Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

What don’t you (or didn’t Obama) understand about killing a baby born alive?

What don’t you (or didn’t Obama) understand about killing a baby born alive?

Newt made headlines for this comment at the debate last night:

I had forgotten about that controversy, involving Obama’s obfuscation of his failure to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois state senator.

Jill Stanek was responsible for bringing attention to the practice of killing babies who survived an abortion:

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.”

Two related bills introduced that day included slightly more controversial provisions about liability and medical procedure, but SB 1095 did not go nearly that far. This bill did not apply to those not born, nor did it grant born persons anything beyond recognition of their rights as persons.

I remember reading it in 2008 in my pre-blogging days, and frankly, I didn’t remember that Jill Stanek the blogger was the driving force behind the effort to save these children.

When Newt brought it up at the debate, Politico immediately jumped to Obama’s defense, confusing partial-birth abortion (which is bad enough) with post-abortion snuffing out of babies who survived.  Politico issued this update:

UPDATE: A couple of conservative readers suggest that I may be wrong in razzing Gingrich on this, as his point likely referred to this legislation specifically, rather than late-term abortion in general. Obama may or may not have been asked about that during the 2008 race

I thought I had once posted about this, but I can’t find it.

Tom Maguire has a good history of Obama’s attempt to obscure his opposition to the bill, and the connivance of the mainstream media in confusing two companion bills to give Obama political cover during the 2008 elections.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Obama’s history as THE most radical supporter of killing the un…or NEWLY born…is very clear.

Even at the Federal level, crazy Nanny Pelosi voted AGAINST a bill very similar to the Illinois bill Obama SUPPORTED (not simply voted for).

You know sometimes I wonder if leftists (like those at Politico) who constantly defend BO actually don’t know . . . well, anything. I mean this isn’t the first time that leftists have leaped to his defense only to find out that they are wrong, that Obama really is as bad as we say he is.

Is it possible that they have done such a thorough job of shutting out the truth that they can no longer even see it? It’s clear that no journalist (who has a right to call him or herself that) would ever dispute something without doing a bit of research (I like Bing, but any search works fine). It’s bizarre.

Remember when Bob Shieffer (a supposed journalist, interviewing Holder) didn’t even know about the NBPR voter intimidation case? Presumably, someone did some background prep for Shieffer, but that didn’t come up? It was actual news at that time.

They just don’t have any idea what is going on. It’s inexcusable, of course, and points to a frightening lack of curiosity and professionalism, but it seems entirely possible that they actually live in the fantastical world they’ve tried so hard to create.

    oops, that should be NBPP

    n.n in reply to Fuzzy. | February 23, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    They denigrate individual dignity. They devalue human life for convenience. They pursue the normalization of involuntary exploitation. They selectively reject the natural order and often exceed the constrained frame of reference it imposes and enforces.

    There is no evidence that they care about human life other than that they fear the unpredictable behavior of individuals with freewill and seek to restrain and sabotage individual development. They promise individuals and cooperatives fulfillment of their dreams of physical, material, and ego instant gratification, principally through redistributive and retributive change, but also through fraudulent and opportunistic exploitation, in exchange for their support to consolidate wealth and power.

    Obama is an opportunist. There is also reason to believe that he never recovered from the tragedies of his early life, including abuse of drugs and alcohol. His career and life have been subsidized and he will continue to pander to individuals without integrity for its perpetuation.

    Still, there is the question: does power corrupt or do the corrupt seek power? Does human dignity originate or is it expressed?

    Anyway, as far as Politico is concerned, they are a competing interest, and will do what is in their best interest. There is no reason to believe they are free from prejudice which will be observed as bias.

      Tamminator in reply to n.n. | February 23, 2012 at 6:26 pm

      Which is why the Left and Obama support groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, which also do not see life as sacred.

        Their philosophical principles would suggest that they do not trust other humans. This would seem to be confirmed by the recent revelation by their elite when they rejected voluntary contribution to the Treasury, while simultaneously advocating for progressive involuntary exploitation. They may not be anti-human, but they are fearful of competing interests, especially any capable of threatening their wealth, power, and stature.

        To be fair, there are different classes of liberal and progressive. Their distinguishing characteristic is the trust they place with individuals’ better nature and it is measured in degrees. The less trust they place with their fellow man, the more totalitarian their outlook.

        Then there are individuals who suffer from delusions of grandeur, who fancy themselves as alpha (without omega) or mortal gods; and their supporters who seek to fulfill their dreams of instant gratification through “divine” privilege.

        The challenge, for everyone, is to identify and establish the optimal and mutually consistent balance between individuals each with their own dignity. In this regard, we have all compromised for the sake of civilized society.

        May the best compromise win and the optimal balance struck.

I knew a nurse mid-wife who described this to me years ago, her reward for trying to fight for the lives of these babies was to be fired from her job. She died a while back but I know she is in heaven surrounded by many small angels.

    Human rights are important until they are not. The current standard for assigning dignity to a human life is arbitrary and often perverse. The reason, ostensibly, is because people don’t want anyone to “harsh their mellow,” which is objectively antithetical to evolutionary fitness. It’s clear that the second order in our world, enlightened (or conscious), is in competition with the first, natural. Another explanation would be that the natural order is preeminent, but that it is being artificially exploited for the advancement of special interests. Perhaps to serve members of the eugenics cult.

      To the left, the only time an individual’s human rights matter is if that individual is marketable enough to be exploited as a poster child for the collective (human rights being a collective “cause”). The same is true in (also leftist) groups like HSUS. Those who serve no purpose are just collateral damage.

        The policies we have do not serve to promote the general Welfare. They are divisive, unsustainable, and incompatible with the founding principles of this nation. The “original compromise” has clouded people’s perception of this nation’s purpose. Unfortunately, at the time, it really could not have been otherwise.

        The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution provide reasonable guidance for our development. We have ignored them to our detriment. We have to come to terms with human nature and promote its positive behaviors.

The national media jumping to Obama’s defense … it’s as easy as taking life from a baby.

This is what I love about Newt. He grabbed a perfect opportunity and went after Obama full throttle.

There were two things that shaped my opinion of Mr. Obama. One was the photo of him, Joe Biden, and Hillary standing at attention during the Pledge of Allegiance. Obama was the only one who did not have his hand on his heart. What kind of candidate acts like that during the Pledge of Allegiance to the country? The second, was Jill Stanek’s exposure of his votes on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois state senator. This is a cold, heartless man.
I am very glad that Newt reminded the country of what kind of man Obama is. And it helps that Politico screwed it up and made it more of a story.

I live in Illinois, and this issue was debated, just a little, when Obama ran for the Senate in 2004. Unfortunately the Republican party imploded here that year so no one ever really called Obama on it.

But yes, Obama clearly was in favor of ensuring that, if a child was born alive as part of an abortion procedure, that the abortion provider be allowed to dispatch the child.

Please recall that Mr. Obama has also said that he would not ‘saddle’ either of his children with a pregnancy.

Tazz is right: whatever else you might think of Obama, he is indeed a cold, heartless individual.

Charles Curran | February 23, 2012 at 2:12 pm

stevewhitemd. You may also remember after he was elected that he was decribed as ” Our Kenyan Born Senator” by NPR.

there was audio out there somewhere, of Obama coldly defending this, or at least unemotionally reading the cold language of the bill. I’ll look.

THANK YOU, Professor, for writing about this. Please continue to do so.

This — and, indeed, abortion as a whole — is a repugnant practice, one for which our age will (rightly) be judged barbaric.

This is not solely a fight for the religious — it’s something all ethical people from all backgrounds can and should weigh in against.

The Left continually preens itself for wanting to bring “science” to the public sphere. So let’s oblige them — with ultrasounds and evidence of life in utero.

    n.n in reply to Will. | February 23, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Ah, the executioner’s burden. That would be a reasonable expectation.

    This issue is only incidentally related to religion. It is principally about establishing when dignity should be assigned to human life. There is only one objective criteria to classify the emergence of human life: conception. Anything else is derived from limited, circumstantial evidence and therefore according to arbitrary standards.

    I like the standard set forth by the Judeo-Christian faiths. We will each be judged according to our individual conscience. This does not release us from responsibility. It, in fact, serves to empower and encourage each of us to think and act independently. It is this principle and the individual dignity it affirms that is the paradoxical source of good and evil in our world, which is exacerbated, of course, by resources with limited availability and accessibility.

9thDistrictNeighbor | February 23, 2012 at 2:39 pm

Be certain to click on the Jill Stanek link and scroll through that story to the link of the transcript of Barry’s remarks during consideration of Illinois SB 1663, wherein you will find this delightful tidbit: “…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.” He later says that “…this is about abortion and not live births.” The audio of that was even more creepy.

Of course, if you were to bring this up to any otherwise thoughtful democrat voter (I know, I know…oxymoron), they wouldn’t believe it. And that’s exactly what happened any time I would tell a Barry voter about it. ‘Oh I can’t believe that….’ It is astounding the blinders people will wear.

O.K. now Rush just went over the top, he is role playing being Santorum explaining his team player remark!!!!

I have an idea, maybe Rush could sit next to Rick if there is another debate and serve as his translator. That way we get what Rick meant to say from Rush right away:)

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Say_What. | February 23, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    I understand your complaint on this, but Rush did say he was explaining further what Santorum could not because of the short response times allowed in debates. Also, Rush does this for all the candidates where necessary. I read it more as Rush helping out a fellow conservative. Rush did acknowledge that Santorum did not have a good night, by his own fault. More encouragingly (to supporters, of course), he repeatedly lauded Newt’s debate performance on this babykill bill, immigration, etc.

      Oh no you don’t. Santorum had PLENTY of time to respond. In fact his answers on some of these things went on and on and on and on even after King told him to make it short.

      Hope Change in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 23, 2012 at 4:26 pm

      gotta agree with wodiej, Henry Hawkins.

      Santorum went on and on. Rush was carrying Santorum’s water, trying to do for Santorum what Santorum can’t do for himself.

      Henry, what Rush did – does not help Rick. It makes matters worse for Rick.

      I support Newt 100% but still, when I hear “helpful” things like this and know the harm they can do to a candidate it gets my political blood boiling.

Here …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkbuhXzbvI

he calls the new living baby a fetus, outside the womb.

“Fetus or child, whatever you want to call it”

Wasn’t a doctor recently convicted for this practice … birthing children THEN killing them? Obama is here basically fighting for that practice, as I see it.

    Wow…. a cold man indeed.
    The doctor you are referring to was charged with 8 murders in Philadelphia Jan. 2011

      9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to tazz. | February 23, 2012 at 4:34 pm

      Kermit Gosnell is the name. Michelle Malkin has done yeoman’s work on this topic. Here is one of her original stories. You can use the search on her website for updates as well.

NC Mountain Girl | February 23, 2012 at 3:19 pm

I lived in Chicago for many years and was aware of this. I also knew what a minor figure Obama had been in Illinois politics before State Senate President Emil Jones announced to local black talk radio host Cliff Kelley ‘I’m gonna make me a U.S. Senator’ and then placed Obama’s name on a 26 years backlog of Democrat bills during the 2003 legislation session. Indeed this bill was one of the few times that Obama actually showed any personal initiative during his tenure in the State Senate.

In 2008 it was so frustrating to attempt to explain Obama’s support of infanticide both to fellow members of my Catholic parish and my evangelical neighbors. If it hadn’t been reported in the news they tended to dismiss it as mere rumor mongering.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | February 23, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    yeah, considering “minor figure” Obama’s predilection to vote “present”, it is interesting that he chose to fight for the abortion doctor’s right to “finish the job”, if the fetus happened to escape the womb still alive, now a U.S. Citizen. He didn’t want the abortionist to be encumbered by giving his victim his own defense attorney/doctor.

    The idea that the fetus was pretty much just as human before leaving the womb, didn’t seem to phase Obama’s advocacy for killing him.

another example of how Gingrich will point out these things if he gets to run against Obama. The others will be standing there trying to play nice while Obama laughs.

    9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to wodiej. | February 23, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    Which is what McCain and the MSM did last time around…played nice on a host of issues/problems. What astounds me is the number of people who still don’t believe this man has us on the road to perdition.

We all should remember about the question of when conception begins being asked to Obama prior to his getting elected in ’08.

His response was….”it was above my pay grade.” How could anyone vote for this man after that response?

This is just one of the reasons I support Newt. He took a question about contraception and turned it around to go against Obama. Beautiful!

Ever actually hear the video of Illinois Senator Obama argue against the Born Alive bill?

http://bluecollarphilosophy.com/2009/08/obamas-tolerance-of-infanticide-is-why-you-should-oppose-obamacare/

Frightening.

I told people what this guy was…a communist. They didn’t believe me and I sounded off the charts even to myself. Well, it is worse than I predicted and these people still don’t get it. The problem is they have no interest in politics and want to believe obama has the country’s best interest at heart; mainly because they can’t perceive him or any American doing anything else. In other words they are giving him the benefit of the doubt.

What really troubles me about the left is that they ALL jump on the bandwagon of the meme of the day. They are like lemmings headed out to sea…off cliffs and the like. Or maybe soldiers following orders to the letter.
However, what is worse is the general public believes the msn (maybe the officers in this army) in their misreporting and non reporting because it is boring and uninteresting and has nothing to do with the daily lives. They can’t perceive the changes obama wants to make in this country. Hopefully, they will awaken before it is too late.

Blogs and the rest of the media are not reporters or jounalists. They are propaganddists. Their job is to insure obama is re-elected. They are part of the army that has infiltrated just about every part of organizations and infrastructure of this country. They are now coming out of the closet and are supporting obama in his race to bring down this country.

This answer — and that Newt Gingrich, historian, knows these facts — is why he has to be the nominee going up against Obama.

    Terri in reply to janitor. | February 23, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Your donation of $xxx.xx was received.

    Thank you for your donation to the campaign!

    It is important to elect a Bold Reagan Conservative to the White House! Please visit http://www.newt.org for more information.

    I am trying to do my part!! He needs as much help from us as he can get!!! Please give whatever you can if you can!!!

BannedbytheGuardian | February 23, 2012 at 10:32 pm

This should be twinned with his other great bit of legislative legacy.

That post office bill.

freedomlovingmom27 | February 24, 2012 at 8:49 am

The one moment that I clearly remember in the ’08 debates was when Obama stared straight at the camera and lied about his record. He said, with a straight face, that he would be “a monster” if he had voted to kill abortion survivors. Nobody called him on it. I wish the blogosphere had been more active then. Obama claims to care about the least of his brothers, as an excuse to increase the welfare state, but he certainly doesn’t exhibit any concern when it comes to abortion. He is the most pro-abortion president in history, even vowing to veto a budget if Planned Parenthood didn’t get its funding.

And this from the Senator who usually voted “present.” This was the one bill to catch his attention.

[…] What don’t you (or didn’t Obama) understand about killing a baby born alive? […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend