When I heard the news, the classic Twisted Sister song “Burn in Hell” came to mind. So this is for you, “Doctor” Gosnell, because I truly believe that when your life is over you’ll have to answer to a higher authority.
While the left tries to paint all Republicans as waging a #War on Women because we don’t like babies being dismembered, it’s important to remember President Obama has no problem with abortions being performed up to the time the baby’s about to be born. When asked about late term abortion in 2003, he had no problem with it:
Please take the time to understand what he’s saying. He supports partial birth abortion being legal in all situations.
If you don’t understand partial birth abortion, please take the time to read this.
If that’s not bad enough, consider this. President Obama would not vote to support a baby born during a botched abortion getting medical treatment following birth. In his opinion, the wishes of the mother should be carried out, meaning, leave the baby to die:
Obama has repeatedly claimed he would have voted for Illinois’ version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) had it included language to protect abortion rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, as the federal version of the bill did, which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. Contrary to what Obama has said, forgotten records from the Illinois Senate archives show Obama did vote against a BAIPA bill that included such a neutrality clause virtually identical to the federal bill.
“We have a smoking gun committee report,” said National Right to Life Committee Legislative Counsel Susan Muskett.
Muskett’s “smoking gun” is a 2003 Health and Human Services Committee report recorded by Republican committee staff. It documents a unanimous 10-0 vote by the 2003 Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time, to amend BAIPA to include the exact same language that was added to the federal version to protect Roe v. Wade. The committee report also shows a subsequent “final action” vote to determine if the bill should advance out of committee or be killed. The bill was defeated 6-4. Chairman Obama voted in the majority.
This means that, in essence, Obama voted to successfully amend the bill in a way that Obama has said would have enabled him to support it—before he voted against it. It also puts Obama further to the left of NARAL Pro-Choice America. According to a statement released by the abortion-rights lobby in the run-up to the U.S. Senate’s BAIPA vote in 2002, “NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act … floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”
For those who may doubt partisan records, the Republican committee report is backed by an Associated Press article that documented the 6-4 vote on the amended version of the bill.
“The Senate Health and Human Services Committee rejected a bill that declares any fetus with a beating heart or muscle movement outside the womb as ‘born alive,’” reporter Kristy Hessman’s AP story said. Her article was filed from Springfield, Ill., and dated the same day as the Republican committee report, removing any doubt she may have been reporting on any other measure. “The measure is in response to a rare abortion procedure in which labor is induced and the fetus sometimes survives, possibly for hours,” Hessman wrote. “The sponsor, Sen. Rick Winkel, R-Champaign, said the bill is modeled after a recent federal policy that defines a ‘born-alive’ infant. But critics said defining when a fetus is ‘alive’ could require doctors to provide care and might expose them to legal action if they don’t, even if there was no way the fetus could survive outside the womb. Winkel’s bill got four ‘yes’ votes and six ‘no’ votes.”
Conservative journalist David Freddoso said these documents are “absolute proof ” Obama has distorted his position on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
“Obama said he would have voted for that bill if it had been like the federal bill when, in fact, he voted against it when it was like the federal bill,” Freddoso said. “So he’s been lying about it the whole time.”
To Obama, preserving the right to abortion take precident of a baby’s right to life.
Compare that to the Republican position, that babies conceived by rape are innocents and have a right to breathe.
The controversial contraception, abortifacients and sterilization mandate has quickly become a national debate unlike the country has seen since the passage of Obamacare. Regardless of how the White House is currently positioned to accommodate potentially injured religious parties, Accuracy in Media discovered an alarming narrative developing in the mainstream press. Pundits and reporters have chosen to apply the debate to the horse-race for the GOP nomination, or another battle in the culture war for reproductive rights. Unfortunately a larger, constitutionally intrinsic question is being overlooked: will this pending mandate forever endanger our religious liberties for the sake of public policy? Accuracy in Media sat down with Fr. Joseph Gonzales, Imam Johari Abdul-Malik and Rabbi Charles Feinberg to discuss how this precious balance can be maintained in the 21st Century.
The recent uproar regarding Obamacare’s contraception and abortifacient mandates has cast the spotlight on the Catholic Church, but what about American Muslims and Jews? Have their religious liberties been violated as well? Accuracy in Media offers an exclusive preview of this week’s video investigation titled Religious Liberty and The Birth Control Mandate.
The grand jury said that a clinic co-worker of Moton’s testified that a woman gave birth to a large baby at the clinic, delivering the child into a toilet. The jurors identified the newborn as “Baby D.”
The jurors said the co-worker told them that the baby was moving and looked like it was swimming.
“Moton reached into the toilet, got the baby out and cut its neck,” the grand jury said in its report.
*The Pennsylvania Department of Health knew of clinic violations dating back decades, but did nothing;
*The Pennsylvania Department of State was “repeatedly confronted with evidence about Gosnell” – including the clinic’s unclean, unsterile conditions, unlicensed workers, unsupervised sedation, underage abortion patients, and over-prescribing of pain pills with high resale value on the street – “and repeatedly chose to do nothing.”
*Philadelphia Department of Public Health officials who regularly visited Gosnell’s human waste-clogged offices did nothing;
*Nearby hospital officials who treated some of the pregnant mothers who suffered grave complications from Gosnell’s butchery did nothing; and
*The National Abortion Federation, the leading association of abortion providers that is supposed to uphold strict health and legal standards, determined that Gosnell’s chamber of horrors was “the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected” – but did nothing.
Why would they stay mum? Because they didn’t want to risk the wrath of the pro-abortion advocates, or were so pro-choice they didn’t want to risk bringing negative attention on the massacre. Is there another reason you can think of?
The maximum penalty for third degree murder in Pennsylvania is 40 years. I hope they get a sentence for each baby they found in the “clinic.” And that’s still to kind a sentence.
Questions and debates still rage about Herman Cain.
Is he pro-choice?
Is he pro-life?
I just had a dust-up over this exact topic in a comment thread here.
Strangely, the end of the debate is nigh. NARAL publicly admonished Cain for his strong pro-life, anti-abortion stances:
NARAL president Nancy Keenan has released an open letter Cain saying she believes he is fully pro-life on abortion and condemns him for taking such a position.
“Let’s start with the things we agree on: you are 100 percent opposed to a woman’s right to choose abortion care–even in cases of rape or incest–and have made that position clear on numerous occasions. End of story,” Keenan writes.
“Look, let’s go back,” Cain told the America Live program. “See, he was asking me two questions. My position on abortion has been the same — on pro-life — has been the same throughout this campaign. And that is, I am pro-life from conception and I don’t believe in abortion. When he then tried to pigeon-hole me on my granddaughter being there as a victim of rape, then what would I do?”
But then he went further, explaining his answer on CNN:
“The only point I was trying to make: A lot of families will be in that position and they are not going to be thinking, “Well, what does the government want me to do?” My position is no abortion. My position is no abortion. But all I was trying to point out was take the typical family in this country and you don’t know what they might do in the heat of the moment,” Cain explained.
Does that jive with what he said before? Let me refresh your memory:
MORGAN: Abortion. What’s your view of abortion? CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why —
MORGAN: No circumstances?
CAIN: No circumstances.
MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates — some of them qualify that.
CAIN: They qualify but —
MORGAN: Rape and incest.
CAIN: Rape and incest.
MORGAN: Are you honestly saying — again, it’s a tricky question, I know.
CAIN: Ask the tricky question.
MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?
CAIN: You’re mixing two things here, Piers?
CAIN: You’re mixing —
MORGAN: That’s what it comes down to.
CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.
I think so. He fumbled the CNN question, but looking at it through the context of his explanation, I think I can see what he’s saying. Right now, abortion is legal. The family has a choice as to terminate the baby’s life or to carry it to term. He’s saying as president, he should not tell a woman to have an abortion, even though he thinks it should be illegal.
Which, he does:
Cain replied, “No. No, I do not believe abortion should be legal in this country if that’s the question. I’m consistent with that.”
And even if it were illegal, Cain notes there is still the choice before the family:
“Look, abortion should not be legal,” Cain said a moment later. “That is clear,” he said, adding that anyone who wanted to get an abortion would be breaking the law by doing so: “But if that family made a decision to break the law, that’s that family’s decision.”
I personally don’t doubt his pro-life credentials. And I accept he doesn’t think abortion should be legal. I also see that as president, he is on record saying he will not force his personal beliefs on the citizenry without Constitutional authority.