You are browsing the archives of abortion.

So much for governing from the center, indeed.  On top of President-Elect Barack Obama’s to-do list is reversing executive orders that prevented using human embryos for research and using tax dollars to fund abortions.

Obama plans to end the federal ban on funding for human embryonic stem-cell research (hEsc) and upend the Mexico City rule that forbids federal foreign aid to be used to promote abortion. He can expect a big controversy on both.

It appears Barack Obama has chosen the first fight of his Presidency, and if true, I hope all of you are prepared to fight him with me.  I don’t equate “patriotism” with funding abortions, and I bet most of you don’t either.

While American voters feel some ambiguity on abortion, they overwhelmingly do not want their tax dollars paying for or facilitating abortions.  The Mexico City rule forbade federal funds to be used to facilitate the acquisition of abortions by groups abroad, much as the Hyde Amendment prohibited federal funds to be used in the same manner domestically.  If Obama rescinds it, he can expect a great deal of outrage from pro-life groups and a reopening of the debate over the use of tax money to procure abortions anywhere.

These aren’t exactly low-hanging fruit, nor are they the acts of someone who professed to find middle ground between pro-life and pro-choice groups.  These are the acts of a pro-abortion absolutist, and they presage the sponsorship of Planned Parenthood’s Freedom of Choice Act.  So much for governing from the center.

If its ok for Melissa Ethridge to stop paying her taxes because she is upset that Proposition 8 passed, than it is certainly ok for me to stop paying my taxes if they will be used to kill innocent babies.  Of course if true, refusing to pay your taxes won’t be enough to stop this abomination… its only enough to land yourself in jail.  There likely will be no way of stopping it, but we must try.  And it gives further credence to the idea that we must start working to put Conservatives in congress NOW.  We also need to use this to presuade all Christians and pro-life supporters who voted for Obama in 2008 to not make the same mistake in 2012.

“Together we can protect the values this great nation was built upon.”

If you were elected President, what would be your first priority?

H/T: The Jawa Report

National Right to Life Committee called Barack Obama out on his four infanticide votes in Illinois.  Barack Obama called them liars.  NRLC provided documentation proving that clearly Barack Obama is the only one lying about his infanticide votes.  Journalists and FactCheck have backed them up.  Will Barack Obama now apologize for smearing people for telling the truth?  Don’t get your hopes up.

H/T: HotAir

I’m not Catholic, I’m a Southern Baptist… but I approve of this message.

Visit CatholicVote.com for more information.  (H/T: HotAir)

Barack Obama is now attacking Gianna Jessen and BornAliveTruth for this ad:

Obama’s response:

Besides the fact that his attacks on John McCain are untrue, he’s also clearly misrepresenting the truth about his own votes.  We’ve talked about his infanticide votes in the past.  Barack Obama can’t re-write his record now.  So he slings mud and calls McCain names, and attacks the ad from an independent group and its messenger.  But Gianna Jessen is tough, and she’s not going to take Barack’s vile attacks lying down.

“Mr. Obama is clearly blinded by political ambition given his attack on me this week. All I asked of him was to do the right thing: support medical care and protection for babies who survive abortion – as I did 31 years ago. He voted against such protection and care four times even though the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of a bill identical to the one Obama opposed. In the words of his own false and misleading ad, his position is downright vile. Mr. Obama said at the recent Saddleback Forum that the question of when babies should get human rights was above his pay grade. Such vacillation and cowardice would have left me to die if his policies were in place when I was born. Thank God they were not.”

Barack Obama thinks children are a punishment, and voted four times against born alive infant protection, something the U.S. Senate supported 98-0 (even Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy didn’t oppose born alive protections).  Now he attacks an abortion survivor for speaking the truth?

Thank you Gianna for your voice and for speaking out against this abhorrent practice.  I hope people are paying attention.

For more information about Born Alive Infant Protection and Barack Obama’s despicable record in this regard, please visit BornAliveTruth.org and Jill Stanek’s website.

H/T: Michelle Malkin

>>Visit BornAliveTruth.org

American Elephant Commentary on Obama’s Infanticide Views and position on abortion:

• A Critical Issue at a Critical Time
• Above Your Pay Grade
• You Know When Life Begins

If you are opposed to abortion, you can not be a woman or don’t support women. That appears to be the logic of much of the media, the National Organzation of Women, and apparently the DNC as they begin to attack John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President. These same hacks also accuse McCain and the RNC of thinking woman don’t care about issues… only identity politics.

What a crock.

While NOW and the liberal left want to tell all women what they must believe and what their issues must be… Like John McCain, I believe women are smarter than that. The pick of Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee says something to women that NOW and the leftists never would… it says women are individuals who can decide for themselves what is important. Just because you have a uterus doesn’t mean you have to believe in infanticide.

But the left doesn’t get it. They think all women must vote in a block just like they believe all black Americans must vote in a block. If you are black and don’t vote for Obama, liberals will call you Uncle Tom. And if you are a woman and are not pro-abortion, apparently you want to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment.

What the left doesn’t get is that most Republicans don’t think like that, and neither do most Americans. When you believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility, two ideas paramount in conservatism, you virtually eliminate racism and bigotry from the equation. And when you believe that people can have their own opinions and achievements, regardless of their race or gender, you empower them and promote an equal playing field. But Democrats believe your color, race, gender or sexual orientation dictates what you must believe. That doesn’t sound real progressive, does it?

I don’t believe all women support abortion anymore than I believe all black Americans support reparations or all immigrants support illegal immigration. I don’t look at a woman and presume to know what she thinks nor do I presume I know what is best for her. I happen to believe that women are smart enough to choose what is important to them for themselves and they don’t need Barbara Boxer, Gloria Steinem or Hillary Clinton to tell them how to think. That doesn’t make me a sexist, it makes me a feminist.

Here’s the thing, I find it hard to believe most women support abortion in the first place. But even if they do, certainly most don’t support leaving babies to die in soiled utility rooms. A woman who does believe in abortion or infanticide isn’t less of a woman… but she is wrong.

Conversely, Sarah Palin isn’t any less of a woman because she thinks abortion is an abomination. It’s certainly your place to disagree with her, but its not your place to question her intelligence or revoke her high heels.

The ironic thing is that Democrats don’t presume that all white guys must believe the same things… but they think every other segmented group must. Women, Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, Union Workers, Teachers, etc all must believe what the DNC tells them to believe. And if they don’t they are ridiculed on MSNBC, attacked by the DNC and ostracized by those on the left. But somehow we Republicans are the bigots?

Whatever.

Sarah Palin is a great choice for women because, among other things, she never let her gender limit her achievement. Sarah Palin raised a family and reformed a government. She competed in a beauty padget and on a basketball team. She can hunt and fish and have babies while keeping her faith. She can give one hell of a speech and fight the most corrupt men and wear a dress while doing it. She’s not affraid of a challenge or questioning the status quo, even if that means going against her own party. And she does it all without affirmative action or her husband’s coat tails to get her there.

Sarah Palin breaks all the molds and all the stereotypes and for that reason alone she should be the darling of feminists. Instead, she is being demonized by them. Unlike the liberal left, I believe real women are smart enough to see that. Apparently so does John McCain.

But Sarah Palin is more than that. She is the embodiment of what our citizen government was meant to be. Sarah didn’t set out to be President and isn’t a career politician. She is a mom who got involved in the PTA because she cared about her community and her schools. The PTA led to city council which led to mayor and then to governor. She made each step of the way not because of personal ambition but because of an ambition to make changes and a willingness to serve. Rather than sit on the sidelines and complain about problems, Sarah Palin took charge, ran for office and did something about it. Isn’t that what our elected officials are supposed to do?

The real beauty of Sarah Palin is that her resume would be just as impressive if she were a man. And that means she is a great choice for all Americans, identity politics be damned. Does her gender add something to the ticket? Sure. It shows that you can have real change and not just look like it. Barack Obama got his party’s nomination because he is black. But Sarah Palin will get her party’s nomination because she is right. You can talk about change, but McCain/Palin can actually deliver it. Real reform with real results, offered in part by our Vice Presidential nominee who has more experience and more accomplishments than Barack Obama even though she is a few years younger, doesn’t have a law degree, and is a woman. Shocking.

“Everyone who ever bought a pack of condoms knows when life begins.”

That’s the best line I’ve ever heard about the “when life begins” debate and it happens to be entirely true. Sometimes the issues that seem most complex have the simplest of answers.

And that’s why the Obama “pay grade” remark or Nancy Pelosi’s comments from this weekend’s “Meet the Press” are so troubling. They ring completely untrue… and everyone knows it. Certainly “doctors of the [Catholic] church” haven’t been debating an issue that every over-stimulated 18 year-old boy understands fully well. Are Pro-Choice Americans so entrenched in their positions and intellectually dishonest that they can claim Peggy Noonan’s simple assertion untrue?

And even if you think a 1948 Buick is being conceived, surely when a human baby does make its way through the birth canal, you can’t still question it’s life? Once you count those tiny little fingers and tiny little toes, you must believe that that life is precious and absolute, don’t you? Or is your stance on choice so entrenched, that a mother gets to snuff out that life once separated from the womb, like a Buick on the way to the scrap heap?

…

It infuriated me when I heard Tom Brokaw make a little comment Monday night as NBC’s DNC Convention coverage started. If women’s issues are important to you, Mr. Greatest Nation asserted, then you have to support Barack Obama.

Really? Are women really in agreement on abortion? Even if women en masse supported the “Right to Choose” farce, certainly maternal instincts and infanticide are not complimentary. But if you believe Brokaw and his buddy Barack, women should do just that… and as a block support a man who has championed killing babies both in and out of the womb.

I don’t buy it. Maybe its the inherent lack of estrogen in my system that prevents my understanding, but the thought of women supporting abortion and Barack Obama’s infanticide seems incredibly foreign. The women in my life have been strong, intelligent, God-fearing souls who actually valued life and loved their kids. I can’t imagine them supporting infanticide for a second. I just don’t get how killing babies is a “woman’s issue” and people who care about “women’s issues” should want to vote for a man who believes babies who are born alive can be discarded in trashcans.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t support infanticide. Ted Kennedy doesn’t support infanticide. But Barack Obama does, and if you care about women’s issues then he somehow deserves your vote? B.S.

How can there be any evidence of evil more glaring than the willingness to kill innocent life minutes after it has been born? Can anything be more horrendous than having a live baby in your arms and allowing it to die?

During the Saddleback forum, Barack Obama referred to Matthew 25:40 saying “whatever you do for the least of my brothers you do for me”.

How is the “least of my brothers” not an infant in or out of the womb? And if it is, then how could you believe and still support killing “the least of my brothers” through abortion or infanticide?

…

If you have ever bought a box of condoms or taken the pill, you very well know when life begins. And if you have ever held a newborn baby or played with friend’s young child, you know what a miracle life is and how beautiful every innocent life can be. I don’t care what party you belong to… I don’t even care what church you attend… you can’t make a rational argument that Barack Obama’s positions on infanticide are not evil.

And if you do accept the “basic precept of Matthew” as Barack Obama claims he does, than how could you ever support an Obama candidacy for President? If “whatever you do for the least of my brothers you do for me”…. than God help us if we elect someone who supports the killing of innocent babies to control our country and represent us to the world.

Some people will continue to vote along party lines this year. They will let their race, union membership, occupation, or some inspirational speech dictate which way they should vote. Society and the media may tell them which way to vote. But the idea behind Matthew 25 is right, and thus no other issue should be as important than this. The killing of helpless, innocent babies cannot be tolerated in this country. And if for no other reason than that, Barack Obama must not be given the keys to our White House.

“I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Matthew 25:40).

God help us all.

On Friday night as my husband and I were driving to the post office to drop off a package, we happened to catch Sean Hannity’s radio show. One of Sean’s guest was Jill Stanek, a former registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL, who is now a pro-life leader and advocate for the unborn. Her story and experience is heart-wrenching to listen to and at the same time incredibly powerful.

Her basic experience is this: she was a registered nurse at Christ Hospital when she discovered that the hospital was preforming abortions on live children, leaving them to die alone in the soiled utility room. She discovered this hush-hush practice one day when another nurse could not “tend” to a down syndrome baby who had just survived an attempted abortion by doctors. Jill took the little baby to a quiet room and held it for 45 minutes until it finally died.

In the case of these abortions, doctors induce the mother early (in this case 21 weeks), with a good guarantee that the baby will not survive during labor. Most don’t. Jill Stanek said that approximately 10% of babies survived the labor, but then are left to die alone in the soiled utility room.

Jill went to hospital leaders, asking them to stop this practice. When they told her no, she went public. In 2000 and 2001 she was asked to testify before a U.S. House committee for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In 2002 the act was signed into law by President Bush.

Jill was conveniently fired by Christ Hospital because of her outspokenness. She now is an activist in the pro-life movement, a popular blogger and a frequent guest on talk radio shows, such as Sean Hannity’s.

My husband and I sat stunned in the car as we listened to Jill and Sean discuss this horrible practice. How could this practice be happening in America? How could people do this to innocent lives? It is unimaginable. Debate all you want about whether life begins at conception - these babies clearly are babies, regardless of whether or not the mom wanted them to exist. They exist, they survived the mother and doctor’s attempt to terminate their life, and the fact that they received absolutely no medical attention and were left to die is horrendous.

Jill Stanek is very outspoken about her pro-life beliefs, and she is particularly outspoken this year because of the presidential election. Why? Jill was from Illinois, and guess who else is from Illinois?

Barack Obama was a state senator during the time Jill discovered the abortion practices of Christ Hospital. During state level committee hearings about this practice and Jill’s testimony about her experience, she recalled to Sean that Obama seemed distant, not particularly interested in what Jill had to say. And really, why should he? Barack Obama was against the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act. He was the only state senator to speak out against the federal act that was later signed into law in 2002. Not even Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy spoke out against this act. And pro-choice organizations took neutral positions. But Barack Obama stood alone, and publicly declared that infants who survive abortions have no right to life, that they should be left to die…alone…in the comfort of no one…their life almost an after thought. Yet this is the presidential candidate who wants universal health care for everyone. That is, if you can make it out of your mother’s womb alive and in one piece, and oh yeah - if your mom wanted you born in the first place.

This chills me to the core. I don’t care where you stand on politics, on religion, on abortion, on right-to-life, on anything. How could anyone allow a baby to die in a trashcan? If that’s legal, then why would a teenage mom who gives birth to an unwanted child and tosses that baby into the high school dumpster be charged with murder? It’s the same thing.

Abortion is such a sensitive subject, and I seriously debated even posting about this subject because it’s such a hot button issue that I think is used a lot of times to get people riled up. But hearing Jill Stanek’s story on Friday chilled me to the core. Her experience was truly life changing for her, and a story that I won’t soon forget. What also causes me great fear and anxiety is that our country is on the verge of electing a man who doesn’t support the rights of babies who survive an abortion (let alone babies in the womb). In fact, Barack Obama referred to unwanted babies as a “punishment” to the mother. Is this really the man that needs to be our country’s leader? I fear that our country is so blinded by his celebrity that we’re not examining the nitty-gritty issues that make the man. If Obama is trying to court evangelical Christians, he’s going to have a hard time if Jill’s story hits the mainstream media. And I hope it does. Because this issue is too important, to critical, to be glossed over by the liberal talking heads on MSNBC.

There were many reasons before Friday evening why I did not support Barack Obama. But after Friday evening, all the other reasons seemed to fade to a distant second, as I realized that this issue on abortion and a person’s right to life - from the moment of conception on -was the main issue for me and the most outstanding reason why Barack Obama should never hold an office of any authority ever again, especially that of President.

After all, he said it himself - it’s out of his pay grade.

Cross posted by Melanie from A Coffee To Go

By now you’ve likely heard Barack Obama’s answer to when a baby gets human rights. Such a question is apparently not worthy of thought or debate by the man who wants to hold the most powerful job in the world, because Mr. Obama considers it quiet simply “above [his] pay grade.”

Above your pay grade? What exactly is within your pay grade, Barry?

When you are seeking the most powerful job in the world at arguably the most important time… when that job gets to make judgment calls in private and nominate Supreme Court justices in public… when that person is supposed to be the leader of the free world and our people at home… nothing is above the pay grade. NOTHING.

Refusing to answer the question is just one more obstruction or obfuscation in a long line of the same from Mr. Obama. Pro-Life or Pro-Choice… you have to have an opinion. Barack Obama clearly does as any person who has thought about the issue does. Yet stating his belief would make his later statements trying to appease Right to Live voters intellectually dishonest. So instead of making a statement that will bite him, he makes the equally telling response that it is “above his pay grade.”

And right there you disqualified yourself from the Presidency, or as John McCain would say, you proved you are “not ready to lead.” As long as the executive branch enforces the law and as long as the office of the Presidency gets to nominate judges who have no later form of accountability or checks and balances… including the United States Supreme Court… then anything related to that is part of the President’s “pay grade”. Clearly Barack Obama is not ready for the raise.

Seemingly lost among reports of a Fed rate cut, Fred Thompson’s withdrawal and Heath Ledger’s death was news of a march on Washington today. Michelle Malkin gets it right… had it been thousands of illegals or anti-war activists marching, I’m sure your cable news channel would have found time to talk about it. But the thousands marching were Pro-Life Activists… thus its utter silence from the MSM.

Today was the 35th Annual March for Life, where thousands of Pro-Life Activists took to the streets in Washington, DC to remind us of the travesty of Roe v. Wade. Its hard to believe its been 35 years. Its hard to fathom that this struggle has been going on since before I was born. Hopefully it will be a distant memory by the time I have children of my own.

The post below is in response to comments from my brother-in-law, whom disagrees with me on virtually all things political.

Preface.
The Constitution delineates rights guaranteed to us. Amendment 9 of the Constitution mentions other rights retained by the people, but does not specify what they are. It is my firm belief that those who ratified the Bill of Rights knew this Amendment to refer to rights granted to us by God. However, since I don’t know your beliefs, lets rely on the rest of the Constitution for sake of argument. We can save theology for another discussion, but I believe we can all agree that the Ninth Amendment was not alluding to abortion rights or gay marriage.

A Conservative stance on enacting a law.
Conservatives, in general, believe in enacting laws only when necessary. If one person’s action does not infringe on another person’s rights, then there is no need to consider passing a law prohibiting that action. If one person’s action does infringe on another’s person’s rights, then and only then should a law be considered, and only if absolutely necessary to guarantee the second person’s rights.

Abortion.
If abortion was only about a woman’s rights and her body, no true conservative would try to prohibit the practice, no matter how abhorrent the action. However, abortion is not only about a woman’s rights and her body, it is also about the rights of a second person, the unborn child. The action of abortion clearly denies the liberty of the unborn child who is defenseless. Thus, if you believe the unborn child is a person, and you hold to the conservative opinion of laws I articulated above, you must also agree that an acceptable law is one that bans abortion.

There is no constitutional guarantee allowing any person to commit murder. Conversely, the Constitution does protect liberty, which is denied the unborn child by the act of abortion. Thus, the Constitution at its inception did protect the child and any law denying the rights of that child are unconstitutional and should be overturned. Any further law or action prohibiting the rights of the baby are also unconstitutional and should be prohibited. You cannot believe the unborn child is a life and also reason that abortion is a right, as the act of abortion is in conflict to the Constitution by denying another’s liberty.

If you don’t believe the unborn child is a life, then we need to have another debate altogether. There are a number of scientists and doctors who believe the unborn child is alive. There is legal precedent stating that the unborn baby is a life. Example, Scott Peterson was tried and convicted of double homicide, for the murder of his wife and the unborn baby. How can the murder of the baby be homicide if it is not a life? If it is a life, then why is the mother permitted to murder it, but no one else?

Gay Rights / Gay Marriage.
Where in the constitution or elsewhere are rights guaranteed to other people but excluded specifically for homosexuals? I can’t find any such example. Homosexuals have the exact same rights that I do. I might also argue that they have more by way of hate crimes legislation, which punishes crimes against them greater than crimes against me, and thus values their lives and liberty above mine. But that is another argument for another time. The topic at hand is the supposed “trampling” of gay rights… where that supposedly has happened is beyond me.

Homosexuals have the very same rights I do, marriage included. I have the right to marry any adult of the opposite sex (or I did until I got married). So do they. Where is the infringement of their rights? Where are they precluded from rights that other citizens have? I can’t lose a million dollars if I never had it to begin with, and homosexuals can’t lose the right to gay marriage if it never existed before. You cannot trample on rights that do not exist.

People clamoring for gay marriage are looking for special rights to be given to a subset of the population. This is the truest example of a slippery slope. If you are going to make special rights exclusively for homosexuals, where do you draw the line? Can members of NAMBLA marry little boys? Can a cat lover marry her cat, giving spousal rights to Fluffy? No. Are those actions infringing on anyone else’s rights? That’s debatable but not the point. If the law doesn’t exist, it cannot have been denied to them. Homosexuals have not been denied any rights by protecting the traditional definition of marriage.

Would it make some homosexuals happy to marry other homosexuals? Maybe, but is that really the standard we want to give when deciding when a law should be created? It would make my wife and I happy for our anniversary to be a national holiday. Should a law be enacted that does that?

Conclusion.
Clearly no rights are “trampled” upon by those who do not support gay marriage. Homosexuals have the same rights that any other person has, arguably they have more, but definitely they have no less. Additionally women have lost no rights when the sanctity of life is protected. The Constitution protects everyone’s liberty. Laws and rights should be protected equally. No special exceptions should be made for mothers, homosexuals, or anyone else.