment regarding "viability" be left entirely in the hands of "the attending physician" – which is to say, the abortionist.
The bill also prohibits any government actions that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to bear a child," but supporters of the bills have not cited any actual laws that would be invalidated by that provision.
Effects Admitted by Supporters
In a factsheet posted on its website, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) explains, "FOCA will supercede anti-choice laws that restrict the right to choose, including laws that prohibit the public funding of abortions for poor women or counseling and referrals for abortions. Additionally, FOCA will prohibit onerous restrictions on a woman's right to choose, such as mandated delays and targeted and medically unnecessary regulations."
In addition, PPFA explained, "Parental consent or notification statutes have been used as a tool to deny access to abortion services for minors. When such laws deny or interfere with the ability of minors to access abortion services, they would violate FOCA."
(About half of the states have parental notification or consent laws in effect, which the Supreme Court has said are permitted under Roe v. Wade as long as they meet certain requirements, including availability of judges to authorize abortions without parental notification or consent.)
In a press release issued when she introduced the FOCA in 2004, Senator Boxer gave a number of examples of current laws that would be invalidated by the bill, including:
-- Laws restricting government funding of abortion. (The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of most abortions, and many states have similar laws. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that these laws do not violate Roe v. Wade.)
-- Laws prohibiting abortions in public hospitals. (The Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that such policies do not violate Roe v. Wade.)
-- Laws requiring that girls and women seeking abortion receive certain information on matters such as fetal development and alternatives to abortion, and then wait a specified period before the abortion is actually performed, usually 24 or 48 hours. In her press release, Boxer referred to these as "antichoice propaganda lectures." (The Supreme Court said in its 1992 Casey ruling that such regulations are constitutional as long as they do not impose an "undue burden" on obtaining an abortion.)
Other Effects
NRLC's Johnson said that a number of other types of laws also would clearly be invalidated by the bill:
-- All laws allowing doctors, nurses, or other state-licensed professionals, and hospitals or other health-care providers, to decline to provide or pay for abortions. (Such "conscience rights" with respect to abortion are generally protected by certain federal laws, and by the laws in many states. Supporters of the laws usually call them "conscience laws," but pro-abortion groups refer to them as "refusal clauses.")
-- All laws prohibiting medical personnel other than licensed physicians from performing abortions would be invalid because they may "interfere with" access to abortion. (All but a handful of states currently enforce such "doctor-only" laws, which are specifically authorized in Roe v. Wade itself.)
-- The provision of the FOCA that prohibits any government agency or official from taking any action that would "discriminate against the exercise of" the FOCA-created legal rights, with respect to any "benefits, facilities, services, or information," would leave government officials open to lawsuits for anything that anybody thought "discriminate(s)" against abortion. Johnson observed, "This sweeping mandate could cover everything from rural health clinics, to health education programs in public schools – and even to pro-life speeches by public officials."
History of the FOCA
An earlier version of the FOCA was pushed by pro-abortion forces beginning in the late 1980s, when they feared that the Supreme Court was preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade. When President Clinton, a FOCA supporter, took office in January 1993, Planned Parenthood predicted that the FOCA would be law within six months. But the bill died after an education and lobbying campaign, led by NRLC, persuaded many pro-Roe lawmakers that the bill went beyond Roe and would strike down many state laws that had broad support.
Johnson noted that during the debates over the FOCA in the early 1990s, many proponents of the bill often tried to deny some of its more radical effects – effects that they have already admitted with respect to the new bill, such as the invalidation of all restrictions on government funding of abortion.
The original FOCA faded from view after Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in the 1994 election.
-
I thought late term abortions are illegal unless the health of the mother was at risk.
The "health of the mother" is a joke. What constitutes the "health"?????
A headache???
A running nose???
A back ache???
Obama should rot in hell for being favor of this outright murder of the practically already born.
He is the angel of death to the unborn.
-
A breakdown of the Freedom of Choice Act:
Sponsored by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA), the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" (FOCA) would invalidate any federal, state, or local government law, regulation, policy, or action that would "deny or interfere with" a woman's access to abortion prior to "viability," or which would "discriminate against the exercise of" this right in the regulation or provision of any "benefits, facilities, services, or information." This ban would apply absolutely prior to fetal "viability," and also apply after "viability" to any abortion sought on grounds of "health," which is not defined in the bill and which therefore would include any physical or emotional factor whatsoever. Although sometimes referred to as a bill to "codify Roe v. Wade," this is misleading, because -- the sponsors of the bill have acknowledged that it would invalidate many laws that have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court under Roe v. Wade, including laws restricting government funding of abortion, limits on abortion in public or military faclities, full-disclosure counseling requirements, and bans on partial-birth abortion. It would also invalidate all laws requiring parental or judicial notification or consent for abortions performed on minors, laws that permit health care providers to opt out of participation in abortion on conscience grounds, laws prohibiting non-physicians from performing abortions, and waiting periods. The House companion bill, sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.), is S. 1173.
-
I don't like this. Anything after the first trimester should be banned except when the mother's life is in danger.
-
The "health of the mother" is a joke.
Maybe you are unaware of the numbers of women who still die due to complications of pregnancy.
Or unaware that the USA ranks amongst the worst of all first world nations in child mortality, so it is a more pressing issue there.
Also, rates of women dying due to pregnancy complications/childbirth is raising as well, not decreasing.
I know someone who had a problem pregnancy, was greatly advised to end it and decided to tough it out. Baby died. So did she. Very sad case, especially for her older child who is now motherless.
Health maybe overused, but it is perfectly valid in many cases. Either way, McCain chipped of his female vote some more with that callous comment.
-
Maybe you are unaware of the numbers of women who still die due to complications of pregnancy.
Or unaware that the USA ranks amongst the worst of all first world nations in child mortality, so it is a more pressing issue there.
Also, rates of women dying due to pregnancy complications/childbirth is raising as well, not decreasing.
I know someone who had a problem pregnancy, was greatly advised to end it and decided to tough it out. Baby died. So did she. Very sad case, especially for her older child who is now motherless.
Health maybe overused, but it is perfectly valid in many cases. Either way, McCain chipped of his female vote some more with that callous comment.
Are you aware of the rising number of complications stemming from abortion?
-
The "health of the mother" is a joke. What constitutes the "health"?????
A headache???
A running nose???
A back ache???
Obama should rot in hell for being favor of this outright murder of the practically already born.
He is the angel of death to the unborn.
You make foolish statements. Look up Ectopic Pregnancy. Look up Pregnancy complications and/or problems.
Abortion is a rotten decision that some people are saddled with.
-
Maybe you are unaware of the numbers of women who still die due to complications of pregnancy.
Or unaware that the USA ranks amongst the worst of all first world nations in child mortality, so it is a more pressing issue there.
Also, rates of women dying due to pregnancy complications/childbirth is raising as well, not decreasing.
I know someone who had a problem pregnancy, was greatly advised to end it and decided to tough it out. Baby died. So did she. Very sad case, especially for her older child who is now motherless.
Health maybe overused, but it is perfectly valid in many cases. Either way, McCain chipped of his female vote some more with that callous comment.
I was referring to the cases of live birth where basically the baby is already born and the doctor is not allowed to give aide to the born baby.
your points are definately valid, I was referring to the live-birth abortion issue.
-
I was referring to the cases of live birth where basically the baby is already born and the doctor is not allowed to give aide to the born baby.
your points are definately valid, I was referring to the live-birth abortion issue.
I see. I don't know enough about live-birth abortions. I thought RvW regulates abortion where in the 3rd trimester, an abortion can only be performed if the health of the mother is at risk.
-
***bump***
-
I was referring to the cases of live birth where basically the baby is already born and the doctor is not allowed to give aide to the born baby.
your points are definately valid, I was referring to the live-birth abortion issue.
Off topic, but thank you for the polite and rational response. It's so rare here that I am forced to mention my appreciation 8)
-
Are you aware of the rising number of complications stemming from abortion?
Not really on my point.
And I believed I asked you before...since you are so keen on kids/protection etc I was interested in whether you foster children? As I am sure you know there are tens of thousands of kids who are not wanted and stuck in homes, very sad etc.
I am touchy on this subject, as I am a foster parent, have seen tons of kids homes in different nations [it's not pretty trust me] and while people rail againest abortion, seems few want to step up to the plate and actually *do* something. Just want to take away females choice while doing piss all to help all these unwanted kids already here and suffering. Talk is cheap. Not directed at you per se btw, just my meltdown...
-
Not really on my point.
And I believed I asked you before...since you are so keen on kids/protection etc I was interested in whether you foster children? As I am sure you know there are tens of thousands of kids who are not wanted and stuck in homes, very sad etc.
I am touchy on this subject, as I am a foster parent, have seen tons of kids homes in different nations [it's not pretty trust me] and while people rail againest abortion, seems few want to step up to the plate and actually *do* something. Just want to take away females choice while doing piss all to help all these unwanted kids already here and suffering. Talk is cheap. Not directed at you per se btw, just my meltdown...
Are you saying people who don't take in foster kids should not complain about abortion, shouldn't be pro life, etc.?
-
Are you saying people who don't take in foster kids should not complain about abortion, shouldn't be pro life, etc.?
I am saying talk is cheap.
And it is.
-
I am saying talk is cheap.
And it is.
Answer the question...
So are you saying everyone against abortion should take in foster kids?
-
I am saying talk is cheap.
And it is.
Talk is cheap, but I don't really see a correlation between a person's views on abortion and taking in foster kids. A person doesn't forfeit the right to an opinion or "talk" if they don't take in foster kids, adopt, etc.
-
Not really on my point.
And I believed I asked you before...since you are so keen on kids/protection etc I was interested in whether you foster children? As I am sure you know there are tens of thousands of kids who are not wanted and stuck in homes, very sad etc.
I am touchy on this subject, as I am a foster parent, have seen tons of kids homes in different nations [it's not pretty trust me] and while people rail againest abortion, seems few want to step up to the plate and actually *do* something. Just want to take away females choice while doing piss all to help all these unwanted kids already here and suffering. Talk is cheap. Not directed at you per se btw, just my meltdown...
First things first, CQ. I applaud you for being a foster parent. :) This country needs more people with a heart like yours. My wife and I have often contemplated being foster parents or adopting children once our 4 children are grown and out of the house. The empty nest syndrome scares us (at least it does right now). And you're right, it is VERY SAD to know that there are so many unwanted and unloved children in the world. If the government would get out of the way and allow faith-based organizations to take over the adoption and foster care system, we'd be much better off. Having said that, I would think that you'd be an adversary of abortion knowing of the many success stories that come from foster homes. At least these kids get a chance at life as opposed to being snuffed out as if they never existed.
-
-
A true skeptic genious. ::)
-
SHOCKING
much better to wait until they're over 18 to abort them
(http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/US_soldiers_wounded.jpg)
::) ::) ::)
-
nice double standard
-
nice double standard
The Daily KOS? Yep, it sure is.
-
I tried explaining this to the cult members and they could care less. The Obambots are no different than the Jim Jones and Charles Manson cult.
you forgot the Jesus cult followers.
-
you forgot the Jesus cult followers.
They are no different either. However, Obama's followers show very similar traits to cult followers, just like the religious cult like followers.
I have never seen in my life people get so angry, so defensive, so irrate, when you simply point out to them flaws and obvious problems with their messiah (Obama).
Some of my friends who are voting for this clown literally fly into a rage when I simply point out basic facts that blow up their media created image of Obama. They are like people possesed.
-
They are no different either. However, Obama's followers show very similar traits to cult followers, just like the religious cult like followers.
No they don't.
I have never seen in my life people get so angry, so defensive, so irrate, when you simply point out to them flaws and obvious problems with their messiah (Obama).
Really? Just mention Welfare or progressive income tax to right wingers and watch the shit fly.
Some of my friends who are voting for this clown literally fly into a rage when I simply point out basic facts that blow up their media created image of Obama. They are like people possesed.
You have an abrasive way about you.
-
Decker.....go up to ur average Obama fan and debate something..they become unhinged when u disagree. Go to a McCain fan...you'll get a shrug and a "well he wasn't my first choice" reply and a "what choice do I have...I liked____________".
-
Decker.....go up to ur average Obama fan and debate something..they become unhinged when u disagree. Go to a McCain fan...you'll get a shrug and a "well he wasn't my first choice" reply and a "what choice do I have...I liked____________".
really?
-
No they don't.
Really? Just mention Welfare or progressive income tax to right wingers and watch the shit fly.
You have an abrasive way about you.
I speak directly to the point. I pointed out today to a friend about why I am voting for mcCain. BTW - Romny was my first choice, and all I got in return was how George Bush bombed the pentagon and the towers.
How do I respond to that?
-
Freedom of Choice Act - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:
It CLEARLY states that partial birth (or late term abortions) may ONLY be done when the risk of the life or health of the mother is a factor.
Imagine an 11 year old getting raped and becoming pregnant then 7 months later risking her life just to have this child.
Sorry, but you guys need to get your heads out of your asses. This law does not allow late term abortions at will, it's ONLY when the health or life of the mother is at risk.
-
late term abortions in iraq and iran or late term abortions in the US - take your pick you hypocrites
-
I speak directly to the point. I pointed out today to a friend about why I am voting for mcCain. BTW - Romny was my first choice, and all I got in return was how George Bush bombed the pentagon and the towers.
How do I respond to that?
haha
-
Back to the point of Obama being the most Pro-Abortion candidate in the history of politics. To get a detailed explanation that shows how the Obama campaign is trying desperately to keep his voting record on abortion under the radar:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html
-
Back to the point of Obama being the most Pro-Abortion candidate in the history of politics. To get a detailed explanation that shows how the Obama campaign is trying desperately to keep his voting record on abortion under the radar:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html
-
Back to the point of Obama being the most Pro-Abortion candidate in the history of politics. To get a detailed explanation that shows how the Obama campaign is trying desperately to keep his voting record on abortion under the radar:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html
pro abortion = pro choice
-
pro abortion = pro choice
And the choice is whether or not to kill the baby.
-
And the choice is whether or not to kill the baby.
right..so dont call it pro abortion..because its not like he just wants to kill everybaby...he is pro womens rights...
-
right..so dont call it pro abortion..because its not like he just wants to kill everybaby...he is pro womens rights...
I'd call him pro abortion. That's what the choice is about.
-
I'd call him pro abortion. That's what the choice is about.
I'm pro population control.
-
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=e46UqG8zSU
-
Colossus_500, You are such a sad and pathetic piece of crap liar, it's disgusting. You keep posting B.S. articles with wrong information and then when it is rectified before you, you ignore it and continue to spew more of your B.S.
-
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=e46UqG8zSU
Dude. :-\ The nurse was definitely talking about infanticide. I can't believe we give federal tax dollars to this organization.
-
Abortion on Demand
MCCAIN
Voted in favor of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid.
Voted consistently against federal funding of abortion.
Voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Voted to oppose Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that allows abortion for any reason.
“I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support... the rights of the unborn. I have fought for human rights and human dignity throughout my entire political career. To me it is an issue of human rights and human dignity.”
Voted to support a bill that would have required an abortionist to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor girl from another state.
OBAMA
Did not vote for the Illinois Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act when it came before the Illinois State Senate.
Co-sponsor of the “Freedom of Choice Act,” (S.1173) which would make partial-birth abortion legal again, require taxpayer funding of abortion, and invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, such as parental notification laws.
“I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President.”
Voted against legislation in the Illinois State Senate that prohibited taxpayer dollars from being used to pay for abortion.
His campaign has stated that he “does not support” the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid.
Voted to block a bill that would have required an abortionist to notify at least one parent before performing abortion through Medicaid.
Sarah Palin
Opposes abortion and believes unborn children should be protected. As Governor of Alaska, supported pro-life legislation.
“...I am pro-life and have never wavered in my belief in the sanctity of every human life.”
Joseph Biden
Voted to endorse Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that allows abortion for any reason.
“I strongly support Roe v. Wade....That’s why I led the fight to defeat Bork. Thank God he is not in the Court or Roe v. Wade would be gone by now.”
-
and what's exactly wrong with red china's population control policy?
-
Colossus_500, You are such a sad and pathetic piece of crap liar, it's disgusting. You keep posting B.S. articles with wrong information and then when it is rectified before you, you ignore it and continue to spew more of your B.S.
So, this is NOT what takes place during a partial birth abortion? Barack Obama is on RECORD saying that he enact the Freedom Of Choice Act, which brings back this particular procedure. If you deny this to be true, then I'm not the one who's a "sad and pathetic piece of crap liar". And you're absolutely right that this is disgusting... To think that there are pure-bred ass-wipes out there who really think this stuff doesn't go on. Incredible!
-
Margaret Sanger Would Have Loved Barack Obama
By Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr.
March 5, 2008
Revelations of eugenic ideology and the racist practices of Planned Parenthood are unfolding more and more.
The public is just beginning to believe what people of conscience have known long ago: Planned Parenthood has diabolically perpetrated their murderous plot to surgically eliminate those they deem undesirable. In other words: kill the babies of unsuspecting minority women by aborting their children. Then, tell them this is a "good thing" for you and your people. No other ethnic group in the United States has been decimated more by abortion than the Afro-American community. The war being waged upon innocent captives in the womb is led by Planned Parenthood.
The strategy:
Convince the targeted community to accept their eugenic racist plan by selecting one from their ethnicity to promote it. One of Planned Parenthood's earliest known projects was in 1939. It was called the “Negro Project” -- a project designed to control the birth of "human weeds" which was how Margaret Sanger referred to colored people; a project designed to introduce abortion, sterilization and different forms of birth control. This is what a co-eugenic wrote to Margaret Sanger to make sure the "Negro Project" was a success:
Clarence Gamble, heir of Proctor and Gamble, wrote a memorandum in November, 1939 entitled: "Suggestions for the Negro Project." In the letter he suggested black leaders “be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge."
This is a letter to Clarence Gamble, from Margaret Sanger, in which she wrote,
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
For those of you that don't know, Barack Obama became a "minister" of Planned Parenthood a long time ago. He's so good at carrying out their racist, murderous, agenda against Afro-Americans and society at large, they gave him a 100% score on his voting record. Planned Parenthood is following the strategy of their racist founder, Margaret Sanger, to the letter. Planed Parenthood is saying, “We have our poster boy! Get him out in front as a lure for their women and men. Get them into our abortion clinics and dismember their children by the millions!” You say absurd? No Way! Planned Parenthood’s Valentine cards were sent out to hundreds of thousands of young people in the nation. Whose face is plainly seen waving to them with a big smile? Whose endorsement is given to this racist and calloused organization? Who is used to lure children to give credibility to its hideous plot? Barack Obama, that's who!
On July 17, 2007, Barack Obama said the following before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund:
"Thank You, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! ($) Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country-and for men who have enough sense to realize you are helping them, all across the country. I want to thank Cecile Richards (national president of Planned Parenthood) for her extraordinary leadership. I am happy to see so many good friends here today, including Steve Trombley and Pam Sutherland from my home state of Illinois. We had a number of battles down in Springfield from many years and it's wonderful to see that they are here today"
The first friend mentioned is, Cecile Richards, who he commends for extraordinary leadership in killing babies who are disproportionately black.
The second is, Steve Trombley, who is the president of Planned Parenthood Chicago. You can imagine how many of our young women have been victimized and whose pre-born children were killed under his supervision. His third friend he mentions is, Pam Sutherland. She is the State CEO of Planned Parenthood for Illinois. America needs to know how much these folks were, and continue today, to be in the head and actions of Senator Barack Obama. How much did he compromise his own values?
I choose here to quote Dr. Martin Luther King from his last Sunday sermon before his death:
"There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right. I believe today that there is a need for all people of goodwill to come with a massive act of conscience and say in the words of the old Negro Spiritual, ‘We ain't goin' study war no more.’"
This is the challenge facing modern man.
When the challenge came to Barack Obama to call on conscience, he refused. What most Americans would say no to, he chooses to say, yes to! He refused to do what The Dream called for: to allow your conscience to tell you what is right and what would be wrong. You may ask, why, but always remember this observation: Abortion is a lot like slavery; if it was not lucrative, it would not have been legal!
Pam Sutherland ... of ... Illinois Planned Parenthood ... told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."
Let me interpret. We, Planned Parenthood, told him what to say, and how to say it, so we could continue to kill infants; babies, just a few inches from birth, and those completely out of the womb that we missed! Our "colored minister" was well prepared by Planned Parenthood. Partial Birth abortion -- which I will not describe here -- but know that 80% of Americans don't want this barbaric act practiced in this country – Barack Obama voted to keep legal! The Born Alive Victims Act is a law to protect a child that was born alive after a botched abortion; a law that would require that the child would receive medical assistance. Barack Obama voted against it! Yes. Barack Obama, with an "engaging personality" is being used by the leading abortion provider in the United States to promote and execute infanticide of predominately minority babies!
And what are most Afro-Americans saying? "Yes We Can! Yes We Can! Yes We Can!" They are ignoring conscience. They are ignoring The Dream!
“I have a Dream, that one day, my four little children, will live in a world where that they won't be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character ….”
Yes, I believe it would be wonderful to have a Black man as president, but it's more important for there to be, God's man as president, and that his character would reflect my values; values reflected in the 10 Commandments and our Declaration of Independence. While most African-Americans are applauding him for the color of his skin, they have failed to look at closely the content of his character.
Martin Luther King, while sitting in a Birmingham jail, without the internet, cell phone, library resources, or communication from the outside, penned that famous prophetic letter to answer some local Pastors who questioned his use of public demonstrations. Martin, in a portion of his letter, discussed the responsibility of the church to address social issues. He said, "… the early church put an end to such evils as infanticide." Martin Luther King wrote from the passion of his spirit -- the spirit that was fighting for justice and equality. Martin called infant killing evil. Barack Obama calls it “a women's right.” Martin Luther King made his observation from a jail cell, having been put there for defending the civil rights of those whom had been denied theirs. Barack Obama has made his from caucusing with those who profit from the destruction of babies in the womb. These are men and women who ignore the silent screams of a lost generation.
Another quote from Dr. Martin Luther King that would be so appropriate here is, “The Negro cannot win if he chooses to sacrifice the future of his children for immediate comfort and safety." It is now imperative we all hear the words of this great Prophet of God. It is obvious we must reject the “Barack Obamas” who have placed us in great danger by their ideologies, a position Martin Luther King warned us we cannot expect to win! Can we trust Barack Obama's judgment? I think not.
Yes, Margaret Sanger would love Barack Obama …. Her protégés certainly do
-
bump
-
There are idiots and intelligent folks supporting both sides. However, I have noticed more 'Obama fever' with many supporters that don't know much about the candidate's positions, instead are caught up in the movement. That bothers me.
-
There are idiots and intelligent folks supporting both sides. However, I have noticed more 'Obama fever' with many supporters that don't know much about the candidate's positions, instead are caught up in the movement. That bothers me.
no one wants to deal with this reality. pictures are worth a thousands words. and these pictures speak volumes!!! there will be 2-3 supreme court justices appointed by the next president, and issues like this will go one way or the other.
-
no one wants to deal with this reality. pictures are worth a thousands words. and these pictures speak volumes!!! there will be 2-3 supreme court justices appointed by the next president, and issues like this will go one way or the other.
Agree, which is why people don't actually want to step up to the plate and adopt these kids, which is why at last 1/2 million languish in the USA alone.
It's so much easier to talk the talk, wave a few flags, attend a rally - then actual do something which truly helps - raise a kid, donate money, volunteer at the homes etc. Reality is way different from talking the talk.
-
"If one of my daughters makes a mistake, I don't want her saddled with a baby!" - B. Hussein Obama ::)
-
"If one of my daughters makes a mistake, I don't want her saddled with a baby!" - B. Hussein Obama ::)
Perfect example of the liberal mindset.
Dont take the responsibility for your mistakes.
-
Perfect example of the liberal mindset.
Dont take the responsibility for your mistakes.
"saddled" with a baby? I thought he said "punished" with a baby.
-
Agree, which is why people don't actually want to step up to the plate and adopt these kids, which is why at last 1/2 million languish in the USA alone.
It's so much easier to talk the talk, wave a few flags, attend a rally - then actual do something which truly helps - raise a kid, donate money, volunteer at the homes etc. Reality is way different from talking the talk.
I agree with this sentiment, CQ. We need a major overhaul of our adoptive system. It would be nice to see the government get out of the way and allow the faith-based agencies to take the lead. We should not have to go to China, Romania, Africa, or Thailand to adopt a child. There are plenty of orphans right here in our own country.
-
"saddled" with a baby? I thought he said "punished" with a baby.
Yeah, the exact verbiage is "PUNISHED".
-
Abortion Facts
Abortion is the medically induced, premature death of a pre-born baby in the womb. There are several methods used:
# Suction Aspiration
The method of abortion most commonly used in first trimester abortions. A powerful vacuum suction tube is put into the dilated uterus. The suction tears the soft baby apart and removes it from the uterus.
# Dilation and Curettage (D&C)
The dilation of the cervix which permits the insertion of a sharp surgical instrument will be used to dismember the baby's developing body.
# Dilatation and Evacuation (D&E)Used after 12 weeks, this method is identical to the D&C method except that forceps are used to twist and tear away the body that now has calcified bones.
# Salt Poisoning (Saline Injection)
Used after 16 weeks. A long needle is inserted into the mothers abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby breathes in swallowing the deadly toxin and is poisoned. The mother delivers a dead or dying baby.
# Prostaglandin
Hormones, developed by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Co., are injected into the amniotic sac to induce contractions. In an article about this method, one of the complications listed was 'live birth'.
# Hysterectomy
Similar to a Cesarean Section, this method employed by abortionists almost always results in a live birth. The baby is left to die by neglect or direct art.
# Dilatation and Extraction (D&X)
By pulling on the baby's legs with forceps, the legs arc delivered, followed by the torso, arms and shoulders. The baby's head 'usually' remains inside the uterus. Using blunt-tipped surgical scissors, the baby's skull is pierced where a suction catheter is inserted to extract the 'skull contents.' Fetal brains and organs are used for fetal 'tissue' experimentation.
-
I agree with this sentiment, CQ. We need a major overhaul of our adoptive system. It would be nice to see the government get out of the way and allow the faith-based agencies to take the lead. We should not have to go to China, Romania, Africa, or Thailand to adopt a child. There are plenty of orphans right here in our own country.
you want government to let the church agencies regulate adoption....?wow!
-
Gruesome.
But you know what? I don't it's any more gruesome than a second trimester abortion, which involves dismembering the baby. :-\
Beach, here you go, Mang. University of Wisconsin is trying to do 2nd trimester abortions under the radar, but they got busted:
[/b]Univ. of Wis. Hospitals secret plan to perform second-trimester abortions unveiled[/b]
ADF attorneys send letter asking for halt to program that threatens religious conscience rights, may violate funding restrictions
MADISON, Wis. — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter to University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Tuesday, asking that the institution refrain from implementing its secret and potentially illegal plans to perform second-trimester abortions in a jointly-operated clinic. The plan would likely compel unwilling employees to aid or participate in dismembering preborn babies, which would violate their religious conscience rights and may constitute an unlawful state funding of abortion.
“Christians and other pro-life medical students and staff should be allowed to abide by their beliefs,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “Pro-life employees shouldn’t be forced to violate their conscience by participating in the killing of preborn, developed babies. The university’s plan is morally and legally flawed and should be abandoned.”
The UWHC’s plan would create a full-service second-trimester abortion practice at the Madison Surgery Center, a joint venture of UWHC, UW Medical Foundation, and Meriter Hospital. University of Wisconsin medical residents are expected to train and take part in the killing of the second-trimester babies. In recent years, UWHC researchers have experimented on almost fully-formed body parts obtained from second-trimester abortions performed nearby, and now all of those abortions would be performed in UWHC’s joint venture. The plan would also include the abortion of disabled babies that already occurs at Meriter Hospital.
The letter from ADF attorneys to UWHC President and CEO Donna Katen-Bahensky, as well as to the presidents of Meriter and the UW Medical Foundation, states that penalties against any employee who refuses to recommend, aid, or perform abortions based on religious or moral objections is a blatant violation of state and federal law. It also reminds university leadership of the fact that “no state or federal funds from various sources may be used for a program that…provides, encourages, or refers for abortions” and that ADF is prepared to take decisive legal action if UWHC takes any negative action against its pro-life employees.
-
Beach, here you go, Mang. University of Wisconsin is trying to do 2nd trimester abortions under the radar, but they got busted:
[/b]Univ. of Wis. Hospitals secret plan to perform second-trimester abortions unveiled[/b]
ADF attorneys send letter asking for halt to program that threatens religious conscience rights, may violate funding restrictions
MADISON, Wis. — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter to University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Tuesday, asking that the institution refrain from implementing its secret and potentially illegal plans to perform second-trimester abortions in a jointly-operated clinic. The plan would likely compel unwilling employees to aid or participate in dismembering preborn babies, which would violate their religious conscience rights and may constitute an unlawful state funding of abortion.
“Christians and other pro-life medical students and staff should be allowed to abide by their beliefs,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “Pro-life employees shouldn’t be forced to violate their conscience by participating in the killing of preborn, developed babies. The university’s plan is morally and legally flawed and should be abandoned.”
The UWHC’s plan would create a full-service second-trimester abortion practice at the Madison Surgery Center, a joint venture of UWHC, UW Medical Foundation, and Meriter Hospital. University of Wisconsin medical residents are expected to train and take part in the killing of the second-trimester babies. In recent years, UWHC researchers have experimented on almost fully-formed body parts obtained from second-trimester abortions performed nearby, and now all of those abortions would be performed in UWHC’s joint venture. The plan would also include the abortion of disabled babies that already occurs at Meriter Hospital.
The letter from ADF attorneys to UWHC President and CEO Donna Katen-Bahensky, as well as to the presidents of Meriter and the UW Medical Foundation, states that penalties against any employee who refuses to recommend, aid, or perform abortions based on religious or moral objections is a blatant violation of state and federal law. It also reminds university leadership of the fact that “no state or federal funds from various sources may be used for a program that…provides, encourages, or refers for abortions” and that ADF is prepared to take decisive legal action if UWHC takes any negative action against its pro-life employees.
Hey where you been mang? Welcome back.
This is the kind of thing that will be permitted if Congress passes and Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act. :-\