Publicado: 10-29-2011 02:52 PM
Obama would kill his grandchild for his daughters "mistake"
Babies are gifts from God. Unless you are the most liberal member of the US Senate, the one running for President who advocates killing even born-alive infants. In that case, some babies are mistakesand he wouldn't wish them on anyone, especially his two daughters.
…look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.
Not wanting to "punish" his daughters with a baby, here is the Obama solution to make the "mistake" go away…. punish the baby instead by dismembering it while its still alive. That's why the Bible calls this the shedding of "innocent" blood - the one being punished didn't do anything wrong. Actually the Obama solution is even more harsh… if the baby is born alive, he'd leave it to die.
I wonder what "values and morals" Obama plans to teach his daughters "first of all." Certainly not the value of the sacredness of human life. And certainly he isn't going to teach them anything in this antiquated paragraph: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Would you vote for a President who'd kill his own grandchild? Later he did say his two daughters were "miracles."
This is a very difficult issue, and I understand sort of the passions on both sides of the issue. I have two precious daughters - they are miracles.
So, let me get this straight… if we want a baby they are "miracles," if we don't they are "mistakes." Seems to me the only thing that is different between baby A and baby B is our wishes. I'm about to rest my case that babies are babies regardless of the circumstances that surround their conception and therefore need to be legally protected from the whims and wishes of people more concerned for their own welfare than the baby's.
Publicado: 10-29-2011 10:19 PM
WHY OBAMA REALLY VOTED FOR INFANTICIDE
Andrew C. McCarthy
NRO August 22, 2008
More important to protect abortion doctors than “that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it.”
There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”
No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.
They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.
No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”
Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.
But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.
The record, however, doesn’t lie.
Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.
The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery.
Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time.
So something had to be done with them. They couldn’t be left out in the open, struggling in the presence of fellow human beings. After all, those fellow human beings — health-care providers — would then be forced to confront the inconvenient question of why they were standing idly by. That would hold a mirror up to the whole grisly business.
Better the utility room. Alone, out of sight and out of mind. Next case.
Stanek’s account enraged the public and shamed into silence most of the country’s staunchest pro-abortion activists. Most, not all. Not Barack Obama.
Publicado: 10-29-2011 10:20 PM
My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.
Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.
But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.
The shocking extremism of that pposition — giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life — is profoundly embarrassing to him now. So he has lied about what he did. He has offered various conflicting explanations, ranging from the assertion that he didn’t oppose the anti-infanticide legislation (he did), to the assertion that he opposed it because it didn’t contain a superfluous clause reaffirming abortion rights (it did), to the assertion that it was unnecessary because Illinois law already protected the children of botched abortions'
What Obama hasn’t offered, however, is the rationalization he vigorously posited during the 2002 Illinois senate debate.
When it got down to brass tacks, Barack Obama argued that protecting abortion doctors from legal liability was more important than protecting living infants from death.
Don’t take my word for it. There’s a transcript of a state senate debate, which took place on April 4, 2002. That transcript is available here (the pertinent section runs from pages 31 to 34). I quote it extensively below. After being recognized, Obama challenged the Born-Alive bill’s sponsor as follows:
OBAMA: Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously, this is an issue that we’ve debated extensively both in committee an on the floor so I — you know, I don’t want to belabor it. But I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one 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. So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what’s going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements you’ve set forth?
SENATOR O’MALLEY: First of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the … practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that … an attending physician be brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where … there’s a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child … may be [viable,] … the attending physician would make that determination as to whether that would be the case…. The other one is where the child is actually born alive … in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability.
SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?
Publicado: 10-29-2011 10:21 PM
SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. 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.
This is staggering. As Obama spoke these words, he well knew that children were being born alive but precisely not looked after by the abortion doctors whose water the senator was carrying. As Stanek put it, as many as one in five — twenty percent — were left to die. That was what prompted the legislation in the first place.
Through Obama’s radical prism, everything “is about abortion and not live births.” But in reality, this had nothing to do with “burden[ing] the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” It was about the legal and moral responsibilities of doctors and nurses in circumstances where, despite that decision, a living human being was delivered.
Obama wasn’t worried about “the least of my brothers,” the child. He agitated, instead, over “what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation.” And what kind of doctor? A charlatan who would somehow “continue to think that it’s nonviable” notwithstanding that “there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”
Given the choice between the charlatan and “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it,” Barack Obama went with the charlatan. The baby would end up limp and dead, whether in the operating room or the utility closet. It was, Obama insisted, about abortion, not live births.
– Andrew C. McCarthy is NR’s legal-affairs editor and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad
Publicado: 10-30-2011 10:04 PM
EL PARTIDO DE LA MUERTE
Por Jorge Soley Climent
Por mucho que se empeñen algunos, la del aborto no es una cuestión cerrada. Las noticias de prácticas abortivas sobre bebés de hasta 7 meses han vuelto a poner de manifiesto ante la opinión pública la gravedad del asunto en toda su crudeza. Y las multitudinarias marchas por la vida celebradas en París y Washington DC han venido a confirmarnos la actualidad del debate en torno al aborto.
El conocido periodista conservador Rames Ponnuru, editor de la National Review, acaba de publicar una interesante obra en torno a la defensa de la vida: The Party of Death: The Democrats, The Media, The Courts and The Disregard for Human Life (El Partido de la Muerte: los demócratas, los medios de comunicación, los tribunales y la indiferencia hacia la vida humana). Más allá de lo provocativo del título, que es lo que ha dado más que hablar –y que Ponnuru explica como la existencia de un partido que ha tomado el control del demócrata–, el libro merece una lectura atenta.
Escrito con garra y bien documentado, The Party of Death empieza con una afirmación contundente: “Todo lo que pensabas que sabías acerca de Roe versus Wade [el caso cuya sentencia abrió las puertas al aborto en Estados Unidos] es mentira”. Ciertamente, una afirmación atrevida que, no obstante, Ponnuru justifica a continuación con abundancia de datos. Mentiras difundidas por los medios de comunicación, medias verdades, silenciamientos, pero sobre todo mentiras a secas, divulgadas con la mayor desfachatez por los lobbies proabortistas. Así, descubrimos que, frente a lo que declaró en el juicio, Jane Roe (el pseudónimo de Norma McCorvey) confesó que no había sido violada.
En realidad, el resultado de Roe vs. Wade no fue la legalización del aborto, sino sólo la obligatoriedad de incluir, en cualquier prohibición del aborto, la excepción en caso de riesgo para la salud de la madre. Lo cierto fue que, a continuación, Doe vs. Bolton definió esta excepción de manera tan amplia que abrió las puertas al aborto generalizado. Un proceso, por cierto, con clarísimos paralelismos con el caso español, donde el riesgo para la salud psíquica de la madre se ha convertido en la puerta abierta, de par en par, para el aborto indiscriminado.
Otro clásico de la manipulación es la guerra de cifras, cuestión que impacta en la opinión pública con gran fuerza. Ponnuru cita la siguiente declaración de Barbara Boxer: “Antes de Roe vs. Wade, aproximadamente 1.200.000 mujeres al año se veían forzadas a realizar abortos ilegales (…) y de acuerdo a una estimación, antes de 1973 unas 5.000 mujeres morían al año en esos abortos ilegales”. La imagen de los 5.000 cadáveres femeninos supone, es obvio, un aldabonazo para muchas conciencias sensibles, dispuestas a sacrificar algunas vidas no tan visibles para salvar a tantas mujeres.
Publicado: 10-30-2011 10:05 PM
Por supuesto, estos datos fueron repetidos sin cesar, de modo completamente acrítico y no contrastado, por los medios de comunicación; y, por supuesto, estaban infladísimos, por no decir que eran absolutamente falsos. Por ejemplo, y para centrarnos en las famosas 5.000 mujeres muertas, el número de fallecimientos por abortos ilegales en Estados Unidos fue de 1.313 en 1940; en 1966, poco antes de la sentencia de Roe vs. Wade, ya había caído hasta 159; en 1972, un año antes de la sentencia, 41, principalmente gracias a la introducción de los antibióticos. Cifras, todas ellas, a años luz de ese 5.000 que proclamaban los abortistas. Mentira, pero eficaz: la sentencia, bajo la presión de una opinión pública conmocionada por los datos falsos, fue la que fue.
Algo similar ocurrió con el no tan lejano debate acerca del aborto por nacimiento parcial, que según el lobby proabortista se limitaba a unos pocos y raros centenares de casos al año. Luego resultó que Ron Fitzsimmons, director de la National Coalition of Abortion Providers, reconoció en el American Medical News que había mentido y que las cifras eran escalofriantes. Lo mismo ocurre regularmente en España: ocurrió con el divorcio, con el aborto, con los miles y miles de homosexuales prestos a casarse; y ocurrirá con los miles y miles de ancianos que desean “morir dignamente”. Al final será un camelo, pero la ley ya no la cambiará nadie.
Otro de los grandes aciertos de Ponnuru es la atención que presta a la perversión del lenguaje, algo que sin duda hubiera agradado a Orwell o a Klemperer –autor del magistral LTI: La lengua del Tercer Reich (Minúscula)–. El feto no es sino un amasijo de células; al feto se le desarticula, no se le desmembra; no hay abortos por nacimiento parcial, sino interrupciones tardías del embarazo... Todo un ataque a la correspondencia entre la realidad y el lenguaje en la que se basa una vida social decente.
En definitiva, estamos ante un libro importante e inteligente, que contribuye a que una tragedia tan trascendental como el aborto no sea silenciada.
Publicado: 11-28-2011 12:27 AM
LET THEM EAT SOCIALISM
www.stolinsky.com ^ | 11-28-11 | stolinsky
A recent editorial in a leading British medical journal states, “Some patients in hospitals run by the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) do not receive adequate pain relief, are not helped to go to the toilet, and are not given enough to eat or drink.” Yes, but the pain medicine they don’t receive, the care they don’t get, and the food they aren’t served are free.
So the editors, who are leftists, declare that there is no reason to privatize hospitals, because that would endanger equity of care.So long as everyone gets equally lousy care, all is well. That is socialism in one sentence.
Marie Antoinette supposedly said, “Let them eat cake,” when she was told that the people were starving because they had no bread. But if she said it, she was queen of France, and was the daughter of the emperor of Austria. She had lived in palaces all her life, so she might not have been able to understand what it is to starve.
But what is the editors’ excuse? They are physicians, who surely understand what it is to be denied pain medication, to be denied help to go to the toilet, or to be denied food and water. They have spent their lives working in hospitals run by the British National Health Service. So they can understand what it is to be confined to a run-down, under-equipped, depressing hospital − and be totally dependent on a demoralized, unmotivated, poorly supervised, depleted staff.
In any case, Marie Antoinette paid for her reported insensitivity by being guillotined. But the editors’ insensitivity will go unpunished. They will remain in their pposition as heads of a leading medical journal. They will retain the respect of their medical colleagues, and they will probably gain more respect from fellow leftists.
Leftism is a religion. Like members of other extremist sects, leftists gain prestige by demonstrating the strength of their faith. The best way to do so is to retain that faith in the face of indisputable evidence that leftism is a failure − an economic failure, a political failure, and worst of all a moral failure.
Of course, that faith must be expressed publicly, while condemning opponents as sinners who want to pollute the planet with “dirty air and water,” cause women to “die on the floor,” and make children “go to bed hungry.”
Publicado: 11-28-2011 12:28 AM
The fact that these accusations are untrue is irrelevant. To leftists, truth is not a major value. False, overblown accusations against political opponents are justified − at least in the minds of the accusers − because such accusations weaken the opponents of leftism. In the end, truth becomes an encumbrance to be discarded whenever convenient.
When Sarah Palin talked about “death panels,” she was ridiculed as an ignorant fear-monger. But President Obama himself declared that elderly or disabled people will get treatment only if “experts” tell doctors that it will “save money.” Of course, prolonging the lives of the elderly or the disabled would cost money. To “save money,” remote, faceless bureaucrats will cause them to die as soon as possible.
For all I care, call them “death panels,” or “experts telling doctors how to save money,” or “the recycle bin,” or “The Three Stooges Play Doctor.” It’s not fear-mongering if there is something to fear, regardless of what name it is called.
But who, in reality, are causing the most vulnerable people to lack water, to die on the floor, or to go hungry? European socialists are − the very people American leftists want us to emulate.
● Do patients in British hospitals lack needed pain relief, assistance with basic needs, and even food and water?
● Does the British National Health Service produce cancer survival rates that are the worst in Europe, and much worse than the rates in America − which are the best in the world?
● Did repeated calls for “reform” of the NHS over six decades produce nothing − except more calls for “reform”?
● Do Europe’s economic problems mean that funding for socialized health care will be cut even further?
● Do craven officials allow female Muslim nurses and doctors to wear “modest” clothing and not roll up their sleeves to scrub off dangerous bacteria?
● Do craven officials allow Sikh nurses to wear bangles on their arms, but forbid Christian nurses to wear crosses around their necks?
True, patients may lack pain medication, lack help to go to the toilet, and lack adequate food and water. They may risk infections spread by personnel who do not scrub properly. They may languish in under-staffed, under-equipped facilities. But on the bright side, they won’t be “offended” by crosses around their nurses’ necks. What a relief!
None of these facts affects the views of the editors. As committed leftists, they adhere to their beliefs with pseudo-religious zeal. Indeed, considering the feeble faith of many so-called religious people today, we must admit that leftists often demonstrate greater faith.
Worst of all, these people are not editors of a political magazine. They are editors of one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. They purport to be physicians and scientists. They cloak themselves in the robes of healers and seekers of truth.
But sometimes the robes slip, revealing what lies beneath − a total lack of empathy for patients, and an utter disregard for the traditions of medicine. What is revealed is reverence not for the humane teachings of Hippocrates, but for the discredited notions of Marx.
Publicado: 11-28-2011 12:29 AM
Their American colleagues are also hard at work. These people want to harvest organs for transplantation from patients who are not dead. They brazenly declare, “Under this regime, the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hope...” This notion is proposed as a legitimate option.
Unlike Cass Sunstein, co-author of this charming idea, I never graduated from Harvard Law School. I never was a professor of constitutional law there. My knowledge of the Constitution is limited to what I learned in my high-school civics class, and my reading of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. I studied what the Constitution actually says, not what liberal “legal scholars” fantasize it should say. I read the Declaration of Independence and learned that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Unlike Sunstein, I was never taught that some people are created superior, and that they should have the power to control the lives and take away the liberty of the inferior.
You see, I graduated from UCSF School of Medicine, then trained for seven years at UCSF and USC, and then spent 25 years practicing, teaching, and doing research in medical oncology in public hospitals. How could I possibly comprehend the deep thoughts of these “experts”? How could I possibly understand their brilliant theories regarding fields they never studied, much less worked in? No, they are the “elite,” while I am just an ignorant, incompetent peasant who needs to be ruled by my betters − for my own good, of course.
Sunstein is now President Obama’s “regulatory czar.” He has no more interest in organ transplantation than he has in moon rocks. He and his colleagues are interested in control. They already control what light bulbs and toilets we can buy. They want to control our organs after we die, or even before. Through ObamaCare, they aim to make life-and-death decisions for all 312 million Americans. They didn’t go to law school to practice law; they went to law school to exercise power.
What could be clearer evidence that their objective is not to increase our health but to decrease our freedom? What could be clearer evidence that their objective is totalitarianism? No, not a Nazi or Soviet totalitarianism − a softer, greener, health-care totalitarianism. As John O’Sullivan observed, “In Europe, the fascists goose-stepped; in America, they jog.”
Lack of empathy for patients, adherence to discredited notions, and budding totalitarianism are not desirable characteristics for those who seek to control our health care. But if we don’t do something now, they will control it. And then, if we are unlucky enough to be hospitalized, and we receive inadequate medication, inadequate care, and inadequate food, we can eat socialism.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: email@example.com. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
Publicado: 01-31-2012 10:42 PM
OBAMA’S CULTURE OF DEATH
US bishops confront Barack Obama’s sweeping abortion agenda
Reflection: Pope St Gregory the Great’s advice to bishops and priests - Pope St Gregory the Great
A potential big battle has begun, one of special interest to all Christians and guaranteed to generate a lot of attention from all Americans.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued a stern warning to president-elect Barack Obama and his incoming administration, highlighting grave concerns over what will happen to unwanted, unborn human life.
The statement was delivered in November at the end of the annual assembly that represents all American bishops. It was issued by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the USCCB.
The subject is the once unthinkable Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which Barack Obama promised will be the ‘first thing’ he signs as president. As the bishops forcefully noted, FOCA would eliminate countless reasonable restrictions on abortion enacted by bipartisan legislatures - Democrats and Republicans working together - over the past 35 years, including parental-consent laws and protection for babies who accidentally survive an abortion.
FOCA, wrote the bishops, ‘would coerce all Americans into subsidising and promoting abortion with their tax dollars.’ Every American would be complicit in paying for abortions - you would have no choice.
This would not only be unprecedented in American history but light years away from Obama’s claim that he ‘respects’ those with different points of view in the pro-life camp.
Most shocking, and of special concern to the bishops, is the fear that FOCA would eliminate the freedom of conscience of doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers - Catholic, non- Catholic, you name it - to not participate in abortion procedures at their hospitals.
The bishops noted that this would be an attack on Americans’ free exercise of religion. FOCA ‘would have lethal consequences’ not only for prenatal human life but for the most basic freedoms that living, working Americans have long held dear.
Further, the bishops dread that FOCA would require all hospitals with obstetrics programs to do abortions, a natural expectation given that Obama has spoken of abortion as a ‘fundamental right,’ a basic government service, and a vital component of America’s ‘safety net.’ He calls groups like Planned Parenthood a ‘safety-net provider.’