22 Aug 2012

Extremist: Obama Would Allow Abortion Up To Time of Delivery (Video)

By |August 22nd, 2012|The Blog|0 Comments|

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.

Now ask yourself: which is extreme?

27 Apr 2012

Dad Insists Son Isn’t Brain Dead, Despite Four Doctors’ Assurance He Is; Boy Fully Recovers

By |April 27th, 2012|The Blog|2 Comments|

I really can’t understand how four doctors could all decide that a 17 year old boy is brain dead and that it was time to start looting his body for organs, only to be proven wrong by a dad who refused to give up on his son, without wondering if there was some foul business afoot.

That’s exactly what happened in Great Britain:

The Mail reports that Stephen Thorpe, then 17, was placed in a medically-induced coma following a multi-car pileup that had already taken the life of his friend Matthew, who was driving the vehicle.

Although a team of four physicians insisted that his son was “brain-dead” following the wreck, Thorpe’s father enlisted the help of a general practitioner and a neurologist, who demonstrated that his son still had brain wave activity. The doctors agreed to bring him out of the coma, and five weeks later Thorpe left the hospital, having almost completely recovered.

Today, the 21-year-old with “brain damage” is studying accounting at a local university. “‘My impression is maybe the hospital weren’t very happy that my father wanted a second opinion,” he told the Mail.

Life Site news says this is one of dozens of stories they’ve written about, which again, makes me wonder what is going on? Are some doctors more interested in harvesting organs than saving lives?

Could be.

The term “brain death” was invented in 1968 to accommodate the need to acquire vital organs in their “freshest” state from a donor who some argue is still very much alive.

While death had previously been defined as lack of respiration and heart activity, “brain death” was judged as compatible with an otherwise living patient. “Brain death” has never been rigorously defined, and there are no standardized tests to determine if the condition exists.

Dr. John Shea, a medical advisor to LifeSiteNews.com, points out that patients diagnosed as “brain dead” often continue to exhibit brain functions.

In “Organ Donation: The Inconvenient Truth”, Shea states that the criteria for “brain death” only “test for the absence of some specific brain reflexes. Functions of the brain that are not considered are temperature control, blood pressure, cardiac rate and salt and water balance. When a patient is declared brain dead, these functions are not only still present, but also frequently active.”