Stick to the Obama/Born Alive talking points
I spent a great deal of time on the phone with 3 reporters from major news organizations the last 2 days, and each one became frustrated with me because I wouldn’t allow them to take me down rabbit trails when discussing Barack Obama’s opposition to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
All 3 times, I was the call they made…after the call they made to the Obama campaign, to Planned Parenthood or to the ACLU, so I was handed their talking points to rebut.
The other side is trying to obfuscate Obama’s opposition to Born Alive by saying: 1) it was part of a package of 3 bills with intolerable ramifications to abortion; and 2) although the verbiage of the federal and state bills was identical, the consequences to state law was not.
But I refused to deviate from these 2 points:
1. We now know Barack Obama as state senator voted against identical Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation that was passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and accepted by even NARAL.
2. For 4 years Barack Obama has misrepresented his vote and must answer for that.
The exasperated New York Times reporter finally complained, “They’re trying to broaden the discussion but you’re trying to narrow it,” as if I were the one to blame for that. I said of course they’re trying to move eyes off the ball, and of course I’m trying to stay focused.
Anyway, it wasn’t we who narrowed the discussion. It was Barack Obama himself, who has repeatedly stated he would have voted for Born Alive in IL had it been the same as the federal bill. He focused on one point – one bill – and so are we.
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.
Jill,
I would love to have been a fly on the wall for those conversations! Any news about if/when you’ll be on Hannity and could you PLEASE put up an audio of your interview with Laura Ingram yesterday?
Good on ya, Jill.
Jill:
People like Colmes are left arguing that no one really thinks Obama, who has two daughters, wants to hunt down these babies and kill them. A pretty weak straw man that won’t last.
This issue is going to be pasted to the chest of Obama and other pro abortion Democrats. Even the MSM came around, reluctantly, to the fact that the TANG memos Dan Rather trotted out were fake. Pro abortion politicians know most Americans don’t support late term abortions much less letting babies born alive die.
And Ann Coulter could (and should) kick Colmes’ butt in a wrestling match.
As someone pointed out earlier, having two daughters does NOT prove that he is against letting born infants die, because his daughters were once born infants.
His daughters were once fetuses too. But he has no problem killing them.
What I want to know is what happened to Obama between the time he approved the addition of the neutral language and the time he voted against it.
Did he get a call from a NARAL-babe demanding that he rescind? Was his political support from the abortion lobby threatened?
Did they demand that he set the example as the most pro-choice candidate so he could maintain their support when he ran for President?
Or maybe something else happened.
Inquiring minds want to know . . .
How soon do you think we’ll see Obama on television saying, “I opposed the bill because of other bills attached.”
or…
“Look. I opposed that bill because it would have serious consequences for Illinois that the Federal Bill didn’t.”
???
Oh, gotta love politics. When you have something that looks bad, it’s up to you to misdirect the viewer. It seems this is Obama’s only out on this one.
Good job Jill!
That’s interesting Jill. No surprize though, many of MSM, especially the Old-York times will try to cover this up for Obama.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/08/19/media-continue-ignore-obama-abortion-lies-get-deeper
Jill,
What was the oldest gestational age aborted under this practice at Christ hospital? Have you talked with other nurses at other hospitals where this was being practiced?
Prayers continue!
Associated Press story on Obama/Born Alive
From the Associated Press, today: … “For people to suggest that I and the IL Medical Society, so IL’s doctors, were somehow in favor of withholding lifesaving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous,” he recently told the Christian…
“People like Colmes are left arguing that no one really thinks Obama, who has two daughters, wants to hunt down these babies and kill them. A pretty weak straw man that won’t last.”
I don’t know if that’s really a stawman Zee, there are some at this site who believe the record establishes “Obama supports infanticide.” It’s crazy, I know, but they say it.
I don’t know if that’s really a stawman Zee, there are some at this site who believe the record establishes “Obama supports infanticide.” It’s crazy, I know, but they say it.
What would you call it Hal??? How exactly would you spin it?
He had the opportunity to protect living breathing born children who under the constitution have every right that any american has, and he chose NOT to support it. So what IS he supporting, if not the right to let born babies die?
Don’t forget, those babies were explicity protected by a 1975 law. So, this bill was simply polticial grandstanding.
If those baby’s were explicitly protected, then why wasn’t Christ hospital prosecuted?
*babies
Andrew @ 9:30 AM
Andrew – it all happened in the very same Committee meeting on March 12, 2003. Obama was very busy running it because he was the chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee.
Hit the link and check it out:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/obama_continues.html
Don’t forget, those babies were explicity protected by a 1975 law. So, this bill was simply polticial grandstanding.
Hal, weren’t there exceptions in the 1975 law for non-sustainable babies, though?
I think the issue was palliative care or not.
Doug, and Hal,
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/07/obama_relevant.html
Check Jill’s explanation at link above.
Jill explains the loophole in the 1975 Illinois law which failed to protect babies who were “unexpectedly” born alive (which had been deemed “non-viable” by the abortionist prior to the abortion).
As I understand, In these cases, since they were deemed non-viable, the abortionist was not required to have a second doctor available in case the baby lived.
Hal:
It’s a straw man because no one is saying Obama wants these babies to die, he just doesn’t want to require the hospital to try to save them. If you want to argue those are the same thing, fine. I don’t know if Obama wants these babies to die. I do know he blocked changing the law to help them live.
Either way Obama should be held responsible for his actions as a IL senator.
Hey Janet, thanks.
I do have to hand it to Jill for having good links to stuff. When one is interested, it’s cool to really be able to “dig into” it.
Doug @ 8:47,
Hey Janet, thanks.
I do have to hand it to Jill for having good links to stuff. When one is interested, it’s cool to really be able to “dig into” it.
You’re welcome. I agree. It takes a while to “digest” some of these topics! Using the “search box” is a great way to find archived articles.
Janet, I have to laugh – thanks again – I’d never even noticed the search box. I’d always Google what I was looking for…