Breaking news: New documents show Obama cover-up on born-alive survivors bill

Thumbnail image for breaking.jpg

UPDATE, 4:30p: Ben Smith of The Politico has linked to this post.

UPDATE, 4p: Concerned Women for America has audio of an interview with me on this here.

UPDATE, 10:22a:Michelle Malkin has linked to this post.

UPDATE, 9:50a: Kathryn Lopez of National Review Online is covering the story.

Last week Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee drew my attention to a previously unnoticed January 2008 article by Terence Jeffrey stating Barack Obama actually did vote against a version of the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was identical to the federal version, contrary to multiple public statements Obama or his surrogates have made to rationalize his opposition to the IL bill for the past 4 years.

Since then we have found 2 separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts.

In fact, Barack Obama is more liberal than any U.S. senator, voting against identical language of a bill that body passed unanimously, 98-0. In fact, Barack Obama condones infanticide if it would otherwise interfere with abortion.

Here is the statement with documentation released by NRLC this morning...

New documents just obtained by NRLC, and linked below, prove that Senator [Barack] Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the IL Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.

Summary and comment by NRLC spokesman Douglas Johnson:

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.

In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was first introduced in Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion. (To view the original 2000 BAIPA, click here.)

In 2002, the bill was enacted, after a "neutrality clause" was added to explicitly state that the bill expressed no judgment, in either direction, about the legal status of a human prior to live birth.

(The "neutrality" clause read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section.")

The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, click here. To view a chronology of events pertaining to the federal BAIPA, click here.)

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, as a member of the IL State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions. His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 - even after NARAL had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002.

When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting "infanticide." Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill.

As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004:

Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not....

The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.

During Obama's 2008 run for President, his campaign and his defenders have asserted repeatedly and forcefully that it is a distortion, or even a smear, to suggest that Obama opposed a state born-alive bill that was the same as the federal bill. See, for example, this June 30, 2008 "factcheck" issued by the Obama campaign, in the form that it still appeared on the Obama website on August 7, 2008.

The Obama "cover story" has often been repeated as fact, or at least without challenge, in major organs of the news media.

(Two recent examples: CNN reported on June 30, 2008, "Senator Obama says if he had been in the U.S. Senate in 2002, he, too, would have voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because unlike the IL bill, it included language protecting Roe v. Wade." The New York Times reported in a story on August 7, 2008, that Obama "said he had opposed the bill because it was poorly drafted and would have threatened the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established abortion as a constitutional right. He said he would have voted for a similar bill that passed the United States Senate because it did not have the same constitutional flaw as the IL bill.")

NRLC and other pro-life observers have always regarded Obama's "defense" as contrived, since the original two-paragraph BAIPA on its face applied only after a live birth; the "neutrality clause" added in 2001 merely made this explicit, and therefore the new clause did not change the substance of the original bill.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of liberal, pro-abortion members of the U.S. House of Representatives did not embrace the initial NARAL position that the original bill was an attack on Roe v. Wade. The Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, then as now, were a solidly liberal group, yet only one of them voted against the original BAIPA without the "neutrality clause," and he cited a different reason.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who supported the bill, and who described himself as "as pro-choice as anybody on Earth," argued that under his understanding of Roe "if an abortion is performed, or a natural birth occurred, at any age, [even] three months, and the product of that was living outside the mother, and somebody came and shot him, I don't think there's any doubt that person would be prosecuted for murder."

When the original bill - with no "neutrality clause" - came up on the House floor on September 26, 2000, it passed 380-15.

These facts should give pause to those who have unskeptically accepted Obama's claim that the IL BAIPA bills that he opposed in 2001 and 2002, which were modeled on the original federal BAIPA, were crafted to attack Roe v. Wade.

For the moment we can set that debate aside, however, for this reason: Documents obtained by NRLC now demonstrate conclusively that Obama's entire defense is based on a brazen factual misrepresentation.

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the IL state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style. To see the language of the two bills side by side, click here.

To see the official "Senate Committee Action Report" on this meeting, click on one of the links below. (The document is dated March 12, 2003, which is the day that the committee convened, but Chairman Obama recessed the meeting until March 13, which is the day that these votes actually occurred.)

Here are links to the official document that records these votes, in three different formats.

Senate Committee Action Report in HTML (web browser) format
Senate Committee Action Report in JPG (photo) format
Senate Committee Action Report in PDF (Adobe document) format

In this report, the left-hand column shows the roll call vote on adoption of "Senate Amendment No. 1," which was verbatim the neutrality clause copied from the federal bill. The right hand column shows the roll call by which Obama and his Democratic colleagues then killed the amended bill - the bill that was virtually identical to the federal law that Obama, starting in 2004, claimed he would have supported if he'd had the opportunity.

To view the text of SB 1082 as it was originally introduced (without the neutrality clause), click here. To view the text of Senate Amendment No. 1 (the neutrality clause copied from the federal law), which Obama and his colleagues added to the bill at the March 13 meeting (before killing the bill), click here.

NRLC has also obtained two additional documents that report information on these events that is fully consistent with the Senate Committee Action Report.

To see the "Senate Republican Staff Analysis: Senate Bill No. 1082," click here. (If this Word document requests a password, simply hit "cancel" and it will be displayed.) The first portion of this analysis was written before the March 12-13, 2003, meeting of the committee that Senator Obama chaired. The committee's actions, amending the bill to exactly track the federal born-alive law, and then defeating the bill, are reported on the bottom half of the second page.)

Finally, to see an Associated Press dispatch dated March 13, 2003, reporting on the 6-4 committee vote that killed the bill, click here.

Less than two years after this meeting, Obama began to publicly claim that he opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the "neutrality" clause, and that he would have supported the federal version (had he been a member of Congress) because it contained the "neutrality" clause.

His claim has been accepted on its face by various media outlets, producing stories that have in turn been quoted by the Obama campaign and Obama defenders in attacking anyone who asserts that Obama opposed born-alive legislation similar to the federal bill. It has also been forcefully repeated by advocacy groups such as NARAL (see, for example, this June 30, 2008 "alert" from NARAL).

It appears that as of August 7, 2008, only one writer - Terence Jeffrey, a contributing editor to HumanEvents.com - had correctly reported the essence of this story, in a column posted on January 16, 2008 (read it here), but his report was ignored by the Obama campaign and overlooked by others at the time.

Now, the uncovering of the Senate Committee Action Report and the contemporary Associated Press report shed new light on Senator Obama's four-year effort to cover up his real record of refusing to protect live-born survivors of abortion.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

"Index of Documents Regarding Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill" (will be updated as new items come in)

Timeline of important events in the history of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

NRLC archive on the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

NARAL press release, July 20, 2000, expressing strong opposition to the original federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 4292).

The official report of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, explaining the intent of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 2175), and explaining why such legislation was necessary (August 2, 2001)


Comments:

Jill:

"brazen factual misrepresentation"?

You of course mean he's a bold face liar and the MSM are his aiders and abetters. And people died for freedom of the press, how pathetic.

Edwards was proven to be a bold face liar, we all know what Clinton is.....how much longer before the world knows the truth about Obama?

I challenge those in the MSM to redeem themselves by embracing some basic values, it's called telling the truth. The very fact that the MSM crafts an agenda, picks a cnadidate that meets that agenda, and then lies and covers up the truth if it hurts that chosen one, is the same as child molestation, murder, bank robbery and rape as it shows you are willing to break the trust of the people that depend on you for the truth. Shame on you MSM.

Posted by: HisMan at August 11, 2008 9:09 AM


Somehow it's satisfying to see stark, unambiguous proof of Obama's dishonesty and total disregard for the life of even babies that are born alive. And at the same time it's kind of depressing to see how sick and disgusting politicians in this country have become, especially those running for the highest office in this land. What does it say about us as a society that this man is considered a "hero" to so many Americans?

Posted by: Doyle at August 11, 2008 9:15 AM


At some point, even the most brilliant will not be able to
keep track of the amount of lies needed to maintain the
facade.

Posted by: lesforlife at August 11, 2008 9:41 AM


The prophet Obama is being shown more and more for what he really is: a dyed in the wool extreme liberal. That he employs sophistry and ambiguity (and now dishonesty) to wash over his support of infanticide is not a surprise, because there is no way to justify his position.

Illinois residents already know a lot about Obama's extremism. Hopefully the recently released best selling book--ObamaNation by Jerome Corsi--will be read by every fence straddler.

Posted by: Jerry at August 11, 2008 9:49 AM


Yawn. Show me one person who supports Obama who will care about some obscure vote in 2003. You got your federal act, why are you still whining about this?

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 10:24 AM


A politician lied? Well stop the presses!!! This is, indeed, breaking news!

=)

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 10:39 AM


Lied, or just maybe made a mistake?

But let's not refrain from calling him a baby killer.


"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Barry Goldwater

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 10:43 AM


So, he voted for it before he voted against it. Where have we heard that before?

Posted by: Andrew at August 11, 2008 10:43 AM


speaking of Goldwater, let me add this quote which seems to fit the topic perfectly.

"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
"And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
o Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 10:45 AM


"Yawn. Show me one person who supports Obama who will care about some obscure vote in 2003"

approximately, give or take, ZERO people who already support him will change their mind based on this. Fact is, first of all, it passed anyway, and second of all, if you look at facts instead of sensationalistic propaganda, this happens so incredibly rarely to begin with. I'm a huge supporter of gay rights, but if Obama voted against a bill that impacted .000006% of gays and the bill passed anyway, I honestly don't think it would matter enough to change my vote.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 11:02 AM


"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Barry Goldwater

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 10:43 AM
----------------

Thanks Hal, for the apt quote: you're encouraging us to severely and ruthlessly pursue justice, but do you really consider Obama's extremism to be no vice?

I guess it's true - defense of abortion "liberties" to the point of infanticide does make lying look weak!

Yet, I believe Obama could become more extreme. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that jazz...

Mistakes tend to be accidental, while repetitious lies tend to display the reality of the situation, particularly when you're on the campaign trail.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 11, 2008 11:06 AM


Amanda, 11:02a, said: "approximately, give or take, ZERO people who already support him will change their mind based on this."

Amanda, you obviously have no clue about politics nor have you been reading the news.

It is the Catholic and Independent votes that are of concern to either side at this point. It is those votes that turn elections, if you paid any attention at all to the 2000 and 2004 vote tallies.

This news will impact those voters. And it will impact conservative Republicans who haven't been excited about McCain, giving them more impetus to get out and vote for him.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 11, 2008 11:14 AM


Boy, these posts just keep getting longer and longer. It must be frustrating to know that nobody cares about this phony "issue."

Eric Zorn is right. All this law would do is force doctors to choose which procedure to use based on what is most lethal for the fetus rather than what is most safe for the woman. You ought to just call it the Mandatory Dismemberment Abortion Law.

Posted by: reality at August 11, 2008 11:15 AM


Hal 10:24, the IL act also passed, I believe in 2005, so the entire issue is moot, and has been moot for 3-6 years (federal act passed in 2002)

You are correct that this non-issue will not affect any Obama supporter's vote, and that the hysteria is only among those who would never vote for Obama anyway.

Unfortunately, this was Jill's 15 minutes of fame, so we will see this same post probably 85 times before the election, which is 85 days away.

Posted by: PPC at August 11, 2008 11:15 AM


Everyone knew Obama was pro choice. The degree to which you claim he is pro choice won't be an issue to many. Everyone know's that McCain is a bit pro-life. The people who care about this issue have already chosen sides. The smears that Obama kills babies with hammers will probably only provoke backlash.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 11:17 AM


reality @ 11:15 AM

What?!! Dismembering a fetus inside a woman is dangerous?

Really?

Dead is dead reality. The end result is the same, whether the child is butchered inside or expelled from the woman early.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 11, 2008 11:30 AM


Everyone knew Obama was pro choice. The degree to which you claim he is pro choice won't be an issue to many.

So you believe condoning infanticide is an extension of being "pro-choice"?


Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 11:37 AM


"Amanda, you obviously have no clue about politics nor have you been reading the news. "

LOLOL.

Obviously.

How many campaign ads have been focusing on abortion yet? Vs how many focusing on gas prices and the economy? How about news features on abortion vs gas and the economy? How about much of anything other than relatively obscure blogs and nutbars that no one takes seriously like Michele Malkin? (Is Rachel Ray still a terrorist, btw?)

Sorry Jill, the general public has tuned out on abortion this year, whether the pundits on either side like to admit it or not.

In the fantastic words of South Park "Why should I have to choose between a douche and a turd?"

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 11:38 AM


So you believe condoning infanticide is an extension of being "pro-choice"?

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 11:37 AM

I believe voting the way he did was considered by Obama to be an extension of being pro choice. I don't think voting against this Bill is "condoning infanticide," but I know PPC is right, we'll be hearing about this issue on this site for the next 85 days.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 11:43 AM


Chris --

The end result is the same, whether the child is butchered inside or expelled from the woman early.

Exactly my point. Why does Jill care so much whether fetuses are aborted whole or in pieces? What's pro-life about fighting tooth and nail for a law that still allows mid-term abortion, just as long as the doctor kills the fetus before removing it? Would Jill really have felt better if the little Down syndrome fetus she allegedly held at the hospital had been torn to pieces or injected with poison instead?

The charge that Obama supports "infanticide" looks pretty foolish upside Jill's vocal support for dismemberment abortion.

Posted by: reality at August 11, 2008 12:05 PM


My head is spinning.

Posted by: carder at August 11, 2008 12:08 PM


I believe voting the way he did was considered by Obama to be an extension of being pro choice. I don't think voting against this Bill is "condoning infanticide," but I know PPC is right, we'll be hearing about this issue on this site for the next 85 days.

If the child is not within the womb of the woman anymore, Hal, then what else would it be called when you oppose a bill that would prevent people from leaving them to die instead of at least attempting to save them?

You can't claim it's about "choice" past that point (not that it really is before that)... There is no woman attached to the baby, and no reason in this world why those babies should not have been protected from being laid on shelves to die.

There is no way I can think of Obama as anything other than a condoner of infanticide and a liar.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 12:20 PM


seriously Jill this is getting really tired. We GET IT, you think he supports infanticide. That is NOT breaking news. I don't think a day goes by you write an article about Obama. Please write about real breaking news next time, eh?

Posted by: Marie at August 11, 2008 12:22 PM


Exactly my point. Why does Jill care so much whether fetuses are aborted whole or in pieces? What's pro-life about fighting tooth and nail for a law that still allows mid-term abortion, just as long as the doctor kills the fetus before removing it? Would Jill really have felt better if the little Down syndrome fetus she allegedly held at the hospital had been torn to pieces or injected with poison instead?
The charge that Obama supports "infanticide" looks pretty foolish upside Jill's vocal support for dismemberment abortion.

Jill does not support dismemberment abortion. Jill supports making abortion illegal. Until that happens, if there are babies who are being aborted, and then being left to die, shouldn't those babies have the right, as BORN CITIZENS, to whatever life saving treatment is possible for them? It is murder to leave them to die. Even from a pro-choice point of view, because the child is already separate from the mother at that point.


Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 12:23 PM


It is murder to leave them to die.

Even if they are too young to live anyway? Why not let them naturally die in peace rather than waste time and money on a lost cause?

Posted by: Marie at August 11, 2008 12:25 PM


seriously Jill this is getting really tired. We GET IT, you think he supports infanticide. That is NOT breaking news. I don't think a day goes by you write an article about Obama. Please write about real breaking news next time, eh?

Maria, this is Jill's blog, and if you want to read about other topics, no one's forcing you to stay and read this blog. There are multitudes of other ones you can visit. Thanks!

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 12:25 PM


Bethany I read regularly because I like reading about her other posts. I think other people agree with me here though that her Obama rants are a little tired by now.

Posted by: Marie at August 11, 2008 12:27 PM


Even if they are too young to live anyway? Why not let them naturally die in peace rather than waste time and money on a lost cause?

What's natural about being expelled forcefully and prematurely from your mother's womb and being left on a cold, dirty shelf to die in agony and loneliness?

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 12:27 PM


Marie says: "seriously Jill this is getting really tired. We GET IT, you think he supports infanticide. That is NOT breaking news."

My advice to you, Marie, is to realize that coming to this website is NOT MANDATORY...... !!!!

Posted by: Doyle at August 11, 2008 12:28 PM


Bethany I read regularly because I like reading about her other posts. I think other people agree with me here though that her Obama rants are a little tired by now.

Similarly, those who agree with you are welcome to visit any other blogs they enjoy more thoroughly. No one is forcing them to stay and read either.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 12:29 PM


"being left on a cold, dirty shelf"

If you put the baby in a comfortable spot to die naturally after whatever procedure, I'd call it doing the little one a favor. Rather, it would be more agonizing to force painful medical procedures on a baby that will die soon anyway.

Posted by: Marie at August 11, 2008 12:29 PM


reality @ 12:05 PM

I'll answer your question right after you answer mine: Why does a six inch journey down the birth canal change a human being from one who can be legally killed, into one who can't? What's so special about being "born"?

Tell me how location/environment changes the morality of abortion - please.

S)ize,
L)evel of Development,
E)vironment
D)egree of dependency

Those are the only differences between the born and the unborn, and there are no moral reasons based on those differences to support legalized murder of unborn human beings.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at August 11, 2008 12:33 PM


Marie says: "seriously Jill this is getting really tired. We GET IT, you think he supports infanticide. That is NOT breaking news."

My advice to you, Marie, is to realize that coming to this website is NOT MANDATORY...... !!!!
Posted by: Doyle at August 11, 2008 12:28 PM

What's wrong wit a little constructive criticism and some feedback from Jill's loyal readers?

Posted by: hal at August 11, 2008 12:33 PM


Bethany - beacuse being poked with a few dozen needles and having tape and tubes in every orifice is a comfortable way to die?

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 12:41 PM


What's wrong wit a little constructive criticism and some feedback from Jill's loyal readers?

She's welcome to do so, but if she's unhappy here, why stay?

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 12:44 PM


" Everyone knew Obama was pro choice. The degree to which you claim he is pro choice won't be an issue to many. "

hal, at first blush the comment seems to indicate that there is no substantive difference in your view between abortion of the fetus inside the uterus and failing to assist the infant toward survival outside of the uterus.

my complaint here would be that there is no question at all that the infant which is outside of the fetus is a human life.

i am not attacking you by asking the following question.

if we extend this logic would it be appear that the prochoice stance would allow for the physician to fail to assist an infant toward survival after two days or three days or eight months. tell us how to understand this degree to which obama is prochoice and your understanding of the sanctity of life.

even if a person were relatively apathetic to the question of abortion, the circumstance in which a physician failed to assist an infant which is clearly born and has survived a surgical procedure would accurately be seen as a separate issue entirely.

Posted by: roger at August 11, 2008 12:45 PM


Roger, I have no problem with the law. But I reject efforts to demonize Obama for voting differently. It's hardly a scandal.
He voted the way he thought he should, the law passed eventually anyway, as well as in Congress. Who cares?

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 12:53 PM


Bethany - beacuse being poked with a few dozen needles and having tape and tubes in every orifice is a comfortable way to die?

Do you advocate such treatment for preemies whose mothers want them to live?

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 12:58 PM


By "such treatment", I mean life-saving. Or would you tell the mother that she was wrong for trying to save her baby, and tell her that she should instead leave the baby to die alone?

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 12:59 PM


He voted the way he thought he should, the law passed eventually anyway, as well as in Congress. Who cares?

A lot of people, Hal.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:07 PM


Bethany, a lot of people who would have never voted for Obama anyway

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 1:09 PM


Bethany, a lot of people who would have never voted for Obama anyway

No, a lot of people who didn't know this about Obama, have learned it through people like Jill, and have been horrified and have changed their minds about him. I know of a few of those people. If I know people, I'm sure there are more.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:11 PM


Jill:

Keep up the Obama rants. Liberals can't stand the truth and the more this is revelaed about them, the more the poeple will understand that Liberals cannot be trusted.

I can see Obama trying to deal with Putin over this Georgia deal. Putin and all dictators like him will walk all over Obama and will put our country at even greater risk of conflict because of his Neville Chamberlain type appeasement philosophies. Obama is exactly the opposite type of person we need to lead right now.

The other thing: It's just amazing how compassionate Liberals are when it comes to the truth about the people that represent them. They're willing to forgive the reprobate Clintons, they're willing to yawn about a baby killer (Hal) and excuse lying politicians (Amanda). This is atrocious, however, doesn;t surprise me when these same peopel are willing to kill innocent children. I mean even Edwards is talking about a comeback. This guy is a sicko, not for just cheating on his wife, but for cheating on her when she was in such a vulnerable position. She should dump the schoolboy ambulance chaser.

But when it comes to why we went to war with Iraq, well we all know how Bush has been crucified by Liberals for LYING about WMDs when Iraqi generals all know and say that the WMDs went to Syria.

Liberals are willing to do anything, include turning the other cheek, present two cheeks, kiss cheeks, distort cheeks, lie about cheeks and yes, kill a cheek in the womb as long as doing so advances their godless agenda.

Obama, because he was willing to let live babies die that were targeted for abortion, by this one issue alone, is disqualified from being commander-in-chief. He cannot be trusted. The majority of American pepole understand this and it needs to be said over and over and over again until the coward is made irrelevant.

Posted by: HisMan at August 11, 2008 1:11 PM


McCain, anyone? (crickets)

Posted by: Ray at August 11, 2008 1:13 PM


Nope - its absolutely the parent's choice. Its just completely dishonest to say that one is more comfortable than the other.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 1:13 PM


Good post, Hisman!!

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:14 PM


LOL - Ohhhh HisMan. We get to play this game again.

Show me where I "excused" him for lying?


Putting words in people' mouths for no other purpose than to trash talk and pick fights is pretty pathetic.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 1:18 PM


Nope - its absolutely the parent's choice. Its just completely dishonest to say that one is more comfortable than the other.

Okay, Amanda, but would you consider a parent who decided to give their preemie life saving treatment, a sadistic individual for doing so? It sounds like you should, based on your 12:41 post.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:21 PM


" Roger, I have no problem with the law. But I reject efforts to demonize Obama for voting differently. It's hardly a scandal.
He voted the way he thought he should, the law passed eventually anyway, as well as in Congress. Who cares? "

" Bethany, a lot of people who would have never voted for Obama anyway "

why are you defining this in terms of political expediency. the philosophy and belief of a candidate for the presidency from a major party appear to allow for codifying into law, doctrine which would see human as disposable. this evaluation on my part does not demonize the candidate. the fact that the legislation passed in spite of obama's vote is irrelevant.

is it appropriate and healthy for the republic to vote into office a person whose personal philosophy would allow for human being to expire without assistance from society.

there are larger questions than politics.


Posted by: roger at August 11, 2008 1:23 PM


"It sounds like you should, based on your 12:41 post. "

Umm... I don't know how else to put this other than "Huh???"

That statement in NO WAY leads to "life saving measures are sadistic". You're simply, as you often do, drawing your own conclusions without a shred of evidence.

As I already stated, it is dishonest to make one death out to be more comfortable than the other - because it simply isn't true. Suffering is suffering, whether its at the hands of a medical staff, or alone.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 1:25 PM


Here ya go Amaanda:

A politician lied? Well stop the presses!!! This is, indeed, breaking news!

=)

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 10:39 AM

Posted by: HisMan at August 11, 2008 1:29 PM


That statement in NO WAY leads to "life saving measures are sadistic". You're simply, as you often do, drawing your own conclusions without a shred of evidence.
As I already stated, it is dishonest to make one death out to be more comfortable than the other - because it simply isn't true. Suffering is suffering, whether its at the hands of a medical staff, or alone.
\

The life saving treatment would have the end goal of SAVING LIFE. Not leaving the child to die, Amanda. There's a big difference. You implied in your post that it was cruel to try to save the baby's life, because it could be painful being hooked up to tubes. The goal is to SAVE the life of a human citizen, not to cause an intentional death.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:31 PM


" It's just amazing how compassionate Liberals are when it comes to the truth about the people that represent them. They're willing to forgive the reprobate Clintons, they're willing to yawn about a baby killer (Hal) and excuse lying politicians (Amanda). This is atrocious, however, doesn;t surprise me when these same peopel are willing to kill innocent children. I mean even Edwards is talking about a comeback. This guy is a sicko, not for just cheating on his wife, but for cheating on her when she was in such a vulnerable position. She should dump the schoolboy ambulance chaser. "


none of this gotcha politics is helpful.

the question of the sanctity of life should stand alone on its owns merits. the clintons and edwards are not the operative questions.

and the iraq war is the perpetual strawman.

Posted by: roger at August 11, 2008 1:31 PM


Ok HisMan... still waiting to see where I "excused" him for lying.

Or you could just admit you put words in my mouth to start a fight, which has never been beneath you, has it.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 1:33 PM


"The life saving treatment would have the end goal of SAVING LIFE. Not leaving the child to die, Amanda. There's a big difference."

Not if the child is going to die regardless.

"You implied in your post that it was cruel to try to save the baby's life, because it could be painful being hooked up to tubes."

Mmmm.. Here we go again. Nope. I Never said or implied it was "cruel". I will repeat, for the 3rd time, all I said is that one death is no more or less comfortable than the other and implying that one is would be dishonest. But if you need to keep imagining I said something else because you're bored or something... I can't stop you.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 1:37 PM


Mmmm.. Here we go again. Nope. I Never said or implied it was "cruel". I will repeat, for the 3rd time, all I said is that one death is no more or less comfortable than the other and implying that one is would be dishonest. But if you need to keep imagining I said something else because you're bored or something... I can't stop you.

At least in one death, other people did everything they could to save you. And in the other, everyone thought you were, and treated you as if you were a piece of medical waste.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:39 PM


And by the way, you are assuming that all of them would die anyway...you don't know that!

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:40 PM


World's Youngest Baby Born In Miami

Amillia Taylor, born after IFV, was delivered at only 21 weeks, 6 days. Because her parents knew that doctors wouldn't attempt to resusciate a baby 22 weeks or younger, they lied when mom Sonja Taylor was admitted to the hospital, so that doctors would think the baby was a 23-weeker.

She weighed just 10 ounces. Here she is, lying next to a pen: photo.

Meanwhile there are specialists who would gladly abort babies Amillia's age and older. And not for any sort of "maternal or fetal indications" but just because the mother showed up and paid for the deed. Right in Florida, Orlando Women's Center advertises 24+ week abortions.

Tiller cheerfully advertises 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. Liberty Women's Health Care does up to 24 weeks -- more than two weeks older than Amillia. Choices Women's Medical Clinic advertises up to 24 weeks. Warren Hern advertises elective abortions up to 26 weeks -- a month older than Amillia -- and "medically indicated" up to 36 weeks. Abortion Advantage advertises elective abortions to 24 weeks. Atlanta Surgi-Center through 26 weeks.

http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2007/02/parents-lied-to-save-preemie.html

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:41 PM



Hal: But I reject efforts to demonize Obama for voting differently. It's hardly a scandal.

Marie says: "seriously Jill this is getting really tired. We GET IT, you think he supports infanticide. That is NOT breaking news."

Perhaps not to you two but to people who know the difference between good and evil it's a first time scandal of unlimited grave proportion beyond, so far, even the most previously radical proponents of death of the innocent.

What's wrong wit a little constructive criticism and some feedback from Jill's loyal readers?

Obviously it's not "constructive" but quite destructive to the memories of those lives taken by such heinous disregard.

Marie: Rather, it would be more agonizing to force painful medical procedures on a baby that will die soon anyway.

So now visitors to the blog are physicians and prophets too? Next time you take an injured loved one to an emergency room you might want to advise those doctors of same insight!

Amanda: A politician lied? Well stop the presses!!! This is, indeed, breaking news!

But this is a DIFFERENT KIND of politician!! He was going to CHANGE all that...at least that's what the lemmings were fed. So now you're telling the world that all the lemmings should now see him as just another one "of those", a common pol! Well, halleluia you've seen the light!! Soooo...no point in voting for THAT GUY. Nothing different there.

Posted by: KC at August 11, 2008 1:45 PM


February 4, 2008
Preemie survival rates more than doubled

by Bethany Kerr

From Guardian Unlimited, February 1:

pree.jpg

Survival rates fuel abortion debate

The row over the 24-week abortion limit has intensified after it emerged survival rates for very premature babies have more than doubled at a top hospital.

A study from University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UCLH) found survival rates for babies born alive between 22 and 25 weeks of gestation rose from 32% in 1981 to 71% in 2000....

The professor behind the research said it showed what could be achieved if staffing levels were kept consistent and adequate resources were pumped into units.

But many experts back the findings of the EPICure study of all UK units, which has indicated little improvement between 1995 and 2006 in the rates of survival to discharge home for babies born below 24 weeks gestation.

UCLH neonatal consultant, Professor John Wyatt, led the new study and gave evidence to last year's Commons science and technology committee, which found no scientific justification for lowering the 24-week limit.

He said the EPICure study gave much lower survival rates than he had found "and it has been argued that there has been no improvement in survival across the country as a whole since EPICure was undertaken in 1995.

"However, studies which average the results from a large number of maternity units obscure the effects of very marked variations in resources, staffing and experience in the care of extremely premature infants.

"It is also plausible that ethical and clinical policies vary between different units and there is published evidence to show that this will have an effect on survival rates."

Prof Wyatt said he fully acknowledged that his study had limitations because it only looked at a small number of babies.

But he said such studies were "hugely important because they provide information on the survival rates that can be achieved with consistent levels of staffing and resources, and with consistent policies."

Are abortion proponents going to try to stop proper resources going to hospitals so premature babies born under 25 weeks won't survive?

[HT: Valerie Ryan, 2 Seconds Faster]
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/preemie_surviva.html

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:45 PM


Yeah - I never disputed that, but that has absolutely nothing to do with pain or comfort levels, which was my entire point when I said that being poked with needles and tubes was no less unpleasant for an infant than being left alone.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 1:46 PM


Yeah - I never disputed that, but that has absolutely nothing to do with pain or comfort levels, which was my entire point when I said that being poked with needles and tubes was no less unpleasant for an infant than being left alone.

Does anesthesia not exist or something, Amanda? In this world of great technological advances, there is no way to offer pain relief to a preemie who is being offered life saving treatment?

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:49 PM


LOLOLOLOLOL

Where did I say they were "all" going to die anyway?

Are you really bored today? Because this is silly. Yes, I know about premature infants. Post 154,000 articles - its still up to the parent to decide what measures are taken.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 1:50 PM


Where did I say they were "all" going to die anyway?

You definitely implied it, Amanda, when you said "Bethany - beacuse being poked with a few dozen needles and having tape and tubes in every orifice is a comfortable way to die?"

You didn't say anything about it being a comfortable way to survive, only mentioned dying, as though that is the only option those babies have.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:52 PM


Amanda, if you don't like being "misinterpreted", maybe you should find better ways to formulate your words.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:53 PM


Hahahaha - drop me a line when you can have an honest conversation by responding to words I actually said, rather than the ones you think I maybe sort of possibly could have sort of implied kinda.

And no, premature infants systems are already too sensitive as is - anesthesia would kill the majority of them.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 1:56 PM


How do I reformulate words I never said Bethany? Explain that one to me and I'll give you a cookie.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 1:58 PM


And no, premature infants systems are already too sensitive as is - anesthesia would kill the majority of them.

Really? Then how is it possible that is anesthesia routinely administered to unborn children (developed past 20 weeks) who are undergoing prenatal surgery?

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 2:01 PM


How do I reformulate words I never said Bethany? Explain that one to me and I'll give you a cookie.

LOL Are you Edyt now?

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 2:03 PM


I'll be back later today...gotta run. Talk to you soon.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 2:09 PM


"Really? Then how is it possible that is anesthesia routinely administered to unborn children (developed past 20 weeks) who are undergoing prenatal surgery? "


Uhhh - because they're still in utero. Not depending on medications and machinery to keep their lungs and heart working outside of the womb, as severely premature infants are. Anesthesia directly affects heart and lung fuction, which are far too delicate in preemies to be used safely.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 2:14 PM


(as far as I know, its only used in invasive procedures - like surgery -because the risks are so high - it is not used on preemies for general pain control for things like feeding tubes, needles, nasal gastric tubes, etc - all of which are very painful)

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 2:28 PM


Amanda:

It's obvious from your many posts today and in the past, that you are simply a troublemaker whose goal is to occupy our pro-life time answering your confusion.

Based on your use of sarcasm in your 10:39 post, you don't think lying politicians is a big deal. Well, I do and I am going to hold all politicians that represent me accountable who do lie. Or don't words mean things to you Amanda?

I suggest we all ignore you until you grow up or just admit that you're a liberal pro-abort who will never agree that killing a baby in the womb is murder.

Posted by: HisMan at August 11, 2008 3:01 PM


Translation: I couldn't find where you made any excuses for Barack Obama lying, because you didn't, so I insulted you instead because its just my style.


Business as usual!! Boy did we miss ya.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 3:16 PM


I suggest we all ignore you until you grow up or just admit that you're a liberal pro-abort who will never agree that killing a baby in the womb is murder.
Posted by: HisMan at August 11, 2008 3:01 PM

Can't speak for Amanda, but I'll admit I'm a liberal pro-abort who will never agree that killing a baby in the womb is murder.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 3:32 PM


Hal:

At least you're honest about where you stand and in gerneal find you to be consistent. I can deal with that, however, with a confuser/obfuscator/liar, I cannot and won't deal with.

Amanda, for the third and final time:

In the context of the thread, which was, entirely about Obama being a liar you posted the following at 10:39 am: "A politician lied? Well stop the presses!!! This is, indeed, breaking news! =) Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 10:39 AM"

Are we not to assume you were talking about Obama when you said "A politician"? Perhaps it was any one of the other throusand or two Liberals that are liars in the Democratic Party? Which one of the baby killing Liberals were you then referring to, if not Obama? Pelosi, Kerry, Edwards, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barney Frank, Biden, or any one of the Kennedys, just to mention a few?

And Bethany made this comment: "Amanda, if you don't like being "misinterpreted", maybe you should find better ways to formulate your words.
Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:53 PM"

P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C


Posted by: HisMan at August 11, 2008 3:58 PM


Hal is very honest and upfront, indeed.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 11, 2008 4:06 PM


Thanks Bobby. You're my favorite anti-abort.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 4:11 PM


STILLLLLLLLLLL waiting to hear how my failure to be suprised by a politician lying is in any way an excuse of his lie.

You can cut and paste, AND spell words AND name some famous people. Good job!!! That much we know. NOW do you know how to explain to me how not being surprised that a politician lied is an excuse for that person? THATS what I'd like to see.

If I said I was not surprised by Russia's invasion of Georgia, does that mean I'm excusing it? If you said you are not surprised by liberal pro aborts, does that mean you're exusing them?

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 4:30 PM


You act as if Pro-Life presidents have done anything to stop abortions... They have put 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices in their seats, so if they really wanted abortions to be outlawed, it would have been a long time ago. Instead, every year that a Republican has been in office since Roe abortions have increased and the only time that they decreased (drastically I might add) was under Bill Clinton. --- REPUBLICANS ABORTION STANCE IS A FARCE IN ORDER TO STEAL FROM THE POOR AND GIVE TO THE RICH -- They are using you! That is why under every Republican president the gap between rich and poor has risen, the amount of people under the poverty line has grown, the amount of people with health care has shrunk, and the deficit has ballooned giving money to their rich friends... When will Repubs wake up and realize that they use abortion and Gay marriage to steal money from you and then they get in office and do not do a single thing about it... It is just like they preach about small government, yet every republican president in the past 30 years has drastically increased government! Not to mention taxes - check out the difference between McCain and Obama's tax structure:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

And Repubs vs. Dems on the National Debt:

http://www.webfilehost.com/images/fiscal-policy.php

Posted by: jeff from PA at August 11, 2008 4:54 PM


I have been Pro-Life my entire life and still am morally, yet I do not want to be labeled that because the movement has been led astray. The conservatives use abortion (which they never plan to do anything about) to steal from the poor and when they get in office, the amount of abortions increase drastically.

Then, I looked at the legislation aspect of the movement. The Bible might say "Thou shallt not murder," but it does not say "go out and protest, vote, and try to get legislation passed to stop it." Instead, I believe that the message of the Bible is to "care for the least of these." If we turned the focus away from the legislation battle which has gone on for thirty years at a stand still while abortions continue to increase, then I think tens of thousands of babies could be saved each year (or more). Instead, we would rather fight and argue about it - which is exactly the opposite of what the Bible says.

The amount of abortions in this country directly parallels how many people are under the poverty line - the more under the line - the more abortions - every single year since Roe. So, if instead of fighting, we helped people out of poverty- we would be saving babies lives. If instead of fighting, we fought to get every body health care, we would save babies lives. If instead of fighting we volunteered at a church, women's shelter, clinic, etc. we would save babies lives. If we did everything we could to help orphans and single mothers and reached out to everyone we could - we would save babies.

So I ask, how many abortions have been stopped by 30 years of fighting?

How many could be stopped if we worked together on the things listed above?

The answer - hundreds of thousands, if not more!

It is time to stop being held hostage by Conservatives who never actually do anything about it and come together to get something done!

Posted by: Jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 5:04 PM


Nice comments Jeff from PA. Many on this site, however, won't rest unless abortion is ILLEGAL. It seems at time that's more important than actually preventing/reducing abortions. I have stated here that I would have no opposition at all to a pro-life movement that tried to convince women not to have abortions rather than prohibit them.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 5:11 PM


Jeff @5:04,

I have been Pro-Life my entire life and still am morally, yet I do not want to be labeled that because the movement has been led astray. The conservatives use abortion (which they never plan to do anything about) to steal from the poor and when they get in office, the amount of abortions increase drastically.

You are concerned about a label? That's a shame. Babies are dying and you worry about your reputation. How do conservatives steal from the poor? Why do you assume all-pro-choicers are conservative? How about all the tax dollars funneled to Planned Parenthood which support the abortions?

Go to: http://www.priestsforlife.org/ to see what you can do to stop abortion; stop complaining about how little everyone else is doing.

Posted by: Janet at August 11, 2008 5:24 PM


Hi Jeff. I can sympathize with your position. It's difficult to know what the best course of action and the best way to end abortion is. We want the same thing; for abortions to never take place. Period. But it is hard to know what the most affective way to do that would be.

I must say though that as long as it is legal, it will be viewed by many people as an acceptable action. But on the other hand, if it was legal yet not a single person had an abortion, then who cares if it is legal or not? So where should our main focus be? Changing laws or hearts? I personally tend to focus more on the heart changing aspect of the debate. And I'm all about the things you mentioned above. But I do think there is a place for those who focus more on changing the laws. Tough stuff. I wish we didn't have to agonize over these things. I'd much rather agononize over questions concerning efficacious grace and Molinism :) God love you Jeff.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 11, 2008 5:28 PM


Nice comments Jeff from PA. Many on this site, however, won't rest unless abortion is ILLEGAL. It seems at time that's more important than actually preventing/reducing abortions. I have stated here that I would have no opposition at all to a pro-life movement that tried to convince women not to have abortions rather than prohibit them.

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 5:11 PM

You mean as long as you don't have to get involved, right? How can you effectively convince women not to have abortions if you call yourself a "satisfied customer" of abortion (or whatever you said to that effect the other day)?

Posted by: Janet at August 11, 2008 5:30 PM


My post @ 5:24 should read:

"Why do you assume all PRO-LIFERS are conservative"?

Posted by: Janet at August 11, 2008 5:32 PM


Great post Jeff - Ive said the same thing 1000 times - only from maybe a more pro choice end of things. I agree with those who say too many people profit from the fighting to ever bring about a real change.

Posted by: Amanda at August 11, 2008 5:43 PM


How can you effectively convince women not to have abortions if you call yourself a "satisfied customer" of abortion (or whatever you said to that effect the other day)?

You can work to help women get insurance, work towards reform in colleges, etc. You can remind women that while abortion is one choice it is only one choice, and moreover it's a choice they don't get to go back on, so they shouldn't do it if they're ambivalent. You can show women who are only aborting because they think no one will help them out that they're incorrect in believing that. There are quite a few things you can do.

Of course, just because Hal would not have a problem with such measures does not mean that he's obligated to give his time to them. I think it's great that people work to increase voter turnout in their neighborhoods, but it's not likely to be something I'll personally be involved in this year.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 11, 2008 5:47 PM


Thanks Amanda!

Posted by: Jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 5:59 PM


get this to drudge. he's famously pro-Life.

Posted by: upetrovska at August 11, 2008 6:26 PM


How can you effectively convince women not to have abortions if you call yourself a "satisfied customer" of abortion (or whatever you said to that effect the other day)?
Posted by: Janet at August 11, 2008 5:30 PM

What Alexandra said. Basically, I could stay out of it. you guys could try to convince women that abortion is not the way to go. Have at it. I don't think "our side" would say anything except "know the facts and make your own decision after consultation with your doctor."

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 6:29 PM


Thanks for everyones' great comments - I appreciate all your insights... A few questions from Janet:

You are concerned about a label? That's a shame. Babies are dying and you worry about your reputation. How do conservatives steal from the poor? Why do you assume all-pro-choicers are conservative? How about all the tax dollars funneled to Planned Parenthood which support the abortions?

1. I worded my entry poorly with the word "Label" - I more mean, I do not want to be a part of a movement that focuses more on fighting then loving, which unfortunately is what I think that the movement has veered into... ***With a Big Exception*** There are many many people that are in the movement that do not act this way, but the movement as a whole has done this too much - for instance, unquestionably backing Republicans in elections, protesting outside clinics, and at Dem events... I have been spit on more than I care to comment, when morally I am behind them, just disagree with the way about getting it done.

2. As far as how Conservatives steal from the poor, here are just a few examples:

A. Under every modern (30 years or so) Repub administration poverty has drastically gone up because of their "Trickle-down-economics approach" to giving huge tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy.

B. They have completely turned income tax upside down - when the income tax was created (near world war one) only the top one percent paid it - no one else did at all. It was created so that the people who benefited from our economy helped out those that struggled in it. Then by WW2, the top 10 percent paid it, by Vietnam everyone paid it, but the top ten percent paid a much higher percentage. Then came the rise of the Christian Right - Reagan flipped the tax structure so that the wealthy paid less in taxes then the working class... And finally with George W. came the biggest tax breaks for the wealthy in the history of America - and those tax breaks need to be made up for somehow - from cutting programs and government agencies that help the working class... In the last eight years Exxon got over 10 billion dollars in tax breaks that would have helped out an enormous amount of working families. The Bush administration created loopholes and a tax structure that made my parents who make 30,000 dollars a year pay 33 percent of their income to taxes and then 4,000 in house taxes as well.. Meanwhile, my fiancee's father made 500,000 and did not pay a single dollar in taxes because of write offs and loopholes and even got a huge tax credit towards buying an SUV.

There has never been a time in history where there has been a bigger gap between the rich and poor and CEO's and workers.

C. Under every republican administration the amount of people without health care has increased...

D. And if you want to see how a McCain presidency will steal from the poor, check out his tax structure:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

3. You are right, I should not assume all pro-lifers are conservative; however, the pro-life movement has continuously endorsed the Republicans regardless of their other positions.

4. Finally, the funneling of money to Planned Parenthood. I think that there are a lot of misconceptions for both pro-lifers and pro-choicers. I think both sides see the other as monolithic and demonize each other. One example is Planned Parenthood - I know this will be controversial, but I would argue that PP has actually prevented more abortions then they have enabled. I have actually been with over a dozen friends to PP and the ones that i have been to try to encourage every other option before abortion - and they emphasize the finality - and I have even seen at one clinic a women who described the depression she went through after having an abortion to make sure that the girl was making the right decision....

I think that all the problems in the movement can be boiled down to one story from my life:

A friend of mine made an irresponsible choice with her boyfriend and she became pregnant - and he wanted nothing to do with her. So she asked me to go to PP with her. I tried to talk her into going to her church or my church, but she was so afraid of judgment and hatred that she was even considering an abortion that she absolutely refused.

So we went to PP and there was an enormous protest going on outside the clinic. As we went inside, we made it unscathed, but did get spit on. When we made it to the room, the women gave her a ton of information and explained to her the difficulties of having an abortion and that it should only be a last resort... By the time we were ready to leave she had told me that she was almost positive that she was not going to have the abortion - she was going to have the baby!

Then as we went outside, the protest was even worse, so much so, that the police had to show up. The people were raving mad and closed in on us. We were spit on, our shirts torn, and finally, my friend was tripped to the ground. She was completely bloodied up. The police helped, but it was an extremely scary situation.

When I took her home, she was in tears, clutching her bleeding arm. I gave her a hug and walked her to the door. The next day I called and there was no answer. For three weeks, she would not answer my phone calls. Finally, a bit over a month later - she called me and told me she had the abortion. She said that she was so humiliated by that situation that she decided she couldn't go through with having the baby.

After that, she seemed really embarrassed and ashamed and no matter how much effort I made, our friendship was never the same.

My point is: at that moment, my thoughts on the pro-life movement changed. I still am against the practice, but I hope to change it through love and care. Also, I know that not all pro-lifers are like those people spitting and yelling; i also saw that not all pro-choicers were the demons I made them out to be. Ninety-nine percent of us want fewer abortions, we just need to figure out how to work together...

Posted by: Jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 6:37 PM


Jeff, nice thoughtful post. You, however, should brace yourself for strong reaction to the nice (and accurate) things you said about planned parenthood.

Posted by: hal at August 11, 2008 6:49 PM


Jeff, forgive me but I can't help but be extremely skeptical of your story. Can you tell me what the name of the clinic was, and when it happened?

Ninety-nine percent of us want fewer abortions

I don't want fewer abortions. I want abortions to be obsolete. I want justice for those babies who are killed every day.

Do you believe abortion is murder, Jeff?

If so, would you allow any other type of murder to be legal but just find a way to talk about it to help the situation and make there be "fewer murders"?

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 6:53 PM


Wish that I could share your work-together vision, but the problem I have is the scenario you just described:

"...the women gave her a ton of information and explained to her the difficulties of having an abortion and that it should only be a last resort..."

Sure, we'll try to convince women that they really don't want to go there, but the option remains. Unless you have another idea of what working together is.

You may be morally prolife, but enabling a mother to seek an abortion contradicts that. I think the correct label for that is pro choice.

Posted by: carder at August 11, 2008 6:53 PM


You may be morally prolife, but enabling a mother to seek an abortion contradicts that. I think the correct label for that is pro choice.

Carder, precisely.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 6:54 PM


Bethany, here are my responses:

Jeff, forgive me but I can't help but be extremely skeptical of your story. Can you tell me what the name of the clinic was, and when it happened?

-- It was in Buffalo, NY in 1998, I will try to find an old news article about the protest and post it if I find it.... But I remember it like it was yesterday.. Also, i have been spit at many times by protesters in 2004 at John Edwards and Kerry rallies, and this year had people throw stuff at an Obama rally, two of many times...

I don't want fewer abortions. I want abortions to be obsolete. I want justice for those babies who are killed every day.

How many babies lives has that black or white positioning of many cost? If every person that protested, volunteered instead, how many could have been saved?

Besides, some problems with legislation:

1. It will not happen in our lifetime... Reversing Roe (which, as I stated in other posts 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices were put there by Pro-Life Presidents, so if they really wanted it, it would have been done a long time ago), just makes it a state-by-state issue.

Making it a state-by-state issue means: our legal system will be extremely backed up for years. Every state will have years worth of court cases to determine if it should be okay in their state. and of course, some states will determine it to be okay.

Then, in the states that determine it will be okay - the doctors from the other states will flock to those states creating a health crisis in our country.

Then, there will surely be a push to outlaw it completely. This would take 2/3 of Congress and the Senate and a President that will sign it. IF that happens, there will probably be massive protests and riots in the states that voted to allow it.

Even if all that happens - in countries that have outlawed it, 73 percent of the abortions still happen, just in secret or less sanitary circumstances.

Then, even if all that happens, we do not have the infrastructure to support all of the babies that will be born. We no longer have anywhere near enough orphanages or foster homes.

Do you believe abortion is murder, Jeff?

Actually, I do, but nearly impossible to prosecute... Who do we arrest? The doctors? The Mothers? If many of our doctors go to jail, how backed up will our health system be? How many will die because of that? Most importantly, how do we determine the difference between miscarriage and abortion? Will local police be needed to investigate every miscarriage? We will need to beef up our police and court systems for this to be the case. If a woman falls down the stairs - do we have a trial to see if it was an accident or on purpose?

Murder yes... Enforceable, near impossible.

....... Finally, even if everyone of those steps would start tomorrow - it would take years to come to the final step of outlawing and enforcement - most likely over 10 years.

Over the course of that time - promoting poverty programs, women's programs, adoption programs, etc., could have prevented over a million or more abortions (Bill Clinton reduced abortions by 50,000 a year during his presidency - over a million total over 8 years because of his women's and poverty programs)...

So, we can argue and fight to a stand still - for the next thirty years, or we can have a million less abortions over the next decade through love and supporting women, orphans, and the poor as Christ directs us to do... It seems like an easy choice to me...

By the way, Bethany and others - regardless of our differences in thought, I will continue to pray that we can each see the positive and negative aspects of our thoughts and that God will guide us towards truth - Thanks!

Posted by: Jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 7:33 PM


How many babies lives has that black or white positioning of many cost? If every person that protested, volunteered instead, how many could have been saved?

If you had not supported your friend in going to PP, she may not have had her abortion. Why did you not instead take her to a Crisis Pregnancy Center? Why are you so quick to blame others, but slow to judge yourself?

By the way, I do volunteer at a CPC.

Actually, I do, but nearly impossible to prosecute... Who do we arrest? The doctors? The Mothers? If many of our doctors go to jail, how backed up will our health system be? How many will die because of that? Most importantly, how do we determine the difference between miscarriage and abortion? Will local police be needed to investigate every miscarriage? We will need to beef up our police and court systems for this to be the case. If a woman falls down the stairs - do we have a trial to see if it was an accident or on purpose?
Murder yes... Enforceable, near impossible.

If you believe it is murder, why did you take your friend to a place where her baby could be murdered? Why did you support her in that?

I don't ask these questions to cause offense, but to hopefully get you to see our perspective on this.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 7:43 PM


So, we can argue and fight to a stand still - for the next thirty years, or we can have a million less abortions over the next decade through love and supporting women, orphans, and the poor as Christ directs us to do... It seems like an easy choice to me...

Jeff, there are twice as many CPC's as there are abortion clinics. Do you offer your time to help women decide against abortion?

Do you think it impossible to lovingly support women, volunteer, and yet also, support legislation that would protect the unborn?

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 7:46 PM


Even if all that happens - in countries that have outlawed it, 73 percent of the abortions still happen, just in secret or less sanitary circumstances.

Where do you those numbers? If they're in secret, how can you know the statistics?

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 7:47 PM


What I find amazing is that, despite the claims held by so many abortion friendly people that there are all these "violent pro-life protests", isn't it amazing that not one video exists as evidence of this (that I know of!)

I mean, how hard would it be for all the abortion clinic workers to videotape the premises, and then show the evidence to the world? There should be MULTITUDES of these tapes, as often as pro-life violence and anger is supposed to be happening! Let's see 'em.

Pro-lifers somehow manage to show the proof through video taped evidence- quite frequently, in fact- but with abortion friendly people - well, all we get is hearsay.

Honestly, I won't believe it till I see it. All the protests by pro-lifers that I have ever seen were peaceful and prayerful.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 7:59 PM


If you believe it is murder, why did you take your friend to a place where her baby could be murdered? Why did you support her in that?

I tried my best to take her to a church for help, but she was deathly afraid of that. I was 18 at the time and I did not know of other options. Besides, I did not (and still do not) view Planned Parenthood as an abortion Center - it is a place that offers women help in a multitude of ways - including one that you and I do not like. I took her there to find out what her options were - and honestly, everytime I have been to one, they stress abortion as a last resort... I am sure there are some where this is not the case, but every one I have been to has been this way. PP has been so demonized that people have a hard time admitting that even if you are against abortion 95 percent of what they do is good.

Posted by: Jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 8:32 PM


Where do you those numbers? If they're in secret, how can you know the statistics?

I cannot find where I got that exact statistic, but a very similar one is on page 16 of this site:

http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/2007/10/10/AWWtrends.pdf

Posted by: Jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 8:50 PM


Jeff, the very fact that Planned Parenthood considers abortion an option at all should have you concerned as a supposed 'pro-lifer'.

A person who was truly against abortion never would have taken a vulnerable woman to an abortion clinic, where they know murder takes place.

Oh they do nice things? Really? Ted Bundy also did nice things in his lifetime. Like singing to dying children, etc. What is your point?

Offering to help take her to church, sure, that was nice, but what about a CPC? And why would you have taken her to a place where you knew abortion was considered as an option at all? You said you believe it's murder. Would you help someone to get access to a hitman, if they were considering killing their spouse? What if the hitman was someone who would give them ALL their options beforehand, and let them know that killing their spouse should be the LAST resort?

In words, you may have been pro-life. In action, you were pro-abortion.

In fact, you, Jeff, may have been the very reason she was so confused, and possibly, the reason she didn't want to talk to you for 3 weeks and your friendship was never the same was because she lost trust in you after you let her go into that abortion clinic.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 8:51 PM


Jeff, I'm sorry but I don't trust Guttmacher for abortion statistics, as they are the research arm for Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 8:53 PM


What I find amazing is that, despite the claims held by so many abortion friendly people that there are all these "violent pro-life protests", isn't it amazing that not one video exists as evidence of this (that I know of!)

First, I am not sure why you need to insinuate I am a liar just because I have different views than you. Even though I do not agree with your views I respect you.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2008 8:53 PM


What I find amazing is that, despite the claims held by so many abortion friendly people that there are all these "violent pro-life protests", isn't it amazing that not one video exists as evidence of this (that I know of!)

First, I am not sure why you need to insinuate I am a liar just because I have different views than you. Even though I do not agree with your views I respect you.

Posted by: jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 8:53 PM


In fact, you, Jeff, may have been the very reason she was so confused, and possibly, the reason she didn't want to talk to you for 3 weeks and your friendship was never the same was because she lost trust in you after you let her go into that abortion clinic.

Honestly, i am not sure why you need to insult me just because I have different views than you. I will keep you in my prayers and hope that God guides us both in our pursuits.

Posted by: Jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 8:57 PM


Jeff, I am not trying to insult you. I am trying to get you to see it from a different perspective. You came on here blaming us! I am turning it around on you, trying to get you to see that you need to look at yourself before looking at others, for the blame about abortion.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 9:03 PM


And by the way you insulted us big time by insinuating that we do not volunteer to help women in crisis situations, etc. That we are violent, that we are mean, etc.

Don't be surprised when your words come back right at you. You may be more passive aggressive and underhanded about your insults, but I recognize manipulation when I see it, as I have dealt with manipulative people all my life. I'm not going to fall for it.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 9:07 PM


oh well, don't say I didn't warn you

Posted by: hal at August 11, 2008 9:14 PM


Hal, you got it.

He began it with an attack on conservatives and pro-lifers. I'm a conservative. I'm a pro-lifer. He was insulting me, saying I only am pro-life so that I can steal from the poor, etc.

I am merely responding in kind.

Of course you knew the type of response would result from his post, because you knew what kind of things he was implying about us and you knew that we would be offended by them.

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 9:25 PM


And by the way you insulted us big time by insinuating that we do not volunteer to help women in crisis situations, etc. That we are violent, that we are mean, etc.

Actually, I wrote this on one of my first entries:

***With a Big Exception*** There are many many people that are in the movement that do not act this way, but the movement as a whole has done this too much

I would never insult every pro-life person, after all, my parents, in-laws, and many, many friends are... And my parents are a great examples of people in the movement that volunteer their heart out... If I did come off that way, i sincerely apologize.. I am a sinner and probably did not word it well.

I think that one of my biggest problems with the movement is its marriage to the Republican party - who are so destructive on other issues: war, poverty, health care, environment, tax policy, etc.. Luckily, I think that marriage is starting to come to an end as young evangelicals are voting for Obama in droves... And I am happy to report that My parents, in-laws, and many of my friends that are life-long Repub / Pro-lifers, all love Obama and are voting for him in fall. People are finally seeing that conservatives are not going to outlaw abortion and in the mean time they are ruining many other aspects of our country.

Of course, Dems are not perfect either, just the Repubs have had too much power for too long, so it is time to give the Dems a chance to fix it..

We as Christians should work to hold both parties accountable..

Well, as I said before Bethany, if I insulted you or anyone else, I apologize and hope that you will forgive me. And most importantly, I will pray that God gives us both peace and direction in our views and pursuits.

God Bless - jeff

Posted by: Jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 9:27 PM


oh no. Defending anything about Planned Parenthood is bad enough. Supporting Obama is going to put some over the top. Stand back, and enjoy.

Posted by: hal at August 11, 2008 9:30 PM


He began it with an attack on conservatives and pro-lifers. I'm a conservative. I'm a pro-lifer. He was insulting me, saying I only am pro-life so that I can steal from the poor, etc.

***This is absolutely untrue - I said conservative, pro-life POLITICIANS are the ones that steal from the poor.***

My parents and many people I love are conserv / pro-life, I was referring to the politicians that used pro-life people to pick our pockets and hurt the poor, and not do a thing against abortion...

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2008 9:30 PM


He began it with an attack on conservatives and pro-lifers. I'm a conservative. I'm a pro-lifer. He was insulting me, saying I only am pro-life so that I can steal from the poor, etc.

***This is absolutely untrue - I said conservative, pro-life POLITICIANS are the ones that steal from the poor.***

My parents and many people I love are conserv / pro-life, I was referring to the politicians that used pro-life people to pick our pockets and hurt the poor, and not do a thing against abortion...

Posted by: jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 9:30 PM


I like the snark Hal.... Well, me and a lot of pro-lifers are for Obama... My parents have worked for the pro-life movement for thirty years... They just know that the conserv politicians just pay lip service to abortion to give billions to Exxon.

Posted by: Jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 9:33 PM


I've posted a series of articles by pro-life and religious supporters of Obama. Not widely accepted or embraced here, but I know that there are a lot like you Jeff. Welcome. You break a stereotype.

Posted by: hal at August 11, 2008 9:41 PM


Jeff from PA,

INTERESTING comments! I too am looking forward to a different kind of pro-life movement. I believe the current one is hostile towards embracing people that are pro-life or on the fence from all backgrounds, when the way is to win the hearts and minds of people from all sides, and then legislation will follow. (note: current movement meaning a majority of course not all!)


Actually at my PP interview today, there was some HARDCORE security. I showed a picture ID. Went through a metal detector. Got wanded down. I said, "wow you guys have a hardcore security system." And the guard said, "well we have to, since we provide abortions." I said, "are the protesters really that bad, to warrant a metal detector?" and she said, "no actually the protesters can get loud but other than that are not really much of a problem. It's just what they do. No, the people that warrant the metal detector are couples who disagree, like a woman who wants an abortion, and her partner doesn't, or vice versa. I've broken up several fights personally."

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 11, 2008 9:50 PM


Well, as I said before Bethany, if I insulted you or anyone else, I apologize and hope that you will forgive me. And most importantly, I will pray that God gives us both peace and direction in our views and pursuits.

Jeff, I appreciate that, and I am sorry if I misunderstood your intent, and sorry for saying things that insulted you.

Actually at my PP interview today, there was some HARDCORE security. I showed a picture ID. Went through a metal detector. Got wanded down. I said, "wow you guys have a hardcore security system." And the guard said, "well we have to, since we provide abortions." I said, "are the protesters really that bad, to warrant a metal detector?" and she said, "no actually the protesters can get loud but other than that are not really much of a problem. It's just what they do. No, the people that warrant the metal detector are couples who disagree, like a woman who wants an abortion, and her partner doesn't, or vice versa. I've broken up several fights personally."

That is very interesting, PIP....but how SAD!!!

Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 9:53 PM


Bethany, I KNOW! I was just like....whoa. It's nice to know that they don't consider protesters the threat. It's sad to know they have to use metal detectors to help prevent domestic violence :(

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 11, 2008 10:00 PM


Thanks hal, PrettyinPink, and Bethany - Great discussion and let us just hope that God will guide us towards the truth... Sorry for any hard feelings, great discussion though - God puts us here to test each other - iron against iron :) Have a good night!

Posted by: Jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 10:05 PM


PIP, the two Planned Parenthoods I've gone to were similar. The one near my college required ID and you had to get buzzed in. The one in Manhattan checked my purse, my ID, and buzzed me into the waiting room. I'm pretty sure they sent me through a metal detector too, but I can't really remember -- it's not like I was taking notes. When they called me to go back into the "inner" waiting room, someone opened the door for me, I guess so I couldn't somehow lunge through it on my own. It certainly made me grateful that I'm not in a situation to require protective measures.

That said, I've always appreciated that peace of mind I got from being able to have routine check-ups. The first time I ever had one I went to my mom's swanky ob/gyn, who even stopped the exam for several minutes because I cried out of nerves (how morfitying!). Someday I hope to have a swanky ob/gyn of my own to visit, but until then I'm just glad to know that I don't have anything wrong with me. And while I dislike the airport-level security, I've honestly only had positive experiences with the PP doctors who saw me.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 11, 2008 10:06 PM


""""""
They just know that the conserv politicians just pay lip service to abortion to give billions to Exxon.
""""""

More cash from Exxon has gone to Obama than towards McCain...

Posted by: yarrrr at August 11, 2008 11:46 PM


Where did I say they were "all" going to die anyway?

You definitely implied it, Amanda, when you said "Bethany - beacuse being poked with a few dozen needles and having tape and tubes in every orifice is a comfortable way to die?"

You didn't say anything about it being a comfortable way to survive, only mentioned dying, as though that is the only option those babies have.


Posted by: Bethany at August 11, 2008 1:52 PM
..................................

Bethany, you have completely lost perspective of your abortion issue. Abortions performed at the point of gestation when a premie might have a chance of survival are few and far between and done for reasons best decided by a professional as well as those actually concerned.
Take a look at Jasper's quote of the day.
Apparently shunting isn't an option which tells us that the fetus will not develop an operational brain. If the woman should miscarry down the line, she's looking at attempting to pass a very large and inflexible fluid filled head through her cervix. Possibly denying herself the opportunity to carry a viable fetus succesfully to term as well as risking her very life. If she doesn't miscarry, she is looking at surgical removal of the nonviable fetus at some point. Also a threat to her gestational abilities as well as life. If that fetus should be removed and is deemed alive by your standards, what would the point be in sustaining a beating heart when it isn't attached to a body with a functional brain?

Posted by: Sally at August 11, 2008 11:52 PM


Jeff @ 9:27,

Of course, Dems are not perfect either, just the Repubs have had too much power for too long, so it is time to give the Dems a chance to fix it.

I missed a lot tonight. I see you've fallen for Obama's CHANGE mantra. How long have you been an Obama fan?


Posted by: Janet at August 11, 2008 11:59 PM


"That said, I've always appreciated that peace of mind I got from being able to have routine check-ups."

Interestingly enough, the woman at the PP emphasized education and birth control, education and birth control, to all of my questions. Even my questions that I feel may have led her into discussing abortion just turned her onto all the free counseling services they have, in addition to health services (including abortion). I was wondering if she stayed away from discussing it because it's not necessarily her area (well her expertise was educational programs) or because she knew that it might be an uncomfortable topic to discuss on-camera. So, she mainly talked about outreach programs, and gave me tons of resources and information, and told me to come in and use their research library whenever I want. They were really nice to me!

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 12, 2008 12:03 AM


Sally @ 11:52,


Bethany, you have completely lost perspective of your abortion issue. Abortions performed at the point of gestation when a premie might have a chance of survival are few and far between and done for reasons best decided by a professional as well as those actually concerned.
Take a look at Jasper's quote of the day.
Apparently shunting isn't an option which tells us that the fetus will not develop an operational brain. If the woman should miscarry down the line, she's looking at attempting to pass a very large and inflexible fluid filled head through her cervix. Possibly denying herself the opportunity to carry a viable fetus succesfully to term as well as risking her very life. If she doesn't miscarry, she is looking at surgical removal of the nonviable fetus at some point. Also a threat to her gestational abilities as well as life. If that fetus should be removed and is deemed alive by your standards, what would the point be in sustaining a beating heart when it isn't attached to a body with a functional brain?

If you could find a Real Pro-life OB/GYN to analyze all of your possible scenarios, you will find that abortion is never the answer. These are scare tactics that abortionists use to justify their livelihoods.

Posted by: Janet at August 12, 2008 12:07 AM


I like the snark Hal.... Well, me and a lot of pro-lifers are for Obama... My parents have worked for the pro-life movement for thirty years... They just know that the conserv politicians just pay lip service to abortion to give billions to Exxon.

Posted by: Jeff From PA at August 11, 2008 9:33 PM

Just not true Jeff from PA. If Bush were not president and nominating the Supreme Court justices that he did then Partial Birth Abortion would still be happening legally in the US.That is hardly lip service. Let's hope it is just a start.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 12, 2008 1:03 AM


Jeff:

Your analysis is full of holes and fails to mention or consider God's actions altogether.

One simply cannot be pro-life and be for Obama. It's a ruse of mass proposrtions.

And you say the Republicans pay lip service to ending abortion and give billions to Exxon? What a wacko analysis prepared for the weak and simple minded.

Let me ask you this. Who has blocked conservative judical nominations for the last 8 years? Oh yeah, those greedy Repoublicans.

You're a Liberal hack inserted on this site to decieve. Go away.

Posted by: HisMan at August 12, 2008 1:10 AM


"His Man" - I do not understand why you feel the need to be angry and mean. If your analysis is true, why not use facts and truth, rather than name calling (Liberal hack) ?

If it is the Dems blocking of judges is to blame, then why is it 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Pro-Life Conservatives? If they truly meant what they said, then should Roe have been overturned by now?

Let's actually discuss facts, rather than spew anger and name- calling.

We are brothers in Christ and are instructed to be brothers, even if we disagree. For instance, I am vehemently against pre-emptive war and believe that the Bible says it is completely wrong (even the "just war" doctrine), but I do not feel the need to belittle and name-call against those that have different beliefs.

My family and I have volunteered at many churches, women's organizations, and shelters - and I firmly believe that that is what God has called us to do - just because we have different views on how to solve this problem does not mean that we have to hate each other.

Also, if you disagree that Republican politicians' policies have greatly helped the rich at the expense of the poor, then please present some evidence and I will be happy to have a good, constructive, non-cynical conversation. I have presented many facts that support my position: Obama vs. McCain's tax policies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html), The amount this administration has given to Exxon, the 8 million more people that are under the already low poverty line than were 8 years ago, the people that have lost health care, the amount that the government has ballooned the debt (http://www.webfilehost.com/images/fiscal-policy.php), which not only affects our children, but our childrens' children, and the environmental degradation that will ultimately lead to more cases of asthma, allergies, and cancer, just to mention a few.

So, please, let's have a constructive conversation - and debate facts, we are one in Christ, so we should not demean each other. Thank you and God Bless.

Posted by: Jeff From PA at August 12, 2008 6:36 AM


Just not true Jeff from PA. If Bush were not president and nominating the Supreme Court justices that he did then Partial Birth Abortion would still be happening legally in the US.That is hardly lip service. Let's hope it is just a start.

I completely disagree. One hundred percent of our Senators - even the most liberal, are against partial birth abortion. The reason why they would not pass it into law was because there needed to be a stipulation for if the life of the mother was at stake. This bill would have been passed many years ago except Republicans refused this exception - so I argue that partial birth abortions occurred needlessly for 30 years because the Republicans were stubborn on this issue.

Personally, I strongly feel that there needs to be an exception for the life of the mother. If there is a choice between saving the baby and saving the mother, (which is a decent percentage of these cases), I believe that the choice should be up to the family, the doctor, and hopefully their priest.

Besides, partial birth abortions are less than 500 cases a year (which is 500 too many), so, in comparison to the amount that abortions have increased under Bush - it is lip service.

Here are the stats to back it up:

1992: 1,528,000 (Clinton)
1993: 1,495,000 (Clinton)
1994: 1,423,000 (Clinton)
1995 1,359,000 (Clinton)
1996: 1,360,000 (Clinton)
1997: 1,355,000 (Clinton)
1998: 1,319,000 (Clinton
1999: 1,310,000 (Clinton)
2000: 1,228,000
2001: 1,359,000 (Bush)
2002: 1,363,000 (Bush)
2003: 1,356,000 (Bush)
2004: 1,376,000 (Bush)
2005: 1,372,000 (Bush

So, over the course of Clinton's presidency - abortions decreased every year from 1.528 million to 1.228 million a year. Meaning, over the course of his 8 years there were about a million less abortions because of responsible women's programs, contraception programs, and poverty programs. Bush disbanded many of those programs and abortions greatly increased.

Basically, Bush may have passed a bill that stopped 500 abortions a year, but his policies have led to 100,000's of more abortions...

That is lip service. Meanwhile, his biggest friends are: Halliburton, Blackwater, Exxon, and Saudi Arabia. Over the course of 8 years check out how much their profits have gone up and how many of our tax dollars have gone to them (especially Saudi Arabia where 15 of the 19, 9/11 hijackers came from...

So, he has both increased the amount of abortions and stolen from the poor. And John McCain has the exact same positions and the exact same friends (read his economic plan - it gives 4 billion of our tax dollars to Exxon, when they are already have record profits!).

It is time for a change - we have had Conserv pro-life presidents for 20 of the last 28 years and abortions have increased, poverty has increased, the average CEO makes thousands of times what they made before this period, while the average worker makes less than they did if you account for inflation.

It is time we at least give the Dems a chance... I am not 100 behind any party, but I have definitely had enough of the Republicans.

****By the way, when I am referring to Republicans or conservatives, I am referring to a great majority of the politicians - there are some exceptions - and I am definitely not referring to pro-life people. There are many many pro-life people that have done many many great things (including my family, friends, and in-laws). ****

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 6:56 AM


Janet - I missed a lot tonight. I see you've fallen for Obama's CHANGE mantra. How long have you been an Obama fan?

I actually first wrote a blog in 2003 that said that this man needed to be the next president. I read many in depth articles on him and have followed his career with a fine tooth comb since and I have never seen a politician that has at every step of his life sacrificed for others and not himself. He pulled himself up from a poor / single parent family to get an incredible education and rise to the top of his class. Then won a scholarship to Harvard. Worked hard, got to the top of his class there and became editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Then coming out of college, he had the choice of many 6 figure jobs and turned them down to make 13,000 a year working for churches community organizing. Then, he could have taken a corporate lawyer job for close to a half million dollars a year, and instead became a civil rights lawyer for a fraction of that fighting for the regular people instead of corporations. Then he taught Constitutional law, became a state senator - passed the biggest ethics reform bill in Illinois State history and did the same in his short time in the US senate.

He is the American Dream story - worked his but off to go from nothing to one of the top positions in the country, every step giving back to those that gave him a chance.

It is starkly opposite of both Bush and McCain who both had their parents pull strings to get them into good schools, came close to failing out of them (McCain was 892 out of 897 at the Naval Academy) and then had their parents pull strings to get them good jobs (McCain ended up commanding most of those people that graduated higher than him because he had relatives pull strings).

It is time that we have a president that did not have a rich relative pull strings for them, had a better than "C" average, worked their way up on their own, and fought for regular people the whole way.

So, yes, i am extremely pro-Obama. I am not a Democrat - matter of fact, I was "Pro-Life" party affiliated prior to this election, but i was fooled for way too long!

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 7:10 AM


A report came out today that proves my point about Republicans stealing from the poor:

**Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.**

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_bi_ge/corporations_income_tax

Meanwhile, my parents, who make 30,000 dollars a year combined, paid 33 percent, 4,000 in house taxes (which doubled over the last five years), and sales tax.

All of those corporations that did not pay taxes could have taken some of the tax burden from them...

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 7:16 AM


Then, I looked at the legislation aspect of the movement. The Bible might say "Thou shallt not murder," but it does not say "go out and protest, vote, and try to get legislation passed to stop it." Instead, I believe that the message of the Bible is to "care for the least of these." If we turned the focus away from the legislation battle which has gone on for thirty years at a stand still while abortions continue to increase, then I think tens of thousands of babies could be saved each year (or more). Instead, we would rather fight and argue about it - which is exactly the opposite of what the Bible says.

You do not understand the message of the Bible, if you believe the Bible would condone allowing abortion to be legal.

My Bible says:

Proverbs 24:11:

Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don't stand back and let them die.

24:12

Don't try to avoid responsibility by saying you didn't know about it. For God knows all hearts, and he sees you. He keeps watch over your soul, and he knows you knew! And he will judge all people according to what they have done.

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 7:51 AM


So, yes, i am extremely pro-Obama. I am not a Democrat - matter of fact, I was "Pro-Life" party affiliated prior to this election, but i was fooled for way too long!

What are your thoughts on Obama's position on abortion? Does it bother you at all that he said the FIRST thing he wanted to do as president was to sign the FOCA?

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 7:55 AM


I completely disagree. One hundred percent of our Senators - even the most liberal, are against partial birth abortion. The reason why they would not pass it into law was because there needed to be a stipulation for if the life of the mother was at stake. This bill would have been passed many years ago except Republicans refused this exception - so I argue that partial birth abortions occurred needlessly for 30 years because the Republicans were stubborn on this issue.
Personally, I strongly feel that there needs to be an exception for the life of the mother. If there is a choice between saving the baby and saving the mother, (which is a decent percentage of these cases), I believe that the choice should be up to the family, the doctor, and hopefully their priest.
Besides, partial birth abortions are less than 500 cases a year (which is 500 too many), so, in comparison to the amount that abortions have increased under Bush - it is lip service.

Quoting Dr. Haskell, who has performed over 1000 Partial birth abortions:

"There does not seem to be any medical reason for the procedure. A woman obtains it because she wants an abortion."

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 8:00 AM


Besides, partial birth abortions are less than 500 cases a year (which is 500 too many), so, in comparison to the amount that abortions have increased under Bush - it is lip service.
Here are the stats to back it up:

How can you know any of those stats are accurate, as abortions are not reported in all states?

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 8:02 AM


What are your thoughts on Obama's position on abortion? Does it bother you at all that he said the FIRST thing he wanted to do as president was to sign the FOCA?

I completely agree with Obama's position on abortion - "Safe, Legal, and Rare" and of course, once it is made rare enough, then we can look to abolishing it. Because it is nearly impossible to enforce, nearly impossible to get through the court system, and near impossible to be banned - and even if it occurred it would take a decade or more, our focus should be on joining together and drastically reducing abortions rather than debating the issue for another 30 years while millions of babies die. My focus is on saving as many lives as possible through Christ-Like methods. I think that the 30 year debate has only made it more difficult to come together and work on reduction and in the meantime has meant large increases in abortions.

At the same time, in Europe, since complete legalization and universal access to health care and contraception - abortions have decreased dramatically, saving hundreds of thousands of babies - which to me is better than the bitter stand still we have now where abortions just keep increasing.

And as far as FOCA, can you find a link to that quote in context? I would really be curious to see the whole quote's context.

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 8:15 AM


How can you know any of those stats are accurate, as abortions are not reported in all states?

it is according to government sources - so while they are probably not 100 percent accurate, they are as close as we can get.

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 8:17 AM


There are just too many areas where the republicans fall short - for instance health care. Because of our inadequate health care system, an African American child is half as likely to survive its first year of life than a Caucasian baby. These statistics have increased over the course of the last eight years dramatically. So, thousands of African American babies die needlessly each year because of Republican's (politicians) view on health care not being a right of every American. Yet, I hear tremendous outcry about abortions, yet I almost never hear an outcry about these African American babies...

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 8:21 AM


Were those violins I heard playing in the background for at least the last few comments? They describe perfectly those who would back another whiner - blame everyone else for your own choices, while accepting freely the benefits offered by the accused. In your misguided revenge you would love to bring down those happily employed and thankful for that by ruining those who provide their jobs, actually make hard practical decisions that effect many others rather than just themselves, take the real risks to do so, and at the same time have to fend off more problems created by those who freely choose other ways and who whine while they present themselves with medals for doing so! The daily observable evidence always shows that the C average types "make" their livings, deal with real world/everyday life decisions, have incentive to create and struggle to add more than what they started with or live up to expectations of themselves by others dear to them. The "geniuses" often normally stay in the ivory towers to preach to others how to live "in the real world", or just cop out and whine. And your point of having things handed to you fails to include those for whom learning, in theory at least, comes easily, but the testing is what may well be missing and depended upon for others to do. This country offers opportunity for all types. To degrade anyone for his/her accomplishments in the land of freedom and opportunity only reveals a desire to create some kind of false utopia that has failed throughout history...but then, some never learn.

The profits of "those chosen to be hated for the moment" are far less than some of your liberal friends who receive them simply by lying and promoting themselves. When mistakes are made in their cases somebody else always must foot their bills (like the unborn or those tax payers forced to subsidize the immorality)...and with your plans, those safety nets won't be there either. Policies created for revenge purposes always make things worse for all...not those you wish to punish...even while not having all the facts.

All of those stomping their feet against the providers of their own comforts, turn that stomping into something creative...like warming yourselves after you turn off all of your oil-provided attachments. (spend today discovering just how many of those there are, BTW)

My family and I have volunteered at many churches, women's organizations, and shelters - and I firmly believe that that is what God has called us to do - just because we have different views on how to solve this problem does not mean that we have to hate each other.

Then why do you spend so much comment space never defending those who do have that "different" approach, also benefitting others in their own ways, but just don't preach about it??! Maybe they'll just get their rewards "later".

Oh, and Sally: Abortions performed at the point of gestation when a premie might have a chance of survival are few and far between and done for reasons best decided by a professional as well as those actually concerned.

And that kind of mushy excusing is exactly how we got to 50,000,000 lives lost today...the holocaust of societal suicide.

Posted by: KC at August 12, 2008 8:27 AM


I completely agree with Obama's position on abortion - "Safe, Legal, and Rare" and of course, once it is made rare enough, then we can look to abolishing it.

Then, you are absolutely, unequivocally, NOT pro-life, Jeff.

I'm sorry, but you cannot be pro-life, and want abortion to be "safe" or "legal".

Even according to the dictionary, you do not fit:
Pro-life: advocating full legal protection of embryos and fetuses (especially opposing the legalization of induced abortions)

Abortion is NEVER "safe" to the unborn child. I do not believe you when you say you believe abortion is murder.

I'm sorry if this offends you, but you are indeed a liar/deceiver. To yourself, and to others.

And don't say "let's not insult each other- we should work together". I'm not insulting you. You are being deliberately dishonest, and I'm calling you on it.

Calling yourself pro-life and then saying that you support the legalization of abortion is contradictory and deceitful.

As for what the Bible says about telling it like it is, Jesus called liars and hypocrites on it when He saw them, and I see no reason why I should not do the same.

Because it is nearly impossible to enforce, nearly impossible to get through the court system, and near impossible to be banned

It has been banned in the past. Why would it be impossible to do something that has already been done?

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 8:30 AM


And as far as FOCA, can you find a link to that quote in context? I would really be curious to see the whole quote's context.

Knock yourself out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 8:31 AM


All of those stomping their feet against the providers of their own comforts, turn that stomping into something creative...like warming yourselves after you turn off all of your oil-provided attachments. (spend today discovering just how many of those there are, BTW)

Go KC!!!!!

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 8:35 AM


You do not understand the message of the Bible, if you believe the Bible would condone allowing abortion to be legal.

I think this is insulting and distorts what i said - we have different readings of the Bible. I do believe that the Bible would not condone abortion - however the Bible also would not condone Usury, Blasphemy, and many other things that we do not make laws about (I am not saying that these are equal to abortion, I will explain what I mean in the next sentences).

But i do think that the Bible says "take care of the least of these as you would me" - which to me does mean abortion, but it also means: not allowing a pre-emptive war that killed 100,000's of civilians, not allowing poverty to be in our midst (which leads to untold deaths each year), to provide health care to the least of these (like my mom, who cannot afford health care and has been told she has five years to live because she cannot afford a surgery), not allowing degradation of the environment which was a gift to us that we are caretakers for - which leads to countless deaths each year because of cancer, asthma, and other environmental hazards, not allowing our government to committ atrocious acts in our name as they are in Eritrea currently, and many many more things...

So, basically my belief, which is perhaps partially shaped by my moms condition, is that abortion is an extremely important issue, but it is not realistic to stop completely any time soon and the Republican politicians have no will or want to do so, so i am not willing to accept all those other deaths in order to support Republicans who are not going to really stop abortion anyways - besides, no one yet has responded to why if they really want to stop it, it has not been stopped when 7 of the 9 justices have been appointed by Republican Pro-Life presidents.

They do not really want to stop abortions, they just want your anger over that issue to provide votes, so that they can implement other destructive policies. As long as abortions occur they know they have a voting block - so why would they ever want to end it? The longer it is a wedge issue, the more elections they win - the more the gap between the rich and poor, the more they can degrade God's gift of the environment, the more they can take away our health care, and now they even want to take away our social security.

It is not worth it for politicians that are not going to actually stop any abortions anyway.

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 8:41 AM


But i do think that the Bible says "take care of the least of these as you would me" - which to me does mean abortion,

Okay, Jeff, let's take that as you said. Are you one who would allow Christ to legally hang on the tree, as long as deaths like his were "safe" "legal" and "rare"? Because you just said that you are treating the unborn as you would treat Christ.

Taking care of the least of these...is this achieved by allowing 1 million murders every year?

You are looking the other way, and allowing the death of innocent babies, and you are pretending you don't know you are part of the cause.
God knows your heart.

but it also means: not allowing a pre-emptive war that killed 100,000's of civilians, not allowing poverty to be in our midst (which leads to untold deaths each year), to provide health care to the least of these (like my mom, who cannot afford health care and has been told she has five years to live because she cannot afford a surgery), not allowing degradation of the environment which was a gift to us that we are caretakers for

All that, but allowing innocent babies to die legally - Consistent logic there, Jeff.

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 8:46 AM


Well I gotta run. Talk to you all soon.

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 8:58 AM


It has been banned in the past. Why would it be impossible to do something that has already been done?

Because the Republicans have no will or want to do so - they have put 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices in office - it could have been done by now if they wanted it to be... They don't. They want to use it as a wedge issue to get your vote, then turn their back on you when they get in office and steal from the poor.

The fact is, if I actually thought the Republicans would safely and responsibly end abortion - I would be completely for it - and that is why i am pro-life (personally, not part of the movement)... The fact is, i just do not believe them - they have a thirty year record of talking about it and not doing anything - they have had the presidency for 20 of the last 28 years, they had full control of both houses and the presidency and they did not do it! They put 7 of the 9 court justices in power. Instead, they stole from the poor, lined their rich friends pockets and let abortions get worse...

I know you are sincere and really want abortion to end, but these politicians are just using you to line their pockets.

I'm sorry if this offends you, but you are indeed a liar/deceiver.

Once again, when you do not have facts, you resort to name-calling. You may consider this Christ-like, but I do not. Christ ate with the lepers and tax-collectors, those he considered to be sinners. I firmly believe that if Christ were alive today he would say the way to stop abortion is through caring for the least of these: mothers, orphans, the poor, which would lead to saving babies lives.

For 30 years of black / white thinking on this issue, how many babies has it saved?

I am pro-life, because I believe that we need to compromise and save as many as are possible rather for fighting for what is impossible.

It would be like in the holocaust if every German just said oh this is so horrible, there is something we should do, let's try to enact laws to stop it - instead of hiding as many people in your home, trying to help people escape, etc.

Both ways are honorable, just different perspectives. You believe in trying to enact laws to prevent the holocaust, I believe that we should each do it in our own neighborhoods and that would be more effective and break the 30 year stand still that has lead only to arguing and an increase in abortions.

Posted by: jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 8:58 AM


Thanks Bethany - have a good day and God Bless. Pray for me as I will pray for you and we can both trust Him to help make our pathways straight on this difficult issue!

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 9:00 AM


Taking care of the least of these...is this achieved by allowing 1 million murders every year?

I completely agree - but how do we stop it?? Republican politicians have consistently proved that they do not have the will nor want to stop it. 3 of our last four presidents have been Conserv prolife presidents, they had all three branches of government, and 7 of the 9 supreme court justices. If they truly were going to do what they say, i would be behind you. But, they have paid lip service for 30 years and abortions have only increased. In my mind, they are the prophets that come in sheeps clothing, but are truly wolves.

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 9:04 AM


My mom called and I do not have to leave for another 30 minutes. I will try to respond to whatever I can until then.

Jeff, you are not being honest with me. You are saying you agree with me in one breath, that abortion is murder and should be erradicated, but you just said also,

"I completely agree with Obama's position on abortion - 'Safe, Legal, and Rare'"

Which is it? It can't be both ways, you know.

You can keep on the blame game and talk about politicians and how they aren't going to do anything, but that is just a cop out. You asked, "I completely agree - but how do we stop it??"

Well, the answer to that CERTAINLY is not to vote Obama in office...Obama who wants to sign the Freedom of Choice act into law!! Not by voting in Obama, who doesn't even have enough decency to want to protect BORN babies from being left to die unjustly in hospitals.

For 30 years of black / white thinking on this issue, how many babies has it saved?

Not enough. Until abortion is made illegal, not enough babies will be saved or given justice. That is why I continue to pursue it, and will continue to until it happens.

How long did it take for slavery to be eradicated from the US, Jeff? Did it happen overnight? Do you really expect the abortion war to be fought and won overnight?

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 9:18 AM


Once again, when you do not have facts, you resort to name-calling. You may consider this Christ-like, but I do not. Christ ate with the lepers and tax-collectors, those he considered to be sinners. I firmly believe that if Christ were alive today he would say the way to stop abortion is through caring for the least of these: mothers, orphans, the poor, which would lead to saving babies lives.

No, i gave you the facts. I showed you what pro-life means, and I showed you how you plainly contradict everything about what pro-life means.

Of course Christ would help stop abortion by caring for orphans, poor, and the mothers. We pro-lifers are doing that while simultaneously calling for it to be made illegal. Do you not think that it is possible to do both?

But do you think Christ would support abortion being "safe", "legal", and "rare", Jeff? I would be careful answering that question.

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 9:24 AM


Now I really must go. Take care, Jeff.

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 9:30 AM


I completely agree - but how do we stop it??

Okay..."stopping it" 101: don't vote or back through words, actions, stupidity, for the man who's promised to first place all of his "moral" authority/influence as President of the U.S. on the "Freedom of Choice Act". Got that? Well, I'm not too sure though since by now, Jeff, you have confused yourself (and us, BTW) by so many obfuscations in the area of morality that it may even be difficult to just choose clearly the direction home!

Posted by: KC at August 12, 2008 9:31 AM


Hi Jeff. You believe that the best way to end abortion, which you agree is murder, is through helping the poor, volunteering, etc. You also believe that the conservatives in office have let us down as far as ending abortion goes. That may be the case, I don't know. But what I don't understand is how this has driven you to accept the "safe legal rare" mantra. You point to some problems that would result if Roe v Wade was overturned. Sure, it would not be a cake walk. But does that justify supporting a law that says you can kill an innocent human being? Does it logically follow that "if a law will be difficult to enforce, then it should not be a law." What if our forensic science was extremely poor and we were almost never able to prove that someone committed an act of rape? Does it then follow that abortion should be safe legal and rare? It is only with abortion that people think this way.

I guess what I don't understand is why you don't continue to do volunteer work, encourage others to do the same etc. as the best means of ending abortion all the while not tolerating a single abortion. Because SLR of course implies that some abortions should be morally permissible, or at least tolerated. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 12, 2008 9:37 AM


"Even if they are too young to live anyway? Why not let them naturally die in peace rather than waste time and money on a lost cause"

Marie honey, when you are old and fragile the people you mentor will remeber what you said and will simply pull the plug even if you are not sick. Why waste time and money keeping your nasty alive.

Women like you are the reason why today I loathe the feminist sisterhood of my gender; you're repulsive and inhuman.

Posted by: syn at August 12, 2008 9:58 AM


Bethany@ 8:30,
You are awesome!
- - - - - - - - - - -
Jeff,
This is what Obama had to say in 2006:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

Posted by: Janet at August 12, 2008 10:07 AM


It is starkly opposite of both Bush and McCain who both had their parents pull strings to get them into good schools, came close to failing out of them (McCain was 892 out of 897 at the Naval Academy) and then had their parents pull strings to get them good jobs (McCain ended up commanding most of those people that graduated higher than him because he had relatives pull strings).

It is time that we have a president that did not have a rich relative pull strings for them, had a better than "C" average, worked their way up on their own, and fought for regular people the whole way.

So, yes, i am extremely pro-Obama. I am not a Democrat - matter of fact, I was "Pro-Life" party affiliated prior to this election, but i was fooled for way too long!

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 7:10 AM

You know, no one can chose the family they are born into. There's no shame in being born into a wealthy family as Bush was. So what if his family had money and friends in high places. As for McCain, there's no shame in being at the bottom of the class at the elite Naval Academy, if that's true. It's not like being at the bottom of the class at Joe Schmo College. I don't think you are being fair in your assessments of either of these men. You think you were fooled before? Change for the sake of change is not the answer. Obama doesn't have the administrative experience to be President. Let's not be fooled by this Everyman.

Posted by: Janet at August 12, 2008 10:24 AM


From Wikipedia, a quick overview of Everyman:

"In literature and drama, the term everyman has come to mean an ordinary individual, with whom the audience or reader is supposed to be able to identify easily, and who is often placed in extraordinary circumstances. The name derives from a 16th century English morality play called Everyman.
The contemporary everyman differs greatly from his (or her) medieval counterpart in many respects. While the medieval everyman was devoid of definite marks of individuality to create a universality in the moral message of the play, the contemporary storyteller may use an everyman for amoral or, to some ways of thinking, immoral purposes."

"In adventure stories, the protagonist is often the idealized competent man who possesses charm, wit, charisma, exceptional intelligence, sex appeal, athletic and fighting ability, and a multitude of talents that help him through his adventures. Such characters are expected to and usually do emerge as victors from every scenario they encounter. The everyman character, however, is constructed so that the reader or audience can imagine itself/themselves in the same situation without having to possess knowledge, skills, or abilities outside everyday experience. Such characters react realistically in situations that are often taken for granted with traditional heroes; an everyman character who gets into a fight is likely to hurt his hand if he punches another character.
Alternatively, an Everyman occupies the role of protagonist without being a 'hero' and without the depth which usually defines central characters. In this scenario, the Everyman is developed like a secondary character, but her/his near omnipresence in the story causes the reader or audience to focus on events and story lines surrounding him/her. Some audiences or readers may project themselves into this character, if no dominant characteristic of the Everyman prevents them from doing so. Others may ignore the character and concentrate on the story arc, the visual imagery, the irony or satire, and any other aspect of the story which the orchestrator(s) of the story have focused upon or, indeed, whatever personally interests the reader."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyman

Posted by: Janet at August 12, 2008 10:28 AM


Jeff from PA says:
Basically, Bush may have passed a bill that stopped 500 abortions a year, but his policies have led to 100,000's of more abortions...

but it also means: not allowing a pre-emptive war that killed 100,000's of civilians

Jeff,
You are using Bush as a scapegoat. He did not force those 100,000's of woman to choose abortion. In fact he told them not to have sex till they were ready for children. How can you blame Bush for their lifes choices? Cause he didn't dispense BC? Are you serious?

Also, your pre-emptive war was supported by almost 100% of Democrats too, so the war, based on the available intelligence, would have happened regardless of a Democrat or Republican president. I fault Bush for not planning it well, but it would have been an even greater disaster if the Dem's were in charge cause they would have pulled out a couple years ago and complete failure and chaos would have been the result. Again, why blame Bush when there was almost complete unanominity by Democrats and Republicans alike about the decision to support the invasion? You seem to use Bush hating but the Democrats on the Armed Services Commitee who saw the same intelligence supported the war too?
So why do you think it would have been any different if somebody besides Bush was in office?

Posted by: truthseeker at August 12, 2008 10:33 AM


Jeff from PA,
I have been asking a question of people about Barack Obama's support of Partial Birth Abortion and I would like to know what your answer would be.

This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description that was part of the testimony from the Supreme Court decision that banned PBA :
“‘At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides thefingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetusand “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).
“‘While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fin-gers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of bluntcurved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it con-tact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.“‘[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Havingsafely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.“‘The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he appliestraction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.’”

Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26½-week fetus and who testified“‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed thebaby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . .“‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and un-clasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. “‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked thebaby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . “‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the pla-centa. He threw the baby in a pan, along with theplacenta and the instruments he had just used.’”

Barack supported Planned Parenthood's (the Plaintiff in the above mentioned testimony) efforts and his wife Michelle Obama held fund-raisers to try and keep PBA legal. See, what really gets me angry is people calling themselves Christians and supporting that "procedure". I am all for Christian unity but PBA is the Devil's sacrament and we cannot allow evil demons into our communion. Just please, without a lot of sidelining, answer this one question and if it makes sense to me then I will accept people who call themselves Christian and allow for abortion. What could Barack and Michelle Obama say to Jesus in order to get his blessing in their personal decision promote the PBA procedure outlined above?

Posted by: truthseeker at August 12, 2008 10:44 AM


many religious people, like Jeff, are turning to Obama (thank God)

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=314

or the most part, the various faith communities of the U.S. currently support Sen. Obama for the presidency. Among the 19 faith segments that The Barna Group tracks, evangelicals were the only segment to throw its support to Sen. McCain. Among the larger faith niches to support Sen. Obama are non-evangelical born again Christians (43% to 31%); notional Christians (44% to 28%); people aligned with faiths other than Christianity (56% to 24%); atheists and agnostics (55% to 17%); Catholics (39% vs. 29%); and Protestants (43% to 34%). In fact, if the current preferences stand pat, this would mark the first time in more than two decades that the born again vote has swung toward the Democratic candidate.

However, while there has been little movement since the beginning of June among most voting segments (such as ethnic groups, age groups, or geographic slices), there has been substantial churn among religious segments. During the past two months, Sen. Obama’s lead has eroded substantially among non-evangelical born again Christians (a decline of nine points); active Christians (a 20-point drop); Protestants (down 13 points); and Catholics (down 11 points).

While some Christian voters seem to be questioning their early support for Obama, the McCain candidacy does not seem to be gaining momentum among evangelicals. Since June, the current level of support Sen. McCain has among evangelical voters has declined significantly (dropping from 78% to 61%).

Posted by: Hal at August 12, 2008 10:59 AM


Catholics will vote McCain or they are not Catholics by faith, but wanna-be Catholics who pay lip service to their faith. Obama would be ex-communicated if he were Catholic. The Catholic teaching from the catechism could not be any clearer.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

There is a lot more out there, including the scripture passgaes to back it up, in the Catholic Catechism, people of Christian faith should read it. Just google "catechism abortion"

Posted by: truthseeker at August 12, 2008 11:09 AM


What a ludicrous comment to think that graduating at the bottom of the class in a service academy makes that person somehow unfit to lead.

Do you have any idea what is required of those kids just to finish and graduate?

First: They typcailly are taking 24 credit hours when the average college kid is taking 12 to 15 and being overwhelmed by it. They are required to play a sport. They are required to participate in drills, marching and other activites. They go from 5 AM to 9 PM.

My son was 625 out of 850 at the Air Force Academy and I would put him up against any Harvard or MIT grad.

Did you know that the service Academies have THE smartest kids going there? Did you know that there are about 40,000 applicants for just under 900 slots every year per Academy? Just to get in is a major accomplishment. You have to be nomnated by your Senator, Congressmand or the VP just to be considered and then you have to be appointed to actually get in. The competition is fierce. By the way, McCain nominated and appointed by son to both the AF and Naval Academies.

Do you know what my son's SAT scores were? Try 1400 with straight As and lettered in two sports, football and track.

The point is he would have been at or near the top of his class at any other university.

The fact is, he chose to serve his country for 10 years. The smart kids that choose to go and graduate from a service academy are the best and the brightest.

The ingnorance displayed on this site is evidence why Liberals can tell so many lies and be believed by so many wack jobs.

John McCain proved himself in Vietnam. Where did the puke Obama prove himself? Oh yeah, I know. In the mirror and I could only guess what he was watching himself do.

Posted by: HisMan at August 12, 2008 11:14 AM


Hal,
Christians believe there is no greater lave than to lay down your life for a friend. Christians put their faith the resurrection when Jesus comes again, so they would not kill their child in the womb today because without repentance and forgiveness for such an act they risk eternal damnation.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 12, 2008 11:21 AM


oh HisMan, now it is you that seems to be upset. Prospect of 8 years of Obama in the White House getting you down?

Posted by: Hal at August 12, 2008 11:22 AM


Truthseeker, what you say might be true. But a majority of Christians are voting for Obama anyway.

"Among the larger faith niches to support Sen. Obama are non-evangelical born again Christians (43% to 31%); notional Christians (44% to 28%); people aligned with faiths other than Christianity (56% to 24%); atheists and agnostics (55% to 17%); Catholics (39% vs. 29%); and Protestants (43% to 34%)."

I especially enjoy the support he's getting among Catholics. So, outside the bubble of this site, Obama seems pretty popular.

Posted by: Hal at August 12, 2008 11:27 AM


"Women like you are the reason why today I loathe the feminist sisterhood of my gender; you're repulsive and inhuman."

Syn, that is an uncalled for attack. No matter how upsetting the sentiment.

I'm not quite sure how to approach the subject, but it seems like the PC'rs think that the mothers should decide to enact a DNR or not, same with any young preemie, regardless of circumstances surrounding premature birth. I'm not sure what the BAIPA says about that, though. I'm kind of in the dark about the details, here.

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 12, 2008 11:29 AM


What a ludicrous comment to think that graduating at the bottom of the class in a service academy makes that person somehow unfit to lead.

"His Man", Actually, my main point was that he only got in because his family pulled strings, then he only got a commanders rank above the people that graduated ahead of him because his family pulled strings. My main point was that Obama worked incredibly hard and did not have any strings pulled for him - he got in on his own.

And I apologize if you took any statements that I made as personally against your son - but I think your argument proves my point. Your sons education was great, but is he ready to be president? My point was, I am tired of having presidents who need their family to pull strings to get into higher positions. It is refreshing to have someone that worked their own way up the latter.

And by the way - I am in no way disrespecting John McCain - I respect him as a person, I just really do not like the way he has voted and made his way up the ladder - I do not think he deserves to be president after his scandals, affairs, and horrific voting record.

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 1:18 PM


"His Man" John McCain proved himself in Vietnam. Where did the puke Obama prove himself? Oh yeah, I know. In the mirror and I could only guess what he was watching himself do.

For having a name that indicates godliness, you seem to spew a lot of hatred. Why can't we have a serious discussion without resorting to this kind of name-calling?

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 1:21 PM


Barack supported Planned Parenthood's (the Plaintiff in the above mentioned testimony) efforts and his wife Michelle Obama held fund-raisers to try and keep PBA legal. See, what really gets me angry is people calling themselves Christians and supporting that "procedure". I am all for Christian unity but PBA is the Devil's sacrament and we cannot allow evil demons into our communion. Just please, without a lot of sidelining, answer this one question and if it makes sense to me then I will accept people who call themselves Christian and allow for abortion. What could Barack and Michelle Obama say to Jesus in order to get his blessing in their personal decision promote the PBA procedure outlined above?

Obama has said time and time again that he is against PBA as long as there is an exception for the life of the mother. If it is a choice between the mother and the baby, then the decision should be made by the family, their doctor, and hopefully their pastor.

Someone wrote back earlier that this is a cop-out, that the life of the mother is almost never in doubt, if that is the case, then why not have it as part of the law?

Posted by: jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 1:31 PM


Again, why blame Bush when there was almost complete unanominity by Democrats and Republicans alike about the decision to support the invasion?

It has been proven that Bush lied about WMD. Also, the way they got their supposed evidence was through torture... That is why it was false evidence is because they were torturing to get it.

So, if we would not have tortured, we would not have gotten false evidence, and so many would not have had to die - including a good friend of mine.

It all stemmed from one original sin - torturing.

Beyond that, this week evidence came out that Bush requested the CIA to forge documents to make the case for war.

So, while I am against anyone that voted for war - it was an illegal pre-emptive war by any standard - even if they had WMD, that does not give us the right to invade. Why did we not invade North Korea, Pakistan, India, etc, that definitely have WMD?

Posted by: jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 1:39 PM


Jeff, on occasion someone like you wanders on to this site, and as Hal accurately predicted, gets torn apart by self-described "pro-life Christians"- who are some of the nastiest, most judgmental people on Earth.

Stick around if you can stand it. I found your posts interesting, insightful and worthwhile.

Posted by: PPC at August 12, 2008 1:43 PM


Hi Jeff. You believe that the best way to end abortion, which you agree is murder, is through helping the poor, volunteering, etc. You also believe that the conservatives in office have let us down as far as ending abortion goes. That may be the case, I don't know. But what I don't understand is how this has driven you to accept the "safe legal rare" mantra. You point to some problems that would result if Roe v Wade was overturned. Sure, it would not be a cake walk. But does that justify supporting a law that says you can kill an innocent human being? Does it logically follow that "if a law will be difficult to enforce, then it should not be a law." What if our forensic science was extremely poor and we were almost never able to prove that someone committed an act of rape? Does it then follow that abortion should be safe legal and rare? It is only with abortion that people think this way.

Thanks Bobby for being so respectful in your tone, I really appreciate it :) No, what I believe is that once abortions are reduced enough then legislation will be easier to achieve. Also, that the bad things that Conservative politicians are doing incredibly outweigh their false promises on the abortion front.

So, people vote for them on the basis of one or two issues (not everyone, but many people do not even watch the legislation they actually pass and then just vote for them anyways) and ignore the pain and suffering the rest of their legislation is causing.

For instance, I firmly believe that their standing in the way of health care has prevented my mom from getting the care that she needs. Her and my dad worked 2-3 jobs their entire life and cannot even afford good health care - so recently she was told she has less than five years to live because she cannot afford surgery.

These are the laws that result from the false promises on abortion. So, I have chosen a different approach to preventing abortions because the Dems are better on life in a host of other issues.

Posted by: jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 1:52 PM


Thanks PPC and God Bless :)

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 1:53 PM


Basically, it all boils down to this: Christ did not work through the government of Rome - he worked through individual lives. So i truly believe that the best way we can work on this problem is loving individuals, not fighting through Rome.

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 2:00 PM


Jeff, you remind me a bit of Bobby. You have different views, but are both polite and thoughtful.

The pro-lifers on this site think they are working for God, which makes them a bit militant perhaps, and uncompromising for sure. They believe they know "the truth" and everyone else is wrong or lying.

Posted by: Hal at August 12, 2008 2:02 PM


Thanks for the reply Jeff.

"No, what I believe is that once abortions are reduced enough then legislation will be easier to achieve."

OK, that sounds reasonable. But that doesn't necessarily mean that IF legislation were to pass no, then it WOULD NOT work, right? I think to a certain extent I can agree with what you said above, but that doesn't mean I don't want to fight for an end to legalized abortion now. So would you be against overturning Roe v Wade today?


"Also, that the bad things that Conservative politicians are doing incredibly outweigh their false promises on the abortion front."

If they are indeed making false promises then this does no good, true. I don't know too much politics so I can't really comment on it.

Like I said (or maybe alluded to) yesterday, the best way to end abortion is a prudential matter. I think Christians can be in "good standing" (whatever that means) before the Lord and have disagreements about the best way to end abortion. I guess I'm still having a hard time trying to reconcile an acceptance of legal abortion. Let me ask you this: Would Obama be a better or worse candidate in your view if he was exactly the same as he is now accept that he promised to overturn Roe v Wade? If he still made all the same promises and plans that he does now except that his abortion position was a complete pi radians (degrees are for babies), would that make him a stronger or worse candidate in your eyes? God love you Jeff.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 12, 2008 2:18 PM


Jeff, you remind me a bit of Bobby. You have different views, but are both polite and thoughtful.

Thanks Hal, what i have seen of Bobby (he or she) has been very nice - we may disagree, but there is no need to be mean.

Posted by: jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 2:19 PM


Oh BTW Jeff, do you mind me asking if you belong to any particular denomination or branch or whatever of Christianity? If you don't really have a traditional "label" that is fine too.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 12, 2008 2:26 PM


So would you be against overturning Roe v Wade today?

That is a difficult question - because I would need to see how it would be enforced, which to me seems like a huge problem.

Would Obama be a better or worse candidate in your view if he was exactly the same as he is now accept that he promised to overturn Roe v Wade? If he still made all the same promises and plans that he does now except that his abortion position was a complete pi radians (degrees are for babies), would that make him a stronger or worse candidate in your eyes?

What a great question and this is a great way to illustrate why i support Obama. Most Pro-life candidates argue to reverse Roe, but never have a comprehensive plan or outline on what would happen afterwards. Honestly, I believe it is because they do not think or want it to actually pass. If they add details to how it could be done, then all of the problems become obvious. It is simpler just to say "Pro-Life", not have a plan, and get votes.

So my answer to this question is the major reason that I like Obama over any other politician in my lifetime - he is thoughtful, brilliant, and gives detailed, thorough analysis of all his plans. So, if he were to reverse course, there would be a book-length plan detailing how it would be enacted without chaos resulting.

When you look at McCain's web-site, it lists him as Pro-Life, but in no way outlines how we could go about it... They act as if overturning Roe is the end, when it would really just be the beginning (as I outlined all the difficulties in a post yesterday).

By the way, thank you so much Bobby - your commentary is truly a breath of fresh air - I greatly appreciate your humility and kindness in your words!

Posted by: jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 2:29 PM


Oh BTW Jeff, do you mind me asking if you belong to any particular denomination or branch or whatever of Christianity? If you don't really have a traditional "label" that is fine too.

I grew up Evangelical, but have since moved to a Christian Missionary Alliance Church. How about you?

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 2:32 PM


Jeff,

OK. I get what you're saying. So (sorry to keep bombarding you with questions) it seems you're saying that overturning Roe v Wade and sending the decision back to the states without a comprehensive plan as to how to implement it is WORSE than continuing legal abortion all through out the United States . Is that correct?

"I grew up Evangelical, but have since moved to a Christian Missionary Alliance Church. How about you?"

Is this your denomination then http://www.cmalliance.org/ ? I am Catholic. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 12, 2008 2:48 PM


Jeff @ 2:29,
So my answer to this question is the major reason that I like Obama over any other politician in my lifetime - he is thoughtful, brilliant, and gives detailed, thorough analysis of all his plans.

How do you know he is brilliant, besides the fact he has a Harvard degree?

Posted by: Janet at August 12, 2008 3:51 PM


Janet, there are many ways to know he's brillant. He's articulate (can I say that?), he has good judgment, good ideas, good strategies, beat the undisputed Democratic front-runner, is beating McCain handily, went to great schools and did very well, was elected to run the Harvard Law Review, is admired greatly by people on both sides of the political divide.

Posted by: Hal at August 12, 2008 3:59 PM


Jeff @ 2:00,

Basically, it all boils down to this: Christ did not work through the government of Rome - he worked through individual lives. So i truly believe that the best way we can work on this problem is loving individuals, not fighting through Rome.

Christ established the Catholic Church (the universal Church with Peter as the first Pope, Christ's representative on earth. The government of Rome has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. I don't know what you mean about fighting through Rome.
Can you please explain?

Posted by: Janet at August 12, 2008 4:00 PM


I think he's saying Christ tried to make change by imfluencing people not the government (in Rome)

Posted by: Hal at August 12, 2008 4:08 PM


Janet, I think when he said "Rome" he is referring to the Roman government as Jesus' time, not the RCC. So he's saying that Jesus didn't "start a revolution" by going through the government i.e. Rome, but he did it by changing people's hearts which is what Jeff is saying he wishes to do. Something like that, I believe.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 12, 2008 4:11 PM


Hasl: Show me one person who supports Obama who will care about some obscure vote in 2003. You got your federal act..

Right - and Obama is fine with caring for born babies. His objections to the Illinois bills were toward the other stuff that was in them, not the "caring for born babies" part, like what is in the federal bill.

Posted by: Doug at August 12, 2008 4:36 PM


To turn a phrase: "brilliant is as brilliant does"! BTW, some of the most famous psychopaths/sociopaths were "brilliant". And judgment? You'll have to be more specific there - on which day, which month, which year? But don't go back too far...like before these past few months of campaigning or else you run into the shady character/"perhaps I shouldn't have phrased it in quite those words" choices! Good ideas? Well on the spectrum of variety there certainly must be some good ones - take your choice! There's a whole cafeteria.
Law Review: "Obama’s vol. 104 is the least-cited volume of the Harvard Law Review in the last 20 years. And there doesn’t seem to be any record of Obama publishing anything in his own journal. Obama was, objectively speaking, a lousy president of the Harvard Law Review."

Basically, it all boils down to this: Christ did not work through the government of Rome - he worked through individual lives.

The very fact that Christ preached to the multitudes...and in opposition to the authorities of the day (both Rome and religious)...got him in trouble with Rome - as well as with the religious authorities of the day (who were used by Rome for their own purposes) who also "obfuscated" when it came to the Truth. And also in fact He taught the multitudes through His example to the individual - like Rachel's Vineyard does - without compromising or negating the evil committed.

Posted by: KC at August 12, 2008 5:01 PM


Right - and Obama is fine with caring for born babies. His objections to the Illinois bills were toward the other stuff that was in them, not the "caring for born babies" part, like what is in the federal bill.

Doug. The Illinois version and the Federal version were identical. What "other stuff" are you referring to?


The very fact that Christ preached to the multitudes

KC, THANK YOU!


Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 6:16 PM


many religious people, like Jeff, are turning to Obama (thank God)

Definition of irony: The Atheist thanking God for religious people.

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 6:17 PM


self-described "pro-life Christians"- who are some of the nastiest, most judgmental people on Earth.

Another definition of irony: Making judgmental generalizations while accusing others of being judgmental.

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 6:21 PM


The pro-lifers on this site think they are working for God, which makes them a bit militant perhaps, and uncompromising for sure. They believe they know "the truth" and everyone else is wrong or lying.

Hal, would you ever compromise on the issue of rape? Do you need to be working for God in order to be uncompromising on the issue of rape?

In the same way, pro-lifers can be uncompromising in their views about abortion, without having a religious reason for doing so. Which is why there are many pro-life atheists and agnostics on this blog. And you already know that.

By the way, I find it interesting that you tried to relate to a Christian with insults towards Christians.

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 6:25 PM


Jeff, does it bother you at all that the most positive responses to your ideas came from abortion proponents?

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 6:28 PM



Bambino,

I gotta hand it to you. I am struggling with charity for this guy, and you master it beautifully.

Jeff, your posts are absolutely flooring me. Saying "Christ" and "safe, legal, and rare" in the same breath?

Dismembered limbs aren't proof enough?

How would Christ justify that?

Posted by: carder at August 12, 2008 6:39 PM


Thanks Hal and Bobby,
I hadn't thought of that. Thanks!

Posted by: Janet at August 12, 2008 6:40 PM


I gotta hand it to you. I am struggling with charity for this guy, and you master it beautifully.

Carder, I second that!!

Posted by: Bethany at August 12, 2008 6:52 PM


See, I have patience with SoMG because he recognizes abortion for what it is and doesn't pretend to say that he's pro-life since he kind of feels sorry for the unfortunate fetus. As far as that's concerned, he's under no delusion.

And Hal, he's a satisfied abortion customer, so, again, he's calling himself a pro choicer with no room for doubt on our part.

But Jeff? Saying pro-life on one side but "we need to compromise" on the other? If you were to say "I'm pro-choice" and continue with the gentleness and prayer lecture, then you wouldn't hear a peep from me, cause I've just about heard it all before from self-proclaimed prochoicers.

Don't call yourself prolife when you're not.

Posted by: carder at August 12, 2008 7:23 PM


The Illinois version and the Federal version were identical. What "other stuff" are you referring to?

No they weren't, Bethany. The Federal act doesn't include the stuff that Obama objected to, just as he said when the IL Senate was debating the state bills.

Posted by: Doug at August 12, 2008 8:44 PM


Jeff: The amount of abortions in this country directly parallels how many people are under the poverty line - the more under the line - the more abortions - every single year since Roe.

Jeff, that's interesting, and it makes sense, but it's also not like it's only those under the poverty line that are affected by economics and the resource situation - I'd say that in general modern people are motivated not to have kids when they cannot afford them.

IMO, all other considerations aside, moves to ban or further restrict abortion will have a harder and harder time of it as the years go by.

Posted by: Doug at August 12, 2008 8:54 PM


Jeff:

I guess you also take Jesus' word, "And I will vomit you out of my mouth", or in the more modern vernacular, "I will puke you out of my mouth" as applying to lukewarm Christians as politically incorrect as well? Look, your views are Liberal tripe and are incompatible with biblical principles, no matter how you try to paint yourself. Your deception will be greatly rewarded. You cannot be a Christian and support Obama, it's that simple.

Obama's election will solidify Sumpreme Court nominees for years and if you think Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned after that, well, I have some desert land here in AZ I'd like to sell you....I suppose that the way to end slavery was for the South to win the war as well.....man, young kids are so impressionable.

I looked up your denomination on the web. On the surface it appears to be OK, but only on the surface, you know, for public consumption. What I look for is how close a church is organized according to the Biblical pattern given. My suspicion is that your church is a cult. Anytime there's a "President" of a small denomination, huge red flags go up. Your church's set-up is like the Worldwide Church of God. Yes, and I understand that the individual churches are owned by the headquarters......WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, WARNING.

My friend, for you to be able to support Obama, the pro-abort and pro-homosexual that he is, you are listening to the wrong people. Tell me, where are the donations going that are collected in each of your churches? Follow the money baby.

Abortion is murder, abortion represents death as a solution. Since God institutes government, a government that has legalized abortion is not following God and is doomed to judgement.

Obama is pro gay marriage and pro homosexual too. I suppose you and your church are for gay marriage as well, the most societally destructive notions out there? If you are for homosexaulity and gay marraige your views are an abomination to God's Word. What are your views on homosexuality? I saw no position statements on your church's site nor were there any statements revealed when a search on "homosexuality" and "gay marriage" was done other than gobs of irrelevant Index pages.

Finally, your church appears to be set up as a franchise? Royalty free use of logos? What the heck is that? Man, get away from that organization as soon as you can my friend, you are being mislead and decieved.

Cult, cult, cult, cult.

Hal:

No I'm not worried about Obama being elected. You have no idea what's coming doen the pike my friend. What bothers me is how people like you can so sheeplishly follow such a deciever. And the Geogia/Russia thing, have you seen BO's comments on it? He's a schoolboy playing in the major leagues and is about to get his ball taken away from him. This conflict will escalate and secure McCain's election.

And this too. BO just spouted how if you're over 65 and make $50,000.00 you won't have to pay any taxes. Well, oh my Goodness, what's new - now that's change we can beleive in? This guy is a scam artist par excellence.

Posted by: HisMan at August 12, 2008 9:33 PM


I especially enjoy the support he's getting among Catholics. So, outside the bubble of this site, Obama seems pretty popular.

Posted by: Hal at August 12, 2008 11:27 AM

I look forward to the bubble bursting cause Christians are finding out about Obama and the Kool-aid is losing it's effect. Lets talk again about those stats after people actually vote.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 12, 2008 11:02 PM


Posted by: jeff from PA at August 12, 2008 1:31 PM

You danced around my questioneven though I asked you to skip the sidestepping. Can you try again sinc you presented yoursel as a sincere Christian?

Posted by: truthseeker at August 12, 2008 11:15 PM


Yes Truthseeker:

By their frutis we shall know them.

Posted by: HisMan at August 12, 2008 11:21 PM


Bambino,

I gotta hand it to you. I am struggling with charity for this guy, and you master it beautifully.

Jeff, your posts are absolutely flooring me. Saying "Christ" and "safe, legal, and rare" in the same breath?

Dismembered limbs aren't proof enough?

How would Christ justify that?

Posted by: carder at August 12, 2008 6:39 PM
......................

Good question carder. Ask the nearest priest how the Vatican justifies the rack. Oh that's right. Those human beings weren't human beings because they didn't pay their dues to the club with the biggest army/paid murderers. The god with the biggest 'gun' is the 'real' god and the subscribers define humanity.
Groovy. @@

Posted by: Sally at August 13, 2008 2:14 AM


Sally:

Don't blaspheme God and His name because of the actions of so-called Christians, i.e., one Barack Obama.

A few years from now, if the Lord doesn't tarry, when babies are viable at conception and scientific dicoveries are made about what they feel and think, anyone supporting abortion, promoting abortion, doing abortions, will be viewed as ignorant and murderous as those hooded rack workers you mentioned who thought what they were doing was for good also. Of course, there wall alwasy be a few Liberals who would try to suppress this information, but......

I guess your working on your legacy, huh? Big, big risk to defy God, I would say, yes and very, very dumb.

Posted by: HisMan at August 13, 2008 2:56 AM


Reaching for allegations against the Vatican when I'm trying to understand how Jeff can arrive at his position are two completely galaxies, Sally.

I'll give you an A for effort, though.

Posted by: carder at August 13, 2008 6:03 AM


His Man: All churches are cults. Some are just better organized.

Posted by: manna at August 13, 2008 8:48 AM


"All churches are cults. Some are just better organized."

Very good manna. From dictionary.com

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

Way to use the word correctly!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 13, 2008 9:24 AM


Jeff still has not answered the question regarding his and his church's stances on homosexuality.

And Manna, before you start categorizing all churches as "cults", I suggest you consider what the church is; the Bride of Christ.

A church with a "president", that collects royalties, that owns each church, and supports a presidential candidate who supports abortion and homosexuality is not a church after the biblical model but a cult.

Posted by: HisMan at August 13, 2008 10:24 AM


Hey everyone - sorry I have not responded, I had to have sinus surgery today, so I have been in rough shape. I will respond to all questions tomorrow - health willing. God bless you all and thanks for the great discussion!

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 13, 2008 6:13 PM


"His Man" You cannot be a Christian and support Obama, it's that simple.

I think that you could make this comment about any candidate. After all, how can you vote for a man that has stolen from the poor, backed policies that put 8 million more people under hte poverty line, committed adultery, supported a pre-emptive war that resulted in the death of over a hundred thousand innocents (which the Catholic Church deemed as immoral), backed torturing numerous people that have been found innocent, that has backed health care policies that have led to untold deaths, has backed our human rights violations in Eritrea, etc. etc.

To say that I am not a Christian because I disagree on how to stop abortions is completely absurd and not what brothers in Christ should do. As i have sated before, my family and I have volunteered in many women's shelters, churches, clinics, etc., and have helped prevent countless abortions (thanks to God's guidance.

I just do not believe that voting for McCain and the same policies that have helped to kill a friend of mine in Iraq, and helped put my mom near her deathbead are the way to stop it.

By the way, even though you (I assume) have voted for all those atrocities listed above - I still consider you a Christian. There are many parts of the body and we each do our best through the Word and Prayer to imitate Christ - and we will not know until we meet Him what mistakes we have made. I know that my creator forgives me for all mistakes I make and I continue to beg for guidance in making my pathways straight - i also pray this for you. God bless!

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 13, 2008 6:27 PM


Obama's election will solidify Sumpreme Court nominees for years and if you think Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned after that, well, I have some desert land here in AZ I'd like to sell you....

7 of the 9 supreme court nominees have been put there by Pro-Life , conservative presidents -- so why was it not overturned a long time ago?

Because they do not want to overturn it - because how will they get voters out if that is off the table? I do not think there will be as much voting fervor on their pro-rich, pro-war policies.

Basically, I think you are missing my point - Overturning Roe will not stop abortions, it doesn't even outlaw it, it just makes it a state by state issue. The way to stop abortions is to overturn hearts, not Roe.

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 13, 2008 6:42 PM


I looked up your denomination on the web. On the surface it appears to be OK, but only on the surface, you know, for public consumption. What I look for is how close a church is organized according to the Biblical pattern given. My suspicion is that your church is a cult. Anytime there's a "President" of a small denomination, huge red flags go up. Your church's set-up is like the Worldwide Church of God. Yes, and I understand that the individual churches are owned by the headquarters......WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, WARNING.

I find it incredible that you would make judgments like this based on a web-site and insult another house of God.

As far as my Church and my political views - the Church does not discuss politics and most of the members that I know are Republicans, although I have gotten a number of compliments about my Obama bumper sticker...

The reason I love the Church is because they have both a Reformed Pastor and a not Reformed Pastor, and their focus is one reaching out to the world and community for Christ. They are really missioned and service oriented, which i believe is the best way to reach people for Christ.

While it is not perfect, it has been a nice home for awhile - and please do not insult it again - i forgive your insults, but I do not want to be tempted to sin in response, so please leave my Church out of it.

Thank you and God Bless.

Posted by: jeff from PA at August 13, 2008 6:49 PM


Obama is pro gay marriage and pro homosexual too. I suppose you and your church are for gay marriage as well, the most societally destructive notions out there? If you are for homosexaulity and gay marraige your views are an abomination to God's Word. What are your views on homosexuality? I saw no position statements on your church's site nor were there any statements revealed when a search on "homosexuality" and "gay marriage" was done other than gobs of irrelevant Index pages.

Honestly, I do not know my Church's position on this - they are extremely Christ-centered and focused on spreading the Word to the people of the world. In my time there, i have not heard them discuss either Gay marriage or homosexuality.

Because most of the attendees are Bush Republicans, I am sure most of them are against both.

I, as you must suspect, have a different opinion. The way to reach Gay people is through love and respect. I have had dozens of gay friends over the years cry on my shoulder because they feel so lost that their Churches have kicked them out.

I think that it is important to reach out to them, offer the word, and love them as Christ loved tax-collectors and lepers.

I think that once again we disagree on gay marriage because I do not think that legislation is the answer. Jesus's Rome had an enormous amount of Gay people (actually, it was much more acceptable then), yet he did not petition the government to stop it. He let what was Caesars be Caesars and what is Christ's be Christs.

The problem that I have with the way many churches deal with the gay issue is hypocrisy. Many of the churches that I have grown up in would immediately kick out a gay person, yet give an adulterer chance after chance. At the same time, almost all men seem to sin with lust consistently, yet they do not kick them out - which is a horrific recurring sin... So how can we love adulterers and those who lust after other's wives, yet kick out gay people?

Again, separate my views here from my Church, because I would guess they would have a completely different viewpoint. I think that many young people I know feel the same way I do, so i tend to think it is a generational issue. For instance, i saw a recent poll that said 42 percent of evangelicals under the age of 40 support gay marriage.

As far as gay marriage - I think that a lot of people get married that should not according to the Bible (people with divorces, non-Christians and others), so my opinion is let the state do what the state wants and if your religion does not allow it, then your churches should just not perform them.

My main concern on the gay marriage from is that there at 1200 laws that benefit married couples, so regardless of whether they get married or not, gay couples should get those 1200 benefits.

For instance, a good friend of mine was with her partner for 42 years, yet she could not be in the room with her as she died of Cancer. She cried on my shoulder many times about that. Which, she is a great example about the power of loving a gay person - she is now a Christian and said that our friendship for many years helped her come to that point.

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 13, 2008 7:05 PM


jeff from PA,
your post at August 12, 2008 1:31 PM did not answer my question.

You danced around my questioneven though I asked you to skip the sidestepping. Can you try again since you presented yoursel as a sincere Christian? I asked you a second time to answer at August 12, 2008 11:15 PM

I would understand your not answering due to your surgery but since your surgery you answered several other posts that were directed towards you and skipped mine? I am a concerned Christian in the Body of Christ. I ask a third time, to answer. What could Barack and Michelle Obama say to Jesus in order to get His blessing in their personal decision promote the PBA procedure as outlined above?

Posted by: truthseeker at August 13, 2008 11:16 PM


Jeff, I agree with your point about adultery being just as bad as homosexuality.

I think one difference could be that an adulterer (generally) never usually goes around asking people to accept his or her adultery as morally just. Most of the time, they know what they're doing is wrong, and many times, by the time the church finds out about it, they have repented of their adultery, which is why the church forgives them...

Yet, it seems that homosexuals (not all), not only engage in those acts that are sinful, but try to pass that sin off as something they cannot control, and something that is morally acceptable in God's eyes (this is why you will find books which take the Bible out of context, saying that God approves of homosexuality- they're seeking to justify their behavior).

If an adulterer had this type of attitude, I doubt that a given church would be very forgiving of that either.

It is the repentant heart that makes the difference.

Your gay friend that became a Christian, did she repent of her homosexuality? I am just curious.

I agree that we should be friends to all sinners, because obviously, you and I and everyone is a sinner.

But it is the unrepentant heart is what keeps one from being justified (in God's eyes, not ours). This is why Jesus dined with sinners who knew they were sinners and were sorry for their sins, but those who were haughty and publicly justified their sins were condemned in His eyes.

Sorry to hear about your sinus surgery...hope you're feeling okay.

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 9:10 AM


What could Barack and Michelle Obama say to Jesus in order to get His blessing in their personal decision promote the PBA procedure as outlined above?

That is an excellent question, Truthseeker. Thank you for pushing it. I would like to hear the answer as well.

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 9:14 AM


Jeff, while you're pondering the answer to that question, here's a visual to remind you what partial birth abortion really is:

I'm very curious as to your answer to Truthseeker, cause I just can't really imagine Jesus saying that this kind of thing would be acceptable under any circumstances. Remember, Haskell, who performed over 1,000 PBA's, said that there was no medical reason that a woman would ever need one. So life of the mother surely can't be the reason for justifying this kind of atrocity.

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 9:20 AM


Basically, I think you are missing my point - Overturning Roe will not stop abortions, it doesn't even outlaw it, it just makes it a state by state issue. The way to stop abortions is to overturn hearts, not Roe.

Would you support a human life amendment?

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 9:31 AM


Hey everyone - I will respond shortly, I have been in a bit of pain from my surgery and am sleeping a lot. Thanks for your patience and God bless.

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 14, 2008 9:32 AM


I'm sorry to hear about that, Jeff.

Please save this link in your bookmarks, if you can...it should stay open for comments for about a week, I think. I'll come back to see if you've responded throughout the next few days...I'm sure others will as well.

Feel better.

Posted by: Bethany at August 14, 2008 9:33 AM


Thanks Bethany - appreciate your kind words!

Posted by: Jeff from PA at August 14, 2008 10:19 AM


"I have stated here that I would have no opposition at all to a pro-life movement that tried to convince women not to have abortions rather than prohibit them."

Posted by: Hal at August 11, 2008 5:11 PM

Hal, I was just wondering if you would only permit acts of pursuasion, and not outright prohibitions, against these other various 'choices': lying, stealing, rape, child/spousal abuse, drunk driving, murder, etc. Why this line in the sand when it comes to abortion? This logic can't be applied consistently.

Posted by: Jerry at August 14, 2008 10:09 PM


So many questions, so little time....

It's incomprehensible that this is even a discussion--what degree equals life? And even though I believe life is life, it is truly more horrifying to know a living, breathing human being can be killed AFTER it's born...But even more horrifying is that our society is so hardened to what was once never even questionable, that we actually get to vote on who live and who dies.

If they aren't babies in the womb, why do doctors do surgery on them prenatally when there's some kind of risk?

Why, if they aren't babies till they're born, is a criminal charged with 2 counts of (whatever) if he attacks a pregnant woman? (in some cases)

If they are babies only when outside the womb, why can a doctor (first, do no harm) kill them AFTER they're born?

Why can an educated, professional medical doctor (again, first do no harm) legally kill a living baby, but a frightened, naive 16-yr old who abandons her newborn out of desperation can be sentenced to prison?

Why, if it isn't a baby while in the womb, do pregnant women who miscarry, suffer so much grief?

If they aren't babies until born, why do women who have abortions suffer the rest of their life with guilt, count every would-be birthday, wonder what gender the fetus was, and wonder what that child's life would have been like?

Why, if it isn't a human being until born, but survives an abortion attempt, it suddenly IS a human being? I've met a couple of survivors--just ask them if they're glad to be alive, but also see the pain in their souls because they know they were meant to be killed.

Who would YOU be today, if your mother aborted you?

Abortion is the most dire example of deprivation of rights--the most innocent, the most indefensible, and most vulnerable.

Someone I once knew was asked if he believed in abortion. He said yes--and totally startled his questioner. But he then added, but I would have to wait five years, and then ask the child if it wanted to be aborted. --How far are we from that?

Posted by: doodah at August 15, 2008 4:57 PM


doodah,

Great comments! Please continue in the future!

Posted by: Janet at August 16, 2008 9:17 AM


If they aren't babies in the womb, why do doctors do surgery on them prenatally when there's some kind of risk?

"Baby" is subjective. Doesn't matter what term you use - among the unborn there are lots of wanted fetuses or "babies" and surgery may be the best way to fix something that's wrong with them.
.....


Why, if they aren't babies till they're born, is a criminal charged with 2 counts of (whatever) if he attacks a pregnant woman? (in some cases)

That has nothing to do with "babies or not."
.....


If they are babies only when outside the womb, why can a doctor (first, do no harm) kill them AFTER they're born?

Again, it's subjective terminology, and has no bearing on the legality of that. In reality, it's not legal to kill them after birth.
.....


Why can an educated, professional medical doctor (again, first do no harm) legally kill a living baby, but a frightened, naive 16-yr old who abandons her newborn out of desperation can be sentenced to prison?

Because abortion is legal, to a point in gestation, anyway, and it's also not legal to abandon a newborn (in some cases).
......


Why, if it isn't a baby while in the womb, do pregnant women who miscarry, suffer so much grief?

Yet again - doesn't matter what you want for terminology. There are lots of pregnancies that are wanted very much, and when a woman or couple wants to have kids, a miscarriage can be a terrible thing.
.....


If they aren't babies until born, why do women who have abortions suffer the rest of their life with guilt, count every would-be birthday, wonder what gender the fetus was, and wonder what that child's life would have been like?

You're not stating that in a way that it's true. You can say that some women have those experiences, but most women who have abortions are glad they did, on balance, and would do the same thing again in similar circumstances.
.....


Why, if it isn't a human being until born, but survives an abortion attempt, it suddenly IS a human being? I've met a couple of survivors--just ask them if they're glad to be alive, but also see the pain in their souls because they know they were meant to be killed.

You are confusing physical state with attributed status. They're not the same thing.
.....


Who would YOU be today, if your mother aborted you?

There wouldn't be a me, then. Had your or my mom chosen to end the pregnancy, there never would have been a you or me to care about anything, to desire anything, to be aware of anything.

Posted by: Doug at August 16, 2008 4:27 PM


Jill,
someone said that NARAL was upset that Barry called then "liars". Does that mean they are going to un-endorse him? I also heard they wanted him to challenge the government records that show him voting against the BAIPA 3 times. and, if those records show that it was he, in fact who was lying, that he should issue them a public apology.

Posted by: Dr. bobbi Anne white at August 18, 2008 12:31 PM


It does not matter how often this procedure is performed one time is too many. As for those saying big deal it passed anyway, that's not the issue here. The issue here is that he was against it period. If it's no big deal why didn't he just vote in favor of it or why lie about it?

Posted by: Anna at August 19, 2008 8:35 PM


It does not matter how often this procedure is performed, even one time is too many. As for those saying big deal it passed anyway, that's not the issue here. The issue here is that he was against it period. If it's no big deal why didn't he just vote in favor of it and then why lie about it?

Posted by: Anna at August 19, 2008 8:36 PM


oops sorry..was lagging and posted twice up above

Posted by: Anna at August 19, 2008 8:39 PM


For all of Jill's loyal readers, please know that she admitted to Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune that this entire thing was "a mistake."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-zorn_21aug21,0,6556075.column

Obama's record is free from infaticidal votes and lying about votes on this bill: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/bornalive.html#more

and

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php

Posted by: bms at August 21, 2008 10:33 AM


Jill,

Looks like the abortophiles are turning themselves inside out, trying to dissuade you from continuing to expose Obama for what he is.

The mainstream media is committing slow suicide with its continued support of Obama.

Two birds with one stone.... that's very efficient.

Posted by: KB at August 24, 2008 2:04 AM


Jeff in PA,

As a horrible atheist liberal, let me say I welcome your views and think you would be the type of person whose company I would enjoy. I'm glad to see some people are able to view things in the shades of grey that exist, and that not everything is black and white.

Note to other posters: You can HAVE black and white positions while understanding the world doesn't share them.

Posted by: LnGrrrR at September 4, 2008 3:44 PM


pro or con abortion is not the thing...it's that he LIED about his stand that might turn people away from voting for him.

Posted by: David at September 6, 2008 3:18 PM


Jill,
someone said that NARAL was upset that Barry called then "liars". Does that mean they are going to un-endorse him? I also heard they wanted him to challenge the government records that show him voting against the BAIPA 3 times. and, if those records show that it was he, in fact who was lying, that he should issue them a public apology.

Posted by: Soma at September 13, 2008 3:59 AM