Stanek on Hannity re: Obama/Born Alive

Last night Sean Hannity interviewed me about my experience at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL, holding a baby who had been aborted alive for 45 minutes until he died.

The interview extended to Barack Obama's leadership role in opposing the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, to give abortion survivors legal rights.

One other point clarified during the interview: Obama denied for 4 years he voted for the identical language in IL that was passed overwhelmingly on the federal level, including a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate. NARAL went neutral on the bill as well.

Here's the transcript.

UPDATE, 8/22, 4a: One of Hannity's producers emailed me yesterday: "Just so you know we got a jump of 100,000 people in demo (ppl btw 25-45) during your segment, which is fantastic."


Comments:

So if the baby was "born alive", why didn't you provide it medical care, as the law required, both then and now? Just holding it until it died would be a violation of BAIPA, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Just Curious at August 21, 2008 10:13 AM


One other point that you need to clarify. Alan Colmes and others defend Obama with the new argument that there was already a law on the books in Illinois which protects these infants, and then he read from the law last night.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the truth.
There is such a 1975 law. However, there was a condent decree entered into in 1993 called that "Herbst-O'Malley" consent decree which retrained and prevented the enforcement of that very law.
After Colmes made that argument, no one responded to it. We must respond to it.
Here is a link:
http://www.aclu-il.org/legal/courtdocuments/herbstconsentdecree.pdf

Posted by: Efrem Fischer at August 21, 2008 10:14 AM


Let's face it; conservatives in America
have organized what may be the most massive and vicious smear campaign against any one in the history of the world.
It's one thing if they disagree strongly with him and disapprove of what he stands for. To criticize Obama is absolutely their right. But truth, fairness and accuracy have been sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
Let me repeat once again; OBAMA DOES NOT ADVOCATE INFANTICIDE. He is extremely concerned about laws which will interfere with a woman's right to choose and abortion and realize that this could lead to making abortion illegal, which would be catastrophic for many women in America and society in general.
The question that pastor Warren should have asked is: How will the government enforce the law if abortion is made illegal in the US. McCain would NOT have been able to answer this question.
When life begins and whther the fetus is"human" or not are immaterial, and nothing but red herrings. The questions asked of Obama were leading and loaded.

Posted by: Robert Berger at August 21, 2008 10:26 AM


Jill I see in the Chicago Tribune that you are admitting you are mistaken on Sen. Obama's record on the Born-Alive Act, I'm just wondering when you'll admit the mistake to your readers here who won't see the Tribune? Mistakes like these contribute to misinformation about reproductive health that make it hard for those of us interested in promoting common sense education and prevention methods, but I understand they are an advantage for those who only concern themselves with prohibition of abortion. Just curious why you haven't linked to the Tribune yet, since you link to all the other media covering this story.

Here is the link to the Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-zorn_21aug21,0,6556075.column

And one to my piece on the Tribune's piece:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/08/21/jill-stanek-admits-mistake-chicago-tribune-obama-abortion-record

Posted by: Scott at August 21, 2008 10:47 AM


Jill, thanks for providing the link to the video. I missed it last night.

Posted by: Andy at August 21, 2008 10:48 AM


That's easy, Curious.

Jill didn't save the baby because, as a nurse, she knew that would be impossible. It was too immature and malformed to live.

Jill knows that this law would never save a single baby. That's not the point. The point is to stop hospitals from providing therapeutic abortions to mourning parents carrying dying fetuses, and to exploit those parents' painful situation for political gain.

Posted by: reality at August 21, 2008 10:49 AM


Berger,

You sound nervous. And rightfully so.

Your candidate should have done a stellar job. By all accounts, this should have been a shining moment for him. Yet, the opposite is true.

And your side just cannot accept that the Good Senator blew it. So much so that now they have to reach for "McCain was cheating!" Which Pastor Warren, of course, put that accusation to rest. As it turns out, Obama knew three questions ahead of the forum, McCain only two.

Oliver on another thread explained succintly that Obama is not FOR infanticide, but since he refused to oppose a bill that would have stopped those infants from being left in the bloody linen room, he is allowing the practice to continue happening.

Think about it. If it wans't a problem for Hillary, Boxer, Kennedy, and NARAL to support it, then what's Obama's excuse?

Posted by: carder at August 21, 2008 10:53 AM


"When life begins and whther the fetus is"human" or not are immaterial, and nothing but red herrings. ....

Posted by: Robert Berger at August 21, 2008 10:26 AM"

So Robert, are you now trying to make me believe that your dad was "Charlie the Tuna" or "Robert Sr. the red herring"?

Answer this for me....do you get any royalties from those tuna fish commercials?

All fun aside Mr. Barger, in actuality, your statement; "have organized what may be the most massive and vicious smear campaign against any one in the history of the world" is simply a lie.

Three or four smear campaigns that dwarf your claim come very easily to mind:
1) Satan's attempt at murdering/discrediting/blaspheming Jesus Christ, the Son of God by the gates of hell. Of course, this would be a David Letterman No. 1 and of course, as promised teh church has prevailed and will continue to prevail against this one.
2) Hitler's attempt at killing and dehumanizing the Jews. We all know what happened there. Right, you do know what happened, right?
3) Pro-aborts attmepts at redefining what a human being is. Now you may not know what the outcome of this will be but, we pro-lifers do have some clues about the ultimate outcome.
4) Most recently, the Democrats' treatment of President Bush during a time of war, which is actually treasonous. And if you haven't read or heard lately, Bush's legacy, unlike his sex addict predecessor, is actually starting to blossom.

I'm sure that I could think of a few hundred more, however, I am not conceding your point that this is a "smear" campaign because you see, simply telling the truth is not a "smear" it's called "exposing a lie".

So, just go take your fishing pole and go back to the Andy Griffith Mayberry School of Logical Thought and Fish Identification would you? And, I think you also need to seek out some "Hyperbole Management" classes. I understand Howard Dean offers a "Hyperbole Magnification Class", so I'd stay away from him.

Posted by: HisMan at August 21, 2008 10:55 AM


Robert,
Why is pointing out Obama's record a smear? The facts speak for themselves.

Obama's claim that BAIPA would erode Roe v Wade was totally false. The neutrality clause had been inserted (by him) to make sure that this didn't happen. This bill was strictly about giving reasonable medical care to babies born alive when something went "wrong" with the abortion.
Obama may not endorse infanticide, but he certainly willing to turn a blind eye to it, all on the altar of abortion. For him, nothing matters as much as his opinion that women should be able to kill their unborn children. Period.
He stood against all of his colleagues on this. Claimed he was smarter. Heck, even NARAL went neutral. His arrogance on this issue is beyond belief and his judgement, considering his political ambitions sorely lacking...but then, looking at his closest friends and mentors, it always has been.
And his morality and ethics? Beyond zero!
How can you possibly smear someone who has CHOSEN to be the lowest of the low?

Posted by: DeeL at August 21, 2008 10:56 AM


But truth, fairness and accuracy have been sacrificed on the altar of expediency.

You meant of course "on the altar to Obama"!

Posted by: KC at August 21, 2008 12:44 PM


We have been told that "just lying about sex" is not as bad as lying about public acts and policy. What about lying about infanticide policy? That is no little "mistake."

Again, the "neutrality clause," that is the center of Barack Obama's very apparent lie: "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."

Posted by: Arlen Williams at August 21, 2008 12:47 PM


Jill, I've seen your name referred to here and there. You obviously have an axe to grind. It puts everything else you say in doubt. I'm beginning to wonder if part of your motivation for your activities is a desire for fame of some sort.

Obama acted correctly and cautiously in development of new law in Illinois and he was joined in those votes by both Republican and Democratic legislators as per Eric Zorn's exhaustive documentation.

Where's your campaign against the rest of the legislators who didn't vote the way that you think they should have?

Posted by: vbd at August 21, 2008 12:47 PM


This is for Jasper and anyone else who thinks having children is the greatest thing in a woman's life, obviously not for this woman:
http://www.snopes.com/media/iftrue/obituary.asp

Posted by: Jess at August 21, 2008 12:49 PM


Sounds like we have some "pro-life" attorneys, law professors, etc. on the site today, my favorite kind of heroes.

Welcome.

Posted by: HisMan at August 21, 2008 12:52 PM


"Jill I see in the Chicago Tribune that you are admitting you are mistaken on Sen. Obama's record on the Born-Alive Act, I'm just wondering when you'll admit the mistake to your readers here who won't see the Tribune?"

The issue isnt whether or not he voted for the ammendment. That is why she didnt post this. The issue is that he voted against the ammended bill. If anything, the fact that he voted for the ammendment goes to show that he KNEW the bill was identical and that he actually helped to make it so, yet he voted against it.

Maybe he got confused?

Posted by: Oliver at August 21, 2008 12:54 PM


And here's yet another Obama excuse for killing:

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

Posted by: KC at August 21, 2008 12:54 PM


"When life begins and whether the fetus is "human" or not are immaterial, and nothing but red herrings"

I don't understand how the ontogeny of life, which defines when we are first extant, is immaterial during a religious forum. The question should have evolved to: And when a human exists shouldn’t it be granted human rights? Hey, I say that such questions should fly even during secular forum. Adding to the pun, a new human is not a red herring- although each human is unique. In fact if you are a Christian, as Obama professes to be, you believe that each unique human has a soul that exists for eternity. Hard then to justify pithing a newly existing eternal soul because of 9 months of inconvenience to the woman (and man) who contributed to the creation of new human life? Harder yet to justify denying basic human rights to a born alive infant (albeit unwanted human, where there is no quibbling about existence) in order to pander to Planned Parenthood. The life-centered question is not frivolous- the question is ALL REVEALING

Posted by: AnnE at August 21, 2008 1:05 PM


VBD:

Is that a disease?

The only axe to grind here that I see is the one being used to dismember innocent children.

How anyone would be for sucking, cutting, poisoning, dismembering, tearing, ripping, or rending any innocent child from what should be the safest place in the Universe next to Heaven, a mother's womb, is beyond me.

However, based on some of the posts on this site from various she-devils I could see how a womb could actually be a den of thieves and grave place of danger.

The fact that we're even having a conversation regarding whether Obama voted for not protecting a baby is evidence of how far we have sunk into the moral abyss.

The conversation should really be about how evil abortion is and how it must be stopped and how every politician that supports and promtoes it must be relegated back to the sewers they crawled out of.

Posted by: HisMan at August 21, 2008 1:09 PM


Looks like Obama's minions are now paying attention to this blog.

Jill's story has never changed or been challenged and Obama's changes depending on the audience. In his mind and his supporters, killing babies is okay if that is what the mom and doctor want -- they aren't voters, after all.

If you can kill them on the operating table, why not in the playpen. Obama won't even venture a guess when children get human rights. I suspect it would be the day they could vote for him or whenever PP tells them they do.

Obama is such a fraud. He favors killing infants (or at least is too cowed by PP to stick up for them) and he blissfully allows his brother to live in abject poverty while trying to say he cares about people.

He is no more than an image and there is no depth there. Each day, as voters look for depth they find nothing but an ever-shifting image.

Posted by: LB at August 21, 2008 1:17 PM


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-abortion-obama_20aug20,0,1470841.story

Here is another Tribune link. I've read all of them now and it does not appear as though Jill is claiming she/we/ made a mistake. Actually, the word "mistake" could take on many interpretations as it is printed in Zorn's article..just an observation.

Posted by: just a nobody at August 21, 2008 1:46 PM


DeeL -- excellent.

Posted by: Eileen at August 21, 2008 2:03 PM


Reality 10:49 Thanks for the answer to the question I posed at the top of the thread.

Posted by: Just Curious at August 21, 2008 2:15 PM


High 5's Carder!!!!!!!!!!! Good question. I'm watching for Berger's reply!! :u)

Posted by: just a nobody at August 21, 2008 2:16 PM


Now the Obama fanatics are upset that Mccain doesn't know how many houses he owns! My question to Obama would be: How many babies have been killed since you and PP teamed up?!?

Posted by: becky at August 21, 2008 2:21 PM


I'm not upset that McCain can't remember how many houses he owns. I think it is hilarious.

Posted by: PPC at August 21, 2008 2:24 PM


Scott, 10:47a, said: "Jill I see in the Chicago Tribune that you are admitting you are mistaken on Sen. Obama's record on the Born-Alive Act, I'm just wondering when you'll admit the mistake to your readers here who won't see the Tribune?"

Scott, some kind of reporter you are. You can write but you can't read.

I told Eric Zorn I was mistaken (as was everyone else in the world) about Obama's action in the 2003 IL State Senate Health & Human Services Committee. I took "held in Health & Human Services" to mean Obama held it. Incredible deduction, I know.

It was National Right to Life that got to the bottom of things a week ago and discovered he actually did vote against the identical version of the Born Alive bill, although he has numerously claimed otherwise, to which he claimed, "Liar! Liar!" even though irrefutable proof was provided.

I was mistaken. What was Obama? And where's his apology?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at August 21, 2008 2:26 PM


Scott, is that the best smear you can manage? In you desperation to find some tiny negative thing to say, is that all you came up with?

We all make mistakes. Her only mistake was in taking someone else's word that Obama opposed the amendment, when in fact he supported it,but then opposed the bill when the amendment was added.

And you're celebrating that? Doesn't take much to make you happy, does it?

Posted by: Doyle at August 21, 2008 2:50 PM


Now the Obama fanatics are upset that Mccain doesn't know how many houses he owns! My question to Obama would be: How many babies have been killed since you and PP teamed up?!?

Posted by: becky at August 21, 2008 2:21 PM

Good question Becky! This issue is pretty funny. I think the Obamba campaign stupidly just opened up a huge can of worms....ummmmm.... by now we have all heard about Obama's BFF slumlord and criminal Tony Rezko's involvement in "affording" the Obama's the chance to own their pricey dream home through some questionable real estate transaction.

I wonder if asked....would Obama know how many bottles of wine his cellar holds?

Posted by: Sandy at August 21, 2008 3:20 PM


Becky 2:21PM

How many houses does McCain own?
How many houses are owned the Hollywood elites that support Obama?

How many houses do the Kennedys, who support Obama, own?

How many homes does Nancy Pelosi, a millionaire and Obama backer, own?

George Soros is a multibillionaire Obama backer. How many homes does he own?

By the way, didn't Obama obtain his own home in some kind of real estate deal with slumlord and convicted felon, Tony Rezko?

Does Obama really want to go "there"?

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 3:32 PM


ha ha...more like how many skeletons in his cellar!

Posted by: becky at August 21, 2008 3:32 PM


This whole house thing just goes to show how desperate the Obama campaign is getting. I heard that they are going to make some ads over McCains house comment. Do they really think comparing houses is going to shut us up about Obama's abortion stand?

Posted by: becky at August 21, 2008 3:40 PM


Becky,
Probably more than the 1,000 bottles of wine it holds!!!

Posted by: Sandy at August 21, 2008 3:40 PM


Sandy,

You're right. You have to wonder what kind of people are advising Obama, or does he just say things off the cuff not realizing he's opening a can of worms and handing the McCain campaign an issue with which they can have a real field day?
There is certainly something to the saying that if you give someone enough rope, they will hang themselves.

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 3:42 PM


Obama's hypocrisy never ends. I just love how this mixed race child raised by his poor grandmother, now an ivy league educated elected offical, now running for president has the "audacity" (along with his ivy league educated wife) to tells minorities that our country holds nothing for you and everytime you achieve the bar, they raise it higher.
Pathetic.

Posted by: Sandy at August 21, 2008 3:48 PM


Hi Mary!!!!!!
I have missed you!! I hope you are doing well.
Summer has been great, but as all busy moms will say at this point, I am glad school is just around the corner!!!

Posted by: Sandy at August 21, 2008 3:50 PM


Hi Sandy,

I've been here but I appreciate being missed! :)
I'm doing very well thanks.
I think our paths just haven't crossed.
How well I remember the approaching school year. I said on another thread how I loved buying school supplies. Hard to believe my oldest started kindergarten 20 years ago this fall.
Where has the time gone!

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 4:04 PM


Mary,
Sorry we haven't crossed paths! I haven't here much this summer. We just went school supply shopping a couple days ago and for the third year in a row spent more than $50.00 on just the items requested by the teacher. I will still have to donate money for additional school supplies when school starts. I remember when I went to school, we just showed up with a lunch bag and a pencil.

I wish I knew what one child does with 20 glue sticks.

Posted by: Sandy at August 21, 2008 4:11 PM


This whole house thing just goes to show how desperate the Obama campaign is getting. I heard that they are going to make some ads over McCains house comment. Do they really think comparing houses is going to shut us up about Obama's abortion stand?
Posted by: becky at August 21, 2008 3:40 PM

Just got back from the car. Hannity and Medvid are talking about the house thing, no mention of infanticide. Jill's 15 minutes of fame is over.

Posted by: Hal at August 21, 2008 4:17 PM


You wish Hal, you wish.

Posted by: Sandy at August 21, 2008 4:19 PM


Sandy,

I well remember that specially lined paper for learning to write. My children used it too. Sure brought back memories. My mother always started out my new school year with two new dresses and a pair of shoes. We had to have a coloring book for 1st grade and I remember being so hurt that my teacher didn't like mine and used it as an example to the class of what not to get.
I also remember her rapping fingers with a ruler!
Talk about ancient history.
I swear all teachers in that era word open toe black shoes, wore their glasses on chains, and had buns on their heads.

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 4:25 PM


Sandy, I don't really care. Not like Obama is losing any votes over this. But man, I'm bored with it....

Posted by: Hal at August 21, 2008 4:31 PM


Mary,
Too funny about the teachers. My third grade teacher Ms. Jackson wore wire rimmed glasses, mini dresses and clogs every day. She had her hair frosted which was so in at that time. All of the girls were envious of her "fashion coolness" and all the boys loved the fact that when she bent over you could see her panties. We could always hear her coming down the hall by the clippity clop of her shoes. The other women teachers were pretty drab in comparison.

Sorry to hear of your color book indicent. Amazing how stories like that can stay with us so long.

Posted by: Sandy at August 21, 2008 4:34 PM


Hal, 4:31PM

He's apparently not gaining any either. The polls indicate he isn't exactly leaving John McCain in the dust. Also the convention is going to be interesting. I suspect Hillary is rested, refreshed, and ready for a fight.

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 4:36 PM


The election might be close, at least until the debates. I can't see Grampy doing too well at the debates, can you?

Posted by: Hal at August 21, 2008 4:37 PM


Sandy 4:34PM

What a scream! My 6th grade teacher was the size of a buffalo, and wore garters to hold up her nylons. You're probably too young to remember those days but they were black elastic rings that were around before garter belts.
Anyway when she had her back to us writing on the blackboard, her dress would often get caught in her garter(s), which she was unaware of and which we thought was hilarious, though we dared not laugh.

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 4:43 PM


I think McCain will do fabulous at the debates. Obama talks in circle and circles and circles.
He has a speaking style that makes it difficult to really understand what he is saying since many times he makes no sense whatsoever.

Posted by: Sandy at August 21, 2008 4:46 PM


Hal, 4:37PM

"Grampy" made mincemeat out of your guy at Saddleback. I see him doing very well in the debates. Its your guy you better worry about if Saddleback is any indication of what is to come.
Honestly Hal, I think his biggest headache is going to be the Clintons.

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 4:47 PM


Sandy,
And while you're on the topic of Obama's BFFs, don't forget about Rev. "Hate America" Wright, banker to the mafia Alexi Giannoulias, and of course his national finance chair, Penny Pritzker, queen of sub prime lending.
Wouldn't it be just great to have all these buddies in cabinet positions?

Posted by: DeeL at August 21, 2008 4:48 PM


Sandy, 4:46PM

I think that's called talking and saying nothing.

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 4:48 PM


Hal,

You actually think OMan is going to do well in the debates? He will um, ah, omm, and equivocate about pay grades. He doesn't do well without a teleprompter and someone feeding him lines.
McCain doesn't need approval from anyone on his opinions. '
Not like you and o-man getting PP to funding your words.

(Tell me were your wife's TWO abortions free because you promised to campaign for them - or do you just get a straight-up paycheck for it?)

Posted by: LB at August 21, 2008 4:49 PM


DeeL,

Have you forgotten? Obama sat in the church 20 years and was clueless as to what his pastor preached and believed. If John McCain made the same claim, he'd be ridiculed as senile.

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 4:52 PM


Hi Mary,
I do remember garters!! I can't imagine all of those extra layers underneath it all.

Gigantic underpants -check
Uncomfortable girdle - check
Uncomfortable garterbelt- check
Hot pantyhose - check
Even more uncomfortable underwire bra with a ton of hooks - check
Slip - check

Way too much work. How did men manage all of that in the heat of passion??


Posted by: Sandy at August 21, 2008 4:55 PM


Sandy 4:55PM

Amazingly well I'm sure.

Speaking of girdles, my mother was always thin and shapely but would still wear one even in the hottest weather. I guess women just wore them no matter what. Ugh. I'll just let everything bag, sag, and drag.

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 4:59 PM


DeeL,
No doubt. He sure has shown poor judgement by the company he keeps.

Posted by: Sandy at August 21, 2008 5:00 PM


Mary,
Yea, I know. It's pretty pathetic.

Posted by: DeeL at August 21, 2008 5:02 PM


Hey Mary,
Fun to catch up. Gotta run!
Later!
Sandy

Posted by: Sandy at August 21, 2008 5:02 PM


Sandy,
Yes. But he's soooooo much smarter than the rest of us. So that gives him a pass.

Posted by: DeeL at August 21, 2008 5:07 PM


"Grampy" made mincemeat out of your guy at Saddleback. I see him doing very well in the debates. Its your guy you better worry about if Saddleback is any indication of what is to come."

All depends on your perspective. The Pastor said on TV he thought both did spectacular. I didn't watch. I do know McCain does not make much of an impression with teleprompter or without.

Posted by: Hal at August 21, 2008 6:04 PM


Hal,

What else is the pastor going to say? He's being gracious. Sorry Hal, but your guy didn't perform as expected. In all fairness, there was concern that McCain wouldn't perform well and that Obama would wipe him out. Didn't happen.

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 6:13 PM


I will agree that Obama's performances are sometimes uneven. He's human. In the democratic debates, he sometimes shined, sometimes not so much. Still, I think he'll clobber McCain at both substance and style.

Posted by: Hal at August 21, 2008 6:48 PM


Remember all the comments in the past two weeks about "LYING?"


http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/08/cindy_mccain_should_know_bette.php


"This is disappointing, not just because it's apparently untrue that Cindy McCain spoke to Mother Theresa, but because it makes you scratch your head. The McCains adopted a little girl from overseas. That's an amazing, incredibly compassionate thing to do. Why embellish a story like that?

Granted, "fish stories" aren't necessarily unusual. People will add a little detail here or there to make a story better, but it doesn't look good when a politician does it -- and since John McCain has repeated the story, it looks like Mr. "Straight Talk" is going to end up having to explain on the campaign trail why he and his wife fudged a story about something as intimate as the circumstances under which they came to adopt their own daughter. They should know better than that." - John Hawkins, Right Wing News.

Posted by: Hal at August 21, 2008 6:51 PM


HAL 6:48pm

So far he has failed to do so.
However Hal, I think he better be prepared to take on the Clintons. It ain't over yet.

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 6:56 PM


Mary, I doubt the Clintons will do anything but enthusatically support Obama for President. However, if they don't, he's in some trouble.

Posted by: Hal at August 21, 2008 7:18 PM


Hal, I think Oprah is backing Obama, so McCain has his work cut out for him.

Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 7:35 PM


Hal 7:18PM

You are certainly right they can be trouble if they don't support him. Being the Clintons, I think they will be trouble.

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 7:49 PM


Doug,
Do you attend the Church of Oprah??

Posted by: Carla at August 21, 2008 8:06 PM


Carla,
Too funny:)

Posted by: Sandy at August 21, 2008 8:25 PM


Jill,

Great job last night on Hannity :)

Posted by: Jasper at August 21, 2008 8:39 PM


Sandy,
Thought that might "shed some light" on Doug.

BTW, a child needs 20 gluesticks to share with all of his classmates on the first day of school.

After all of my supply buying I still had FEES.
Calculator fee, roller skating fee, class party fee, recorder fee and assignment book fee to the tune of $31!! ChaChing!

Posted by: Carla at August 21, 2008 9:01 PM


Carla,

I watched a couple episodes from your link the another night, heartbreaking.

It's a shame the MSM never covers stories like this...

Posted by: Jasper at August 21, 2008 9:35 PM


You go Jill!!

Great job! Keep up the good fight.

Posted by: lovethemboth at August 21, 2008 9:37 PM


Hey Jasper,
Yeah. Tough stories to bear but AWESOME people to meet and share the journey of abortion regret.
You never know...maybe the show will be picked up...

Posted by: Carla at August 21, 2008 9:57 PM


Doug, Do you attend the Church of Oprah??

Heh - Carla, no, but she's a heck of a potent force, anymore. As far as having individuals backing a candidate, her influence isn't exceeded by many, if any.

Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 11:42 PM


The question that pastor Warren should have asked is: How will the government enforce the law if abortion is made illegal in the US. McCain would NOT have been able to answer this question.
Posted by: Robert Berger at August 21, 2008 10:26 AM

Why do you find that so hard to answer Robert?
Abortionist guilty of murder. Mother receives treatment and counseling similar to what is offered to people with suicidal tendencies.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 22, 2008 12:29 AM


The issue isnt whether or not he voted for the ammendment. That is why she didnt post this. The issue is that he voted against the ammended bill. If anything, the fact that he voted for the ammendment goes to show that he KNEW the bill was identical and that he actually helped to make it so, yet he voted against it.

Maybe he got confused?

Posted by: Oliver at August 21, 2008 12:54 PM

Ah, so i other words he voted for it before he voted against it. Where have I heard that before?

Posted by: truthseeker at August 22, 2008 12:36 AM


One other point that you need to clarify. Alan Colmes and others defend Obama with the new argument that there was already a law on the books in Illinois which protects these infants, and then he read from the law last night.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the truth.
There is such a 1975 law. However, there was a condent decree entered into in 1993 called that "Herbst-O'Malley" consent decree which retrained and prevented the enforcement of that very law.
After Colmes made that argument, no one responded to it. We must respond to it.
Here is a link:
http://www.aclu-il.org/legal/courtdocuments/herbs
tconsentdecree.pdf

Posted by: Efrem Fischer at August 21, 2008 10:14 AM

Thanks for digging that up Efrem.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 22, 2008 12:42 AM


Thanks Truthseeker...Interesting..thats makes sense..thus the need for BAIPA.

Posted by: Jasper at August 22, 2008 10:24 AM


Why do you find that so hard to answer Robert?
Abortionist guilty of murder. Mother receives treatment and counseling similar to what is offered to people with suicidal tendencies.
Posted by: truthseeker at August 22, 2008 12:29 AM

So, we'll have mothers or sisters, or best friends trying to do it, since doctors won't. THen what?

Posted by: Hal at August 22, 2008 12:53 PM


The question that pastor Warren should have asked is: How will the government enforce the law if abortion is made illegal in the US. McCain would NOT have been able to answer this question.
Posted by: Robert Berger at August 21, 2008 10:26 AM

Why do you find that so hard to answer Robert?
Abortionist guilty of murder. Mother receives treatment and counseling similar to what is offered to people with suicidal tendencies.


Posted by: truthseeker at August 22, 2008 12:29 AM
.................................

How are you going to get not wanting to be pregnant recognized as a mental illness?

Posted by: Sally at August 22, 2008 6:43 PM


How are you going to get not wanting to be pregnant recognized as a mental illness?

It sort of was already. Rejection of femininity, etc. http://tinyurl.com/57uuas

Freud even posited that morning sickness indicated a rejection of the husband, via a rejection of the pregnancy.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 22, 2008 9:11 PM


Why do you find that so hard to answer Robert?
Abortionist guilty of murder. Mother receives treatment and counseling similar to what is offered to people with suicidal tendencies.
Posted by: truthseeker at August 22, 2008 12:29 AM

So, we'll have mothers or sisters, or best friends trying to do it, since doctors won't. THen what?
Posted by: Hal at August 22, 2008 12:53 PM

Do you know ONE person who would perform an abortion for a friend or daughter if such a request were made?


Posted by: Janet at August 22, 2008 9:50 PM


Hal?

Posted by: Janet at August 23, 2008 12:51 PM