WashPo confirms but can’t “fathom” Obama’s Born Alive votes

Ohden said that Obama “voted to deny basic Constitutional protections for babies born alive from an abortion.” This is true in the sense that the Illinois bills would have guaranteed certain protections for these infants. But Ohden’s claim lacks context: Obama’s objections to the bill suggest that he wasn’t so much bent on denying rights to newborns as wanting to block any legislation that could erode the premise of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Ohden earns one Pinocchio for her slanted take on the president’s position….

Granted, we don’t know why Obama voted against the 2003 bill that included a clause to protect abortion rights. The measure never made it out of committee, and comments from the meetings are not recorded. Nonetheless, we find it hard to fathom that the former senator expressed a belief that human life is disposable outside the womb.

~ The Washington Post “fact checker” Josh Hicks, unable to explain away President Obama’s BAIPA votes, instead accuses abortion survivor Melissa Ohden of “slanting” Obama’s record on the legislation in a new SBA List campaign ad, September 10

[Photo via RedStick]

38 thoughts on “WashPo confirms but can’t “fathom” Obama’s Born Alive votes”

  1. One of the peculiarities of performing a very late-term abortion is that life — rather than death — can cause panic.  A physician expecting a dead fetus and finding instead a live baby can panic. There had been several cases in which such panicked physicians allegedly strangled or suffocated these babies. There were other cases in which they were just neglected.

    When medical personnel expecting a dead fetus are surprised by a live baby there is a sense of — what do we DO?  A law was necessary to ensure that what they did was immediately care for that baby and try to preserve the unexpected life.

    The “choice” of the pregnant female was now irrelevant.  The baby had parted company with her body. This had to be clarified in the law.

       9 likes

  2. This is true in the sense that the Illinois bills would have guaranteed certain protections for these infants.

    Why in the world does a state have to guarantee protections to it’s citizens?  Why have a government at all, if not to secure the rights of it’s citizens – including the inalienable right to life?

    The problem is, you live on that very premise, but I want you to consider for a moment that premise being gone – like it was when the shooter opened up in Aurora.  Your life Josh, is in the hands of everyone you cross paths with.  Every child, no matter what their age, is a human being deserving of full protection. Even from their parents, and those hired to kill them.

    I also think you’re an incredibly poor “fact-checker” if you can’t put together the “why Obama voted the way he did”, given all his support.

    Here – read a story:  
    http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/05/a-born-alive-parable/

    And Josh – stop pretending you’re being objective. The rest of us can tell who is pulling your strings.  At least Pinocchio didn’t have those.

       18 likes

  3. Three pinocchios to the WaPo for denying reality because they can’t fathom how beholden their golden idol is to abortion.

       12 likes

  4. Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? It’s pretty lame to just take at face value Obama’s weak excuse that he was just protecting Roe v. Wade. Way to dig deeper, there. The point is someone more valuable than a law needed some protection.
     
    And Denise, your trying to get in the heads of rapists, “girls with big bellies”, and now abortionists has long passed being tedious.
     
    I don’t care to sympathize with a hitman because his victim made his job difficult.

       12 likes

  5. One of the peculiarities of performing a very late-term abortion is that life — rather than death — can cause panic.  A physician expecting a dead fetus and finding instead a live baby can panic. There had been several cases in which such panicked physicians allegedly strangled or suffocated these babies. There were other cases in which they were just neglected.

    I don’t know too many OBGYNs who panic upon seeing live babies, thereby strangling them.

    One would have to provide death for a living in order to react in such a way.  And “panic” would have very little to do with it.

    Gosnell and his people joked and laughed while their infant victims twitched after having their spinal cords severed, Denise.  They did NOT “panic.”  They were cold-blooded killers.

       20 likes

  6. Denise – you’e completely ignoring the conflict of interest an abortionist has in completing his job. It has nothing to do with panic – it has everything to do with liability. Go listen to the audio – that’s precisely the point Obama makes – are these abortionists liable for misdiagnosis?  That Ob-Gyns say the child has some problem – then discovers through an induced labor abortion, there is nothing wrong with the child. Are they liable? By then, it’s too late – they’ve removed the “perfect child” from the womb, and if the child is still alive, are liable for a) a bad initial diagnosis and; b) failing to kill the child, which they were hired to do.  

    The conflict of interest is baked into the activity.

    But the real problem is advocacy of abortion in the first place, and it comes down to it being a profitable thing.  I have a neighbor who was told her child had Down Syndrome, and to abort him. She said no, and it turns out there was nothing wrong at all with him.   

    Do the research – it’s not that difficult.

       10 likes

  7. It doesn’t matter how Obama and his minions try to justify his vote by dressing it up with sorry excuses and selective verbiage. The words are empty. The bottom line is that he would rather protect someone’s right to KILL, rather than a baby’s right to LIVE.

       23 likes

  8. The bottom line is that he would rather protect someone’s right to KILL, rather than a baby’s right to LIVE.

    Yes, that really IS the bottom line.

    The Washington Post seems to feel that he was justified in voting against saving children because he worried it would affect R v. W, but then they really can’t explain why he voted against saving children once he knew R v. W wouldn’t be affected. 

    They can’t explain it because they don’t really WANT to have to explain it. 

    It’s called DENIAL.

       15 likes

  9. Obama tried to say that he trusted the attending doctor’s judgement.  What BO failed to acknowledge is that the attending doctor is in a conflict of interest.  The attending doctor was hired to kill/abort the baby. 

    If President BO thinks there is no conflict of interest for the attending doctor because the doctor has an ethical obligation to the aborted living child because the said child is living he is making two revealing and startling admissions:  1) that the born child is human and a legal person; 2) he is admitting that he is able to determine when human life begins for legal purposes and that such a determination is not above his pay grade.

    President BO is a nasty shark.  I would call him an ambulance chaser type of lawyer but that would be too kind.  Unlike the ambulance chaser type of lawyer who waits for an accident to happen, President BO facilitates the accident!! 

       10 likes

  10. “Nonetheless, we find it hard to fathom that the former senator expressed a belief that human life is disposable outside the womb.”

    I find it hard to fathom that anyone expresses a belief that human life is disposable period, but YOU DO, so yeah um… you fail.

       11 likes

  11. Alright, then.  So it’s a question of priorities (apart from that 2003 vote, which is too difficult for the factcheckers to fathom so we’ll set it aside for now).  Suppose Ohden had said something along the lines of the following:

    “President Obama’s position on abortion is so extreme that, as a state legislator, he repeatedly indicated that he would sooner allow an abortionist to leave a newborn infant in a closet to die than allow a hypothetical, distant legal challenge to Roe v. Wade.”

    So you have your context.  Would that have earned a coveted Geppetto Checkmark, or would they have just ignored the ad?

       14 likes

  12. The first startling admission of President BO should have read:

    1) that the born child is human and a legal person despite the child’s gestational age.

       9 likes

  13. Nonetheless, we find it hard to fathom that the former senator expressed a belief that human life is disposable outside the womb.

    Say this is true (which I don’t believe for a second). Does it really matter? I don’t really care why he voted against BAIPA. My problem lies in the fact that he did, plain and simple.

       10 likes

  14. If we’re going to start denying things because they’re hard to fathom, I guess we’re going to stop hearing this myth that pro-lifers want to let pregnant women with life threatening conditions die. That’s hard to fathom, so it is clearly false. 

       13 likes

  15. “The bottom line is that he would rather protect someone’s right to KILL, rather than a baby’s right to LIVE.”

    Heather, no one has summarized his position better than you have with this line.  Kudos.

       17 likes

  16. I read where one political pundit compared the b o post convention ‘bounce’ in the polls to that of a ‘dead cat’.

    Contemplate that visual for a few moments.

    I am reminded once again of b o not wanting his teenage daughter to be punished with a baby. Not just any baby, but the unfortunate grandchild of b o and moochelle.

    Let that concept saturate your psyche.

    There is nothing that is not above this beasts paygrade and there is nothing that is beneath this barabarians cold dead heart. 

    Those who obfuscate and equivocate for him are more contemptible than he is.

                       

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnY8r7_fLw

       9 likes

  17. Oh, Denise!  Sometimes you make so much sense, but then, I see a comment like today’s.  You’ve made a lot of anti-adoption comments, citing your own fear that adopted people become serial killers.  Then, you actually come off as sypmathetic to paid ghouls who, what the hey!, deliver an accidentally living BABY.   Good grief, girl!  And who clicked like on that 4 times??!!

    I am sooooo writing your name in our Book of Intercessions this weekend!  You need a little grace shed on ya!   Abortion abolition can’t happen soon enough.  We as a society can’t heal until we see ALL human life as precious and worth protecting.  

       12 likes

  18. Kenthebirther, that was an excellent video link – what a sentence!
    That video derserves a thread all to itself. 

       3 likes

  19. To all my critics: You seem to overlook the fact that I’m on YOUR SIDE on this issue.  I fully support the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. I was just pointing out the truth that it was not just a matter of spinning wheels but was actually NEEDED because of what was in fact going on when an abortion produced a live baby. Babies like Tim, the Oldenburg Baby, WERE being neglected.  Other babies were being strangled or suffocated when to everyone’s surprise they came out alive.
    I was simply explaining why, contrary to Obama’s belief, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was NEEDED.

       4 likes

  20. @ninek: I’m not against adoption. I just point out certain TRUTHS about it. The truth is that adoptees are 2-3% of the population — and 16% of serial murderers. Adoptee David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz started murdering women in lovers’ lanes because he feared that if they got pregnant and carried to term, they would place babies for adoption as he had been placed for adoption. 
    Adoptee Joel Rifkin has said, “My whole life is about adoption.” He strangled prostitutes because he feared that if they got pregnant and carried to term, they would place babies for adoption.
    It is also statistically true that adoptees are 15 times more likely to kill 1 or both parents than other people.
    There are many cases of adopted people who have been wonderfully successful.
    It is also true that even after all pregnancies are planned and abortion is pretty much a thing of the past — a time that I believe will come — there will still be adoption. Mothers will die in childbirth or for other reasons. Mothers will find out that they just don’t enjoy raising a baby and want to place it with someone else.
    However, adoption has many pitfalls. The truth is that when a woman carries to term and gives birth, HER body is prepared to nourish that baby with her breast milk.  The experience of carrying and giving birth bonds mother and baby.  This is one reason I have reservations about “surrogate motherhood.”
    Adoptees are often tormented by questions about their origins and have a sense of a kind of dual identity.  This may to some extent be addressed by open adoption. However, according to keepyourbaby.com, open adoption is like a lovely candy box — with nothing inside. The birthmother loses legal rights and the adoptive parents are free to close the adoption at any time.
    Someone once said, “The choices aren’t legal or illegal abortion. There’s adoption.”
    I say, “The choices aren’t abortion or adoption. We should work to bring closer the time in which the women who get pregnant are the ones who want to have and raise babies.” 

       0 likes

  21. Uh, you need to read your own comment again, bearing in mind that Jill’s blog is a pro-life blog. 

    If you were on our side, the law wouldn’t need to be clarified; abortion needs to be completely abolished!!   Gosnell LAUGHED and JOKED.   “He-he, this one is so big he could walk me to the bus stop.”   Indeed.   

      Maybe you don’t like abortion because it’s disgusting, but lots of pro-choicers find abortion disgusting (that’s why they hate the abortion photos).  That doesn’t make them pro-life, not by a long shot.   Have you really been coming to this blog this long and still not understand?   

    You read ONE lousy, badly-written book that convinced you that an adoption agency is a serial killer factory, and yet month after month.. you come here and NOTHING rubs off on you!!

    Addin’ you to the prayers, cuz it can’t hurt! 

       8 likes

  22. @Ninek: I’m on your side about the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. I strongly supported its passage.

       1 likes

  23. My views on adoption come from multiple sources. It is not based on one article or even completely on articles. I emailed a married woman planning to place her baby for adoption who described the pregnancy as “sheer hell.”  I read a letter to Dear Abby signed “Empty Arms” about the pain a young woman suffered who placed her baby for adoption. I’ve written two articles about adoptees. One was about Atlanta’s notorious “Handcuff Man,” Robert Lee Bennett Jr. who tortured homosexual prostitutes and another was about Marlene Olive, an adoptee who murdered her adoptive parents. I also remember seeing a David Susskind program in which adoptees talked about how haunted they were about the question of their origins and how badly they wanted to find their biological mothers (and fathers if that was possible).
    Again, I’m not against adoption: mothers will inevitably die in childbirth or during the kid’s childhood. Women who badly want to become mothers will discover they don’t want to mother and place the baby for adoption. 
    I’ve just pointed out that there are negative facts associated with adoption and that it is strongly linked to certain murders, specifically serial murder and parricide. 

       0 likes

  24. The Infants Born Alive act is an ABOMINATION BECAUSE IT PRESUMES IT’S OK TO KILL LIVE HUMAN BABIES BEFORE THEY ARE BORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   WHAT PART OF PRO-LIFE DO YOU KEEP FAILING TO UNDERSTAND?!?!?!

    I don’t CARE a RAT’S TAIL why some mother wants to snuff her own child.  I DON’T CARE about her feelings because the child’s LIFE is more important than the mother’s TEMPORARY emotional state.  With abortion illegal, we can save thousands, even millions of lives.  Mothers who are traumatized by their past pregnancies can get treatment for that.  DEAD BABIES CAN’T RECEIVE ANY TREATMENT FOR ANY THING!!!   Non-mothers who are traumatized by inappropriate flirtations, pregnancies that never occurred, adoptions that never took place, and abortions that never happened can also receive treatment for their mental health problems.  In fact, I highly recommend it.  HIGHLY.  Hint hint.  

    In the past, I’d told myself not to engage you in commentary, Denise, because you are not rational.  Then I’d go ahead and comment to you again.  No more.  I promise not to engage in dialog with you ever again.  I will keep it after today.   Everyone, if I forget and post a comment responding to Denise again, YOU HAVE MY EXPRESS PERMISSION TO SLAP ME WITH A PRO-ABORT’S SHOE!!!!! 

       10 likes

  25. ninek, it’s sorta like quicksand – the more you converse the deeper you sink – stay still. 

       5 likes

  26. Denise,
    I guess what it boils down to is that you have an intense interest in crime stories. And there’s no doubt that they originate in less-than-perfect childhoods. But it sounds almost as useless to us as “safe, legal, and rare” does from the abortion-tolerant side.
     
    We’re interested in stopping the million crime stories that occur ever year. Everyone deserves a chance to live their life for good or ill You seem to focus on those who will use their life for ill. But we can’t think like that.

       6 likes

  27. Tyler says:
    September 11, 2012 at 8:53 pm
    With that said, I think Denise’s views on this thread topic are sincere.

    (Denise) Whether many people like it or not, abortion is currently LEGAL.  It is legal into late stages of pregnancy.  THAT is why the Born Alive Infants Protection Act was needed.

       0 likes

  28. Hans Johnson says:
    September 11, 2012 at 10:33 pm
    Denise,I guess what it boils down to is that you have an intense interest in crime stories. And there’s no doubt that they originate in less-than-perfect childhoods. But it sounds almost as useless to us as “safe, legal, and rare” does from the abortion-tolerant side. We’re interested in stopping the million crime stories that occur ever year. Everyone deserves a chance to live their life for good or ill You seem to focus on those who will use their life for ill. But we can’t think like that.

    (Denise) I believe the way to increase the number who live their life for good is not through abortion but through concern about the circumstances of conception.  This is best within a stable and financially secure marriage.  It is not best in the back seat of a car between sweethearts. Being concerned about the circumstances of conception will also decrease abortions.  The ones conceiving should be mature married women who want to have and raise babies!  They won’t seek abortions.

       1 likes

  29. ninek,
    I had clicked ‘like’ on Denise’s comment.  It felt strange to do… based on her comments on most previous threads; but on this thread she has it right and I thought the last sentence of her post on this thread deserved positive reinforcement:
    “The “choice” of the pregnant female was now irrelevant.  The baby had parted company with her body. This had to be clarified in the law.”

       5 likes

  30. Denise,
    I agree with you. But we can’t wait for circumstances to improve so much that unwanted pregnancies don’t occur. We have to reach a majority concensus that abortion is wrong and should be outlawed.
     
    We didn’t promise slaveholders we would reimburse them for their slaves, or ask them to kindly not be dependent on them when their children inherit their estates.

       6 likes

  31. Among pro-lifers on the internet I’ve read a lot of debate about incremental changes vs total abolition.  I guess when I got my dander up, my true feelings emerged: as much as I will support incremental changes, I believe we need to work toward total worldwide no-exceptions pro-life from conception to natural death.  We can’t ensure everyone is happy or well-off, but we can sure as heck stop deliberately killing the weakest among us.  As hard as it is to fathom, a zygote really is a person.  We sure don’t look like ourselves at that age.  But that’s when our lives began. 
     
    Recently some pro-choicers chanted and yelled at a little girl that a baby isn’t a baby until it comes out.  But they don’t even believe that, many of them.  We have technology that lets us see even beyond the once-awe-inspiring electron microscope.  We know life doesn’t wait until birth to begin.  It was inhumane of Obama to oppose the decent treatment of babies who survive their own abortions.  But no baby should ever have to wake up to his or her own execution.  Ever.  I wish everyone would embrace life.

       8 likes

  32. @ Hans Johnson: Women who are pregnant and don’t want to carry to term are in some ways opposite the position of slaveholders.  The slaveholder wants the slave RETURNED so the slave can work on behalf of the slaveholder.
    The pregnant woman is EXPELLING the unborn who need HER work in order to live.
    I agree that abortion is repulsive.  But it’s not analogous to slaveholding. It is an expulsion.
    There is MUCH that can be done to decrease the appalling number of unplanned pregnancies.

       0 likes

  33. Now that Obama is a seasoned President, could someone please ask him again when life begins?????  He’s supposed to be four years older and wiser now. 

       7 likes

  34. You don’t suppose Obama is tired of being president and wants to quit? Because everyday he makes a better case for us to vote for Romney. I have nothing against Romney, but I feel I’m being corralled into voting for him. But what’s at the end of the chute??

    A few years ago, Rush Limbaugh (I think it was) was beginning his radio shows with the phrase “The Stop Hillary Express.” In hindsight, I do wonder now if H. Clinton (who was in fact neck-n-neck with Obama in most primaries) might have been a better president. I think she’d be a one-termer, but it’s one of those things that makes me go hmmm….

       2 likes

  35. The fact checker comes close but then seems to deliberately miss the point by claiming, “Obama’s objections to the bill suggest that he wasn’t so much bent on denying rights to newborns as wanting to block any legislation that could erode the premise of the Roe v. Wade decision” and then calling Ohden’s take on Obama’s position “slanted.”  The crucial point is that Obama loved legal-abortion more than abortion-surviving babies in need of lifesaving medical care — he was willing to sacrifice the survivors (born persons even by his standards) to make sure that other (unborn) babies would not survive.  Chilling.

       3 likes

Comments are closed.