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)

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

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

=)

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

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

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)

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

"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?"

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.

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.

My head is spinning.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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!

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.

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?

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...... !!!!

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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

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?

" 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.

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 - 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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

McCain, anyone? (crickets)

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

Good post, Hisman!!

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.

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.

" 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.

"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.

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

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.

" 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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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

"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.

(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)

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.

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.

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.

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

Hal is very honest and upfront, indeed.

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

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?

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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)?

My post @ 5:24 should read:

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

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.

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.

Thanks Amanda!

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

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."

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...

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

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"?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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...

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...

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.

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.

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."

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!!!

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 :(

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!

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.

""""""
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...

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?

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?

"That said, I've always appreciated that peace of mind I got f