GOP’s Abortion Barbie causes a meltdown – of more than just the GOP


I was leaving the One Voice worship service at the Renaissance Hotel in D.C. Wednesday night, on my way to meet fellow pro-lifers at the Dubliner Pub (dichotomous activities, I know, at least for a Protestant :), when Casey Mattox of Alliance Defending Freedom stopped me in the hall.

“They’re pulling the 20-week ban,” said Casey, “and substituting ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion‘.”

Casey started walking again, but I remained frozen, with my mouth agape, watching Casey until he entered disappeared around a corner.

I knew Rep. Renee Ellmers had tried to slow progress of the Pain Capable Child Protection Act.

But it was beyond the scope of my imagination to think GOP House leadership could be so traitorous, weak, and stupid as to pull a publicly supported landmark pro-life bill they’d publicly promised to sign the following day – during the largest public annual pro-life gathering in the world, and literally in their own backyard.

My shock turned to anger, and at all involved – Ellmers for fomenting a pro-abortion talking point the other side had never even thought of, and House leadership for their “deflated balls,” as Sarah Palin aptly put it, when it came to the pro-abortion cabal, but balls of steel when it came to such a brazen and senseless betrayal of their base.

M001165I learned House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (pictured right) had broken the news to bill co-sponsor Trent Franks earlier in the evening at an inopportunely timed pro-life reception at which McCarthy was scheduled to speak.

Leaving a tearful Franks and pro-life leaders in his wake, McCarthy departed without giving that speech. What could he say?

This led to a tweet that was a bit out of character for me (two Guinnesses helped, I’m sure) but conveying the emotion I felt at the moment, which frankly hasn’t dissipated…

Yesterday morning I woke up crying, and I pretty much haven’t stopped. The emotion of holding the 21-week-old abortion survivor at Christ Hospital has returned.  Maybe I’m experiencing PTSD, dunno. I haven’t been this upset about it in years.

The 20-week ban was so close. It needed to get to Barack Obama’s desk. If he blocked it, well, been there, done that with the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

But for our own side to abandon these babies, especially when they had the power not to, well, it makes me want to punch somebody.

Well, not really. I had the chance to do that yesterday and passed on it.

19631As I said, I woke up crying. And an idea I had broached with friends at the Dubliner the night before (that’s us brainstorming, right) to protest Ellmers’ office took hold.

More than that, for the first time since I joined the pro-life movement 15 years ago, I felt I was in the midst of an unjust moment in time for which I was willing to commit civil disobedience during the protest – in honor of that baby.

So Reverend Pat Mahoney and I started organizing our protest. And when a reporter oddly but coincidentally asked if I was prepared to be arrested, I said yes.

This piqued the media’s interest. Calls started coming in. “You’re willing to be arrested?” I was asked by MSNBC, CBS, etc.

The prospect also terrified Ellmers’ staffers, I’m told. (By the time of our protest Ellmers had gutlessly left town.)

So when we, together with a group from Students for Life of America, showed up at Ellmers’ office at the appointed time of 3 p.m., news cameras were waiting, and three of Ellmers’ staff stood outside her locked door – to preclude a sit-in – with a bucket of iced refreshments.


So after pro-life spokespersons, including me, made their statements, and Ellmers’ people responded with, “We’re here to listen, we want to hear you,” blah blah blah…


… I was ready for my sit-in but had nowhere to sit but in what was fast becoming an empty hall, which seemed pretty lame.

There were seven capitol policemen ready to arrest me, but their boss told me that would only happen if I broke a window or punched somebody. Otherwise, no.

So unable to civilly but disobediently take a stand for the little 21-weeker who was being cast aside by Republicans, along with thousands of his friends in the name of political cowardice, I glumly left to crash at my daughter’s house, drained from the emotional roller coaster of the past 24 hours, which had started on such a high note and ended with PTSD.

Today I woke up crying again.

This all reminds me of the time the Born Alive Infants Protection Act failed in Illinois for the first time. I was naive and so taken by surprise I began sobbing uncontrollably and had to be led to a bathroom by my friend Fran Eaton to compose myself.

But the first, second, third, and fourth fails of BAIPA were for a reason. Had BAIPA passed without a hitch, the pro-infanticide proclivity of then no-name state Sen. Barack Obama would never have been known. This has served more than one good purpose, I think, for instance to further educate the American public on the barbarism of abortion.

Is it a coincidence that it was only in 2009 that more Americans first told Gallup they were pro-life than pro-choice? And have polled our way five of nine times since? I don’t think so.

So I’ll return to the battle in faith that this setback, too, will somehow work for good.


[Photo of Dubliner via Brandi Swindell; photo of reporters via Andy Moore; photo of crowd via Kristina Hernandez of Students for Life of America; credit for “GOP’s Abortion Barbie”: Erick Erickson]

Some good commentaries to read on this catastrophe:

“Why everyone should be terrified of the GOP’s abortion bill debacle”

“Renee Ellmers says she won’t flip-flop on bill protecting viable infants from late-term abortion”

Planned Parenthood VP’s tweet supporting Republicans’ cave

“Why does @RepReneeEllmers want to protect rapists and abortionists?”

“The pro-life movement must stop being whores of the Republican Party”

Obama’s only act of “leadership” was voting to allow infanticide

baipaby Kelli

While president, Obama has not yet stood apart from his party or advisors. To find an example of daring leadership on the part of Obama, you have to go back to his days in the Illinois State Senate…. 

Illinois Senate Bill 1095 was named the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA)….

The goal of BAIPA was to fill the gap so that the surviving child of an abortion would receive the immediate care and legal protections all other newborns receive…. (i.e., no infanticide)

This is where Illinois Senator Obama’s fearless three-year stand on principle began…. Senator Obama, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, voted “No,” and the bill later failed to pass the Democrat-controlled House. “We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes,” said the abortion company’s Illinois president and CEO, Pam Sutherland.

The bill… was reintroduced by the Republican-controlled Senate…. It received two “No” votes by Senator Obama – his committee vote in March and his vote on the Senate floor in April…. Obama explained his “No” votes this way: “What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.”

Later that year the Federal BAIPA was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

The third Illinois BAIPA bill… was introduced in February 2003 in a Democrat-controlled Senate. This time Senator Obama was the chairman of the committee where he voted “Yes” in favor of adopting the federal BAIPA language, making the Illinois bill an exact copy of the federal law. Later that same day Senator Obama voted “No” on the bill, and it failed again in the Democrat House.

Senator Obama explained, “…physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions.” He further elaborated in a 2006 USA Today op-ed: “I can’t impose my religious views on another.”…

The Illinois BAIPA bill was signed into law one year after Obama left the Illinois Senate….

Not a single Democrat in the US Senate voted against the federal (anti-infanticide) BAIPA bill.

~ Karl Ushanka, American Thinker, March 31

[Image via]

Pro-life blog buzz 5-21-13

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email

  • Culture Campaign notes that despite the lack of reporting from mainstream media, Christians are successfully and quietly winning lawsuits against Obamacare’s HHS contraception/abortifacient mandate.
  • At the FRC Blog, Chris Gacek gives two updates on the federal prosecution of a Florida man who gave his six-weeks-pregnant girlfriend misoprostol without her knowledge, causing an abortion. This appears to be the third use of the state’s Unborn Victims of Violence Act to prosecute an offender.


  • At Bound4Life, Matt Lockett believes that God is using the horrors of the Kermit Gosnell (pictured left) trial to speak to the conscience of both the church and our nation. In part two of his series he writes:

    There is no question that the ugliest parts of the abortion industry are being exposed right now in increasing measure. The debate in the last few years has centered on birth control and so-called women’s health. These are huge topics for sure, but something has emerged in the meantime. We as a nation are now revisiting late-term abortion and infanticide in spite of the fact that Congress passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002. We’re revisiting it because there appears to be an increasing number of examples where BAIPA isn’t preventing the abortion industry from murdering constitutionally protected Americans. While this is obviously an enormous legal question for the nation to grapple with, I believe God is using infanticide to pierce our hearts and speak to us about abortion as a whole. God is weighing our response….

    The church cannot turn away from this question.

  • Euthanasia Prevention Coalition explains its opposition to the Assisted Dying Bill being introduced in the UK, which purports to assist in the suicides of only mentally competent adults with less than six months to live. However, as has been seen in several other countries, this will more than likely extend incrementally beyond this group.
  • The Guiding Star Project discusses the difficulties of delivering a child under 20 weeks who has died in utero:

    You see, in most states, unless you are at a private hospital (and even then it might not matter), babies stillborn under 20 weeks of gestation, or any fetal remains of a miscarriage or D & C must be treated as medical waste….

    In many places it is next to impossible for parents to obtain the remains of their babies or have them released to a funeral home for a proper burial. Since life insurance policies do not cover miscarried or stillborn children, the costs of a funeral and all the necessities are often too high for a family who wasn’t expecting to have to bury a baby.


  • Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life asks why ethical issues are not considered with regards to human cloning, when cloning “can be rejected on practical [as well as ethical] grounds”:

    Human cloning also raises other ethical concerns, including the commodification of human life; the dangers to the health (and possible exploitation) of women, from whom eggs must be harvested; the tenuous barrier between “therapeutic cloning” (SCNT for the purpose of killing cloned embryos to derive stem cells) and “reproductive cloning” (SCNT for the purpose of implanting cloned embryos in a woman’s uterus and allowing them to develop toward maturity), which could result in the birth of a cloned baby; and the possible development of other Brave New World technologies, such as genetic engineering….

    Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) seem to offer the same potential benefits as stem cells from cloned embryos (they are pluripotent and patient-matched), and they are easier and less expensive to produce. Moreover, every proven stem cell treatment to date has used ethically-uncontroversial adult stem cells. In short, the therapeutic benefits sought from human cloning can be achieved without it.

Obama can’t comment against Gosnell, because Obama stands with him

Opposed companion bill to Born Alive as state senator that sought to protect abortion survivors from the Gosnells of the world


Although President Obama had no trouble commenting on the ongoing Trayvon Martin case, White House spokesperson Jay Carney said today Obama wouldn’t be commenting on the Kermit Gosnell mass murder case because he “cannot take a position on an ongoing trial” or “comment further on an ongoing legal proceeding”…


Of course the White House wants to avoid this topic. What a disaster Gosnell is for Obama.

Gosnell first brings to Obama’s door the uncomfortable topic of infanticide. Obama is well known to have voted four times against the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act as state senator, which sought to protect abortion survivors.

But Obama also opposed two companion bills to BAIPA, one of which brings him zero degrees of separation from Gosnell. I was impressed with Fox’s Ed Henry, who went there in his questions to Carney today.

On April 4, 2002, Obama testified against Senate Bill 1663, which required abortionists to provide “reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice” to abortion survivors and to plan to have a second physician present if there was a “reasonable likelihood” that the abortion would result “in a live born child.”

You can read the entire transcript here, pages 28-35, but the gist of Obama’s opposition was that he had full faith in abortionists:

The only plausible rationale, to my mind, of this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor… (a) is going to make the wrong assessment, and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error… and… would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.

Now, if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill make sense, but I… feel…  an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician….

[I]f these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.

Obama could not fathom that an abortionist who had been paid to kill a baby wouldn’t turn around and try to save a viable baby’s life in the event of a botch.

Kermit Gosnell would have been one of the abortionists in which Obama had “confidence.” Most know by now Gosnell is on trial for murdering seven abortion survivors and one mother.

Gosnell was committing abortions in Pennsylvania at the very time this bill was being debated in Illinois. Who knows, perhaps Gosnell was “snipping” the spinal cord of an abortion survivor at the moment Obama testified to his sterling character. After all, the grand jury report stated Gosnell likely killed “hundreds” of abortion survivors during the three decades he was in business.

Barack Obama has stated on record that he stands with the Kermit Gosnells of America. He can’t walk that back without opening the door to regulations such as he rejected as state senator. So he’s stuck….

Planned Parenthood has opposed other anti-infanticide legislation: IL Born Alive Act

~ “Blessed” Obama’s opposition

479830_433518370067175_1027146459_nPlanned Parenthood’s recent opposition to Florida legislation seeking to protect abortion survivors sent shock waves around the country.

But this wasn’t the first time Planned Parenthood had opposed such legislation.

Planned Parenthood also actively fought Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act in the early 2000s, along with then state Senator Barack Obama. This legislation was introduced to protect known abortion survivors.

In fact, Planned Parenthood and Obama worked together as a team. From ABC News, July 17, 2007:

When Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, voted “present,” rather than “yes” or “no” on a handful of controversial abortion votes in the Illinois state senate, he did so with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

“We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes,” Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, 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.”…

Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting “present.” She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.

“He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,’” said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. “A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted.”

Obama indeed voted “present” on the Senate floor in 2001 for the Born Alive Act, SB1095, and two companion bills, SB1093 and SB1094. (Obama voted “no” on the Born Alive Act in committee that year, in committee and on the Senate floor in 2002, and in committee in 2003 – a total of four times.)

Planned Parenthood and Obama still opposed the Born Alive Act in 2003 – when it was worded identically to federal Born Alive legislation that had passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate, overwhelmingly in the U.S. House, and for which even NARAL went neutral. Click to enlarge…

2013-04-08_1536 noted on April 5 that in testimony on the aforementioned Florida Born Alive legislation, bill sponsor, Dr. Cary Pigman, cited perinatal infant mortality data indicating that in 2010 there were 1,270 infants reported born alive pursuant to botched abortions, “and I emphasize reported,” testified Dr. Pigman. So post-abortion infanticide is obviously much more prevalent than abortion supporters would have us believe.

Start watching video at 2:40:


Planned Parenthood official argues for right to post-birth abortion

Twitter_picAs reported by The Weekly Standard

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa LaPolt Snow [pictured right] the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said PP lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

“I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”


Florida HB1129 defines the term “born alive” almost as the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 did. An amendment to HB1129 added the federal BAIPA’s “neutrality clause.”

But HB1129 went further than the federal BAIPA by adding, as the sponsor testified (beginning at 11:02) during the committee hearing:

1. Parity, that regardless of how a born alive infant entered the world – natural birth, c-section, or abortion – s/he shall be treated with the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence. The bill provided that a born alive baby would immediately be transported to a hospital.

2. “Infant born alive” becomes a reportable item.

3. Surrender – “A work in progress,” according to the sponsor. The bill’s language originally assumed the baby was not wanted, since the mother had just paid to have him or her killed, and should be immediately surrendered to the state. The sponsor said an amendment was being crafted for the unique circumstance when an abortion was necessary for the health of the mother, which meant mean she likely would still want the infant born alive and give it loving care.

It was into this bill language mix that PP lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow stepped in.

The problems PP had with the bill were providing care, transport, and surrender.

state senator obama 3The former two are problems state Sen. Barack Obama had with a separate companion bill (page 33) to Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which for all intents and purposes was saying the same thing, that medical care of abortion survivors was to be taken out of the hands of the doctor who had been paid to kill them:

[A]n additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make thee assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion….

Obama agreed with Snow that, regarding the care of abortion survivor, as Snow testified, “any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

Snow was simply less artful than Obama. Plus, Obama had and still has the public and media snowed, as the Washington Post’s Josh Hicks demonstrated:

Granted, we don’t know why Obama voted against the 2003 bill that included a clause to protect abortion rights…. Nonetheless, we find it hard to fathom that the former senator expressed a belief that human life is disposable outside the womb.

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]

10th anniversary of signing of Born Alive Infants Protection Act

August 5 marks the 10th anniversary of President George W. Bush’s signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

Professor Hadley Arkes (third from left in photo) testified with me in Congress about BAIPA and penned melancholy thoughts, with which I agree, to mark the occasion at The Catholic Thing:

For the sake of averting the resistance, first of President Clinton and later of a Democratic Senate, the managers of the bill removed the penalties for failing to provide care to a newborn who had survived an abortion. As the line went, the bill was mainly for “teaching.”

Nevertheless, we had now a statute. And for that reason alone, any clinic or hospital that houses a “live-birth abortion” could lose its tax exemption, because this procedure is clearly “not in accord with public policy.”

More than that, the same hospital or clinic could lose federal funds, and virtually all hospitals depend in some way on federal funds. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act a hospital is obliged to provide emergency care to any person arriving at the hospital in need of care….

The anniversary coming up is a melancholy marker. For this simplest of all Acts may be the most potent lever that could be used now by the federal government to push hospitals and clinics out of the business of abortion, and yet the Bush Administration made only a half-hearted attempt to enforce it.

Adding the penalties to the Act could provide, for Mitt Romney, the tool that George Bush left unused: a bill that is disarming in its moderation, even while it puts the issue of abortion before the public in a stark way.

And at the same time it brings home news that people may still find jolting: that the only national Democrat who opposed bills to protect children who survived abortions is the man who now sits in the White House.

It is so odd that the current president Hadley referred to celebrates his birthday this weekend.

To date there has not been one federal prosecution under BAIPA, even though I know law enforcement is aware of such instances.

In hospitals and abortion clinics across the country babies are still surviving their abortions and either being shelved to die or killed outright, probably today more than 10 years ago.

And it is so odd

Who Is Jill Stanek?

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.

Read Jill's full bio »
What the Media says »

Quote of the Day