New Stanek WND column, “Why Obama couldn’t answer Warren’s baby question”
Barack Obama has painted himself into a corner by his vote against the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
He made this evident at Pastor Rick Warren’s Aug. 17 Saddleback Showdown.
Warren asked both presidential candidates the same questions separately. Here was his best one: “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”
Very simple. But Obama wouldn’t answer it. His now infamous response: “Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
The most adamant pro-abort will at least agree babies acquire human rights when they have completely delivered.
But Barack Obama couldn’t bring himself to say, “At birth.” He wouldn’t confer human rights to newborns….
Continue reading, “Why Obama couldn’t answer Warren’s baby question,” on WorldNetDaily.com.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
As usual, a great article, Jill! Keep going!!
Jill:
I’ll be watching and praying for an audience with a receptive heart.
My Psalm 91 prayer for you stands.
I am confused, maybe someone could set me straight. The pro-choice followers always say that a baby is not human until it is born and breathes it’s first breath. If that is true than why wouldn’t anyone help those babies that survived the abortions? They are human, right? You woudn’t walk by some person on the street gasping for air and do nothing. Soooo…why are they allowed to do that to an innocent child?
From Reuters…..
“WASHINGTON – In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama’s solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.”
The Obama campaign is in collapse mode and it will get worse, not better as more and more people are made of aware of who he really is.
Go Jill…….
Becky:
BINGO! Someone gets it……….
Now you are seeing the true face of the abortion rights movement in all its ungliness, hate, and power for abortion exchange.
Becky, let me say this to you. Abortion is not really about women’s rights (I mean over half the babies killed are women). It’s never been about that. It’s about holding onto power, in this case for the Democratic Party. This Obama scandal reveals this to the world.
And it is despicable.
Hi Becky,
I am sure a prochoicer will come along and answer you…right now they are all gasping for air.
hehe, Carla, you’re on a roll today. :)
Jill,
Regarding the Born Alive Act, I heard in one interview, the Rev. Wright might have been involved in this or that Wright sat on a board of the hospital. Is there any documentation that can be produced to prove that Rev. Wright was involved in the abortion practice at the hospital where you worked?
You want make sure the Catholic Community across the US knows about Obama’s position on Abortion. Every Catholic organization should know about it.
You should keep the attacks up and even try to get groups to attend Obama’s events to continue to heckle him on this issue.
I see that Obama is trying weasel on of this issue.
While this issue is very important, Obama’s Achelles Heel is his voting record.
While this particular issue on his voting record is getting much scrutiny, if would be big help to hammer Obama on his other voting records as well. This will give Obama more than one problem to worry about.
Recently a new web site has been released showing Obama’s other radical voting histories:
http://obamawantsyou.com/issues.html
The following I find just as disturbing as his voting record on abortion:
Illinois SB 230 (1997) — Voted to allow partial birth abortion
Illinois SB 485 (1999)
The pro-choice followers always say that a baby is not human until it is born and breathes it’s first breath. If that is true than why wouldn’t anyone help those babies that survived the abortions? They are human, right? You woudn’t walk by some person on the street gasping for air and do nothing. Soooo…why are they allowed to do that to an innocent child?
Posted by: becky at August 20, 2008 2:58 PM
Yes, indeed, why wouldn’t they? The answer is, they do, of course. They just don’t need a law telling them they have to.
james,
i just went to the site you posted and clicked on what is an abortion. i was not prepared for what i saw! my heart is breaking! i have seen drawings and models but never the real thing. i couldn’t even watch the whole thing. it just sickens me that our country has become so cold and calloused! do you think Obama has seen this video? I bet that if he did he would change his tune. this video should be shown to every health class in high school!
The law is to protect the innocent baby who has no voice!
Perhaps this is why McCain now has a 5 point lead on Obama.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUKN1948672420080820?sp=true
do you think Obama has seen this video? I bet that if he did he would change his tune. this video should be shown to every health class in high school!
Posted by: becky at August 20, 2008 3:21 PM
**************************************
No, Becky, sadly I don’t think it would change his tune at all.
It boggles the mind, doesn’t it?
Yeah, James, I went to that site too..and had to stop that video because I usually need to prepare myself for those kinds of videos before I see them. :(
Anybody who goes to the obamawantsyou website:
Before you click on the “what is abortion” link prepare yourself for the extremely graphic video that is shown.
that video really rocked me. all i can think about is my three beautiful daughters laying in their bassinet shortly after birth and how precious they were. i can’t believe, that if i was not the pro-life person that i am, i could have ended those lives, no questions asked!
Becky,
From a HUMAN perspective you are right. Most people would not walk past anyone gasping for air, with out doing something. (Even if it was simply dialing 911 on behalf of the person in need of help)
I asked similar questions. I am learning from others here that it really comes down to politics and religion.
I was told yesterday that perhaps the babies are allowed to pass because the particular religious affiliations of certain hospitals would not condone, administering medications, in utero that assured a still born delivery. (read, “killing”, to be crass)
I was personally disturbed that somehow it was less “sinful” to allow a baby to die on a shelf in a utility closet, be drowned, or simply stuffed into a bio hazard bag and thrown in a box until it ceased to struggle for life.
The Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act of 2002, states that these children, born alive, even as the result of an induced abortion are entitled to medical care so long as there is (proof of life) such as; a beating heart, breathing lungs, a pulsating umbilical cord, voluntary movement…or something like that. (Also, it can be ANY of those signs of life, not all of them.)
That is a Federal Law. The problem seems to come into play with the individual State laws and the various hospital policies on providing medical assitance, based on estimates of viability. If the child is too small for his/her lungs to receive the tiniest of breathing tubes, he/she would not survive? (as best I understand, mind you.) So, someone makes a “judgement call.”
Apparently however, there are instances when the child is large enough and the lungs are developed enough but hospital policy does not stipulate anything more than “gestational age” or weight as part of their medical assistance requirements. Which may mean the baby was “big” enough despite the number of weeks of development but no one wants to “buck” hospital policy?? (guessing here)
When a baby is aborted in an actual abortion clinic, very little in the way of rules, policy or legal mandates would apply. The objective here, is of course, abortion. The woman seeking a termination, shedules and pays for a procedure. She receives what she paid for, a terminated pregnancy. In most states that I have researched, there is no legal requirement that an abortion clinic posess the necessary equipment to provide, life saving support to a premature infant. (Also note, they don’t even have to call 911)
The only possible solutions, I as citizen can see are; move back the gestational limits, require hospitals and clinics to administer medical care to live born infants and to have an independent physican (not just the doctor performing the procedure) legitimately “chart” as to why the procedure is needed to preserve the health or life of the mother.
All of this apparently takes much time, legislation and an abundance of voter outrage.
Sad, huh?
Becky, Becky, Becky.
You’re making a blanket statement about prochoicers. Just ask Doug. Just ask SoMG. They know and acknowledge that “it” is human. And mercy! The things that they post!
Not so much that those fetuses aren’t human, because that would fly in the face of science, but it’s about a whole scope of other things.
And no, I’m not going to get into a debate with you, Doug. A year and a half of the lectures is enough for me.
Good analysis, Somebody.
sad is an understatment! i am so frustrated right now (if you can’t already tell!) that a young girl who doesn’t understand the big picture can just go get rid of the “inconvience”
Friends:
Please pray for my friend’s newborn nephew Daniel.
Daniel is a few days old and weighs 1 lb, 2 oz. He was prematurely born via C-section because the mom became ill.
Daniel is having surgery tomorrow as he has stage 3 to 4 bleeding in the brain.
Thanks Elizabeth for the heads up. I am still crying about Carhart from the other thread. Not up for video right now.
Becky,
I couldn’t even watch it. I was getting all upset because I couldn’t find the button to stop the video because I was.just.not.prepared. I already saw more than I wanted to. It is a horrible thing. I just feel like saying, “I’ll take them, give me the baby PLEASE!”
No problem Carla! I was definitely worried about you seeing it too!
HisMan,
So sorry, your friend’s nephew will definitely be in my prayers.
elizabeth, i know exactly how you feel! i want to take all the unwanted bwbies in the world home with me. my husband and i are talking about adopting. right now our youngest is 6 months so it won’t be for a while!
:-) :-) :-)
Thanks, Carder! I’m trrrryiiing to learn. :-)I knew a bit about it a few years ago but am not nearly so well versed or knowledgeable as most of you here.
Hey Becky, yeah, sad is an understatement, at best. I’m new here, so I try not to offend anyone else with tooo much emotion.
Yes, indeed, why wouldn’t they? The answer is, they do, of course. They just don’t need a law telling them they have to.
Posted by: Hal at August 20, 2008 3:17 PM
Apparently they do need a law Hal. Did you miss the part where Jill’s hospital was shelving babies in a dirty linen closet so they suffer alone to their death? Forest???Trees????
BTW, how SAAAADDD is it that a law would need to tell someone to do the right thing in the first place???? The pro-abort agenda has done a great job in diminishing human life. These babies are as disposable as an empty fast food bag.
speaking of babies, mines got a temp and i need to get going! thank you all for letting me vent for a bit!
“The pro-choice followers always say that a baby is not human until it is born and breathes it’s first breath. If that is true than why wouldn’t anyone help those babies that survived the abortions? They are human, right? You woudn’t walk by some person on the street gasping for air and do nothing. Soooo…why are they allowed to do that to an innocent child?
Posted by: becky at August 20, 2008 2:58 PM”
“Yes, indeed, why wouldn’t they? The answer is, they do, of course. They just don’t need a law telling them they have to.”
Posted by: Hal at August 20, 2008 3:17 PM
Um Hal, are you calling Jill a liar by saying that abortionists DO indeed do everything they can to save the life of a baby who survived an abortion??? They didn’t and in some cases still don’t, and that is the point of all of this, isn’t it?
And lets say they did, just because we don’t practice slavery (unless you consider how the U.S is handling immigrants as of late), doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be laws keeping people from doing so.
Hisman, I’ll definitely be praying for little Daniel. The NICU is a tough place for a new parent to be, so I’ll definitely be praying for his parents as well.
Hal,
If you consider this staement true and correct, (since you wrote it and all..)
“Yes, indeed, why wouldn’t they? The answer is, they do, of course. They just don’t need a law telling them they have to.”
How can you explain this particular brand of “protection”? I’m just curious.
J A N
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=37493
http://www.uexpress.com/cgi-bin/sendtoafriend/emailcomic.cgi?uc_full_date=20050504&uc_comic=mg&site_ref=uexpress
http://www.dr-tiller.com/their-own-words.htm
Hi Jill,
I first read about the Born Alive issue last January and have monumental respect for your work. You are one great lady and a great American!
Three questions—
First, did the federal Born Alive bill in 2002 have any impact on getting health care for the aborted infants? Obama’s camp claims that the federal bill was merely symbolic, but I would think that if any hospital provided care under funds like Medicaid, they would be required to follow the provisions of the federal bill.
Second, how widespread among hospitals in the country was the practice of witholding medical care from these infants when you began your Illinois campaign?
And third, although the Obama group argues about “pre-viable” vs. “viable” infants, how many aborted babies have lived as a result of providing medical care to them?
If these questions are already answered in your archives, just let me know, and I’ll hunt!
Thanks again!
Pro-aborts would do themselves good if they could get the definition of ‘birth’ changed… like… say, first breath. Because then a mother who doesn’t want a baby could deliver it in the tub and have it killed before lifting him out of the water.
Think about it. In a pro-abort’s mind this might be a safe, natural, at-home alternative.
Becky- let me see if I can help unwrap some of my thinking for you.
For one, in every bill proposed to the House and Senate, there is way more subtext than the basic purpose of the bill. The Born Alive act consists of a massive amount of substance, some of which has nothing to do with the actual issue at hand. For example, his original issue was that the first proposal did not have an abortion neutrality clause, which means that the bill did not spell out that it would not interfere with a woman’s right to choose. HisMan is wrong in that aspect- abortion access has EVERYTHING to do with a woman’s right to only incubate when she wants to.
So basically, Obama doesn’t have a problem with the concept of the bill. In fact, a version of it was recently passed in Illinois, the state in which Obama is a senator, but only after including a section that guarenteed that abortion rights would not be affected.
Did that help a bit?
Erin, I think you might have missed the part that just came out showing that Obama not only voted against a *similar* bill to the federal BAIPA, but actually voted against the bill with identical wording to the federal bill. In 03 there was a “neutrality” clause added to the bill so that it would mirror the federal bill exactly.
Obama still voted against it.
Erin,
Obama voted against the bill even with the neutrality clause added.
Hey Hal,
I forgot this one, oops.
http://www.mttu.com/Articles/The%20Abortionist%20Speaks.htm
just a nobody,
You are now “somebody” – go for it – new name?
Carder: Becky, you’re making a blanket statement about prochoicers. Just ask Doug. Just ask SoMG. They know and acknowledge that “it” is human. And mercy! The things that they post!
Right, “human” is not at issue.
…..
Not so much that those fetuses aren’t human, because that would fly in the face of science, but it’s about a whole scope of other things.
And no, I’m not going to get into a debate with you, Doug. A year and a half of the lectures is enough for me.
Carder, what debate? You have learned well, it seems – and I’m not saying it’s from any “lecturing,” but there you’re just right – pro-choicers are really not saying “not human” for the unborn. It’s good that you don’t need to generalize incorrectly, nor pretend that the opposition’s position is other than what it is.
Now then, you didn’t lecture Becky too hard, didja? ; )
FWIW, I think she has a point – born babies should be cared for, have rights, etc.
Becky,
Welcome. I hope you stick around. Fresh faces are so very welcome.
Same to you “Somebody”…You guys are great!
There are many prochoicers here at Jills, and they all seem to have a different view of what constitutes human life.
Some don’t believe it is human life until birth. Some at 3 months. Some at viablility. And some, like SoMG believe just like you and I do that it is a full human person from the moment of conception, but that you still have the right to kill it as it is unwanted and occupying a womans body.
Most pro choicers NEVER look at this from the childs end. It’s all about the woman. Most pro lifers look first at the child, and then to the woman. We want what is best for both but recognize that ending the childs life is NEVER best…for anyone.
While I have grown accustomed to the argument that a woman has the right to destroy the life growing inside of her for any reason, I am newly shocked that Hal, Erin and others are willing to allow BORN children to be treated this way to protect that right. If not directly, then by defending Obamams postition.
I like these people. Erin and Hal have been here for going on two years. This isn’t personal. They both, as do most of the pro choicers here, have some great qualities as people. BUT, when it comes to this issue, it seems like nothing is too extreme, provided their right to abortion is protected.
You are right that this can be a religious argument. Many of us are people of faith, some Catholic, some protestant. We believe in an objective moral law, written by God Himself and that all human life is sacred.
BUT there are others here that believe abortion is wrong and have no religious affiliation. Pip is a great example. Elizabeth, while a believer, has not quite pinned the whole thing down yet and therefore does not use religion in her debates. Mary, a brilliant woman, never uses religion either.
Some argue with facts, some argue with philosophy, some from faith…all with passion.
As you can see, we are but a small sample of the general population, and WE don’t all agree. Neither side. And around we go.
Imagine how much harder when you open the debate to the general public. People without facts, people with wrong “facts”, people who’ve had abortions and regret them, people who’ve had them and don’t regret them, and even SoMG, our resident abortionist…
whew…anyway, that’s why something that seems so simple has become so complicated…
Welcome to Alices’ Rabbit Hole…
“I am newly shocked that Hal, Erin and others are willing to allow BORN children to be treated this way to protect that right. If not directly, then by defending Obamams postition.”
I’m not willing to let born children to be treated in any bad way. Nor have I defended Obama’s position, other than to say it’s not “supporting infanticide.” In fact, I have said I would probably have voted for the bill if in his shoes. (although I’m wavering a bit on that of late). Obama voted against it. He didn’t think the law was a good idea, for whatever reason, but not because, as far as I can tell, he supports infanticide. That’s an outrageous statement and it’s so “out there” that it will be mocked and dismissed. Maybe he thought it would undermine Roe v. Wade, maybe he thought it was unnecessary given the 1975 law that did the same thing, maybe he thought it was part of a larger pro-life agenda to attack doctors who perform abortions. It doesn’t matter, unless you really expect people to believe he is in favor of killing children.
Why don’t you attack his support of Freedom of Choice Act? That at least is factual. Oh, because you know that has broad support. And making up crap about Obama being a baby killer might just stick. I’m disgusted by the whole affair. Rabbit Hole indeed.
*salutes Hal*
Also, MK, you know good and well that I don’t support letting any born babies suffer. Nor, for that, does Obama.
Let me ask something. What, precisely, has the BAIPA done? Has it actually done ANYTHING tangible?
BAIPA probably influences doctors to make sure the fetus is dead before it is removed. So, not much of a victory to pro-lifers.
Hey, maybe that’s why Obama opposed it.
Pip is a great example. Elizabeth, while a believer, has not quite pinned the whole thing down yet and therefore does not use religion in her debates. Mary, a brilliant woman, never uses religion either.
MK, you are right. You too.
: )
Erin, I think Hal is right. BAIPA would have some doctors saying, “We’ve gotta do this differently.”
How are things, anyway?
mk,
thank you for the welcome! i hope i can go out and spread the message with everything i have learned here!
Hal @ 7:47,
I’m not willing to let born children to be treated in any bad way. Nor have I defended Obama’s position, other than to say it’s not “supporting infanticide.” In fact, I have said I would probably have voted for the bill if in his shoes. (although I’m wavering a bit on that of late). Obama voted against it. He didn’t think the law was a good idea, for whatever reason, but not because, as far as I can tell, he supports infanticide. That’s an outrageous statement and it’s so “out there” that it will be mocked and dismissed. Maybe he thought it would undermine Roe v. Wade, maybe he thought it was unnecessary given the 1975 law that did the same thing, maybe he thought it was part of a larger pro-life agenda to attack doctors who perform abortions. It doesn’t matter, unless you really expect people to believe he is in favor of killing children.
Have you read Jill’s archived story I linked to on another thread? She explains the parts of the 1975 Illinois Abortion Law that Obama didn’t care enough about to consider before he voted.
Here it is again:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/07/obama_relevant.html
Hal,
You are misconstruing my words. I NEVER said that Obama wants born babies to die. I never said he was a baby killer…
What I said was that he was willing to protect a womans “sacred” right to choose even at the expense of born childrens lives. He is willing to ALLOW them to die.
Please stop saying that I think Obama is FOR infanticide. He is for allowing it. You are the first one to make a distinction between pro choice and pro abortion. I NEVER call you guys pro abortion. I respect that you see a difference. I wish you’d respect that I see a difference between actively killing a born child and refusing to vote for a law that would ban such a practice.
Sometimes NOT doing anything is a sin. Sometimes allowing horrible behavior, is a disgrace.
Supporting abortion rights, while saying you yourself would never have one, is a bad thing also.
So please quit twisting my words. What Obama has done is bad, very, very, bad. But I am not ignorant enough to claim that it is equal to actually WANTING born babies dead!
A quick reminder-
If you find your comment deleted it may be because you took to name-calling or swearing or used Anonymous as your name. Please pick a name, take a deep breath and give us your thoughts without the insults.
Thanks and Welcome!
The Mod Squad
HI Hal,
Still waiting to hear why Obama opposed it. I don’t want to hear “probably” or “maybe” or even attempt to explain why he didn’t support BAIPA. I want to know WHY he voted against it. 3 times.
I would like to hear it from him.
Hal,
Lets talk about what it means to support a concept. A lot of people have the misconception that “to support” means to openly promote. However, as already implied of course, this idea is flawed. “To support” means to provide any help to a concept at all. This includes the removal of an obstacle. Obama intended and campaigned to remove the obstacle of this particular bill. The bill opposed infanticide. He removed it. He supports infanticide. Its pretty simply really, unless of course you are juking and spining to avoid the issue.
Now, you may be upset by the idea of infanticide, which means the murder of an infant. You may say that to support this concept, you have to be helping in some way the active destruction or cause of death for an infant. However, as the law and basic ethics show, murder, in the ethical sense, can be brought about by neglect (which is the crux of the abortion problem actually…the neglect.) Allowing an infant to slowly die without medical attention, for whatever reason, is infanticide.
So in conclusion, whether or not you like it, by voting against a bill that would prevent the neglect leading to death of an infant, Obama has in fact removed an obstacle to infanticide which is a form of support. To say otherwise is grasping at straws, and in the face of this argument is indicitive of your bias.
Carla at August 21, 2008 7:34 AM:
The Mod Squad
Hey Carla, which one are you?
What I said was that he (Obama) was willing to protect a womans “sacred” right to choose even at the expense of born childrens lives. He is willing to ALLOW them to die.
I agree MK, BUT this is the slippery slope TOWARDS acceptance of infanticide. If a woman wants her unborn baby dead and this right is protected even to the point that we “allow” the attending doctor to finish the job after birth, how can we deny this right to parents of born children who also wish their child dead because of disabilities, inconvenience etc?
Does Obama even realize the implications of his position? He’s not stupid. Peter Singer (Princeton ethicist) loves this sort of thing, because his thinking is simply a follow through of abortion-logic.
Exactly Patricia! I’m wondering when people are going to start being honest and hear something along the lines of
“Those babies who survive abortion are not worthy of life. They should not be given the recognition of personhood because they would have had a poor quality of life. Living with a disease or some type of sickness prolongs suffering in this world. On top of that, add the fact that these children are not wanted, and there is no reason to allow them to live.”
Seriously, this is where the country is headed, now is as good a time as any to expose that type of thinking. In fact, where is Peter Singer in all of this? His opinions on this NEEDS to be heard. I would love nothing more than for Fox, CNN, and all the major news channels to hold interviews with the chair of the Princeton Philosophy department. Then we can see that Obama hasn’t been vocal enough about allowing 0-3 month olds to die.
Bobby: What WOULD be interesting is to have Obama questioned on this. If he’s interested in protecting the right of a woman to kill her abortion-surviving baby (in order to protect the legitimacy of Roe vs Wade), why not extend this right to parents of disabled children? If not, why not? What IS the difference?
Truly, it is going down the rabbit hole!
Doug,
Such hard questions….still thinking…
HI Hal,
Still waiting to hear why Obama opposed it. I don’t want to hear “probably” or “maybe” or even attempt to explain why he didn’t support BAIPA. I want to know WHY he voted against it. 3 times.
Posted by: Carla at August 21, 2008 8:20 AM
Well, of course I can’t speak for the Senator.
but from Zorn’s blog:
Here’s some of what Obama said on April 4, 2002 during floor debate in the Illinois Senate:
The source of the objections of the (Illinois State) Medical Society (was that this proposal) puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact his is a non-viable fetus; that if that fetus, or child
So Hal, why did he not just say that? We did he say that the only reason he didnt vote was because it differed in language form the Federal bill, and that he would have voted for it had it had the same language? Why did he call us “folks” liars?
I could argue all day with that long paragraph, how it doesnt sync up with intentional preganancies that end at 20 weeks, and how doctors are shown frequently to be incompetent, but I just want to know why he called everybody liars.
Does he not know why? Did he forget on a bill that he personally spoke against?
I don’t know. He’s been busy. We can accept what he said at the time. Maybe he was right and maybe he was wrong, but he certainly had some thoughts about it other than his keen desire to “support infanticide.” That the part folks have beening lying aobut.
Hal,
Let’s read this again:
“b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a non-viable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician or his own accord or her own accord would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now if