Stop Charlie

6/14, 4:25p: Coming soon to FL via Truth Trucks on the highways and byways and aerial displays along coastal beaches (click to enlarge):

crist and ultrasounds.png

Donations to Center for Bio-Ethical Reform for this project will increase CBR's ability to make a greater impact around the state.

6/11, 5:10p: As expected, flip-flopping pro-abortion-to-pro-life-to-pro-abortion again FL Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed the ultrasound bill today. According to USA Today...

crist.jpg

... Crist, who is running for the US Senate, has vetoed legislation that would have required a woman to get an ultrasound test before an abortion.

"This bill places an inappropriate burden on a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy,'' Crist said in his veto message....

The measure would have required most women to have an ultrasound before having an abortion, unless the woman could prove she was a victim of rape, incest, domestic violence or human trafficking. Women could choose not to see the ultrasound or hear a description of it....

The FL GOP has put together a montage of Crist's statements on abortion throughout the years, showing shameless pandering for votes dependent on the political climate:

Let's hope voters, no matter what their opinion on abortion, see Crist as someone not to be trusted. Toward that end, this statement was just issued:

Family Research Council Action PAC unveiled a new website, www.stopcharlie.com, and a state-wide radio ad campaign in response to Governor Charlie Crist's veto of commonsense ultrasound legislation....

The radio ad [which can be heard at the website] will begin running state-wide early next week. The ad states, "Crist used to claim to be pro-life. Now he's just pro-Crist. Since leaving his party he's decided he'd rather be pro-abortion, removing the pro-life section from his website and vetoing a bill that would allow women to see an ultrasound of their child before having an abortion....

rubio.jpg

In contrast, Marco Rubio has been a true friend of the family and the culture of life as a state legislator in FL. Senators who will fight to defend the family against the radical leadership in the Senate are crucial to the future of our country....

Charlie Crist is the worst kind of despicable politician. And Marco Rubio is the best. Here's hoping the latter pummels the former on Election Day this November.

[HT: moderator Carder]


Comments:

Every time you post that pic of Rubio, Jill, my heart goes aflutter. And I have to say to myself: He's married with kids . . . he's married with kids . . . he's married with kids . . .

Posted by: phillymiss at June 11, 2010 5:37 PM


Hi phillymiss,

Nothing wrong with feasting our eyes. Hey we ain't dead yet!

Posted by: Mary at June 11, 2010 6:05 PM


Good for Charlie. My "Bubbie" and her friends from the local temple love Charlie Crist and this will endear him to them even more. In addition to being pro-choice (Yentas are loving it) he is showing effective leadership in handling the potential for environmental disaster (endangered species are really more important than fetuses in the long range scheme of ecological things) in Florida. BTW, Crist is married but he doesn't have kids - so what? Is the measure of a person their ability to reproduce. "Bubbie" and I say "Mazel Tov" to Charlie!!! And if the "lifers" want to kvetch - "feh."

Posted by: Sabra at June 11, 2010 6:06 PM


Great news Sabra! Yeshua is your Messiah! He is your Passover Lamb! Repent from your sin, and He will give you LIFE!

"endangered species are really more important than fetuses in the long range scheme of ecological things"

Do you have any children or siblings Sabra? Does the thought of them being "terminated" in the womb bother you?

Posted by: Ed at June 11, 2010 6:35 PM


Just like our Illinois governors (Jill's recent WND column) Charlie is going to the well looking for "choice" cash and votes. Very predictable.

Posted by: Jerry at June 11, 2010 9:08 PM


Sabra, does the Torah speak of the Holy Spirit? And if so, then does ot teach that the Holy Spirit is the giver of life? I don't expect an answer but if you really can share an honest answer regarding this scriptural basis for being "ok" with abortion, then I look forward to your response.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 11, 2010 9:12 PM


THANK YOU for posting this! I love your blog!!

Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

ps. Link Exchange??

Posted by: Steve at June 11, 2010 9:32 PM


This bill wasn't just about the ultrasound measure, which has garnered the most attention. The bill also included language that would have prevented Florida taxpayers to pay for abortions under the healthcare monstrosity that was signed into law recently.

So thanks to Governor Flip Flop, taxpayer-funded abortions are coming to the Sunshine State.

It is my sincerest hope that when, not if, Big Daddy Rubio wins the senate seat, he will serve it to Charlie with the biggest bowl of black beans and rice this side of Havana.

Posted by: carder at June 11, 2010 9:41 PM


Sabra, please provide the scripture passage that teaches you that infants are not "fully" human until they are born. If you cannot provide a specific passage to support your position then you blaspheme God.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 11, 2010 9:45 PM


In Rubio's words:

“Once again, Charlie Crist has put politics ahead of principled policy-making. Not only would this commonsense measure have provided women with vital information as they make a critical decision, but now Governor Crist’s veto also clears the way for taxpayer funding of abortion in Florida. This veto will now make it harder for Florida to fight ObamaCare, since the bill would have enabled our state to opt out of the abortion coverage mandate in the federal health care law."

Posted by: carder at June 11, 2010 10:20 PM


mr flip flop at his best. hope florida does the right thing puts rubio in the senate.

Posted by: chris at June 12, 2010 6:15 AM


http://www2.tbo.com/video/2010/jun/10/women-want-governor-crist-to-hear-their--11415/video-news/

this link said 14 women who had an abortion asked charlie crist to sign the bill for women to get an ultrasound befoore they get an abortion

Posted by: chris at June 12, 2010 6:32 AM


Crist is just like dirty laundry flipping, flapping and flopping in the winds of political expediency.

When there ain't no breeze, Crist just hangs there aimless and limp.

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 12, 2010 7:22 AM


Posted by: Sabra at June 11, 2010 6:06 PM


Yo, 'yenta',

If you bear the name of Jew and rely upon the Law and pride yourselves in God and your relationship to Him, and know and understand His will and discerningly approve the better things and have a sense of what is vital, because you are instructed by the Law; and if you are confident that you [yourself] are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, and [that You are] a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the childish, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth —

Well then, you who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you teach against stealing, do you steal (take what does not really belong to you)?

You who say not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery [are you unchaste in action or in thought]? You who abhor and loathe idols, do you rob temples [do you appropriate to your own use what is consecrated to God, thus robbing the sanctuary and doing sacrilege]?

You who boast in the Law, do you dishonor God by breaking the Law [by stealthily infringing upon or carelessly neglecting or openly breaking it]?

For, as it is written, The name of God is maligned and blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you! [The words to this effect are from your own Scriptures.] [Isa 52:5; Ezek 36:20.]

Posted by: yor bro ken at June 12, 2010 7:32 AM


"(endangered species are really more important than fetuses in the long range scheme of ecological things)"
--------------------------------------

I really don't know where these pro-aborts get this type of reasoning...Is there a school somewhere that they go to get this skewed reasoning implanted in their brains?

If endangered species are more important than people, and that humans should not be on this earth, why don't they "walk the walk" and offer themselves up to their cause??

Any takers? I rest my case.

Posted by: RSD at June 12, 2010 9:25 AM


This bill places an inappropriate burden on a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy,'' Crist said in his veto message....


awww, shucks. Can't have women giving INFORMED consent now can we cuz we might "burden" them....??

gotta love those prochoice euphemisms though: "terminate a pregnancy".
My foot. :(

Posted by: angel at June 12, 2010 9:28 AM


Sounds like he was living up to what the tea people want - less government involvement in daily lives...and most of the folks on this board were concerned about government getting between doctors and patients - so from that standpoint, the man just did what many of you wanted.

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at June 12, 2010 11:07 AM


I can't wait to vote to throw this faker out on his ear, he's fake to the core starting with his cheeseball suntan. Allez! Vamos Marco! Stay conservative and send this bum packing!

Posted by: J Peterman at June 12, 2010 12:31 PM


ex gop big government is what charlie crist gave florida when he vetoed the bill. it would have been less government if he would have passed it. get your facts straight. he pass the bill the people in florida would not have to use tax dollars to fund abortions. now florida will be paying their taxes for women to get an abortion thanks to obamacare

Posted by: chris at June 12, 2010 12:45 PM


These words of Crist's are eerily familiar.....

"This bill places an inappropriate burden on a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy," Crist said in his veto message

http://www.jillstanek.com/obama/ode-to-obama-an.html

Posted by: Kay at June 12, 2010 2:10 PM


This is the law:

"In the event the baby removed is alive, a physician or other medical personnel attending the baby is required by law to provide the type and degree of care and treatment which in the good faith judgment of the physician is commonly provided to any other person under similar conditions and circumstances

Obama and Crist didn't stand by and watch numerous babies suffer and die. JILL did. And she did NOTHING. Even though the law states that she is SUPPOSED to.

She didn't call 911, she didn't end the baby's suffering with medication. She watched it suffer and die. This is very sick and twisted and disturbing and I can not believe she are blaming Barack Obama or ANYONE else when they have never done ANYTHING of the sort. But SHE has.

OBAMA voted for a law that clearly states that in the even the baby is born alive that SHE is supposed to care for it as any other baby. SHE did NOT and is broadcasting her accessory to murder all over the world.

And she did it ALL FOR A PAYCHECK!

Barack Obama TRUSTS that medical personnel will do the job they are being paid to do. Not sit by and watch babies suffer a slow, painful death.

Posted by: Pearl E. Gates at June 12, 2010 2:58 PM


Charlie Crisp,

political-weasel-of-the-year/


http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/06/09/political-weasel-of-the-year/

Posted by: Jasper at June 12, 2010 3:15 PM


Pearl E. Gates,

Did you also know that the sky is green, the grass is blue and water is orange?

Posted by: Jasper at June 12, 2010 3:26 PM


"water is orange?"

Yum!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at June 12, 2010 3:35 PM


P.E.G.,

"good faith judgment of the physician"?
Does this mean the judgment of the 'physician' who minutes earlier meant to kill the child?

"similar conditions and circumstances"?
I can't think of one other similiar condition and circumstance that compares to a "physician" intentionally attempting kill a human other than Kevorkian and what happened to him? I also don't believe infants can request help committing suicide.

"end the baby's suffering with medication"? You really mean finish what the abortionist started. You admit a baby suffers terribly during (and sometimes after attempted abortion) but you express anger at someone who exposed what was going on and support those who hold the power to stop the suffering and killing.

You are the one who is very sick, twisted and disturbed.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 12, 2010 3:38 PM


P.E.G.

You're all twisted and discombobulated with your "version of reality".

Jill offered the only comfort she could to a preemie with underdeveloped lungs, because the idiot with the medical degree failed in his attempt to kill the child.

Either you're very confused, or just a stupid troll.

Either way, get help.

Posted by: Ed at June 12, 2010 8:42 PM


I'm irritated at the media and Crist for lying about the florida ultrasound amendment.

While it requires the woman to pay for an ultrasound, and the low resolution ones used for this purpose are cheap, it does not require her to look at the pics or even hear the interpretation. The mother can choose to sign off on this to avoid it, as I did for all three of my alpha feto-protein tests. The sonogram can be avoided altogether in specified cases of supposed "emergency" or if the women has been raped, according to the amendment.

The required sonogram would be useful to prevent a host of abortion errors from missed ectopic to bad estimates of fetal age.

Follow June 12 postings on my above linked blog to find a link to the actual Florida ultrasound amendment, so you can see it for yourself.

Posted by: pharmer at June 12, 2010 10:47 PM


ex GOP:
"Sounds like he was living up to what the tea people want - less government involvement in daily lives...and most of the folks on this board were concerned about government getting between doctors and patients - so from that standpoint, the man just did what many of you wanted."

If a governor were to sign legislation permitting pornographers to sell child porn, thereby giving porn merchants what the "tea party people want--less government in their daily lives", for some reason I don't think even you would really believe that is what tea partiers want.

In case you were not aware of it tea partiers are for the legitimate exercise of government powers, for example laws protecting us against captital offenses and good enforcement of those laws. For many tea partiers government's interest in protecting the right to life is self evident.

As to keeping the government out of the relationship between patient and doctor--if indeed you are concerned about that--I hope you opposed Obamacare. It is interesting that the "choicers" fell silent on that. The mantra "keeping government out of the relationship between patient and doctor" should have been heard from all "choice" quarters re Obamacare. But it was not heard because the reality is that "choicers" do want more government control. We see acceptance in leftist circles about controlling everything from who is given what medical attention (primarily aimed at end of life) to limiting the size of families. The exception to the rule is of course when something comes along that may limit access to abortion at which time these same leftists want less government.



Posted by: Jerry at June 13, 2010 1:04 PM


I am so very proud of my fellow post abortive moms in Operation Outcry!! God bless you!!(There were 22, not 14.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7poymDYcJHI

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 13, 2010 1:49 PM


Carla @ 1:49,
I'm very proud of you all too!!

Posted by: Janet at June 13, 2010 2:45 PM


Thank you, Janet!! :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 13, 2010 4:03 PM


Does anybody have 3 brain cells that visits this site?

Anyone who goes to work and sees more than ONE baby die in such a manner and doesn't report it has a SERIOUS problem.

Put yourself in her shoes....you go to work and a baby that is NOT supposed to be delivered alive is alive. And suffering.....FOR HOURS!! And you just go home, watch Nancy Grace then get up and go to work again.

You do not SEE the problem with this? She talks about seeing this done numerous times! HELLO?????

I would have been at the police station the first day I witnessed an infant suffering in a dirty store room for an 8 hour shift.

I APPLAUD her for FINALLY letting it be known. But what the heck took so long???

How are you people missing this part??

I applaud a child molester who finally turns himself in but that does not make his previous crimes okay. Just like Jill's are NOT okay. She was a WITNESS to this madness and did NOTHING until it would bring her MONEY & FAME an a chance to slam a black President who she hates. Plain & simple.

Barack Obama signed a law that stated that the VERY thing she is describing would NOT happen! he is not OKAY with this! But apparently Jill was for a while because she is the one who went to work repeatedly watching it take place.

Wake up people!

Posted by: Pearl E. Gates at June 13, 2010 5:42 PM


P.E.G.

Do you think abortion should be illegal?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

Posted by: Praxedes at June 13, 2010 6:16 PM


PEG,
I think you are the one who needs to wake up. Start by stopping the drinking the BHO kool-aid.
BHO and his wife Michelle spent their political energies holding fundraisers to try and keep partial birth abortion legal...and he would still look you in the eye and say abortion is a wrenching moral decision. So he is ok with puncturing a baby's skull with a scissors and then sucking the babies brans out in order to make sure born alive infants don't inconvenience their mother's choice. He really seems tgo have compassion for those women who get burdened with babies.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 13, 2010 9:06 PM


Pearl E Gates, your post is filled with inaccuracy (lies) which are very easily discernable by the millions who know how long Jill Stanek has been at this pro-life gig.

The clip of Obama opposing the born alive infants protection act of ILLINOIS is on the naked emperor news and right here: http://www.jillstanek.com/infanticide/baipaobamamp3.html

I'm eager to see which bill Obama signed protecting infants surviving abortion. Link please?

Posted by: pharmer at June 13, 2010 11:24 PM


PEG emailed me Saturday, and as I responded to her, Obama did not ever vote for Born Alive. He voted "present" before voting "no" 4x.

PEG wrote, "She didn't call 911, she didn't end the baby's suffering with medication. She watched it suffer and die."

The baby I held was not viable. He was b/t 21-22 weeks old. His lungs weren't mature. Nor would I ever have ended his suffering with medication. I did the only humanitarian thing possible at that point. I held and rocked him until he died.

PEG wrote, "I would have been at the police station the first day I witnessed an infant suffering in a dirty store room for an 8 hour shift."

It was 45 minutes, and we requested the Attorney General of IL to conduct an investigation. He determined after an 8 month delay that Christ Hospital was breaking no law, hence the need to introduce the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in IL.

PEG wrote, "he was a WITNESS to this madness and did NOTHING until it would bring her MONEY & FAME an a chance to slam a black President who she hates."

First, no one knew who Barack Obama was in 2001, 2002, and 2003 when I was testifying before various committees on which he sat as state senator and when he was opposing Born Alive.

About the fame... I wrote a letter to the hospital in July 1999 privately asking it to stop. When it wouldn't I asked influential people and organizations to privately appeal to the hospital to stop. The goal was to rectify the situation quietly and quickly. No one in their wildest dreams could have imagined how the situation would explode after I finally went public.

Nor could anyone have anticipated the dismal character who spearheaded opposition to Born Alive in the state senate would one day run for president.

About the money... This blog is a mission. We're trying to make it operate in the black but for most of the past 5 years it has not.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 14, 2010 12:37 PM


Nice link Chris. The baby shoes at the capital are a great idea-- very simple but powerful.

Posted by: Adair at June 14, 2010 4:49 PM


http://www.acrywithoutavoice.com

The baby shoes are a powerful way to witness to the tragedy of abortion.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 14, 2010 10:01 PM


That middle picture made me think that tee-shirts for pregnant women with the ultra-sound image of a pre-born baby that rests on their middle would be great sellers. Better yet, a way to put an image of their own ultra-sound baby image would be sweet! Does any company currently do this? If not, what a great opportunity for some of you entrepreneurs out there. What a great witness it could be as pregnant women wear them out in public, as powerful as the truth trucks!

Posted by: Dee at June 15, 2010 6:52 AM


Thanks Jill for standing so strong in your labor of love in spite of all of the lies and opposition the enemy throws your way.

God bless you today!!!

Posted by: Ed at June 15, 2010 6:53 AM


P.E.G wrong heres a link as us senator obama voted no 3 times when it comes to the born alive protection act in illinois. proof is in the pudding. check mate http://www.jillstanek.com/aborted-alive/links-to-barack.html here can go here to read articles about him voting no.

Posted by: chris at June 15, 2010 7:26 AM



These words of Crist's are eerily familiar.....

"This bill places an inappropriate burden on a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy," Crist said in his veto message

http://www.jillstanek.com/obama/ode-to-obama-an.html

Posted by: Kay at June 12, 2010 2:10 PM

Creepy. Informed consent is now "inappropriate burden".

I thought women were strong and we could trust women.

Now we have to withhold information to protect women?

I call BS.

Posted by: hippie at June 15, 2010 10:00 AM


Dee,
I had that same thought for the parade our Pregnancy Care Center is in!! I want tshirts with 3D-4D ultrasound images on them!! :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 15, 2010 11:13 AM


The baby could have been "put to sleep" to end its suffering which is what animals in this country get when they are suffering. Posted by: Pearl E. Gates at June 16, 2010 12:05 PM

At first I took your comment to mean Jill should have sedated the infant, but your subsequent reference to animals suggests you mean Jill should have euthanized the baby. Euthanasia is not consistent with a prolife perspective so I'm not going there.

Let's say instead you believe Jill should have sedated the baby. How was she supposed to do this? Without a doctor's order for medication, where was Jill to obtain it? Would you have her carry vials of illegally-obtained drugs in her pockets so she can treat patients without doctors orders? (No disrespect to Jill intended!) If so, should she be concerned about the safety/quality of drugs she purchased off the street? Or would you instead have her forge a physician's order to get meds dispensed to the unit? Maybe she should steal from drugs available on the unit for another patient's care, shortchanging the other patient and subjecting the other patient's nurse to theft allegations?

If they didn't take these jobs, it wouldn't be happening no matter what the law is.

Are you saying prolife RNs shouldn't work in hospital L&D units? And nurses who choose to do so should provide treatment without or against a physician's orders? That they aren't supposed to engage in legal advocacy on behalf of the patients cared for by their profession?

Jill can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that no laws were broken because there was no mandate obligating care for this baby based on a determination made by the abortionist before the procedure that there was not a "reasonable likelihood of sustained survival" outside the womb. The law mandated care only if the determination was made prior to the procedure that "sustained survival" outside the womb was reasonably likely. Thus there was a need for a law to give all children accidentally born alive during an abortion the right to humane care based on their live birth and not based on an assessment of viability made prior to birth. Had such a law existed when Jill worked L&D, she could have legally rendered humane care as ordered by a physician who evaluated the baby after his birth.

I have a hard time understanding your criticism of Jill's advocacy efforts. You seem to be saying that Jill should have broken the law instead of trying to change it. That's the most peculiar, reckless, and dangerous form of patient advocacy I've ever heard!

Posted by: Fed Up at June 16, 2010 3:14 PM


Fed Up,

You say that euthanasia is not consistent with a Pro-Life perspective and that you do not want to go there....well, I would like to go there.

Watching a baby suffer and die without doing anything is not being Pro-Life. Let me put it to you another way.

The nurse knows the baby will die because at its age it cannot live on its own outside of the mother. What is the difference in watching a slow, agonizing death and ending the baby's misery sooner if the end result (death) will be the same?

How can any caring person just sit and watch a baby die...more than once? And how would you just return to work the next day as if nothing ever happened?

People in pain in a hospital are usually given medication to reduce their suffering. Maybe I missed it but I haven't seen where Jill asked a doctor for medication for the baby and the request was denied. If I missed this then I greatly apologize. Doesn't the baby deserves the same treatment as any other patient? Was the hospital just too cheap to spend a few dollars on medication for a dying baby? What is wrong with the world? For a hospital and its staff to sit by and watch babies suffocate to death on a repeated basis without doing anything to aid the suffering is wrong and is anything but Christian.

Who would return to work the next day after witnessing something like this ONCE let alone more than once? Who would work ONE MINUTE longer than necessary after witnessing something of this nature?

I do apologize to Jill for some of my remarks because she IS making a difference and that is to be applauded. The issue I have is making it a POLITICAL issue instead of a MORAL issue.

I realize that the Pro-Life movement wants laws to be changed and I understand the need to support a candidate who has the same values. But you can speak highly of those candidates and get the word out about them in a positive manner and leave out all the negativity and even childish name calling and cartoon postings about our current President. This is not Christian behavior.

As far as medicating the infant to reduce the suffering. The amount of sedative it would take to take away the pain of a 22 week old infant would never be missed by a hospital.

One Benadryl would do the trick and how in the world could she lose her job for giving the baby a Benadryl? Its not like an autopsy is going to be performed on an aborted baby. Use a little common sense.

Most decent people believe that suffering is worse than death. That is why we have the laws we have to end an animal's pain and suffering. To allow a suffering human to live when death is inevitable without doing anything is inhumane and cruel. That is why I used the example of euthanizing an animal.

If you see a puppy that had been hit by a car crying and suffering in the street, would you just stand there and watch for hours? No. Any decent human being would do SOMETHING to end its suffering. This is called CARING.

The laws in our country need to be about CARING, about doing what is RIGHT. And watching any human at any age suffer a slow lingering death is NOT doing the right thing but thank God Jill realized this and started speaking out.

The part I have a problem with is that she DID NOT quit her job! This is the part I DO NOT understand. She kept going to this job and was eventually fired for speaking out. My question is why the heck was she even still there? I would have walked out the first day and never returned.

But I will tell you this. If I saw a human suffering for hours and I knew death was inevitable I would break the law or do what I had to do to end the suffering. For this baby, if it was out of my control to medicate it or save its life, I would have covered its little nose and mouth to end the suffering because I care about anyone who is in pain. And I do think think God would want suffering if death was inevitable and nothing could be done. But hey, maybe that's just me.

Posted by: Pearl E. Gates at June 16, 2010 7:40 PM


All I want is for Jill to stop pointing a finger at others and accept her own responsibility for the time that she took part in this.

Maybe I have missed her doing just this and if so please bring it to my attention.

It just appears to be a political agenda and no acceptance of blame.

If I were in her shoes, I would be saying "what I did was wrong and it makes me sick at my stomach that I was unable to do anything to end the baby's suffering because I was afraid of the consequences. I was afraid of losing my job because I needed the money despite what was taking place." Something on that order. Something that accepts blame for being in a profession that supports this practice.

Again, maybe I have missed these words from her and if I have I greatly apologize for my words if they have caused any hurt.

But I just can't stand to see people who do not accept blame for their own actions while pointing the finger at others and continuing to return to a job where this barbaric practice was taking place until they are fired.

Where are all the blogs about all the evil nurses in this industry? Am I missing those? If they all walked out on their jobs after witnessing this type of activity then it might stop. Stop blaming politicians and point the finger where it really belongs - at the people who are actually performing and assisting in the procedures.

Posted by: Pearl E. Gates at June 16, 2010 7:51 PM


PEG,
I am pretty sure that Jill Stanek already addressed your concerns. Maybe you could email her directly instead of carrying on and on and on.

I know many caring people. They would not kill someone before they died naturally.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 16, 2010 7:54 PM


Jesus Christ suffered immensely before He died. If I were around during that Holy time, I would hope I wouldn't have been the one to "end His suffering with medication".

Jill was like that compassionate woman who did all she could do by cradeling and wiping the face of our suffering Lord when He was on the way to His death. Sometimes that is all that can be done.

Thank you Jill for the compassion you gave to those beautiful babies. I can relate to how quitting your job would have been the easier thing to do and can only imagine the stress and suffering you went through. I am sure those stresses made you stronger because God was preparing you for bigger plans!

Posted by: Praxedes at June 16, 2010 10:05 PM


Carla - I am responding to the comments of others. That is why I am going "on and on". I notice to do not mention them going on and on. Typical discrimination, nothing surprising.

I hope none of you have pets if you just let them linger and suffer and die if they get sick without doing anything to help. And I would hope you would think a human would deserve the same humane treatment.

All I want is for people to stop pointing a finger at others and accept their own responsibility for anything that contributes to a cause they are against. Its hypocritical to not do so.

Maybe I have missed Jill doing just this and if so please bring it to my attention. Maybe she has accepted responsibility for her actions. If she hasn't, then that is pretty sad.

It just appears to be a political agenda with all the finger pointing at certain politicians but not her co-workers, herself, etc.

If I were in her shoes, I would be saying "what I did was wrong and it makes me sick at my stomach that I was unable to do anything to end the baby's suffering because I was afraid of the consequences. I was afraid of losing my job because I needed the money despite what was taking place." Something on that order. Something that accepts blame for being in a profession that supports this practice. There is a nursing shortage in this country and an RN can find a job in a different area any day of the week.

Again, maybe I have missed these words from her and if I have I greatly apologize for my words if they have caused any hurt to Jill or anyone reading this blog.

But I just can't stand to see people who do not accept blame for their own actions while pointing the finger at others and continuing to return to a job where this barbaric practice was taking place until they are fired.

Where are all the blogs about all the evil nurses in this industry who assist abortion doctors? Am I missing those? If they all walked out on their jobs after witnessing this type of activity then it might stop in hospitals and clinics at least.

Stop blaming politicians and point the finger where it really belongs - at the people who are actually performing and assisting in the procedures.

Posted by: Pearl E. Gates at June 16, 2010 10:52 PM


PEG,
Yes I have read the same words from you a couple of times now.

jillstanek@comcast.net

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 17, 2010 6:15 AM


P.E.G don't blame Jill its not Jill fault we have the most pro abortion president who did nothing for babies bo0rn alive from abortion http://bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.php obamas voting record on the issue

Posted by: chris at June 17, 2010 11:38 AM


All I want is for people to stop pointing a finger at others and accept their own responsibility for anything that contributes to a cause they are against. Its hypocritical to not do so.

Don't you think it is hypocritical of you to ask someone to accept responsibility for their supposed actions, when you come here and express lies and half truths (even after corrected with the truth) without accepting responsibility for your own actions? Why don't you acknowledge you were wrong when Jill corrected you on many areas?

Maybe I have missed Jill doing just this and if so please bring it to my attention. Maybe she has accepted responsibility for her actions. If she hasn't, then that is pretty sad.

Jill doesn't have to apologize for anything. She did nothing wrong. She did what she could to comfort a dying baby who was killed through no fault of her own.

What is pretty sad is someone coming here and saying they care about human life, but then stating that Jill should have smothered the child to death. I don't get that at all.

Posted by: Bethany at June 17, 2010 12:19 PM


What is the difference in watching a slow, agonizing death and ending the baby's misery sooner if the end result (death) will be the same?

Do you support third trimester abortions if the baby has a life threatening disease? Because people use your above rationale to justify such abortions.

If you do, THAT is not pro-life.

Posted by: Bethany at June 17, 2010 12:25 PM



What is the difference in watching a slow, agonizing death and ending the baby's misery sooner if the end result (death) will be the same?

Oh, and the difference is, in one instance you are a murderer- in the other case, you are not. BIG difference.

I mean, good grief..your question is like asking us why not kill all kids with cancer...I mean, they are suffering and eventually are going to die anyway- what would be the difference if the end result is the same? Hmm I wonder.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2010 10:40 AM