CNN: Obama's opposition to Born Alive Act

CNN's Carol Costello did a good deal of research and fairly reported Barack Obama's opposition to the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act when he was state senator.

Bill Bennett added important info in a follow-up debate against James Carville.

Costello's follow-up should be to answer the question she closed with: Did Barack Obama reject the opportunity to vote for a bill identical to the federal bill?


Comments:

That is awesome. Score one for Jill!!!

Posted by: truthseeker at July 1, 2008 1:33 AM


"Costello's follow-up should be to answer the question she closed with: Did Barack Obama reject the opportunity to vote for a bill identical to the federal bill?"

Yes, she should have. Good for Bill Bennett for clarifying that point... After seeing this for the 2nd time, I like it better.

I'm so glad this is getting some air time, it really exposes the true Obama for what he is. I was thinking today about how Jill's impact could have on the election for the next leader of the free world.

Poor James Carville didn't have a clue about what he was talking about.

Jill, you are one of my heros. btw: you looked great on TV :)

Posted by: Jasper at July 1, 2008 4:58 AM


Jill, what measures would BAIPA require us to take in order to prolong the life of a baby born alive in the second trimester of pregnancy?

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 5:07 AM


Jill and all else interested in the topic read this:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/4/e576

It has nothing to do with abortion. Rather, it reports how BAIPA affects neonatalists dealing with extreme premies.

"After its signing into law, the Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) Steering Committee issued an opinion stating that "[BAIPA] should not in any way affect the approach that physicians currently follow with respect to the extremely premature infant." This interpretation of the law, however, may have been short sighted.

"Under the BAIPA, the DHHS [Dept of Health and Human Services] interprets EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] to protect all "born-alive" infants....According to its memorandum, the DHHS will investigate allegations of EMTALA violations whenever it finds evidence that a newborn was not provided with at least a medical screening examination under circumstances in which a "prudent layperson observer" could conclude from the infant’s "appearance or behavior" that it was "suffering from an emergency medical condition." The memorandum fails to clarify which observers qualify as prudent, what infant appearance or behavior is relevant, or what defines an emergency medical condition. Because these evaluative criteria are not constrained by reference to relevant standards of medical care, the agency arguably substitutes a nonprofessional’s presumed sagacious assessment of survivability for reasonable medical judgment.

"Indeed, under a straightforward reading of the instruction, a family member could conceivably trigger an investigation after observing a relative deliver a 20-week fetus who maintains a heartbeat for an hour before its death. "

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 5:24 AM


From the text of the law: "the term `born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes OR HAS A BEATING HEART, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles...," (My emphasis)

Wow. Sometimes a first trimester abortus barely larger than your thumb has a visible heartbeat. Does BAIPA require us to try to prolong their lives?

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 6:12 AM


Holy cow! What an amazingly fair piece for CNN to play.

I like how Bennett used Jill's exact talking points aginst Carville, who sounded like a stuck pig and did his best to not talk about the real issue.

Posted by: Andrew at July 1, 2008 6:54 AM


Andrew, I noticed that, too. He used points I made on his show yesterday morning, which made me very happy.

SOMG, 6:12a, said: "Sometimes a first trimester abortus barely larger than your thumb has a visible heartbeat."

Not when aborted, SOMG.

Jasper, 4:58a: Thanks on a couple counts!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 1, 2008 7:13 AM


Jill, yes, occasionally you can see a heartbeat after the abortion.

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 7:38 AM


Great Job Jill!

Right on the facts, Bill stayed on the point.

This should get interesting.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 1, 2008 7:46 AM


I am so excited this is getting out! Thank you Jill!

Their explanation is that Obama felt Roe vs Wade was being attacked...so??? Even if that were true does it make it ok then to leave babies dying to protect Roe vs Wade????

I pray that this issue is kept on target and that they do not allow the truth to be distracted from, by turning this into a debate about Santorum or abortion...

and I want a bumper sticker!!!

Posted by: Theresa at July 1, 2008 7:50 AM


Obama has no idea of how many black babies have lost their lives through abortion because of the black genocide that is going on.

If he saw a baby that was born alive after an abortion (surviving it) at say 26 weeks, what would he say? Kill the baby?

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at July 1, 2008 7:58 AM


SOMG, 7:38a, said: "Jill, yes, occasionally you can see a heartbeat after the abortion."

What 1st trimester abortion type or you speaking of where you can see a heartbeat?

Theresa, 7:50a, said: "Their explanation is that Obama felt Roe vs Wade was being attacked... so??? Even if that were true does it make it ok then to leave babies dying to protect Roe vs Wade????"

Yes, Theresa, great points.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 1, 2008 8:04 AM


Wow, Carville sure made his ignorance known!

This was a terrific piece, VERY good to expose Obama...thank goodness Bill Bennett was there to correct them when they said the language of the bills were different, when they were exactly the same. I hope that many, many people were watching the segment.

Jill, your hair looked nice!


Posted by: Bethany at July 1, 2008 8:04 AM


Jill, I've seen them with manual suction.

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 8:06 AM


Their explanation is that Obama felt Roe vs Wade was being attacked... so??? Even if that were true does it make it ok then to leave babies dying to protect Roe vs Wade????"

Theresa, my thoughts exactly! What is wrong with these people who think that justifies it?

Posted by: Bethany at July 1, 2008 8:13 AM


Theresa and Bethany, a typical survivor of labor-induction abortion is a second-trimester premie. Long-term survival or even medium-term survival is extremely unlikely no matter what we do.

What measures should we take to prolong its life?

Who do you think should pay for these measures?

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 8:40 AM


I think TRYING to save a preemies life would be a good start. I know it's a stretch for you, SoMG to even fathom, given your career but I guess you gotta start somewhere.

I have a friend whose daughter was around 27 weeks gestation when she arrived. Melanie will be heading to Kindygarten this fall!! :)

Posted by: Carla at July 1, 2008 8:49 AM


Theresa and Bethany, a typical survivor of labor-induction abortion is a second-trimester premie. Long-term survival or even medium-term survival is extremely unlikely no matter what we do.

Actually, preemie survival rates are going up, more and more these days.

What measures should we take to prolong its life?

Whatever measures you would give a full term infant if he/she developed problems at birth.

Who do you think should pay for these measures?

It doesn't concern me. Money is not nearly as important as their lives.

Posted by: Bethany at July 1, 2008 8:50 AM


I think TRYING to save a preemies life would be a good start.

Right on, Carla. Laying them on a shelf to die surely shouldn't be the accepted protocol.

Posted by: Bethany at July 1, 2008 8:52 AM


Agreed, Bethany!! :)

I would certainly expect life saving measures for any of my children, why not a preemie??

Posted by: Carla at July 1, 2008 8:58 AM


Oops, I forgot. They must be "wanted" to be deemed worthy of any care. Silly me.

Posted by: Carla at July 1, 2008 9:01 AM


SOMG, 8:06a, said: "Jill, I've seen them with manual suction."

SOMG, first, I don't believe you. Second, even if so, would medical professionals attempt to save a 1st trimester wanted baby? No. To say Born Alive forced medical professionals to provide care to an unwanted baby that they would not provide to a wanted baby is ludicrous.

If that were not true, NARAL would not have gone neutral on Born Alive.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 1, 2008 9:02 AM


Wow. Sometimes a first trimester abortus barely larger than your thumb has a visible heartbeat. Does BAIPA require us to try to prolong their lives?

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 6:12 AM

Have no idea what you are talking about SoMG. What's an abortus - is this yet another word you use to create the delusion that you are doing someone something remotely good?

SOMG, 7:38a, said: "Jill, yes, occasionally you can see a heartbeat after the abortion."

Which makes what you do even more evil, because you KNOW and fully understand and yet still consent to this evil. May God have mercy on your soul.

Posted by: Patricia at July 1, 2008 9:05 AM


Patricia, "abortus" is the technical term for an aborted fetus. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 9:15 AM


It was great to see Carville squirm when he was boxed into a corner. His final remarks, simply reiterating Obama’s position, show the indefensible nature of Obama’s actions and votes. It will be interesting to see when Obama is personally boxed into the same corner what his defense will be. I can’t wait for the debates!

Posted by: Charles at July 1, 2008 9:42 AM


SoMG: you are beyond belief! Your language, your reasoning, all your actions go towards creating an illusionary life for yourself - You are an abortionist - you murder babies for a living. Come back to reality. It must truly be exhausting living like this.

Posted by: Patricia at July 1, 2008 9:45 AM


I have two comments about the video on this post:
1. the pro-Obama James Carville attempted to make it look like even the Catholic Church did not support Jill Stanek in her allegations by repeatedly calling Rev. whomever a "priest".

2. While Bennett was interested in FACTS, Carville in a method and manner typical of proabort liberals clearly was not. He continually tried to deflect away from the facts they were supposed to debate.

Posted by: Patricia at July 1, 2008 10:35 AM


Did Barack Obama reject the opportunity to vote for a bill identical to the federal bill?

Not from what I've seen. He objected to provisions in the Illinois bill that don't appear in the federal law.

Posted by: Doug at July 1, 2008 11:02 AM


Jill:

Carville is a liar extraordinaire.

He is the poster boy for the LFHA (Liars For Hire Association).

By trying to paint Christ Hospital's director as a "priest" he probably ended up convincing most non-thinking pro-abort sheep out there that you have no credibility or integrity. Don't think for a moment that Carville didn't know exactly what he was saying. This guy is as bad a deceiver as there is in the world. I suggest you research this hospital's credentials a bit more and the association with Wright and then challenge Carville on what he said or implied. I think it bordered on slander. I would definitely be consulting a lawyer and going after this creep. I'd be raising the stakes here Jill and not let this Carville get away with defaming you or impugning your integrity.

SoMG:

First of all, I find it hard that a real doctor would have as much time as you do to blog considering all the paperwork that is required after each abortion. I mean I'm sure an abortionist has a minimum amount of paperwork that is required to be performed as a condition of meeting malpractice insurance carrier requirements. Either that or you're not killing that many babies. Maybe one per day and you just blog from your employer's computer. If so, do they allow this?

Secondly, I find it extremely odd and sick that someone that claims to do abortions would be so proud of it. You should be weeping at your actions or, you are one mentally ill puppy.

Or, perhaps you are a fraud who just likes to be at the center of attention. Either way, if you posted on my blog without proving that you're an abortionist, I'd ban you, because frankly, your posts are worse than pornography.

You remind me of the sicko psychiatrist in "Silence of the Lambs". If abortions were illegal, you'd have to be muzzled as well.

Posted by: HisMan at July 1, 2008 11:05 AM



"Obama has no idea of how many black babies have lost their lives through abortion because of the black genocide that is going on. "

What makes you think he has "no idea?"

Posted by: Hal at July 1, 2008 11:07 AM


Good point Hal.

And what are the ramifications if he does know?

Posted by: HisMan at July 1, 2008 11:23 AM


HisMan, you wrote: "You remind me of the sicko psychiatrist in "Silence of the Lambs".

YOU remind ME of General Jack D. Ripper, the looney in "Dr. Strangelove" who starts a nuclear war because he believes that fluoridation of water is a communist plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 11:25 AM


SoMG:

First of all, I find it hard that a real doctor would have as much time as you do to blog considering all the paperwork that is required after each abortion. I mean I'm sure an abortionist has a minimum amount of paperwork that is required to be performed as a condition of meeting malpractice insurance carrier requirements. Either that or you're not killing that many babies. Maybe one per day and you just blog from your employer's computer. If so, do they allow this?

Secondly, I find it extremely odd and sick that someone that claims to do abortions would be so proud of it. You should be weeping at your actions or, you are one mentally ill puppy.

Or, perhaps you are a fraud who just likes to be at the center of attention. Either way, if you posted on my blog without proving that you're an abortionist, I'd ban you, because frankly, your posts are worse than pornography.

You remind me of the sicko psychiatrist in "Silence of the Lambs". If abortions were illegal, you'd have to be muzzled as well.


Posted by: HisMan at July 1, 2008 11:05 AM


First of all, I note that SoMG seems to post mostly in the evening so she might be a resident or work in a hospital. I too find it incredible that she has the time she does to post so much.

"frankly, your posts are worse than pornography."
There have been some really digusting comments by SoMG recently which demonstrate the muck that floats about inside this person. Her comment to me recently about my marriage is only of many that should be deleted. Unfortunately, there seems to be ashortage of moderators on this blog.

"Secondly, I find it extremely odd and sick that someone that claims to do abortions would be so proud of it. You should be weeping at your actions or, you are one mentally ill puppy."

I dont' think this is odd, HisMan, for an abortionist. In fact I think it is indicative of how hard they work to rationalize every aspect of their "professional" life. Everything they do centers on affirming their "choice" to support, commit and promote abortions. The friends they have, the professional colleaques they have, their lifestyle etc. I would say this rationalization takes up a fair amount of energy.

The fact that SoMG's mother had FOUR abortions is not insignificant and I would say has real implications for her performing abortions.

Posted by: Patricia at July 1, 2008 11:29 AM


HisMan, you wrote: "...frankly, your posts are worse than pornography."

What's so bad about pornography? Are you saying that you find my posts sexually arousing, but you feel guilty about it?

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 11:37 AM


HisMan, you wrote: "...frankly, your posts are worse than pornography."

What's so bad about pornography? Are you saying that you find my posts sexually arousing, but you feel guilty about it?

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 11:37 AM

Trust me SoMG, there is NOTHING sexually arousing about you - in fact thoughts of you make one feel revulsion. I think the above comment you made, says quite abit about just what you are.

Posted by: Patricia at July 1, 2008 11:40 AM


"Obama has no idea of how many black babies have lost their lives through abortion because of the black genocide that is going on. "

What makes you think he has "no idea?"
Posted by: Hal at July 1, 2008 11:07 AM

Good point Hal.

And what are the ramifications if he does know?
Posted by: HisMan at July 1, 2008 11:23 AM

No ramifications. Abortion is not a secret. People know. People understand. Obama wins in landslide.

Posted by: Hal at July 1, 2008 11:46 AM


The fact that black fetuses are disproportionately killed by abortion is entirely due to the fact that black women disproportionately want/need abortions. That means if professional abortion were banned or unavailable, then unprofessional abortion would disproportionately kill, maim, sterilize, and criminalize black women. Or, black women would be disproportionately forced to endure labor and delivery against their wills, which is a form of (temporary) slavery. Either way, right-to-lifism would be just as racist as abortion on demand.

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 12:16 PM


Obviously Obama knows that some black women have abortions.

Does he feel there is some desperate need for the black population to increase faster than it already is? No, especially not against the will of a pregnant black woman.

Does a black woman with an unwanted pregnancy worry about how much greater the black population could be without legal abortion? Not likely, not likely at all, IMO.

Posted by: Doug at July 1, 2008 12:19 PM


"...black women would be disproportionately forced to endure labor and delivery against their wills, which is a form of (temporary) slavery. Either way, right-to-lifism would be just as racist as abortion on demand."
--------------------------------------------

Man...where does SoMG get all this stuff??

Labor is now a form of slavery?

..and did he just confirm that abortion is REALLY racist?

Posted by: RSD at July 1, 2008 1:02 PM


Wow, you really can't make this stuff up: "forced to endure labor and delivery against their wills, which is a form of (temporary) slavery"

I suppose by the same argument that my employer is my master and I am a slave to this job -- less we forget the fact that I am a willing participant in this transaction, as is the woman.

Posted by: Charles at July 1, 2008 1:06 PM


"...black women would be disproportionately forced to endure labor and delivery against their wills, which is a form of (temporary) slavery. Either way, right-to-lifism would be just as racist as abortion on demand."
--------------------------------------------

Man...where does SoMG get all this stuff??

LIke I said, RSD, SoMG rationalizes EVERYTHING about abortion. She has to in order to function as an abortionist. Anything is possible when you function like this.

Posted by: Patricia at July 1, 2008 1:09 PM


RSD, you wrote: "Labor is now a form of slavery?"

No, but FORCED labor is.

Charles, you wrote: "I am a willing participant in this transaction, as is the woman."

Not if she's trying to get an abortion. Her efforts indicate pretty clearly that she is NOT willing to undergo labor/delivery.

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 1:22 PM


RSD, you wrote: "did [SoMG] just confirm that abortion is REALLY racist?"

Sure, anything that disproportionately affects members of one race (as abortion does) is in a sense racist. Racist in its effect, not in its intention.

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 1:25 PM


I was laughing pretty hard at Carville.

For CNN, this information has so much traction that if they didn't cover it, they know their viewership would dump even more.

---------------------------

If SoMG sees a live kid after suction abortion, does it squish the kid like a bug to stop the suffering?

(Imagining the pharmacological substances being used to stop the voices.......)

Posted by: kb at July 1, 2008 1:30 PM


"(Imagining the pharmacological substances being used to stop the voices.......)

Posted by: kb at July 1, 2008 1:30 PM"
--------------------------------------------

I believe SoMG no longer hears the voices ...his hearing is now numb with all the screaming and suffering endured on a daily basis...

His soul is probably in the same state, too...

Posted by: RSD at July 1, 2008 1:56 PM


I wonder what Carville's wife, Mary, has to say about BAIPA.

Posted by: Janet at July 1, 2008 1:59 PM


I think you're confusing Child Birth with slavery, SoMG. One is labor for giving birth. Forced Labor would be what the slaves in the old South went through before slavery was finally abolished.

Slave Owners considered their slaves property. The unborn child is NOT property, but a separate person.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at July 1, 2008 2:33 PM


Jill,
Great job! You look great on camera.

That serpent James Carville did more harm to Obama. Obama's vote was indefensible and Carville had no where to go to support him logically on the issue so he attacks Jill.
Carville made himself look very uniformed about this issue.

Jill, correct me if I am wrong, but...
EVEN IF the language didn't mirror the language in the federal bill, that could EASILY have been remedied by Obamba by amending the bill on the floor and/or in final commitee. His party was in control of the senate.

This was a lousy stupid excuse. More lies and cover-ups.

Posted by: Sandy at July 1, 2008 2:41 PM


You've got to love the look on Donna Brasille's
face!

Priceless!

Jill's Super Sleuth ability just keeps on getting better!

Posted by: lesforlife at July 1, 2008 2:58 PM


"The unborn child is NOT property, but a separate person. "

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at July 1, 2008 2:33 PM
---------------------------------

Liz.. there's the rub...Pro-abort folks and their misinformed ilk do NOT accept the child as a separate person...

They hide this by calling the child everything else but a child in order to de-humanize the unborn...making it "easier" on themselves (SoMG excluded).


Posted by: RSD at July 1, 2008 3:13 PM


Abortion..."Racist in its effect, not in its intention."

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 1:25 PM
------------------------------------------

Have you by any chance read even a small amount of writings by Margaret Sanger?

This small, famous snippet would suffice:

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population"

Posted by: RSD at July 1, 2008 3:36 PM


"Her comment to me recently about my marriage is only of many that should be deleted. Unfortunately, there seems to be a shortage of moderators on this blog."

I'm working on that, Patricia.

Posted by: carder at July 1, 2008 4:26 PM


SoMG,

With regards to the statement that beating hearts can be seen in first trimester abortions, I've always thought that the fetus is so shredded up something like that could not be possible.

So when one comes out like that in a procedure, what do you do? Let it stop beating on its own? Continue with the dismemberment until it stops?

Now that I think about it, it's all in a jar so it's not like you can just reach in and "squish" it. Do you follow the jar to the post procedure room (don't know the proper term for that area, sorry) and examine the contents yourself or is someone else paid to do that?

Bernard Nathanson wrote that he had all his docs do their own post-procedure examinations at his New York clinic. Don't know if they do that anymore.

Posted by: carder at July 1, 2008 4:34 PM


"Her comment to me recently about my marriage is only of many that should be deleted.

Definitely, Patricia. Grow up, people who can't be civil!!!!

Posted by: Janet at July 1, 2008 5:00 PM


"Her comment to me recently about my marriage is only of many that should be deleted."

Definitely, Patricia. Grow up, people!

Posted by: Janet at July 1, 2008 5:00 PM


Oops, double post?! Two versions, take your pick. :(

Posted by: Janet at July 1, 2008 5:02 PM


LizfromNebraska, you wrote: "Forced Labor would be what the slaves in the old South went through before slavery was finally abolished. "

By "labor" I mean childbirth. But even so, you're right--some female slaves in the Old South were forced to give birth against their will.

You wrote: "The unborn child is NOT property, but a separate person. "

I agree with this. The fetus is not property, but the uterus, the life-support functions, and the water, oxygen, and nutrients it takes from the pregnant woman's bloodstream ARE her property. The end result for the unwelcome unborn is the same--a very poor prognosis.

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 5:10 PM


Carder, you wrote: "With regards to the statement that beating hearts can be seen in first trimester abortions, I've always thought that the fetus is so shredded up something like that could not be possible."

Sometimes, with manual suction, the whole thing slurps through intact, and you can see it pulsating in the collection flask.

You wrote: "So when one comes out like that in a procedure, what do you do? Let it stop beating on its own? "

That's right. It stops after at most a few minutes.

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 5:14 PM


RSD, Margaret Sanger was a long time ago. Everyone was racist in the first half of the Twentieth Century. Hitler was just an extreme case. Go read Jack London, who called on white boxer Jim Jeffries to come out of retirement and take the heavyweight championship back (from Jack Johnson) for the White Race. And how many white heavyweights avoided being beaten to jelly by Johnson, by refusing to fight him ostensibly because he was black? Like the fact that Johnson consistantly administered terrible beatings and often injured his opponents, sometimes seriously, had nothing to do with it. (He once literally knocked out an opponent's front teeth, you can see him on film brushing them out of the surface of his glove.)

Today PP has no racist agenda. Their decisions where to open clinics are based on only two considerations: how much it will cost, and where the demand for their services is greatest. Given that part of their charter is to minimize the cost to clients, it's not surprising that demand occurs in poor neighborhoods.

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 5:32 PM


Carder, you wrote: "With regards to the statement that beating hearts can be seen in first trimester abortions, I've always thought that the fetus is so shredded up something like that could not be possible."

Sometimes, with manual suction, the whole thing slurps through intact, and you can see it pulsating in the collection flask.

You wrote: "So when one comes out like that in a procedure, what do you do? Let it stop beating on its own? "

That's right. It stops after at most a few minutes.

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 5:14 PM

So technically that baby could be implanted in another welcoming uterus and live?

Posted by: Janet at July 1, 2008 5:55 PM


Janet, no, the other (welcoming) uterus would have no placenta.

Speaking of Jack London, there's a terrific movie of his novel THE SEA WOLF, starring Edward G. Robinson and Ida Lupino.

Posted by: SoMG at July 1, 2008 7:11 PM


SoMG, did you know there have been like 10 movie versions, beginning in 1913? (Oh no! That's the same year the Federal Reserve Board began.)

Edward G. never was nominated for an Oscar, sheesh!

His is the best-known of the movie versions, though it departs a good bit from the London book.

Chuck Connors played Wolf Larsen in an Italian version, and Charles Bronson did it in a made-for-TV movie.

And of course household name Liubomiras Lauciavicius played Wolf in a Russian version from 1991.

Posted by: Doug at July 1, 2008 7:41 PM


Oh yeah, the Edward G. version was directed by Michael Curtiz, who just the year before had done 'The Sea Hawk,' a swashbuckler with cool dudes like Errol Flynn and Claude Rains.

Posted by: Doug at July 1, 2008 7:47 PM


Sometimes, with manual suction, the whole thing slurps through intact, and you can see it pulsating in the collection flask.

Ok SoMG. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?
What you really mean here is that the little unborn baby is now in the basin and you are watching while it's heart beats and it struggles to survive but cannot. You are watching a little person die.
This is very sick, perverted and just plain wrong. God have mercy on you.

Posted by: Patricia at July 1, 2008 8:06 PM


Patricia,

I took care of the inappropriate comment re: your marriage.


Posted by: carder at July 1, 2008 8:07 PM


For those who are posting twice, I am wondering..
Is it that it is taking time for your comment to post?

Posted by: Patricia at July 1, 2008 8:10 PM


Ok SoMG. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?
What you really mean here is that the little unborn baby is now in the basin and you are watching while it's heart beats and it struggles to survive but cannot. You are watching a little person die.
This is very sick, perverted and just plain wrong. God have mercy on you.

Posted by: Patricia at July 1, 2008 8:06 PM

What is to prevent these "live fetuses" being sold for scientific purposes or other bizarre uses? Unbelievable!

Posted by: Janet at July 1, 2008 9:22 PM


Just an FYI...there is an actual "business" of selling aborted fetal parts. I'll see if I can find the info, on it and post the link.

What I saw online was an actual price list for assorted human baby parts...all in various "conditions" (depending on the abortion method used to harvest them)..."guaranteed fresh and shipped to your door".

Un-frikking-believable.

Posted by: Mike at July 1, 2008 10:43 PM


Mike, it's got to be fake or a scam.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 2, 2008 1:07 AM


Mike, it's got to be fake or a scam.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 2, 2008 1:08 AM


Janet, you wrote: "What is to prevent these "live fetuses" being sold for scientific purposes or other bizarre uses? "

They die within a few minutes, remember?

Posted by: SoMG at July 2, 2008 6:27 AM


truthseeker @ 1:08 AM

It happens. It's called fetal farming and it's one of the uglier sides of intact D&X (Partial Birth Abortion).

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 2, 2008 6:53 AM


http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/99jul.html

Take it with several grains of salt, since it's from nutjob Willke.

Posted by: Doug at July 2, 2008 7:00 AM


Planned Parenthood is still racist -- they say they go to neighborhoods where the "need is the greatest" but those are conveniently located in poor MINORITY neighborhoods. And Margaret Sanger was quoted as saying "we don't want word to get out that we are trying to extinguish the negro race". They target poor black women because of the women's situations.

A black woman is 3 times more likely to abort than a white woman -- why is this?

What PP does is draw women in with the low cost other services like exams, and then they sell them on birth control. When that fails, they gain a customer for an abortion.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at July 2, 2008 7:43 AM


Liz, as I said before, they are racist in effect (since they abort a disproportionate number of black and hispanic pregnancies), but not in intention. Margaret Sanger's comments are not relevant today.

You wrote: "What PP does is draw women in with the low cost other services like exams, and then they sell them on birth control."

Nope. The clients ask for bc. PP only "sells" them on it if they already have an unwanted pregnancy or an STD (in which case they advise condoms).

Your characterization applies more to CPCs, which draw women in with free pregnancy tests and then try to sell them on right-to-lifism.

Posted by: SoMG at July 2, 2008 8:48 AM


This is really crazy to me, both the Federal and the State Born Alive Acts are now law, why are we debating a moot issue?

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 10:05 AM


This is really crazy to me, both the Federal and the State Born Alive Acts are now law, why are we debating a moot issue?

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 10:05 AM

JohnS,
It's not so moot cause the guy who was Chairman of the Illinois Health and Human Services Committe in 2003 is the guy who did his best to keep Born Alive Protection from becoming law and is trying to become our president. Not so moot.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 2, 2008 10:29 AM


"Margaret Sanger's comments are not relevant today"
----------------------------------------
Oh really....that's like saying the Founding Fathers are no longer relevant today...

Sorry, SoMG..no matter how you slice and dice it (excuse the pun)...you and PP cannot and will not be free of Sanger and her barbaric idealogy.

Posted by: RSD at July 2, 2008 10:34 AM


I just came across this from the PLAL site:

Sanger called abortionists 'bloodsucking men with M.D. after their names.'

now...THAT's still applicable today *EG*...

Posted by: RSD at July 2, 2008 10:41 AM


the guy who was Chairman of the Illinois Health and Human Services Committe in 2003 is the guy who did his best to keep Born Alive Protection from becoming law

That's not true, Truthseeker. His objections to the Illinois bills were not based on them protecting born babies. If that was all they would have done, his objections would have been satisfied.

Posted by: Doug at July 2, 2008 10:45 AM


Patrica:

So SoMG is a she?

Now that really ruins my day. I could understand how a male could be such a wretch, but a woman, now that really breaks my heart.

SoMG:

Sorry I thought you were a guy. About the Dr. Strangelove comment, as usual, your analogs are irrelevant. I don't kill people, you do.

And to learn that you're a woman....that's almost too much to bear. You are about as far from God as a person can get for you have denied who you were created to be.

Posted by: HisMan at July 2, 2008 11:23 AM


What's your proof, Patricia?

Posted by: carder at July 2, 2008 11:36 AM


1. Doug is right, as I'll explain if Jill's WND column comes online to day.

2. But again so what, Born Alive is the law now, Obama is not saying he is going to try to get it repealed, why are we focusing on something that will not be an issue if he become President????

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 12:07 PM


SoMG is a she???

Dang! The last iota of her motherly instincts must have been snuffed out by the devil's masterpiece...

Posted by: RSD at July 2, 2008 12:13 PM


Did you notice the cocky attitude of Carville? The libs are convinced they are smarter and more important than conservatives and never wrong! What ego he displayed! That smug grin on his face should haunt him whenever he sees this clip! These people make me sick. We are talking about the innocent life of a living, breathing baby but to Carville, we may as well be talking about how to take the garbage out! Abortion is only one way Obama plans to kill innocent people! Just wait and see what happens if he gets in the WH!

If women don't want children all they have to do is keep their pants up!

Posted by: Deborah at July 2, 2008 12:50 PM


Deborah:

I would like to see you back up your defamation per se comment that "Abortion is only one way Obama plans to kill innocent people." What innocent people does Obama "plan" to kill.

P.s. if we are going to go down that road how many tens of thousands of innocent civilians have died in Iraq since 2003?

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 1:24 PM


Deborah:

I would like to see you back up your defamation per se comment that "Abortion is only one way Obama plans to kill innocent people." What innocent people does Obama "plan" to kill?

P.s. if we are going to go down that road how many tens of thousands of innocent civilians have died in Iraq since 2003?

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 1:25 PM


SOMG,

Crisis Pregnancy centers are often support systems during the pregnancy - referrals for pro life doctors, help for bills that need paid (I know my local Right to Life organization does this), maternity clothes and baby clothes, and many of them offer parenting classes.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at July 2, 2008 1:25 PM


It is heartbreaking that that there is even any discussion on this topic. Decent people know that this is worse than getting angry and killing someone. I'm sickened by the attitudes of so-called human beings in this country. This is so sad. This is worse than the Holocaust. These babies have no way to defend themselves-their own mothers don't want them.

Posted by: geneva at July 2, 2008 1:27 PM


If women don't want children all they have to do is keep their pants up!
Posted by: Deborah at July 2, 2008 12:50 PM

There you have it. The message of the pro-life movement.

Posted by: Hal at July 2, 2008 2:03 PM


" if we are going to go down that road how many tens of thousands of innocent civilians have died in Iraq since 2003? "

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 1:25 PM
---------------------------------------------

Since we're comparing deathcounts...How many tens of MILLIONS of innocent AMERICAN babies have died since 1973 due to abortion?

Posted by: RSD at July 2, 2008 2:09 PM


They die within a few minutes, remember?

Posted by: SoMG at July 2, 2008 6:27 AM

As ghastly as it sounds, I'm sure there's a way to preserve them.
Freezing, formaldehyde, etc.... I know for a fact selling of baby parts occurs, just don't have sources at hand.

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2008 2:15 PM


truthseeker @ 1:08 AM

It happens. It's called fetal farming and it's one of the uglier sides of intact D&X (Partial Birth Abortion).

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at July 2, 2008 6:53 AM

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.lifeissues.org/connector/99jul.html

Take it with several grains of salt, since it's from nutjob Willke.

Posted by: Doug at July 2, 2008 7:00 AM

Now, Doug....why would you call Dr. Wilke a nut job? Because he is strongly pro-life?

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2008 2:20 PM


DKS:

Deborah said that Obama planned to kill OTHER innocent people BEYOND those that were killed in abortion. That's the death count I was objecting to, and pointing out incidently that the current administration has a lot of innocent blood in it's hands.

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 2:36 PM


Sorry that was directed to RSD not DKS.

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 2:38 PM


JohnS,

you're objecting to a "supposed" deathcount if (heaven forbio) Obama reaches the WhiteHouse but accept the real deathcount from abortion with no qualms?

Posted by: RSD at July 2, 2008 3:11 PM


Obama is pro-choice, although again not much a President can do except the Supreme Court, and he's probably only going to have liberals retiring while he is in office. But the suggestion was made other people would be killed, still want to know who and how?

Posted by: JohnS at July 2, 2008 3:22 PM


"But again so what, Born Alive is the law now, Obama is not saying he is going to try to get it repealed, why are we focusing on something that will not be an issue if he become President????"

because it calls into question the mans character John, why can you see that?

Posted by: Jasper at July 2, 2008 4:03 PM


RSD, you wrote: "Sorry, SoMG..no matter how you slice and dice it (excuse the pun)...you and PP cannot and will not be free of Sanger and her barbaric idealogy."

In that case, you and all Christians alive today are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition. Not to mention, Hitler, who never refuted his membership in the Roman Catholic Church and wrote: "I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (MEIN KAMPF, I think chapter 2)"


Posted by: SoMG at July 2, 2008 7:45 PM


HisMan, you wrote: "About the Dr. Strangelove comment, as usual, your analogs are irrelevant."

My "analogs"? As opposed to my digitals?

You wrote: "And to learn that you're a woman....that's almost too much to bear. "

Why do you think you know my gender? I have not revealed it on this board.

Posted by: SoMG at July 2, 2008 7:59 PM


SoMG,

That's what I thought. Don't know how they came to that conclusion.

Posted by: carder at July 2, 2008 8:10 PM


RSD, you wrote: "Sanger called abortionists 'bloodsucking men with M.D. after their names.'"

I know a doc who says MD stands for misguided diety.

Posted by: SoMG at July 2, 2008 8:35 PM


Janet: Doug....why would you call Dr. Wilke a nut job? Because he is strongly pro-life?

Janet, no, because I've seen some of the stuff he's written.



Posted by: Doug at July 3, 2008 12:11 PM


Janet: Doug....why would you call Dr. Wilke a nut job? Because he is strongly pro-life?

Janet, no, because I've seen some of the stuff he's written.

Do you have an example?

Posted by: Janet at July 3, 2008 2:54 PM


Janet, Willke is a "the baby feels pain at 8 weeks" type of guy.

Posted by: Doug at July 4, 2008 9:53 AM


Doug, the baby at 8 weeks will react when pricked with a pin, just like a baby who is born will react when pricked with a pin. They will jerk away from the pin.

Posted by: Bethany at July 4, 2008 1:19 PM


Lest we get back into an argument about the Cerebral cortex, here are some links, which I need to remind you of:


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/no_brain_no_pai.html

Posted by: Bethany at July 4, 2008 1:38 PM


Janet, Willke is a "the baby feels pain at 8 weeks" type of guy.

Posted by: Doug at July 4, 2008 9:53 AM

No matter what the studies say, should we give the benefit of the doubt to the baby? It's too bad we can't turn back the hands of time and let you find out for yourself your own tolerance for pain- as a baby in the womb.

Posted by: Janet at July 4, 2008 2:48 PM


Janet, the earliest measurement of fetal stress reaction to an invasive procedure reported in the NYTimes article you linked to was at 18 weeks, not eight weeks.

You wrote: "No matter what the studies say, should we give the benefit of the doubt to the baby?"

The problem is anaesthesia is not without risk.

Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 5:34 PM


Janet, the earliest measurement of fetal stress reaction to an invasive procedure reported in the NYTimes article you linked to was at 18 weeks, not eight weeks.

You wrote: "No matter what the studies say, should we give the benefit of the doubt to the baby?"

The problem is anaesthesia is not without risk.

Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 6:01 PM


SoMG,

I noticed your spelling of anesthesia. Was that a typo or is that how it's supposed to be spelled?

Posted by: carder at July 4, 2008 9:18 PM


SoMG:6:01: Janet, the earliest measurement of fetal stress reaction to an invasive procedure reported in the NYTimes article you linked to was at 18 weeks, not eight weeks./i>

You wrote: "No matter what the studies say, should we give the benefit of the doubt to the baby?"

The problem is anaesthesia is not without risk.

Bethany linked to the NYT, not me. I didn't read the NYT article, if that's what you are referring to. I'm was responding to Doug's comment about Dr. Wilke and the early gestational age that he believes a baby feels pain. This is why I said: "No matter what the studies say, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the baby". (Benefit of the doubt of being the ability to feel pain.)

Posted by: Janet at July 5, 2008 5:41 AM


SOMG, my point in posting those articles was not to prove that 8 week unborn children feel pain, but to prove that there is not sufficient evidence to prove they DON'T. Obviously, the cerebral cortex isn't as important as science thus far has felt it is, to our ability to perceive pain.

There are some individuals out there, living without the cerebral cortex, and still able to feel pain and think. This opens up doubt as to whether it is actually true that an 8 week fetus cannot feel pain. (Especially since the neuro-anatomic structures are present by that time).

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2008 12:14 PM


Doug, the baby at 8 weeks will react when pricked with a pin, just like a baby who is born will react when pricked with a pin. They will jerk away from the pin.

Bethany, it's not "just like the born baby." One is reflexive movement, one can be conscious response - for the born baby.

Posted by: Doug at July 5, 2008 1:12 PM


No matter what the studies say, should we give the benefit of the doubt to the baby? It's too bad we can't turn back the hands of time and let you find out for yourself your own tolerance for pain- as a baby in the womb.

Janet, aside from Willke being untruthful, there is the matter of actually feeling pain, and that's where the development that occurs much later than 8 weeks comes into play.

Posted by: Doug at July 5, 2008 1:17 PM


Bethany, that first linked article is a good one, it presents a lot of stuff. On the cerebral cortexes, those individuals were not without them. They were very underdeveloped, but they were there. It may not take much - look at the tiny heads and brains on some dogs, etc., which certainly can feel pain - but there's no evidence that the cortex isn't required, though it may be much less than what's normal in size.

Additionally, that those individuals are that way is not proof that you or I, for example, were we to lose most or all our cortex, could feel pain. A given brain might have developed differently, but that's not to say that it works "in reverse" or that the unborn, most of which are having normal development, don't need the cortex for conscious pain perception.

Anyway, there's nothing there that would apply to 8 weeks, in the first place. Even Dr. Anand says:

Anand maintains that doctors performing abortions at 20 weeks or later should take steps to prevent or relieve fetal pain.

If there's no contraindications for the woman, then I'd certainly have no problem with that - it does seem that the real debate is about those weeks early in the 20's.

Posted by: Doug at July 5, 2008 1:38 PM


What are your thoughts on these studies, Doug?

Behavioural repertory of cats without cerebral cortex from infancy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1278272

Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: A challenge for neuroscience
and medicine (this one is very long, and I haven't read the entire thing, but have skimmed much of it and read the conclusion)
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zMl-XqqK3B4J:www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Merker-03062006/Referees/Merker-03062006_preprint.pdf

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2008 2:17 PM


Page 31 of the second study says:

In view of the functional considerations reviewed in the foregoing, none of these behavioral
manifestations in children with hydranencephaly ought to occasion any surprise, and no special
explanations such as neural reorganization based on plasticity are needed to account for them.
Rather, they are what the nodal position of mesodiencephalic mechanisms in convergent neural
integration, along with the comparative evidence regarding the behavior of mammals in the
absence of cerebral cortex, lead us to expect. Nor is there much warrant for attempting to
attribute these behaviors to remnant cortical tissue.

Posted by: Bethany at July 5, 2008 2:22 PM


SoMG:

Analog v. digitals?

You are truly a product of your education and your environment - Killer 101. Too bad correcting you on your gross errors and assumptions on abortion are not as easily repairable.

Why don't you try googling the word "analog" genius?

Here's the Wiki version:
An analog (noun) refers to an object, concept or situation which in some way resembles a different situation.
Analogue (literature), a literary work that shares motifs, characters or events with another, but is not directly derived from it
An analogy

And you're an opera buff? The motifs and language of which are pregnant with analogs?

Posted by: HisMan at July 5, 2008 3:06 PM


Boy did Carville sound like such a moron. Great job, Jill and Bennett!

Posted by: Lisa at July 6, 2008 10:56 PM


What are your thoughts on these studies, Doug?

Bethany, my thoughts include "AWESOME."

Great work finding them, and that long one is excellent - very readable.

Okay, based on that one, and if it is indeed that way, then I stand corrected as far as "there's no evidence that the cortex isn't required" (for consciousness). That is really amazing.

The one about the cats raises some questions. The optic nerves are connected to the visual cortex, which is the portion of the cerebral cortex of the brain that receives and processes impulses from the optic nerves.

The site said that bilateral removal of the cerebral cortex was done, so I'm also suprised that the cats "utilized the visual...senses." I know there is also some connection of the optic nerves to an area around the brain stem known as the "geniculate nucleus" - there's one on both side, and perhaps that is enough for the cats to function as noted. One wonders what the visual cortex connections are for, then.

I'll try to read the whole long piece.

Anyway, okay - going with the idea that consciousness can be there without the cortex, in the "Conclusion" on page 32, it says, Whether the perspective presented here can be developed into a comprehensive account of the neural organization of consciousness will require much additional work of a theoretical and empirical nature to determine. The testable prediction made in Section 4.5.1 above should smooth the path to such a future verdict.

4.5.1. Collicular gamma oscillations and cortical “binding”. The superior colliculus is the only place outside of the cerebral cortex in which fast oscillations in the gamma range have been shown to occur and to behave in a manner paralleling in all significant respects that of the cortex

This makes sense. If we are going with the idea that there is activity in the brainstem that equates to consciousness, let's see what the deal is.

If the "gamma oscillations" or other types of brainwaves are present, then medical technology is easily able to detect it. So, as I've said for the cortex, if brainwaves are there, they're there, and if not then not.

So, do 20 week fetuses have brainwaves in the brainstem?

Posted by: Doug at July 7, 2008 4:09 PM


Bethany, my thoughts include "AWESOME."
Great work finding them, and that long one is excellent - very readable.
Okay, based on that one, and if it is indeed that way, then I stand corrected as far as "there's no evidence that the cortex isn't required" (for consciousness). That is really amazing.


oh my goodness!!

I never expected that response.

Doug, you've made my day!!

Now, as I catch my breath and get up off the floor, I'll read the rest of your post!

Posted by: Bethany at July 7, 2008 4:51 PM


So, do 20 week fetuses have brainwaves in the brainstem?

I would guess it is the brainstem, but I don't know. From what I have read, it is 6-7 weeks when the first brain waves can be recorded...not cortical brain waves, but brain waves nonetheless.

Posted by: Bethany at July 7, 2008 5:11 PM


I never expected that response.

Doug, you've made my day!!

Ha! Well good, Bethany.

I do believe in giving credit where credit is due, and it's fascinating stuff to read about and I like it. If I was wrong, I will definitely say so, and in this case I was - I think the one article is good enough to say that.

I know there is the neural tube very early on, and some electrical activity in those early weeks, but they are not the organized patterns we call true brainwaves, as with the gamma waves mentioned in the article.

If we just go by electrical impulses, one neuron alone could be said to "have brainwaves."

Posted by: Doug at July 7, 2008 6:57 PM


Doug, isn't it possible that the sensory neurons of the fetus are actually more sensitive than the neurons of adults?

Posted by: Bethany at July 8, 2008 4:47 PM


I don't know, Bethany. I don't know if that's even possible. A neuron is like a switch, "on" or "off" and either the impulses go through or they don't - if things are working right they do.

If anything I'd say it's not complex enough for "more sensitive" to apply.

Posted by: Doug at July 10, 2008 9:44 AM


If the neurons and impulses are indeed there, then shouldn't you give the benefit of a doubt that they might feel pain?

Posted by: Bethany at July 11, 2008 8:37 AM


B, no, because that alone is not nearly enough to suppose consciousness, nor to trump the desire of a woman to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Posted by: Doug at July 18, 2008 4:17 PM


A fetus is not a person. The fetus might be a human but the fetus is not a person. We pull the plug on lots of humans to get their organs. They starve and and choke for breath. We do this because we consider them brain dead in most events. That's because with out a mind it's not a person.
The Fetus does not have an opinion. If it's about pain lets give them a shot so they go to sleep painlessly.
Potential doesn't have any bearing. The fetus could grow up into a mass murderer or it could not. We don't really know if these babies/fetus will have a life worth living. Sometimes with horrific diseases they most certainly do not.
I have no problem with infanticide if done painlessly. But of course their should be a day limit of decision after the live birth. We should protect children's rights. But the person who is going to be effected is the parent. I'm getting sick of people killing these fully AWARE kids. Let parents decide. If it's done painlessly there is not problem, if agreed upon by both parents. It's a hole lot better then finding that baby dead in a dumpster.

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