Obama’s long-standing love affair with abortion doctors
President Barack Obama sees a villain underneath every corporate rock except the one beneath which the abortion industry hides. It is inconceivable to Obama that abortion doctors might have a profit motive that tempts nefarious activity. In Obama’s mind, the abortion industry is the only corporate entity that should be completely unregulated.
The White House’s May 30 statement in opposition to a ban against sex selective abortions not only misrepresented the bill, which specifically exempts an abortionist from affirmatively determining a mother’s motive for abortion, it gave abortionists carte blanche:
The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision. The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.
This verbiage also sounded familiar. It is. In 2002, when then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama was arguing against a bill that would have forced abortionists to call an independent second physician to assess abortion survivors for viability, he said:
[O]ne of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation…
[A]n additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make thee assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion….
Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.
If Barack Obama thinks assessing live aborted babies for viability interferes with the doctor-patient relationship, it should come as no surprise that he would not want to interfere with sex-selective abortions, or any abortion.
Big Abortion is the one big business in which Obama has complete trust. Pretty scary.
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.
How was the law going to be enforced? Was a questionnaire mandated or something?
“the government should not intrude in medical decisions”. Are they for real? Then WHY is THIS GOVERNMENT trying to make us all buy health insurance and tell us how much coverage we need???? Oh the irony makes my head explode!
Sydney – that is two separate issues – for instance, all drivers have to have car insurance, but there are individual choices after that.
Quite truthfully, medical decisions haven’t been between patients and doctors for years – insurance companies have more say now than the government probably ever will.
“insurance companies have more say now than the government probably ever will.”
It’s a good thing, then, that there is competition between insurance companies to keep them honest. Oh wait, Democrats have been fighting tooth and nail for years to limit competition between insurance companies whenever the GOP tried to expand it. And now ObamaCare, which the dog eater in chief insisted would not cost anyone their own insurance… is causing people to lose their insurance. But I’m sure you dream of the day when there is no competition at all, and mindless bureaucrats like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi have 100% control over our lives.
Ex-GOP only 1) car insurance is mandated by the STATE governments who have such a legal, constitutional right to do so and 2) states are mandating insurance protection to engage in a PRIVLEDGE, not a basic RIGHT. In order to legally drive there are many obligations and hurdles to pass and that legal privledge may be revoked. But the government (state or federal) has no ability to require abligatory hurdles for the initial right to live, nor is it a privliedge that may be revoked.
Trying to compair state-mandated car insurance with federally-mandated health (life) insurance is like trying to compair a state-mandated marriage licence with a federally-mandated licence to engage in emotional love.
People have tried many things to get this thing called Abortion to end. Unfortunately, we are in the same situation as we were after Roe v. Wade. I think it is time to think outside the box. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Protest marches are not working, trying to get the government to outlaw abortion is not working. I have a few ideas: How about arguing against Roe v. Wade as an unconstitutional decision based on the fact that people cannot be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. This is our constitutional right. What is more cruel and unusual than the torture, dismemberment and beheading of a defenseless baby? Viability should not be an issue, and if it is an issue, someone who is defenseless should be protected by the government more than a viable person who at least has a fighting chance. At the same time, how about suing all of the abortionists to get them to loose their medical licences? If you were a doctor and went to school for all of those years, paid all of that tution and invested your whole life, wouldn’t you not want to risk loosing it all for your decision to become an abortionist. Without abortionists, there could be no abortion. How about convincing the licencing authorities that those doctors are not abiding by the Hippocratic oath: Above all, do no harm”. Doing harm is what they are being paid to do on a daily basis. Another thing people can do is sue the doctors, planned parenthood and the government for funding these agencies in a wrongful death lawsuit. If the father of the child did not want the abortion or if any other relatives of the child could sue them for loss of enjoyment of their child. If we take the money away from abortionists, they will not be able to practice these atrocities any longer. You cannot always appeal to a person’s conscience because there will always be people out there who do not posses a conscience. Babies need to be protected from these people without consciences. Another idea I have is to stop calling this the Pro-Life movement. It really means nothing. Abortion means nothing. Let’s call it what it is : We are Against the torture and dismemberment of innocent babies. So if you are Pro-Choice, than you are for the Torture and Dismemberment of innocent babies.
Money talks. Tiller bought off the Kansas gubmint to cover his reign of terror, this is no different. No doubt the abortion lobby has made significant contributions to Obama’s campaign. If Obama’s so concerned about the future welfare of the abortion industry, he can give them his billion dollar re-election war chest, or dole it out to the occupiers. Yeah, that’s gonna happen.
“At the same time, how about suing all of the abortionists to get them to loose their medical licences? If you were a doctor and went to school for all of those years, paid all of that tution and invested your whole life, wouldn’t you not want to risk loosing it all for your decision to become an abortionist. Without abortionists, there could be no abortion”
Valerie, thank you for your interesting post and creative ideas. I’m not an expert on political movements to achieve social change, so I can’t comment on most of your suggestions. I do know a thing or two about lawsuits, however, and what you propose above just could not work. The suits would be thrown out right away. A private citizen has no standing to challenge the license of a medical doctor. You can sue them for malpractice, but you have to be a patient. You can’t just “sue” someone. You have to have valid grounds. What would your complaint allege? “this doctor performed 10 abortions last year, take away his license?” No court would entertain that kind of lawsuit. I also don’t believe violation of the Hippocratic oath has any consequences other than in the conscience of the physician. (and I assume doctors performing abortions don’t believe they are doing “harm.”)
The cruel and unusual punishment prohibition in the 8th amendment is a limit on governmental power, not individual actions. Since the government is not providing abortions, I don’t think you’d get much traction on that idea either. (and, of course, the amendment was referring to criminal penalties, so courts would probably not even consider it applicable.)
I do like your idea of changing “pro-life” to “We are Against the torture and dismemberment of innocent babies.”
Bobbi says:
June 5, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Here is a little bit more on what Ron Paul’s take on how to end abortion:
Slavery was made illegal everywhere in the U.S. by the ThirteenthAmendment, which took effect in December 1865.
Lincoln issued the Proclamation under his authority as “Commander inChief of the Army and Navy” under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.[3] As such, he had the martial power to suspend civil law in those states which were in rebellion. He did not have Commander-in-Chief authority over the four slave-holding states that had not declared a secession: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged in court. To ensure the abolition of slavery everywhere in the U.S., Lincoln pushed for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Congress passed it by the necessary 2/3 vote in February 1865 and it was ratified by the states by December 1865.[4
I am saying this in response to the prolife profiles out of context Ron Paul quote they are claiming proves he is pro-abortion.
Ron Paul is NOT giving the individual states the right to decide whether or not abortion is to become legal. BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WAS SAYING. Right?? HE was saying, that the states can’t decide such a thing. Neither can the supreme court. Abortion has to be abolished via Federal Declaration, this would only be possible if it was done via an executive authority–aka a president would have to be the one to issue such a statement, and such would overturn roe vs. wade.. or something. Likelincoln did it with slavery. then it’s up to the states to enforceabortions the way they do any other form of manslaughter.
The government shouldn’t ‘burden’ women with the original decision, but its ok for the government to burden the taxpayers with it. Gotcha.
Jespren – my comparison was probably bad – I’m just saying a mandate about HAVING insurance is completely separate than interfering with the patient-doctor relationship. Sydney lumped them together, and I just don’t think they are in the same argument.
John – I don’t long for that day at all – I do long for the day when somebody who has had pre-existing conditions is able to get insurance. I do long for the day when families don’t go bankrupt and live on the streets because of medical insurance bills. I do long for the day when people don’t bypass medicine because they can’t afford it.
Those things are all things you want, and it saddens me.
I’m still looking for an answer to my first question though.
This seems like a law like texting while driving – makes a lot of sense, but how do you enforce it? What was the plan in the legislation?
This is in response to Hal who was responding to me: I do not mean for a random person to sue a random person who had an abortion. I mean a family member. For example, if a man gets a woman pregnant and wants her to keep the baby and she gets the abortion anyway, he should be able to sue the doctor who performed the Abortion for wrongful death of his baby. The woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body, it does not give her the right to do what she wants with someone else’s. If I were the lawyer, I would argue that the law makes no logical sense. If a woman takes cocaine when pregnant and her baby is born addicted, she will be arrested. Yet if the same woman kills her baby while pregnant it doesn’t matter in the eyes of the law. I think a talented lawyer and a pro-life judge along with evidence given in court that shows how fetuses are now having doctors who take care of them while in the womb (maternal fetal medicine-a newer specialty) showing that the fetus is a separate human being. I don’t think that they will be able to find a doctor in existence out there who can testify that the fetus is not a separate human being. We have 4-D ultrasounds now which really shows what the baby looks like and it is not a clump of cells. Anyone who argues such will be looked at like those who once thought that the world was flat. And as for cruel and unusual punishment, I think a talented lawyer could argue this case because the Government does fund the agencies who do abortion which makes them a co-conspirators. I wouldn’t just say that it would be automatically thrown out of court. There are good lawyers out there and judges who are on our side. Bring the two together and this could happen. Thanks for your response.
Abortion has to be abolished via Federal Declaration, this would only be possible if it was done via an executive authority–aka a president would have to be the one to issue such a statement, and such would overturn roe vs. wade.. or something.
Walker for President
Walker for President…
You’ve got to love how the Right and Left make fun of each other, and really do the same things.
A few years ago, the right was making fun of the crazy left and how much they loved a rock star candidate that had little experience. Now, after a few years, they can take any number that comes out about the economy and make it look bad and say the guy should be replaced.
Those same people will look at Walker, who has the worst job numbers in the country over the last year and a half, and ignore those numbers because they like the direction they feel he’s leading the state in, so they are willing to look past those numbers (yet feel it is foolish if the other side is optimistic even if the numbers looking back aren’t great).
And the same people who didn’t like Walker because his numbers are bad are okay with Obama because they are hopeful for the future.
It makes me think that arguing the substance of a candidate is a lost cause with most of the population – if you’ve made up your mind, any negative can be spun to a positive.
And last thing Prax – if you want Walker to be President, you want Obama to win in 2012 – ’cause if Romney wins, he runs again in 2016, and Walker has lost his window by 2020.