Hannity, Colmes, and Beckel shout about Obama/Born Alive
On August 19, Hannity, Colmes, and Beckel got into a shouting match over Barack Obama’s opposition as IL state senator to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
At issue was whether it was worded identically as the federal bill, which Obama has denied for 4 years.
It was. Obama was lying.
Beckel did not like that Obama was standing accused of supporting infanticide.
Which he does.
Colmes, sarcastically: “Barack Obama wants to kill Jill Stanek’s baby.”
Aug.20, 2008 7:43 pm |
Obama |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Haha, “I don’t know how low YOU PEOPLE are gonna go”
I guess the truth hurts.
Jill held this baby for 45 minutes and made no effort to save it? She would have been in violation of that law she supports. I see it’s not so “cut and dry” afterall. Maybe Obama was trying to keep people like Jill from being prosecuted
Hal:
Your comments are that of a desparate man.
Jill.. i think you need to be honest about your intentions. Is it to protect “born alive” fetuses or is it to dismantle the settled law of Roe V. Wade.
To understand Obama’s actions you have to understand not only the words in the document but their intended actions – to chip away at Roe v. Wade. I should hope that he would vote against deceptive legislation. I would also hope that you would be a better person than one who plays coy with her own motivations in order to smear another person.
To take a turn of phrase from “the princess bride: “Christian – You keep using that word to describe yourself. I do not think it means what you think it means.” You wish so much charity for the “unborn” that you leave none for those who are already here.
Jill’s about to come on.
Maybe BHO didn;t care about the issue/problem with Christ Hospital (for obvious political (PP ties) and personal (Rev. Wright was on the Board at Christ Hospital)), but they’ll be no babies discarded in soiled utility rooms on Jill’s watch. God bless you Jill. This vote is even getting the PC democrats worked up. BHO sets a new standard when it comes to abortion rights, he is such a fanatical idealogue that he voted against giving personhood to babies that are delivered from their mother’s and breathing on their own.
YoLaTa,
I think cradling a dying baby that has been discarded to die, in a hospital no less, is motivation enough.
“Black leaders from around the country will hold a Power in the Park rally and press conference on August 25, 2008, 8:30 am at Martin Luther King Park, one block from the largest Planned Parenthood abortuary in the nation.
Although black women comprise 6% of the population, they receive nearly 40% of the abortions in America. The leading abortion providers exploit blacks by placing 94% of abortuaries in urban neighborhoods with high black populations.
The number one taker of black life is abortion, and it
Oh come on, Anon 1, a black woman has an unwanted pregnancy, and you think she’s going to “worry” about what you are saying?
Doug, black women are starting to realize that they are being targeted in a eugenics program, which they co-operate in. Yes, they do care what is happening to their people!
Jill, you were awesome on Hannity and Colmes tonight!
Colmes & Beckel – citations please.
Both Alan Colmes and Bob Beckel need to show the law they claim was in place that would have been protective of this baby.
What’s truly interesting to watch is how people are incredulous that this is in fact true – they simply refuse to believe what’s plain and indisputable. Colmes at this point is showing his bias (quoting the campaign line) and ignorance, because he’s been involved with the issue over several shows. Beckel was completely unprepared.
Maybe a gigantic billboard of the IL Senate Committee Action Report along with direct testimony from all who sat on the HHS committee in 2003 (such as Righter, Syverson etc) might, just might have an impact. Then again – I’m not holding my breath.
Yo La Tango:
The issue is not directly Roe v Wade, but the protection of human beings who survive abortion.
Late term abortion is not supported by most Americans. The issue of POST abortion infant protection is what the legislation is about.
This issue is simple: how do we, as a society, respond to infants that survive abortion? In the case Jill described, the infant was able to breath on it’s own – was alive – but left to die.
Theoretically, any full term infant that is delivered – and neglected – would die.
What would you think if infants were just routinely left to die after birth, because the mother decided she didn’t want the infant?
That is the crux of the issue. Roe v Wade settled law is clear. Many do not happen to agree, but the protection of the newborn who survives is really a different issue.
Diane L.
Jill,
You were very good on tv tonight. Very informative to people who aren’t following the issue. Great job!
*******************************************
It seems that the pundits are still missing the point: that if Illinois law prevented infanticide, then why wasn
I wish somebody would have said, “No, he doesn’t SUPPORT infanticide, but he sure as hell doesn’t do ANYTHING to STOP infanticide.”
Charles @ 10:17 PM
Exactly – if there was an Illinois law that was protecting those newborns then apparently the sworn officials dropped the ball – there should have been a major investigation into the lawbreaking at Christ Hospital.
I asked Jill the same question recently and she replied that lawyers looked it up and found no such law that would protect newborns.
It wouldn’t be responsible to create duplicate legislation.
Chris, 10:33 p.m.
Agreed, and it would be a TREMENDOUS waste of time for Jill to work on this bill when there was already one exactly like it!
Seriously, the excuses these people will use are endless.
Dear Barack Obama,
Stop.Lying.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth.
Roe v. Wade is not sacred. In fact, it is demonic.
It will be overturned in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
Having said that, protecting born alive abortion victims is only an act of human decency.
And Jill is one of the most courageous people I know and I am so, so proud of her.
Diane @ 9:41,
Yo La Tango:
The issue is not directly Roe v Wade, but the protection of human beings who survive abortion.
Late term abortion is not supported by most Americans. The issue of POST abortion infant protection is what the legislation is about.
This issue is simple: how do we, as a society, respond to infants that survive abortion? In the case Jill described, the infant was able to breath on it’s own – was alive – but left to die.
Theoretically, any full term infant that is delivered – and neglected – would die.
What would you think if infants were just routinely left to die after birth, because the mother decided she didn’t want the infant?
That is the crux of the issue. Roe v Wade settled law is clear. Many do not happen to agree, but the protection of the newborn who survives is really a different issue.
Diane L.
Letting a newborn baby die in an alley = A CRIME.
Letting a newborn baby die in a hospital = PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION
I wish somebody would have said, “No, he doesn’t SUPPORT infanticide, but he sure as hell doesn’t do ANYTHING to STOP infanticide.”
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at August 20, 2008 10:21 PM
*********************************************
Agreed, Elizabeth.
What is this obscure NON-law that these pro-aborts keep referring to? Hmm? Surely they could be more specific. You’d think Colmes, being a “journalist” would do some ACTUAL RESEARCH on this.
Jill, if Bob Beckel is any indication, I’d say that qualifies as “going all ape****.”
Hey Tango,
Your quote “You wish so much charity for the “unborn” that you leave none for those who are already here.”
What does that mean? i can’t follow your wacked logic. A baby is here after coming out of the womb. Do you see any woman getting killed after a abortion? Is that what you mean? What about the baby’s rights? Go hang out on death row and protect those “babies” that have full rights. After snuffing out the rights of others I think these are the ones you should protect. In other words I think your a Big Dope.
Jill,
You looked lovely, blue is definitely your color, and your makeup was shimmering.
This and the fact that you spelled it out A-B-C for the million-plus Fox viewers last night. Brava!
And did I mention your hair looked soft and conditioned? Suave? L’Oreal?
Carder,
You’re too silly!
Jill,
What can I say! When I grow up I want to be just like you!
Signed,
a member of the Jill Stanek Amen Chorus
BTW, could someone please tell Mr. Hannity that Stanek has a short “a”…it’s not sta”y”nek?
This is a wonderful reminder that on judgment day, we won’t be able to shout the Lord down and start yelling “how dare you accuse me of killing babies; you outta be ashamed of yourself!” We won’t scoot around the issue by equivocating and spewing emotionally charged rhetoric. God will speak and we will listen. Then he will judge, and we see that his judgment is absolutely just.
Amen, Bobby.
Bobby,
I’d love to see Alan Colmes, Beckel, Obama and the rest on that day…no teleprompters, no mediators, no excuses…
Leticia: Doug, black women are starting to realize that they are being targeted in a eugenics program, which they co-operate in. Yes, they do care what is happening to their people!
Hi Leticia: What is happening is that the black birthrate is around 20% higher than for whites. What if it was the same, or less? There’s still nothing that says a given woman with an unwanted pregnancy would give two hoots about that kind of stuff.
Black Americans increased in population some 63% from 1973 to 2007.
The black population went from 23 million+ to 38 million+.
It’s not like people are going, “Oh my goodness, we could have had so many more people if there had been no abortions, and thus I’m going to continue my pregnancy.”
Jill.. i think you need to be honest about your intentions. Is it to protect “born alive” fetuses or is it to dismantle the settled law of Roe V. Wade.
Posted by: Yo La Tango at August 20, 2008 8:06 PM
Yo,
Toooo funny. Wasn’t there an ammendment put into place to address this???? Wasn’t this what Obamba approved in committee and then voted it down on the floor? What will every please you people??
I am now sounding like a broken record here however, “The Grieving Parents Act” is a bill we initiated in my state to mandate that women who are diagnosed with miscarriage are notified of their rights on the dispotition options for their baby. Whether they miscarry naturally at home or opt for a D&C procedure.
This compassionate bi-partisan bill was intended to offer education, information and choices for women facing a very difficult time.
NARAL rebuked our bill, making ridicoulous claims that this bill would “interfere with the dr./patient relationship”, “it would undermine Roe V wade and chip away at abortion rights”, “this bill is redundant as hospitals and clinics already are notifying women of these options.”
ALL BUNK!!!!!
They used the same stupid misinformed talking points against our compassionate little bill to help women who miscarry.
So much for offering “choices” to women. So much for their hypocritical NARAL PRO-“CHOICE”
logo.
BTW,
“The Grieving Parents Act” passed unanimously!
I wish somebody would have said, “No, he doesn’t SUPPORT infanticide, but he sure as hell doesn’t do ANYTHING to STOP infanticide.”
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at August 20, 2008 10:21 PM
That’s all I’ve been asking for about a week Elizabeth. Thank you so much. Now we can move on.
Awesome, Sandy!!
No, Hal, sorry we can’t move on. Now it begs the question, “WHY won’t he stop infanticide? WHY does it not matter to him?”
What are the motives behind that? Since he has given 2 different stories for this which have BOTH been debunked, it just looks like he’s lying about his REAL reasons.
Ellizabeth, seriously, don’t you see how this law could be used to prosecute well meaning people like Jill who held a baby in their arms for 45 minutes and made no medical efforts to save it? Of course, I’m not saying Jill should have done anything different, but that this law could be used to go after almost anyone for not doing “enough.” This is why I’m re-thinking my previous position supporting this law.
“Colmes & Beckel – citations please.
Both Alan Colmes and Bob Beckel need to show the law they claim was in place that would have been protective of this baby.”
Here’s the law from 1975:
720 ILCS 510/6: Any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus..
Keep up the good work, I’ve added that video to the Jeremiah Films’ post Obama History on Abortion and Infanticide
Hal,
Although you correctly cite the 1975 law which Colmes and Beckel were relying on, you forget to mention that a consent decree entered into in 1993 called the “Herbst-O’Malley” decree, made that law unenforceable. Therefore, the law could not be used to stop the behavior which Jill Stanek and the laws which Obama voted against which trying to stop.
Accordingly, Colmes’ argumemt was a complete and utter misrepresentation of the truth.
Here is the link to the consent decree:
http://www.aclu-il.org/legal/courtdocuments/herbstconsentdecree.pdf
Maybe instead of passing a new law, they could have just revoked the consent decree?
Hal,
The laws been passed already. Where’s the witch hunt going after people who aren’t “doing enough” under this law?
I haven’t heard any, but nice try.
I don’t know Elizabeth, maybe there’s been another consent decree.
Just because something didn’t happen (yet), doesn’t mean there wasn’t a rational fear that it might have.
Hal,
The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!
Hal and Elizabeth, the fact that Obama “sure as hell isn’t doing anything to stop infanticide” is only part of the issue.
The other part is that he’s been lying through his teeth about his actions for years. And for a man running for President, that matters MUCH.
Dear Barack Obama,
Stop.Lying.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth.
Dear Elizabeth,
I appreciate your recent letter voicing your concerns regarding my aversion to the truth. Please understand that falsifying information is vital to the ultimate goal of reaching the White House. Should I not be elected President, Mr. McCain, while a fine man, would set this country on a path not seen in history.
It is likely that the next President will appoint at least one Supreme Court justice. It is well known that Mr. McCain, a dear friend and colleague, would seize upon this opportunity to appoint constructionist judges who will apply the constitution as written rather than legislate their (my) own agendas from the bench. That, Elizabeth is simply unacceptable! I cannot in good conscience let those justices take away your sacred right to chose death for your unwanted child. I cannot take away Planned Parenthood’s sacred right to help your daughters choose death for their unplanned children, without your knowledge or consent. You see Elizabeth, this issue is just too important. Death to children is just too important. So you see, the ends justify the means. It’s not really that I enjoy lying, it’s just one of those sacrifices I must make to reach my end goal.
Please know, that even though we disagree on this issue, I do appreciate your sharing your point of view. Should you have any other concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
The (Dis)Honorable,
Barack Obama
Welcome to the blog, Vanessa Jackson!
Kindly take a moment to read over the rules on the sidebar of the preview page, then, if you would like to re-post your comment, do so minus the ad hominem attack.
Thanks!