Wednesday, August 13, 2008

 

Obama Watch: The Infanticide Candidate



OK, here's a hypothetical:

Let's say a premature baby is born, that the baby is alive and is struggling to hold on to life. Let's say the baby has a serious handicap; for instance, Down Syndrome. And lets say that, because of the handicap, the parents don't want the baby. Should the hospital try to save the baby's life, as they would with any other birth, or should they allow the baby to die because the parents don't want it?

I'd say that 99% of the people in the world are capable of the humanity and the compassion to say that the baby's life should be saved. Most, I'd guess, would agree with me that for the hospital to do anything other than try to save the baby's life would be the equivalent of infanticide.

But, see, here's the thing: That hypothetical I described above is not a hypothetical. That case really happened, just as I described it, in Illinois some years ago.

And Barack Obama has worked very hard to make sure that hospitals in that situation not only can kill the baby, but that they're actually required to kill him or her.

David Freddoso writes about the actual case I described above at the National Review:
(Jill) Stanek is the nurse who found herself cradling this baby in her hands for all of his 45-minute lifetime. He was close to ten inches long and weighed perhaps half a pound. It’s just a guess — no one had weighed or measured him at birth. No happy family had been there to welcome him into the world...

That family had wanted a baby, but when they learned that theirs would be born with Down syndrome, they wanted an abortion. For that, they went to Christ Hospital in the southwestern suburbs of Chicago, which is affiliated with the United Church of Christ.

In “induced labor” or “prostaglandin” abortion — a common procedure at the hospital — the doctor administers drugs that dilate the mother’s cervix and induce contractions, forcing a small baby out of the mother’s uterus. Most of the time, the baby dies in utero, killed by the force of the violent contractions. But it does not always work. Such abortions sometimes result in a premature baby being born alive. Sometimes the survivors live for just a few minutes, but sometimes for several hours. No one tried to save or treat them — it is hard to save someone you just mauled trying to kill. But something had to be done with them for the minutes and hours during which they struggled for air.

Stanek says her friend had been told to take this baby and leave him in a soiled utility closet.


After that experience, Jill Stanek became involved in an effort to have a law passed in Illinois that would recognize all human beings who'd been born alive as human beings. Sounds simple enough, right? Even most abortion-on-demand advocates recognize that a person is a person after they've been born. Right?

Not if you're Barack Obama:

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only senator to speak in opposition to a bill that would have banned the practice of leaving premature abortion survivors to die. The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous. It applied only to premature babies, already born alive. It stated simply that under Illinois law, “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”

Obama defended his stance with a diatrab of rambling leagalese that would make Bill Clinton blush. He had this to say at the time:
There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so … this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

In a nutshell, Obama is so dedicated to protecting abortion on demand that he'd rather have babies who've been born killed than pass a law to protect them if it might result in a challenge to legalized abortion.

Remember that this November. Barack Obama isn't "pro choice." He's an avid proponent of abortion at any cost.

Labels: , ,


Comments: Post a Comment



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]