Illinois U. S. Senator Barack Obama announced his intention to run for president at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, this morning, where Abraham Lincoln gave his "House divided" speech almost 150 years ago.

One of many differences between the two men is Lincoln defended all three tenants of the Declaration of Independence - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - while Obama supports only the latter two.

Pro-lifers plan not to let Obama ignore his moral lapse. We began this morning.

Liberal bloggers claimed Springfield was besieged by well-wishers and nearly shut down by police. But we were able to park one block away 30 minutes before the event.

At 15 minutes prior, we were able to walk to the front of the barricaded space, directly behind the media risers. In all fairness, the ease with which we found this press-pregnant position so close to the event was likely due to the extreme cold, which dipped to -15 degrees at one point on our drive from Chicago but reached +1 by our arrival. Cameras merely had to swing around to capture us on film. (Whether or not they will show us is another matter.)

Reporters and cameras left their perch to interview and film up close. This is Mary Ann Ahern, political reporter for Chicago's NBC5, talking to Pro-Life Action League's Joe Scheidler....

(See page two for that picture and more.)

There were 40 of us.

At several times during Obama's speech we began shouting, "Abortion no, Obama no!" This not only consternated the pro-abortion crowd around us but must also have had an impact near the man. An agitated Obama official appeared soon into Obama's speech, approached the police who were watching us, and simply ordered, "Remove them."

The police complied, telling us to move to a designated protesters' area a couple blocks away, but Joe simply said no, we had First Amendment rights. Joe was right, of course. There was nothing the police could do but watch us.

I found this sign humorous:

I do hope pro-lifers around the country will also remind Obama of the atrocity of his pro-abortion position when he comes their way. If so, what the Chicago Sun-Times predicted after Obama's speech today will come to pass: "[I]t is going to be a rough learning process, evidenced on Saturday with a planned protest by an anti-abortion group in Springfield - Obama is essentially pro-choice."

"Essentially"? Well, I guess that is the most we can expect from the liberal media in its description of someone who is "pro-choice" to the point of supporting partial birth abortion and infanticide.

Well, "essentially" does imply that he IS pro-choice. In journalism, reporters have to use phrases like that...simply saying "He is pro-choice" would sound boring and unvaried.

But if you don't like Obama (and I'm not implying I support him, because I'm actually supporting another candidate), who are you supporting for the primaries?

Leah, I have made no decision on a supported candidate.

And to say "essentially" is to imply one part of him is not pro-abortion, which is absolutely false.

I find it interesting that some liberal journalists are even uncomfortable now with the soft and cuddly term "pro-choice" and think they must quantify that.

Also note the Sun-Times bias in calling us "anti-abortion" but them "pro-choice." The Sun-Times had two fair choices...

anti-abortion, pro-abortion
pro-life, pro-choice

... but picked the worst for us and best for them.

Well, you are anti-abortion, right? Pro-life seems vague when you can just say "I'm against abortion." And not all pro-choice people are pro-abortion: they simply think that people should be allowed to make their own private decisions.

Leah, you call "pro-life" vague? And "pro-choice" is clear?

"Pro-life" encompasses much more than "anti-abortion." Pro-lifers also battle against embryonic stem cell experimentation, euthanasia, and physician assisted suicide. Some pro-lifers additionally battle against the death penalty.

"Pro-life" is not only the term we prefer to call ourselves but is much more accurate than "anti-abortion."

Think about it. In what other arena do organizations and people not get to be known by their preferred designation? Why do those who call themselves "pro-choice" get to be called that and not those who call themselves "pro-life"?

Being a presence is good but I think it's rude to interrupt somebody's speech with chanting.

Christina, "rude"? Come on now, who's really rude here, those drawing attention to a person who expends his political energies attempting to ensure the freedom to kill preborn babies, or that person? And what favor do we do such a person by not attempting when we can to focus his attention on his heinous ways?

By that logic, you may as well throw tomatoes at the man, for certainly that is less heinous than dedicating one's life to the destruction of the innocent. This is yet another example of the political tin ear exhibited by far too many of my fellow pro-lifers. The point is not that rudeness or tomato-throwing may be justified in light of what our opponents support.

The point is that, when we engage in such behavior, we are only further distancing ourselves from convincing those on the fence. To consign ourselves to political-whackoville is not to advance our cause, but to set it back.

Russell, throwing tomatoes at a person is not covered by the First Amendment, while protesting certainly is. In fact, in 2005 you said this on your blog re: Cindy Sheehan's right to protest the Iraq War:

Now I was not under the impression that the repeal of the First Amendment was on the table in the whole Cindy Sheehan controversy. Of course, Sheehan and MoveOn.org and George Soros and Ben and Jerry have the right to say whatever they want about the Iraq War, the government's tax policies, or fudge ripple. It is the content of what they are saying that is at issue. And public disagreement with that content is covered by the First Amendment as well.

Cindy Sheehan has the right to say whatever she wants. And I have the right to say she should shut up. Now that we're clear on our rights, perhaps the Associated Press will cease conducting and writing about irrelevancies designed to wrap in the hallowed Bill of Rights the ludicrous prattle of Cindy Sheehan.

You make my response easy re: your complaint about pro-lifers exercising their First Amendment rights to protest Barack Obama's anti-life position:

Now I was not under the impression that the repeal of the First Amendment was on the table in the whole pro-life/Obama controversy. Of course, Pro-Life Action League and Jill Stanek and Concerned Women for America have the have the right to say whatever they want about Barack Obama's extreme anti-life position to the point he is pro-infanticide. It is the timing and perhaps the content (graphic signs of photos of aborted babies) of what they are saying that is at issue. And public disagreement with those are covered by the First Amendment as well.

PLAL, Stanek, and CWA have the right to say whatever they want. And Russell, you have the right to say we should shut up. Now that we're clear on our rights, perhaps you will cease writing about irrelevancies designed to wrap in the hallowed Bill of Rights what you consider our inappropriate prattle.

It seemed like the anti-choice people that were there yesterday had little impact other than to disrespect the dead they showed pictures of. I thought it was pretty offensive, but even more so - just plain sad. I only saw a handful of them. Most of the girls huddled around one side didn't even look like they were old enough to vote. If they were, it's nice to know they've been brainwashed into voting based on one issue. I knew some people that voted for Bush because they thought he would protect snowmobiling in Yellowstone... I thought that was stupid too, but it makes more sense to me, because at least they want to go snowmobiling in Yellowstone... if it were made illegal, then they couldn't go. If you don't want to get an abortion, then don't. Why do you care if someone else wants/needs to? Would you like to adopt their baby? I don't understand. Will you be protesting Giuliani if/when he is the Republican candidate?

Also, I wonder wether or not this group is also in favor of the death penalty? If so, how could you oppose "killing" the unborn, but support killing others? For that matter, did you support the war in Iraq? That has killed a LOT of people, especially Iraqis. I wonder if you believe Iraqi lives count just as much as American lives? I'm veering off what was supposed to be my second question... Are you against illegal immigrants crossing our border? If you want to increase our population by attempting to outlaw abortion, what's wrong with increasing it via mass immigration? Just trying to figure things out here... I think I've spent enough time on it... thanks

Bob, we had "little impact"? You haven't read or watched the news.

You thought it was "disrespect[ing] the dead" to show photos of their massacre? You have a strange sense of logic. Actually, since you support their massacre, of course you don't want the evidence displayed.

Re: the Iraq War, at least soldiers have guns with which to defend themselves.

Re: the death penalty, let's discuss the moralty of putting to death 50 or so convicted murderers a year in the U. S. after we discuss the morality of murdering 1.3 million innocent children a year in the U. S.

Re: adoption, there is a waiting list to adopt babies, even handicapped. Even if there were no waiting list, your solution, which is to kill these children, is barbaric.

Re: illegal immigrants, the only reason there is a need for menial laborers in the U. S. is because the U. S.'s menial laborers have been aborted.

Good responses, Jill.

I applaud the pro-lifers who stood out in the bitter cold to protest Obama's pro-abortion position.

Re the pro-lifers' chanting: It's funny that, when interrupted yesterday by anti-war demonstrators, Obama told the rally he was glad they were there. I doubt he felt the same way about the pro-lifers!

Also, I find it interesting that pro-aborts are actually taking the time to read and post on this blog. I guess you're striking a nerve, Jill. But then, you are a nurse... :)

At that Obama rally, you were only protesting abortion (or so it seemed by your signs and chants). Therefore, anti-abortion is most accurate.
In reference to the Iraq War: yes, the soldiers do have guns to defend themselves, but have you forgotten about car bombs and suicide bombers as well? guns don't fend off those so easily.

And if you're anti stem-cell research, how can you even call yourself pro-life? Thanks, now people with serious diseases may never be cured and will die because of religious rants on abortion and stem cells. I wonder, how do you feel about a separation of church and state? Do you know it exists in America?

Leah,

Pro-lifers are not anti-stem cell research; we are opposed to embryonic stem cell research. This is an important distinction.

Stem cell research that does not involve the destruction of human life (the living human embryo) is morally licit.

Even if embryonic stem cell research would prove to be beneficial (and it has not), it is a fundamental moral principle that one cannot commit an evil (the destruction of the embryo) so that good (the curing of certain diseases) may come from it.

As for the so-called separation of church and state, I think it is more accurate to assert that we have subordination of church to state.

Your attempt to be clever was magnificent, marred only by a fatal incoherence. My argument is not about rights. It is about pragmatism. Of course, everyone has a right to shout and yell and scream. It comes down to when the shouting and yelling and screaming becomes counterproductive in a campaign to convince people that we are right. For example, you could be yelling "F*** you" at Obama, with all the legal right in the world. But would this make pro-lifers more appealing or less appealing to the target audience? That is the crux of the issue. What I said about Cindy Sheehan in my blog is irrelevant to this discussion. Your argument, with all due respect, makes no sense. I don't know where to begin to respond to an argument with the intellectual coherence of "Arrgh!"

Russ, what makes it even more critical that pro-lifers exercise First Amendment rights re: abortion is the fact that the majority of Americans just don't want to hear it.

Americans are conflicted on the abortion issue. Polls show they believe abortion is murder yet believe a mother should have the right to commit it (with more and more limits as time goes on). Furthermore, at least 40% have actually been complicit in abortion. Not knowing how to handle this internal conflict, they shut down and go into denial. They don't want to talk about it.

As unpleasant as pro-life pickets are, they force people to think about what being "pro-choice" actually means. They force people to face what they believe by the photos.

To Matt:

"Even if embryonic stem cell research would prove to be beneficial (and it has not), it is a fundamental moral principle that one cannot commit an evil (the destruction of the embryo) so that good (the curing of certain diseases) may come from it."

What fundamental moral principle is that? Do you know anyone with a life-threatening disease? Embryonic stem-cell research is much more efficient than just using stem cells from the hip, for example, because such stem cells only last ten days. Little research can be done on those cells; they die too quickly. Embryonic stem cells last much longer and have the ability to form different tissues; because of this, scientists are more likely to support using them. How has it not proven to beneficial if scientists aren't given the chance to conduct research? At least there is private funding at research universities, especially Harvard. But if you would rather not save lives and just throw out the embryos in the garbage (which is what some facilities do that have too many embryos), that's your opinion. I've ranted here long enough.

The reason I read and posted to this blog is because I couldn't find any of the news stories about you people that you mention above... this is all I could find. I tried.

""Pro-life" encompasses much more than "anti-abortion." Pro-lifers also battle against embryonic stem cell experimentation, euthanasia, and physician assisted suicide. Some pro-lifers additionally battle against the death penalty."

Based on this comment and your lovely display on Saturday, I am now even more skeptical of your position and more apt to write you off completely. Senator Obama stands for so much more than a woman's right to choose... if you cannot see that, appreciate it, and understand what it could mean for our country, then I don't know what to tell you. I know you feel very strongly against abortion (I still don't know why. I am a young person who is not ready for children, but I would NEVER want to get an abortion myself. However, it does not bother me if someone else chooses to do so. I would hope it's not in the 3rd trimester, but I could understand why a lawmaker might feel the need to protect something like that if it were worded in a way that threatened the overall right to choose... someone metioned above something like "more and more restrictions" from people who ultimately want to do away with all abortion. What about all the special circumstances? What about when the mother's life is threatened?? Do "pr-lifers" support her? What about rape? What about a 12 or 13 year old girl? What about a bright young college freshman who made one bad decision? Why do you care what these people choose to do???), but why would you vote based on this one issue? Is it the ONLY thing you care about? Senator Obama did not mention anything about a woman's right to choose on Saturday, but he did talk about a LOT of other very important issues (many of them dealing with life, such as health care (I don't have any) and ending this senseless war) and I will choose to focus on them when casting my vote in favor of Senator Obama next Spring and hopefully again in November 2008. I hope you will be able to see the great things he can and will do to make our country better. It surely can't be any worse than the last six years with your "pro-life" leader at the helm (what has he done for you btw?)

Bob

Your own personal feelings about an issue are not a valid reason by which to say that the issue is of little concern. Just as there were plenty of people who preferred to ignore the "issues" of Rwanda and Bosnia, there are plenty of people who, like you, would prefer to ignore abortion. If someone feels something is an injustice, do not belittle them or their passion for ending that injustice.

Bob,

For me and other (true) pro-lifers, the right-to-life issue trumps other issues because without life, one can have no other rights. The sanctity of human life is paramount.

I tend to be cynical about politics, but I do vote, and I will never vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion.

As for your other questions, you can easily find answers on various pro-life Web sites, including www.all.org.

Bob, some news stories mentioning us:

Chicago Tribune (front page)

Chicago NBC 5

Chicago Sun-Times

And why would you "NEVER [your caps] want to get an abortion"?

No wonder I didn't see you in the depths of the Trib article...

"Listeners in one corner of the crowd had a hard time hearing Obama because of the loud chants of protesters objecting to Obama's support for abortion rights. Obama spoke in an even tone and didn't appear deterred by them, though their presence was a not-so-subtle reminder that his future as a presidential candidate won't be as easy as the months leading up to it."

That's great... not allowing people to even hear what the man has to say... I wonder if you were listening or if you even cared?

About the NBC5 article... what is it doing to our country??? What's it doing to women, marriage, and everything? I'd like to know... you didn't answer that with the chants or pictures I saw on Saturday.

I wouldn't want to be a part of an abortion simply because it's something I wouldn't want to do. I would feel bad about it. However, I do not feel bad if someone else chooses to. It's really none of my business.

Bob, why wouldn't you want to? Why would you "feel bad about it"?

Obama is really just a media creation. Everyone who likes him claims they like him because either he's good looking, wants change (whatever he means by this?) or a new face (OK but why him?). I really don't understand why so many people like him as a presidential candidate but cannot give good reasons why they like him.

The media gives Obama a free pass. Anyone who regularly visits Jill Stanek's website knows while in the IL Congress Obama voted against the Illinois Children's Protection Act. This Act made it illegal to kill babies born outside their mothers womb. Why doesn't the media talk about this vote? Why do we only get this information from only a select few websites on the internet.

It's one thing not standing up for babies in the womb but now its getting to a point politicians will not stand up for babies living outside of the womb. How can we expect Obama to protect us from harm when he merely cannot vote to protect born babies from harm outside the womb? Sorry but Obama in my book should not even be considered to run for any office.

Another thing I cannot stand are politicians who are afraid to go on talk shows which ask tough questions (like O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes). These are my thoughts!

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2006/07/new_stanek_colu_5.html#comments

Mike

Just in case people misinterpret my last comment. I believe all life needs to be protected from conception until natural death (All Stages of Life - Embryo, Fetus, Baby, Child, Adult, Elderly).

Mike

Ohmygod. O"reilly and Hannity and colmes are the laughing stock of the nation. Hannity especially is such a shill for Bush and his crowd.

You know why people like Obama? He's smart, really smart. After 6years of Bush people are craving a leader who can read more than Goat books. Also, he has pretty mainstream views of where the country should be going, he's reasonable and not overly partisan. Some of us even like his pro-choice positions. He's not my first choice, so I'm not here to drum up support for him, but he's a decent guy with a bright future.

Gary said...

You know why people like Obama? He's smart, really smart. Also, he has pretty mainstream views of where the country should be going, he's reasonable and not overly partisan. Some of us even like his pro-choice positions.

-------

My response....

If he's so smart then why doesn't he go on talk shows which ask tough questions? (Hilary also avoids the tough talk shows). If they are afraid to go on certain talk shows and answer tough questions then I don't think they are near ready to handle "homeland security"!

If Obama's views are mainstream then why did he vote against the Illinois Children's Protection Act which would make it illegal to kill a baby outside of the mother's womb while in the IL Congress? This view is far from mainstream.

Is Obama reasonable? Right now our country is split on whether a unborn baby should be killed in the mother's womb. Those who support abortion state life has not yet begun. Those against abortion state life begins at conception.

If Obama is reasonable then he should take the Pro-Life position and give the BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE SIDE OF LIFE which is life begins at conception. It's the only reasonable position to take in a country divided on the issue. Instead Obama sides with DEATH.

When you say some like Obama's "Pro-Choice" position, why do you never explain what you mean by "pro-choice"? Is he "pro-choice" on having hand guns, school vouchers, rape, driving through red lights, what condiments he wants on his hot dog or what?

Mike

Gary, I was unaware that socialism with a Hitler twist had yet become the "mainstream view" in America.

"socialism with a Hitler twist?" Really Jill, that seems a bit harsh. Are all abortion rights politican's guilty of having a "Hitler twist" or is Obama worse then most?

Yes, as Mike says, the country is split. Most, however, do not want abortion to be illegal. I don't know why Obama voted against the Illinois Children's Protection Act, and--as is probably obvious--I don't care. It's a non-issue to me and everyone I know.

Mike, what I mean by "pro-choice" is that a decision whether or not to have an abortion should be the choice of the woman. It's shorthand. I think it's understood generally. I'm also pro choice about hand guns and school vouchers, but those are really different issues, and not part of the shorthand.

Gary said...

Yes, as Mike says, the country is split. Most, however, do not want abortion to be illegal

The fact is the only reasonable position with the country split on abortion is to give the BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO THE SIDE OF LIFE. Therefore both the mother and the baby get to live. With your position, one gets the death penalty.

I don't know why Obama voted against the Illinois Children's Protection Act, and--as is probably obvious--I don't care. It's a non-issue to me and everyone I know

You don't care whether or not a baby outside the mother's womb gets murdered or not???

Hmmm. I guess that makes 2 people in the world right now -- you and Obama. Talk about being an extremist!

Without Life, there are no other issues!

Mike

Yep, I don't care. Heartless I suppose.

... with a Hitler twist.

Well, I'm sure this comment is just going to get deleted (and why did my other comment get deleted? I'd like to know). But where do you get off saying the mainstream view of America is socialism with a Hitler twist? Gary never literally said that! Not only does that make no sense (since Hitler did in no way support socialism...this would be clear if you read a history book), it also has nothing to do with abortion. NOTHING. The Holocaust resulted from Hitler's anti-semitism and his sick need to purify the "Third Reich." Abortion results from a woman's right to choose. There is no connection...I have discussed this with you before Jill.

And as far as whether or not a baby is "murdered," isn't that up to each person to decide whether or not a baby is actually being murdered?

Leah, your previous comment was apparently unintentionally deleted. Sorry. You can post it again if you saved it.

I meant that Obama has a socialist ideology with a maccabre twist, in that he supports infanticide if he thinks to stop it would interfere with legalized abortion. He also supports partial birth abortion. Good God.

And stop and think about what you wrote: "isn't that up to each person to decide whether or not a baby is actually being murdered?"

Our worth is not dependent on whether others value it or not. Or worth is intrinsic. Life is an "unalienable" right, as the Declaration stated.

Embryonic stem-cell research is nothing less than the cannibalizing of the young for the older. Those who push for this and unbridled abortion will live to regret it, if they live so long. The base for Social Securtiy has already been killed off mostly in this country. I laugh when both "so called pro-choice" Democrats and Republicans talk about "fixing" Social Security. We need about five younger people to support one older person on Social Security. We now have about two younger people per one older person.In years to come this generation will reap what it has sown when the young euthanize them to death without conscienc--just as they did the unborn, and there will be no one to defend them. Welcome to the real "Reality Show".

Theresa:

Stem-cell research will not result in the euthanizing of elderly people; in fact, it may actually help prolong their lives if scientists can find cures to diseases (especially diabetes, which affects many older people). Your logic is lost on me, but maybe you can go into greater depth about it.

Jill:

It is important to put the Declaration of Independence into a historical context and not just apply it to everything. It is not the constitution, after all; Jefferson wrote the Declaration to protest against taxation without representation and to break apart from Great Britain. The result of this document was the Revolutionary War, which gave people under the rule of the British Crown their "unalienable rights." After the French and Indian War, the people living in the New England area were being over-taxed and wanted to start over in their own democracy. In order to truly understand the importance of the Declaration, one must look into the historical significance of that time period.

Leah:

"Embryonic" stem cell research is the issue, not stem cell research.

Excuse me, then. I meant "embryonic stem cell research." And I actually support it.

Leah,

If you cannot see that the taking of the life of a child in the womb to save an older person (whether 21 or 81)does not lead to all out disrespect of human life, God have nercy on you. You wil need it. I am 64 years old, and I would not want a child in the womb to die, so that I could be cured or live longer. There are some things worse than death--like losing ones immortal soul for murdering the innocent. To me that is unconscionable, just as it was to Pope John Paul II. After all, he had Parkinsons. He could have been utterly selfish and asked for embyonic stem-cell treatment, but he did not. Of couse, you probably do not believe in a judgment day, but there will be one. Believe there will be one, and we will all have to answer before Almighty God for our actions.

"He could have been utterly selfish and asked for embyonic stem-cell treatment, but he did not."

Well, technically he couldn't because embryonic stem cell research can't cure Parkinson's disease yet. It hasn't been given enough government funding in the U.S. for scientists to really develop a solution.

I am 19 years old, and I am Catholic, Theresa. I understand where you are coming from, and I respect your point of view. It's just that I don't agree with it. If you want to view it in terms of religion, God gave humans a chance to save those who are dying from disease; why would He offer us this chance if He didn't want us to use it?

Leah,

You say you are Catholic, then you turn around and deny what the Catholic Church teaches. Hummm, sound a little hypocritical to me. Why don't you just say you do not believe in the Catholic Church. At least, that would be honest.

By the way, they have done some wonderful things with non-embryonic stem cell research. Why don't you look it up on your computer on some pro-life websites such the American Life League or the Right to Life. Or could it be the case that you just want to justify abortion??? Hummmm???

I know a lot of Catholics that are pro-choice simply because they know that there are circumstances do arise when there is no other choice. We don't live in a perfect society, and I'm not going to expect anyone to live as I do and believe in a particular religion.

Do I want to justify abortion? Why do ask such a question if you have already assumed the answer? Personally, I would never have an abortion unless the circumstances were dire. Does that make me a hypocrite? Like I said, I'm not going to hold others up my ethical standards unless they are really out of touch with reality. And what have "they" done with non-embryonic stem cells? I'd check out the pro-life websites, but how do I know they aren't biased?

Leah, I apologize for judging your motives. I should not have done that. I would be one of the first people to admit that I am somewhat of a lioness--or pocupine-- at times.

Regarding imposing our moral values on others: Society imposes its morality on people all the time. All laws are "moral" (or "immoral") laws. When a so-called "pro-choice Catholic" politician taxes me for someone else's abortion, he/she is imposing his/her "morality" (in this case "immorality") on me and others who do not believe in abortion. When a man who was beaten by his mother as a child rapes an innocent women because he now hates all women, does society think that is okay? The majority think not and put him in jail. Some of these same people, though, say it is morally all right for a woman who has been raped to kill the innocent child in her womb instead of supporting her to bring the child to term. I am not suggesting that we put such women in jail, but I hope you get my point. Violence breeds violence.

Years ago, Leah, the mass killing of students and others in schools by another student was just not done. I never heard of such a crime when I was younger, and it would have been front page news at that time. Now days it is common. I believe it is a direct result of this society's disrespect of human life in the womb. When abortion was outlawed, life was considered precious, and the idea that a great deal of women were dying of coat hanger abortions is just not true, as most doctors of that age can tell you if they are honest about it.

All I am saying, Leah, is let us support women in their decisions for life. We should not help them to lose their conscience and make a decision that they will regret (and subconsciouly they will feel the guilt) for the rest of their lives. Many women have admitted as much to me privately.

Now I will go and "give life" to my family by making meals, tutoring my grandchildren, etc. I just pray to the good God that he will give me the grace and strength to protect the young until I die. I hope I live to deserve the epitaph when I am gone: "She was a lioness of God for the lioness protects the young".

God bless you and keep you in his path, Leah.

Ruth Oliver, M.B.,Ch.B., F.R.C.P.(C ).,
2955 Kingsway,
Vancouver, British Columbia,
V5R 5J4, Canada.
Phone: 604-630-0091/fax:604-630-0092


Dear Colleagues,

I am a member of the Association of Christian Therapists which has existed for over 30 years and has international membership. At the last annual general conference I presented a workshop on the subject of a new Christian Oath. As we know, the Hippocratic Oath is no longer sworn by the vast majority of medical graduates since about the mid 60s.

As a result of the workshop there were ten of us who worked on modifying the Oath to become more inclusive, i.e. to include all who work in clinical or research medical fields, who hold life sacred from conception to natural death, and who revere and honour God as the Author of Life. Many Jews, Moslems and other believers would thus be included.

You will recognize that the 8 statements on the Oath were the original work of the CHCW, used here with permission. It can be viewed at
http://medial-oath.blogspot.com/.
The web log also allows people to comment as needed.

The ten people who have worked on the modification in October, have also started spreading the information freely. Anybody in the medical and paramedical field who agrees with the moral and ethical beliefs expressed, is free to download and print their own copy.

The presentation which was given with the Oath in October, can also be read and is attached.
Thank you for your time and attention. Please be kind enough to inform your readers of this Oath.
Yours sincerely,
Ruth Oliver,
Psychiatrist.

Embryonic stem-cell research is much more efficient than just using stem cells from the hip, for example, because such stem cells only last ten days. Little research can be done on those cells; they die too quickly. Embryonic stem cells last much longer and have the ability to form different tissues; because of this, scientists are more likely to support using them.

There has been NO proven benefit resultant from embryonic stem cell research. The only reason for pursuing it is to give the pro-abortion crowd a pseudo-argument that it is okay to take an innocent life.

P.S. to my last e-mail. When I said I was not suggesting we put such women in jail, I did not mean the woman who beat her son; I meant women who had an abortion because of a rape. Such women may not be as culpable of a crime because of the lack of family or societal support, but encouragement of such behavior does lead to violence in society, I believe.

The Illinois bill on which you speak would have made abortion illegal in Illinois, by the wording which it used. It was an attempt by anti-abortion folks to pull a fast one in which either way they would win... if people vote against it, then it looks bad on them... or if they did support it, then it would overturn Roe vs Wade through the wording that it used

Oh, really? Please share this wording.

These are not my words... I pulled this from another message board:

I know what's up with this one. I've seen the article come up a couple times, here's the skinny:

Number one: The article says Obama voted against the bill, while the US Senate voted almost unanimously in favor of the Bill.

Well, important fact: Obama was NOT in the US Senate when the bill was presented. There was a bill presented in the Illinois State Legislature that ws SIMILIAR to the bill presented in Washington (I think they both had the same name).

But the bill he voted against in ILLINOIS had quite a few opponents (the bill did not pass, for reasons I list below), and was an entirely different bill: completely different authors, completely different language.

Number two: Partial-Birth abotions were ALREADY illegal in the state of Illinois!

So the bill wouldn't actually change ONE THING about partial birth abotion. However, the bill does use language that defines a fetus as a human being. Thus, in one blow, the bill would have OVERTURNED Roe V. Wade in the state of Illinois.

It was a sneeky political catch-22. Either way Republicans win: either the Democrats looks like they are in favor of partial birth abortions, or they overturn Roe V. Wade.

Tricky buggers, ay?

So in conclusion, Barack Obama does NOT, repeat, does NOT support Partial Birth abortions

Thanks. The person on that message board (would be curious to know where) had no idea what s/he was talking about.

This was absolutely not "an entirely different bill: completely different authors, completely different language." They were nearly identical. Their definitions of "born alive" were, in fact, identical, the same definition the World Health Organization devised in 1955 and the United Nations adheres to.

This bill had nothing to do with partial birth abortion. There was never any mention of pba. This bill was related to induced labor abortion, an entirely different procedure.

This bill absolutely did not "define[] a fetus as a human being" and "would have OVERTURNED Roe V. Wade in the state of Illinois." In fact, the very definition Obama opposed later passed and is now law in Illinois and certainly has had no impact on Roe v. Wade.

Finally, the statement, "Barack Obama does NOT, repeat, does NOT support Partial Birth abortions," while it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, is one I have to address. The writer is flat out wrong. Read Michelle Obama's scare-tactic fundraising letter pegged to pba, what she calls a "legitimate medical procedure."

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2006/10/obamas_fundrais.html.

I have the original here if you'd like me to fax it to you.

it was from a members-only message board for college age supports of Obama and she was speaking more to PBA than to your specific thread... I was just trying to contribute. It doesn't matter... we disagree... I understand you feel strongly on this topic, but I beg you to consider other issues as well! This will be especially true when Giuliani becomes your candidate. I can only hope that we're able to run Obama and not the Hildabeast. In any case, it will be interesting and I will be writing you off. Please feel free to make fools of yourself with your disrespectful signs at more rallies... it only hurts your cause. It's been fun - Thanks.

Excuse me, it DOES matter. You threw this utterly false information out as true: "The Illinois bill on which you speak would have made abortion illegal in Illinois."

And I guess we certainly do disagree on whether infanticide is ok or not, never mind abortion.

Based on the fact you came in here as a know-nothing know-it-all and then said never mind when called on it, I question your ability to know how one makes a fool of oneself.

I also took part in the Pro-Life Action League's Protest in Springfield last Saturday. As has been previously stated and even reported by some main-stream media outlets, we were there to expose and protest against Barack HUSSEIN Obama because of his EXTREME positions on killing innocent babies in and out of their mother's womb. I was glad to be there to exercise my constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of speech because the OTHER SIDE of the "Barack HUSSEIN OBAMA STORY" needs to be told. It needs to be shouted from the housetops.

Why this "Bambi" of a young senator is getting such an incredibly free ride completely baffles me. What is so good about him? He's only been in Washington a short time. But the main thing is that he doesn't understand the most basic thing about life: that you cannot support the killing of unborn babies and then go on and talk about other "rights" and the improvement of society. Nothing at all makes any sense if the most fragile, most helpless, most precious of all people, unborn children, cannot be guaranteed protection from the abortionists knife, currette, suction machine, or scissors in the back of their necks. Dear God, how can this have happened in our country for so many years??

Edmund Burke once said "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

We will not be silent. At the very least we must let our voices be heard. And if that means shouting out loud during a speech "LIFE YES! OBAMA NO! LIFE YES! ABORTION NO!" to the consternation of a few thousand people, so be it. If we offended and disgusted the liberals with our giant photos of poor aborted children, so be it. I told several of them, "You're pro-choice, right? Well this is your choice!" It's blunt, but we have to be blunt at times. You won't get any apologies from me for speaking out about this issue.

And by the way, we did not really interrupt Bambi's, escuse me, Barack HUSSEIN Obama's speech. We only chanted for a minute or so at a time, and then would stop for several minutes. But it was enough to let him, the lemmings who follow him, and even the poor media people know that there are people -women, men, teenagers and children, who are against a man who supports the barbaric atrocity of the murder of innocent children, even if he has a huge grin on his face and a wife and kids of his own. P.S. Great blog, Jill.