Home » Posts tagged 'abortion'

Tag Archives: abortion


Obama, Gun Control, and Abortion

Gun Control is in the media a lot recently as Obama and liberals promote their goals of restricting availability of guns. Proponents state they’re not taking rights away, only making “reasonable” controls and restrictions, the idea constitutional rights are not absolute (can you yell “fire” in a movie theater, for example).

But compare a constitutional right (2nd amendment) with a non-constitutional idea (abortion).

Those pushing restrictions, taxes, or a 7 to 14 day wait to exercise your Constitutional 2nd amendments rights as “reasonable” complain when an abortion might require a 24 hour wait before terminating a baby.

“Reasonable” is all in the eyes of the beholder, and as usual, varies with the political goals desired.

Abortion and gun control, while not on the same constitutional level, expose hypocrisy and inconsistency of the groups promoting one while trying to deny the other.

Of course, they hope nobody notices.


Botched Abortion, Murder or something else?

The following story caused quite an uproar, which the media calls a “botched abortion”, but is it really?

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn’t arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic’s owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant’s umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

The woman involved will of course sue, but for what? Abortion is designed to eliminate the baby, and the clinic did exactly that, in a similar manner had the “doctor” arrived on time. What legal case exists — services performed as expected resulting in the death of a baby?

Of course, it also must be noted Obama’s stance in these matters matches exactly what the clinic did — refuse medical care to babies born alive and allow them to die. So the clinic rendered the service they were supposed to do (terminate the baby), and with the President supporting the policy of denying medical care to new babies.

With all this in mind, our question remains why the uproar? How can anyone be surprised by these events?

Suppose the “doctor” arrived on time, what would the sequence of events have been? Depending on the exact abortion procedure, he’d kill the baby — perhaps by crushing the skull and vacuuming out the brain, or by dismembering it in the womb. He’d then re-assemble the pieces on the table to be sure he got them all, then pack them in a biohazard bag and throw it out.

Is that much different than what actually happened?

So the question remains, why the concern? For the pro-life crowd, it happens every day across the country — why is this case so different? For the pro-abortion crowd, the “doctor” would do almost exactly what the owner did — so why does it matter? And the President supports denying newborn babies medical care, resulting in their death, so the actions have the support of the President.

Why does this case matter?

More Stimulus Pork – Abortion Clinics Count as Stimulus

The Stimulus will be a pork-fest — only Washington Elites believe otherwise. As more proof, consider Pelosi on “This Week” as she said abortion counts as “stimulus”:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies …

Remember, “family planning” is code for planned parenthood, whose business is abortion. In Pelosi’s alternate universe, abortion is good for the economy.

In Pelosi’s world, less mouths to feed equals less money states will have to spend. Show me one economist that says that we are in an economic crisis because of a birth control shortage, or one that says more contraception (aka: population control) will get us out of it faster. What’s next? Federally funded euthanasia?

Republicans aren’t the only ones shaking their heads in disbelief at Pelosi’s latest perplexing policy push. She will likely make many Democrats horribly uncomfortable. It’s one thing to be pro-Choice; it’s another to spend tax payer money on abortions at home — and abroad — in the middle of a financial crisis.

Even Pro-Choice Feminists understand this has nothing to do with economic recovery.

As a pro-choice feminist I am sickened by this obscene argument explaining why there are hundreds of millions of dollars for “family planning” services in the so-called stimulus bill. What does Nancy say? “It” (the reduction of children as opposed to the reduction of politicians and bureaucrats) will reduce costs the states have for children’s education, health care, etc. Instead of arguing that families should start paying for their children instead of the state and federal governments, Obama (via Pelosi) argues the number of children are the problem, not the fact that government has simply gotten so massive it is now advocating eliminating those who are a ‘drain’ on “costs.” This argument is a hallmark in socialist-fascist states, and now it’s here.

Don’t forget, Obama already talked of being “punished with a baby” in supporting his stance on abortion, so the attitude of the President and Speaker of the House think children are a burden and a problem.

The Stimulus will be 95% pork, and 5% for working people, and Madam Speaker defends it. When you’re thinking of helping the economy, be honest, did funding abortion (oops, “family planning”) clinics ever enter into your mind? We thought not. Instead, Pelosi and her cohorts on Team RePO (Reid/Pelosi/Obama) will attempt to use the “Stimulus” as the greatest far-left social program in the country’s history.

How can funding contraception and abortion be considered in any way funding economic recovery? Pelosi can’t be serious, so what’s her real motive?

Pork in Washington? We’re shocked — no change there, and all the flowery rhetoric can’t change reality.

Abortion Rights

As Roe v. Wade is celebrated again, one part of the issue doesn’t seem to be discussed — what about the rights of the father? Simple answer — he has none.

But why? If the issue is “reproductive rights”, why can’t the father control his? If the woman wants an abortion, he can’t stop it. If she wants to keep the baby and force him to pay, he can do nothing but pay. Why deny men reproductive rights? Is there not an equal protection argument here? Attorney Tommy De Seno notes the problem.

A father can’t stop an abortion if he wants his child, nor can he insist upon an abortion if he doesn’t want his child.

This situation should trouble everyone, not from a religious point of view, not from a personal choice point of view, but rather from an Equal Rights point of view.

Two weeks ago I tried an experiment in anticipation of writing this column. I wrote a column about gun control and posited that only men should vote on the issue of guns. The logic (rather illogic) used by me was that men buy guns the most, men are called upon to use them most (when a burglar enters our home) and we get shot the most. Why shouldn’t men have the only voice on the issue?

I wanted to gauge people’s reactions to the thought that in America we would ever give more weight to one person’s view than another’s because that person can show the issue affects him more.

As I walked around my city during these past two weeks, I was accosted by people who wanted to take me to task for suggesting that women lose their right to vote on an issue just because they may be affected by it less than men. Some pointed out, quite rightly, that even if there was an issue that didn’t affect women at all, as equal members of society, they should still have a voice in all decisions America makes.

An interesting perspective, and demonstrates just how bizarre the abortion issue has become. So extreme Obama voted to deny care to babies surviving a botched abortion, and a recent Texas court ruled a woman can’t be charged with murder if she wants to kill her baby. And now, an attorney notes current abortion case law creates an equal protection contradiction.

Where are the rational arguments? Abortion is (and will always remain) a major controversy for two reasons:

  1. The courts “found” a right in the Constitution which never existed, creating law instead of Congress. If Congress legislated instead of the courts, perhaps some of the nastiness would go away. As it stands, every time a judge needs to be confirmed, the question pops up “how will they judge on abortion” as a litmus test for or against otherwise qualified candidates. If Congress actually legislated, the problem disappears
  2. No compromise can be found. One side wants to terminate babies, the other doesn’t. What compromise can be found? Only half-terminate? Abortion simply can’t have a compromise — it’s a binary operation — either a baby lives or doesn’t.

Thus the abortion issue will forever remain unsolved, but for the time being, what about a father’s rights? Here’s a novel proposal.

I propose a “father’s abortion.” Let a father petition the Court to terminate his own parental rights to his child before or after the child’s birth. He would be rid of his obligations to that child in favor of his mental health and finances, the same as a woman does when she aborts.

As Justice Ginsburg said in the quote that appears at the top of this FOX Forum post, the emphasis is not abortion, rather an individual’s right to control his own reproduction. If we protect such a right for women, can we constitutionally deny it to men?

I propose this not because it would be in any way good. I propose it because constitutional Equal Protection demands it, and to show the danger created when judges destroy democracy by making up laws that don’t exist.

This of course has no chance of actually happening, because abortion has nothing to do with “reproductive rights” (and may or may not actually be a good idea, but that’s beside the point — what about equal protection?). But the equal protection problem adds more bizarre legal contradictions created by abortion, where by it’s nature abortion attempts to justify something society generally frowns upon — terminating a life.

Should men have reproductive rights? Or just women? We’re sure the idea generates strong feelings on both sides, but since the abortion question itself fails to have a compromise, perhaps other areas of abortion law could at least be discussed.

The Rest of the Story on Abortion – Gianna Jessen

Obama’s ship is taking on water over the abortion issue — his all-abortion, all-the-time position is considerably out of the mainstream view of Americans. His refusal to give botched aborted babies surviving the procedure medical care (instead of discarding them to die) when it came for a vote — a proposal so non-controversial even Ted Kennedy and Clinton supported it — defies explanation (as Gianna Jessen notes, she herself survived a botched abortion, and Obama’s position would deny her the medical care to save her life); no amount of nuance or spin can change the facts — Obama voted against medical care for children.

The record here is very, very clear. Obama initially said that he opposed the bill in Illinois because it didn’t have the “neutrality clause” included in the federal version of the legislation. As documentation proved, Obama voted against it even with the neutrality clause added. The Obama campaign finally acknowledged that Obama had lied about his position a month ago. Why? Because it would have actually forced doctors to provide care for live infants from abortions — or in other words, it would have worked.

If you’re interested, visit Jill Stanek’s site, a nurse in the Chicago area who witnessed botched aborted babies discarded to die — it’s not an academic discussion, the problem is real, and Obama voted (multiple times) to deny those children medical care — even as the U.S. Senate approved an identical bill 98-0.

No amount of “change” spin can alter the facts — Obama’s votes indicate he’d deny medical care for children after they’re born. The question nobody asks him is simple — if it’s acceptable to kill a baby after it’s born and call it abortion, at what age does the child get bestowed constitutional rights? Can they be “aborted” until 18? Do children count less than other people? When do they get basic human rights? For how long can they be aborted after being born before it becomes a crime? When asked, he provided his (in)famous “above my pay grade” response, which is strange considering he’s running for leader of the country.

It’s not a religious issue, or medical issue, it’s a legal issue he is (supposed) to be qualified to answer. If he can’t answer a legal question, he’s not qualified to run the country. For Obama, the question of when a child gets human rights isn’t answered — it certainly isn’t at birth, but at some mysterious point later — how later he’s not saying.

That’s certainly “change” from mainstream America, unless you believe allowing infants to die in the trash can remotely represents most people’s views. But there’s another view of the issue, and it’s eloquently presented by Paul Harvey in his book “The Rest of the Story” — a good read for lots of reasons if you have time.

When rape results in pregnancy, or when giving birth might cost the mother’s life, few women would fail to consider as an alternative: Abortion.


Your first expectant mother is Caterina. Caterina is unmarried, obviously in her teens, obviously poor. You ask her age, and she tells you, and at once you realize she has overstated her years by one or two or three.

Caterina is in the first trimester of her pregnancy.

You ask if she has been pregnant before.

Caterina shakes her head.

Studying her, you wonder.

You inquire of her general health; no problems, she says.

And the health of the father?

Caterina shrugs; her eyes fall.

She has lost contact with the father of her unborn child. All she knows is he was twenty-three, a lawyer or a notary or something like that. He lives nearby, she thinks; she is not sure. The affair was over quickly, little more than a one-night stand. No child was expected–nor now is wanted.

What Doctor, is your advice?

Later the same day, you are consulted by a second expectant mother.

Her name is Klara. Klara is twenty-eight, married three years, the wife of a government worker; she has the look of a woman accustomed to anguish.

Concerned for the ultimate health of her unborn, Klara explains that for each year of her marriage she has had a child–and each has died; the first within thirty-one months, the second within sixteen months, the third within several days.


So what, Doctor, is your advice?

In addition to all immediate considerations–physical, moral, religious–the dilemma of whether to terminate a pregnancy is a philosophical question:

Might this life, if left to live, affect the consciousness or even the destiny of mankind?

Yet if the profundity of this question is diminished by the balance which governs all life, there is evidence in the two true stories you have just heard: the unwed mother with unwanted child; the married mother with the graves of three infants behind her.

For if you, as the hypothetical physician, have opted in both cases for abortion–then you have respectively denied the world the multifaceted genius of Leonardo da Vinci–and spared humanity the terror of Adolf Hitler.


The average person wants to keep abortion legal, but ban partial-birth abortion, and certainly wouldn’t want living babies discarded as trash to die. Yet Obama is so extreme on abortion he voted against bills even Kennedy and Clinton supported.

That’s change nobody believes in.

Obama: Nuanced Teleprompter-itus on Abortion and Marriage

After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his “pay-grade,” Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he’s known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator’s viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.

Obama’s defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he’s just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama’s debate performance: “He likes to nuance things … He’s a constitutional attorney.” The constitutional lawyer “does nuance,” as Bill Maher said on “Larry King Live,” “and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people.”

But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not “because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution.”

I don’t care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn’t need an amendment, no?

Say, you know what else was “historically” not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words “slavery” and “slave” do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)

But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention “slavery”: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

On Obama’s “historical” argument, they shouldn’t have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution “historically” had not mentioned slavery.

Live by the nuance, die by the nuance. Obama without a teleprompter is just … well … umm … you know …. sometimes …. ummm …. generally … ummm …

Just answer the question, Mr. Obama, when does a baby deserve protection under the law? If you were president, how would you act? The American people deserve a real answer, not “it’s above my pay grade”. If that’s your answer, then you’re unqualified to be President.

Follow up question: If you can’t at least give an answer without the teleprompter, do you really believe you’re qualified to be President and sit across the table from Putin and handle the really difficult situations? Will a teleprompter be installed in the situation room for those 3AM situations?

Citizens deserve real answers, not “nuance” — when does a baby get legal rights? Your votes, senator Obama, contradict your statements and indicate the baby can be killed even after it’s delivered, all in an attempt to protect the pro-abortion position — a position so radical the senate voted 98-0 to pass a bill the same as you opposed.

So if the baby doesn’t get rights when it’s born, when do they come? At age 3? 4? 18? Can the mother terminate the baby anytime? (a sort of a retro-active abortion). If she decides she doesn’t want the baby a week later, can she terminate it? What exists after a week that didn’t exist at birth? Let’s hear a real answer, not “nuance”. When does a baby become a person?

You’ll have to make decisions much harder than that as President, are all those decisions “above your pay grade” also?

Ummm …

Obama: Pro-Lifers are Liars (even if they speak the truth)

Well, here we go again — a candidate contradicts what the records claim is true. If the candidate is correct, the records are forgeries and should be exposed as such. Or the candidate is deliberately misrepresenting his position for political gain. But either way, name-calling doesn’t accomplish much, Senator, as Amanda Carpenter notes:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is harshly accusing a pro-life group of “lying” about his record on abortion as a Illinois state senator, despite compelling evidence on the pro-lifers’ side.

Obama made the aggressive attack when Christian Broadcasting Network Senior National Correspondent David Brody asked Obama about documentation the National Right to Life Committee recently obtained of a 2003 committee vote on “born alive” legislation that would have required medical officials to give life-saving care to babies who survived abortion.

Obama has said again and again he voted against versions of that bill as an Illinois state senator because it did not include language to protect Roe v. Wade, as the federal version did which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. The committee report, however, shows a 10-0 vote in favor of an amendment to add the same language to protect abortion rights that was added to the federal bill. That same committee report subsequently shows Obama voting the kill the bill in a “final action” vote.

Douglas Johnson, NRLC’s legislative director wants Obama to apologize to his group or prove the documents they obtained are erroneous. Obama must “either declare the newly discovered documents to be forgeries and call for an investigation of the forgery, or admit that he had misrepresented his record on the live-born infants legislation (not just once, but for four years), and apologize to those he’s called liars,” Johnson told Townhall in an email.

Seems simple enough. Either Obama voted for infanticide or didn’t. If he didn’t, the records the group believes it has are forgeries (a-la CBS and Bush’s military records), or Obama doesn’t recall the vote exactly as it happened, or knows what happened, and is trying to appear much more moderate than his pro-abortion all-the-time record indicates.

But simply calling the group liars doesn’t help to clear up the situation. Are the documents forgeries or not Senator?

UPDATE: From the New York Sun, Obama flip-flops again:

“They have not been telling the truth,” Mr. Obama said. “And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”

He added that it was “ridiculous” to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. “It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive,” he said in the CBN interview.

But after rigorous defense of the untruth for years, throw another position under the bus — here comes the flip-flop:

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.

In addition to the outrage from abortion opponents, a five-minute YouTube video now making the rounds highlights Mr. Obama’s opposition to the legislation. The clip, which has been viewed more than 230,000 times, features a testimonial from Jill Stanek, a former nurse who spearheaded the push for the bill in Illinois after witnessing a live infant discarded and left to die at the hospital where she worked.

The Obama camp continued misstating the facts even after the proof came out. Only after it’s obvious Obama failed to speak anything resembling the truth do they finally retract their original staunch defense of the absurdity and admit what they’ve been saying all along is … well … ummm … totally untrue.

Now you know who the “folks” are that were lying. (View the original documents yourself and see how the votes were recorded.)

Obama — pro-abortion, all the time (even if a baby survives and is born alive). What’s strange is after a baby is born, the idea it’s the woman’s choice about her body doesn’t exist anymore. So why be against legislation which doesn’t change the pro-abortion position, but protects innocent children?

We won’t call him a liar, but it’s another quick-reversal flip-flop with a full twist, just after he called people liars who were actually telling the truth. If Obama knew his claims were false (and just hoped he wouldn’t get caught), he’s represents not the hope of the future, but the worst of old-school politics. If he didn’t know his claims were false, he doesn’t have a firm enough grasp of the truth to be President, as he can’t even remember how he voted on critical issues.

With so many flip-flops, corrections, reversals, and “clarifications” issued by Obama, can you count on anything he says?