C-SPAN caller: Why is the GOP not publicizing Obama/Born Alive?
I’ve been doing a lot of radio interviews the last couple of weeks about Barack Obama’s opposition to Born Alive, sometimes four a day.
(To the right is a photo of Mancow and me when I interviewed in his studio Tuesday.)
Below is a clip from C-SPAN September 2 where a caller described hearing me on the radio (he got the facts mostly right) and asked MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty why the GOP isn’t making a bigger deal if it is indeed true that Barack Obama voted against a bill to stop abortion survivors from being left to die….
It is indeed true, of course.
And from what I see, GOP talking heads are bringing this up whenever they have the opportunity.
Sep.04, 2008 3:05 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.
I’m a little surprised that he’s not more informed.
Since it took only hours to expose the multitude of lies the GOP told about Sarah Palin’s record as mayor and governor, maybe they don’t want to to publish lies about Obama, which can be as easily exposed by a little research.
I realize you are obsessed to the point of pathology with your 15 minutes of fame and self-promotion, but anyone rational who has examined the “issue” has concluded that your “infanticide” claim is based on pure irrational hatred of Obama, not facts.
LTL, I’m sorry, but you must accept the “All Infanticide–All the Time” coverage of this site or be forever banned.
If Obama says he likes babies, he’s a liar. If he says he supports abortion rights, he’s a murderer. If he wants to cut your taxes he’s pandering. If he wants to defend the Constitution, he’s supporting terrorists. If he supports allowing couples in love to get married, he’s tearing apart the fabric of our society and 5000 years of tradition. You are seeing here the most extreme christian right in action. Don’t dispair. America is better than this. Obama to the rescue!
Cute picture, Jill!!
Hal: “LTL, I’m sorry, but you must accept the ‘All Infanticide–All the Time’ coverage of this site or be forever banned.”
If the media would do their job by discussing it, Hal, people like Jill Stanek wouldn’t have to keep bringing it up. Where the old-school media drop the ball — accidentally or otherwise — the blogosphere is forced to fill in the gaps with facts.
“If the media would do their job by discussing it, Hal, people like Jill Stanek wouldn’t have to keep bringing it up.”
Discussing WHAT????? He voted against Jill’s bill in the state senate. Is that an unforgivable sin? Dang, she really holds a grudge, doesn’t she?
Voted against it because he thought trying to save the life of a newborn would go against the wishes of the mother. Right.
Hal, “grudge”? You’re unfathomable. Try holding a live aborted baby sometime and then get back to me.
Jill, what is facinating on your site is that each “side” is unfathomable to the other.
(not always, there are some instances of common ground, but on most things there is this increadible gulf between our views)
The pro-choice stance tends to go in line with other core values.
Take Dennis Miller for example. He is pro-choice, but a Republican supporter because he is against government involvement period. He is a libertarian essentially. I disagree with him, but he opposes abortion laws to go in line with his anti-government stance.
Liberals on the other hand love government intervention. They typically want the government involved at every level, as long as it doesnt conflict with their personal interests. The attack on smoking is largely liberal in nature, yet the support for legalized drugs is also liberal in nature for example. The liberals want the government to take care of them, but they also want to do whatever the hell they want to do, as long as they can get away with it. Abortion is an easy out because you dont have anyone remaining behind to complain about the atrocities. The only advocates are found in the pro-life movement.
The pro-life movement also runs together with other core beliefs as well by the way.
Oliver, you may be right about some liberals. But I guess I’m more on the libertarian side of things. For exapmple, I don’t think the Government should outlaw smoking in most public establishments (the market place can take care of it) I don’t want the government to take care of me, just leave me alone. (Yes–Do whatever the Hell I want. Freedom, sweet freedom)
Posted by: Hal at September 4, 2008 5:00 PM
That’s hilarious considering Democrats are for big government while Republicans are for small government.
That’s something I learned back in my high school government class.
And I just bet that more Democrats than Republicans voted to outlaw smoking at the various levels of government. (Not that I mind.)
I would consider myself more on the Libertarian side of things as well, which is one the reasons I oppose Obama. I dont want a Nanny state. I dont the government using taxes for stupid “pet projects.” I think welfare should be DRASTICALLY reformed. We shouldnt be helping so many people who can help themselves.
When I worked at UPS, a job that paid 10 dollars an hour in Texas with amazing benefits, I frequently saw people quit because the job was too hard. I also frequently saw employees run off because they didnt want to work “that hard” for 10 dollars an hour. I did the opposite. I, the fat nerd that I was, busted my ASS to do my job right. That mentality is degrading in America and the Democrats are the ones helping it go away. When they give speeches demoralizing our country, complaining about the economy and the war, painting life as hopeless and then offer as the only solution “WERE the ONLY dudes who can HELP YOU” they are perpetuating the mentality that we are helpless, and that its okay.
The truth is that if everyone gave their all and worked their assess off, we would only need welfare for real reasons. I support Medicaid and Welfare, but for those who are TRYING. The people who drop out of jobs because they have to sweat should be allowed to starve. Maybe it would wake them up to what hard work really is. Can you imagine the boosts to productivity and worker/employee relationships if the workers actually worked? Giving hand outs is only going to encourage the laziness. This is the “solution” that Obama has for us.
Gov. Pawlenty: “I suspect you may hear more of it in the coming weeks, as the campaign unfolds….”
It is typical for a campaign not to unload the “opposition research” about an opponent until it sees that it has to — and often not until voting day is very near. We may never see the McCain campaign emphasizing the true story of Obama’s public championing of infanticide, nor his cover-ups afterward.
And the leftist-elite media is hardly to be counted upon.
But now is the window of opportunity for Americans to learn about the Anti-American, neo-Marxist ideology and ideologues with which Barack Obama has saturated his life and family.
The essential evidence of this in Jerome Corsi’s book, The Obama Nation and elsewhere have not been refuted. Jeremiah Wright is just one of many. So is David Ayers.
If Obama were to win this election, it would be catastrophic. If he would lose, one presumes he will be back. The radical left teaches relentlessness. As history records and Obama’s platform presents, the mass, institutional killing of innocents goes hand and hand.
“If Obama were to win this election, it would be catastrophic”
I feel the same way about a McCain win. Do you really think you’ll get traction calling Obama “anti-American?” Who are you, Carl Rove?
Hal, I’m just someone who still believes in the nation conceived and dedicated to the proposition that all humans are created equal — that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to life, liberty and property.
Barack Obama has proven he is opposed to this nation.
Discussing WHAT????? He voted against Jill’s bill in the state senate. Is that an unforgivable sin? Dang, she really holds a grudge, doesn’t she?
Posted by: Hal at September 4, 2008 4:04 PM
Hal, babe.
I’m going out on a limb here by saying that most people would find it apalling that…
A) such practices took place to begin with.
B) anyone with any hint of a conscience would even dream of voting against measures to prevent it from happening again.
C) voting against it 3 times, despite amending the language to suit their hang-ups.
To go to the lengths that Obama did to prevent BAIPA from passing speaks volumes. I realize that we have different moral codes, but I’m only stating the obvious. Like Jill said, it’s unfathomable that you keep shrugging your shoulders about the whole thing. But hey, you’re Hal.
Ok, I’m your friend again now.
: Oliver at September 4, 2008 4:53 PM
great post.
Barack Obama has proven he is opposed to this nation.
Posted by: Arlen Williams at September 4, 2008 6:22 PM
You may have different ideas on what is best for this nation, but do you honestly believe “he is opposed to this nation?” he’s working pretty hard to become President of this nation, is that just to wreck it?
Believe one thing Barack Obama says, even if you do not believe what his neo-Marxist mentors and colleagues have said and written. He wants to change America.
Hal,
Hold a grudge?
How about the fact that on top of voting against this legislation he lied about it to protect his image over and over and over until he was caught and his campaign had to fess up for him.
Why wasn’t he truthful from the very start????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
He is a liar liar liar.
Since it took only hours to expose the multitude of lies the GOP told about Sarah Palin’s record as mayor and governor, maybe they don’t want to to publish lies about Obama, which can be as easily exposed by a little research.
I realize you are obsessed to the point of pathology with your 15 minutes of fame and self-promotion, but anyone rational who has examined the “issue” has concluded that your “infanticide” claim is based on pure irrational hatred of Obama, not facts.
Posted by: LTL at September 4, 2008 3:35 PM
You are truly delusional.
What “lies” have been exposed LTL?
I am waiting in great anticipation for the real truths to come out about Obama’s resume.
(Little inflated from what I gather.)
http://www.answers.com/topic/saul-alinsky
Saul Alinsky is the father of Barack Obama’s ACORN, the Chicago “community organizers” with whom he has belonged. They are known for their numerous instances of voter registration and polling fraud.
Liar eh?
supported the Bridge to Nowhere or said “thanks but no thanks?”
Here’s some cut and paste for you:
I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that bridge to nowhere,” Palin said Friday in Ohio, using the critics’ dismissive name of the project. “‘If our state wanted a bridge,’ I said, ‘we’d build it ourselves.'”
While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make a symbol of pork barrel excess.
And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste and lobbying documents.
Wasilla’s lobbying firm was headed by Steven Silver
I asked this before and did not get much response – how is allowing a fetus/infant born with cardiac activity at a peri-viable gestational age during an abortion to die any different from the decision parents across the country make in Labor and Delivery every day – that when faced with a delivery at 23-26 or 27 weeks (depending on the hospital) they can choose whether to have the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit staff intervene or allow him/her to die based on the morbidity/mortality statistics of that gestational age? It has been made to seem that Obama’s position is out on a limb when the exact same thing happens and is sanctioned by NICU and MFM staff – including in hospitals that don’t permit ‘elective’ abortions – daily.
Sorry Green, you don’t understand the party line around here. Obama likes to murder children. End of story. Please take your logic and facts to left wing blogs where such things are tolerated.
comment4, [url=” http://community.vh1.com/Post/cheap-lipitor/058718A01018A71580008009F7279 “]lipitor risks[/url], 20622,
Barack’s idea of hope apparently is to tell everyone how horrible they are, and to point out that they only way they can be helped is to take handouts.
I like how he pumps up Americans by telling them that war is a failure, in the face of near victory, and that we are all worthless without the government.
What happened to the days when Americans fought for themselves? Remember FDR? His plan put people to work…it did not just hand out help.
Look folks. By his own mouth which seems to always be moving preventing him from actually DOING anything, BHO looks at babies considered to be inconvenient to be “punishments” and must therefore be destroyed in order not to interfere with the “inconvenienced” – and this, we now know, at all stages of life up until they finally DIE in or out of the “inconvenienced”.
“They vill die and you vill not interfere”.
Who will be the next “inconvenienced”? A son/daughter of an elderly, “useless” parent? A husband wishing to get on with living the good life with the insurance money from a disabled wife?
When the most vulnerable is tossed as garbage with no compassion, look out yourselves when you too become vulnerable and therefore just another “inconvenience” to the powerful.
Green 9:22, how is raping a woman any different than sleeping with one’s wife? But if raping a girl is no different than getting a child bride, perhaps Muslims ought to out-law marriage to children.
Green 9:22, questions about the beginning of human life are above Mr. Obama’s pay grade. Voting “present” is perhaps the only honest answer that he can make. It’s also about the only honest answer that he did make (despite its really amounting to the same thing as a “no” vote).
It’s pathetic to see the desperation of the liberal/proabort posters here. They appear to be frantically trying to throw mud at Govenor Palin, but can’t actually find any.
You know that when the worst they can come up with is the fact that she changed her mind and decided to oppose such things as the “Bridge to Nowhere” and “earmarks” as she learned more about them, they’re really grasping for straws.
But have no fear, all you nasty hate mongers, the National Enquirer has sent several of it’s reporters to Alaska to try and do what you have failed so miserably to do. They are probably under orders to “find something”, and if they can’t do that they most likely will simply make something up.
You guys do have a lifetime subscription to that publication, don’t you?
Posted by: green at September 4, 2008 9:22 PM
How is it different? Well first, the aborting parent(s) want that child dead. The parents in the other situation don’t.
If there is a possibility of survival the child should be given the chance. In the first instance the child has no chance, in the second there is the chance. This is based solely on the will of the parents regardless of the rate of survival. There are some parents who WANT their children to survive but the child will still die. However, there are some children that COULD survive but don’t because of the parents “choice.”
I hope that was somewhat clear. Sorry if it was a bit muddled.
Kristen,
Yes, it’s true that most abortionists, and most aborting parents, see the purpose of abortion to be that of delivering a dead child. Any abortion that delivers a live child is viewed as “that dreaded complication”. Once abortionist in California was even tried for strangling such a baby to death with his bare hands. The jury didn’t convict him, but his head nurse testified that he did exactly that, while explaining “This baby just won’t die!”
Typo in previous post: Should have read “One abortionist in California…….”
green wrote:
I asked this before and did not get much response – how is allowing a fetus/infant born with cardiac activity at a peri-viable gestational age during an abortion to die any different from the decision parents across the country make in Labor and Delivery every day….
(emphasis mine)
Your answer is in the words of your question. The purpose of BAIPA was to make sure that neither hospitals nor clinics would decline treatment for those children who (somehow) managed to survive an initial attempt at abortion. Once the survivors are born — however prematurely — they would have the same legal rights as any other infant. As with any other infants, if the parent(s) believed that further treatment would be futile or unethical, she/they could decline such treatment. But the hospital or clinic has to offer the option.
It’s okay (if tragic) for a parent to decline further treatment for a desperately-ill infant. We live in a fallen world, and bad things happen. Not every newborn baby will survive, not even in America. However, it is not okay for the hospital or clinic to make that decision.
We could move the discussion to the other end of life, if that would help you to understand. Very few pro-lifers oppose hospice care, in which a terminally-ill person (or his/her legal representative) chooses to stop seeking treatment. However, we adamantly oppose the advance of medical futility, in which the hospital chooses to stop treatment against the patient’s wishes. Clear enough?
For more about medical futility, read Wesley J. Smith’s excellent weblog about bioethics:
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/
Smith has many good posts about medical futility. Here is one of the most recent:
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2007/07/nejm-commentary-against-futile-care.html
Sandy: “What ‘lies’ have been exposed LTL?”
I hope you’re not holding your breath.
Hal, 7:03,
From what I have read, she did originally want the bridge, but later she changed her mind.
She did not keep the money, and she indeed turned the money down before it was transferred to Alaska’s account.
LTL, (lots to learn)
So you have had a few days to thing about it.
What species of embryo/fetus was in your mother’s uterus when she was pregnant with you?
affectionately
your knuckle dragging neanderthal, not bitter, but still clinging to Jesus and my guns
If a candidate for President of the United States condones leaving born, breathing babies in garbage rooms to die–i.e., INFANTICIDE–I’d say that’s a pretty damn relevant issue. I mean, if you can’t trust someone to be decent enough to take care of a born-alive infant, how on earth could you trust them on anything else?
The “mainstream” media stubbornly refuse to cover the born-alive issue–because then we would all know how incredibly cold Obama is, despite all his pretense of “compassion” and “concern for the least of these.”
I have been trying to get the word out to people around here–in conversation, calls to local radio talk shows, letters to the editor–and still, this fact in Obama’s record fails to get traction. You wanna know why? Because nobody BELIEVES it. Since MOST people are decent and humane, they simply can’t FATHOM that anyone, and certainly not The Anointed One, would actually speak out in FAVOR of INFANTICIDE. Heck, they don’t even believe that infanticide is really happening, much less that the Messiah supports it. When I try to tell them about it, they look at me as if I’m trying to convince them I was once abducted by space aliens.
Nevertheless, I am hopeful–because, if you keep on putting the information out there, you eventually hit that “critical mass” point at which, seemingly all of a sudden, it has become common knowledge.
We’ve got 60 days to get the word out. Let’s get busy!
Kathy,
AMEN! Call your preachers, your priests, teachers in Christian schools… Ask them to talk about abortion and the moral obligation we have to vote against it!