Thinkin’bout Stuff

Follow  up to: If it’s not infanticide, what is it?

Found this video, it’s about 10 minutes; I encourage you to watch it to the end:

As a reminder, following this brief description of the intent of the bill, these are Obama’s own words on the floor of the Illinois Senate during one of the debates on legislation to protect children who survive abortions:

The bill additionally provides that a live child born as a
result of an — of –of an abortion procedure shall be fully
recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection
under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good
medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical
records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the
child.

SENATOR OBAMA:
This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary
Committee, and so I won’t belabor the issue. I do want to just
make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is
about, as I understand it. Senator O’Maliey, the testimony during
the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was –is
that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where
the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is
still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns
that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not
being properly cared for during that brief period of time that
they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate
sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?

SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out — that during the testimony a number of
members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an
abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that
your — you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the
testimony. And 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 I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much
difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not
going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one/ whenever we
define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the
equal protection clause or the 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. For that
purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The
second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is
that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide
treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to
describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the
Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or
cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor
that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as
possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is
necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably
crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said
before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the
last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of
here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it
was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh
Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I
I won’t, as I said, belabor the point, I think it’s important
to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we
might have compromised and — and arrived at a bill that dealt
with the narrow concerns about how a — a previable fetus or child
was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re
going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I
think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we
often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting
Present.

I got dissed on the The international Medical Spouse Network and I can’t register to respond :-( 

Makes sense though, I’m not a medical spouse.  Some of the insight in the response to my post If it’s not infanticide, what is it? was pretty good.  Thought this tidbit was a bit harsh though:

As an aside, the article ends with:
“Obama was beyond wrong on this issue. Either he had no clue what the law said or he placed such a low value on the life of a baby that he was willing to sacrifice a living, breathing infant for the “greater good” of the right to an abortion.”
He had no clue what the law said? Really? I find that hard to believe. I imagine that someone with a “degree in computer science and a minor in communications focusing in the area of journalism” is in a much better position to notice the nuances of legislation/ legal writing than Harvard educated attorney.

Ouch!  :-)  I’m OK, I’m OK… I can take it… shake it off…

Never claimed to be an expert, but I stand by view.

And a big thank you to Rapunzel who responded:

Actually, I think someone with “only” a degree in computer science and a minor in communications can become as good as a Harvard educated attorney at reading legislation. I know a lot of people who can drop that “H” bomb in an interview (dh being one) - and, believe me, they aren’t supermen.

In fact, I think the beauty of our life is that we can become experts on something without a piece of paper proving that we jumped through some hoops. So, I would not discount this particular blogger because he hasn’t been through Harvard law school. After all, Barack Obama HAS been through Harvard Law and I find him to have a very poor understanding of the Constitution.

To be fair, I give very little insight into my background for a reason, but enough so that folks reading what I write can place what I write in some context.  You should not believe me, or anyone else, simply because we happen to have a blog.  I suppose I could lie and make up a whole bunch of impressive credentials to convince you I am right because I’m better than you… but the fact is, I’m not.

In fact, unlike the elites who look down at folks who were not fortunate enough to attend Harvard, I don’t believe I am better than anyone else nor do I believe anyone is better than me…  we all enter this world, live for a period of time, and die…  some leave a bigger footprint in this world, but in the end they will all be washed away by the ocean of time.

I welcome the analysis and views of others, including the folks at IMSN… just wish they would have the courtesy of allowing a response to the assessment that I am unworthy.

Given the opportunity I would ask a simple question:

If two babies, requiring the same measures to be employed to keep them alive, are side by side in a hospital…  one was “born” and the other was “aborted”, should the doctors and the hospital be compelled to treat these babies with the same level of care, or is one life of lesser value because she was intended to be aborted?

Not a lot of nuance there…  then again, maybe that’s why lawyers don’t make good presidents.  Leave the nuances to the Senate.

UPDATE 2:30pm: Some more thoughts about me from IMSN:

As to your comment on my comment -
Yes, someone without the legal cred can become as good as a Harvard educated attorney or better- absolutely. I just don’t think that applies in this case of this blogger. Honestly, I don’t think they did their homework. Their views were based on someone else’s view, which was in part based on something else.

It appears to me, at least, that this person did not take the time to really read the original statute. Any good lawyer [or one who wants to play one] knows to always go to the source. Problem being, that takes time. Not everyone wants to take the time, especially when it is a hot button issue and it is much easier to jump on an inflamed bandwagon [like the original TV ad].

Interesting.  If this person had done his/her homework and actually read my full post, they would realize I actually did take the time to read the entire statute, was one of the few, if not the only one, to actually print the actual words instead of just cherry-picking and offering an opinion, and although not a lawyer, good or bad, I went directly to the source and even provided a link that will get you to the original transcript of the debate on the statute.

And I can assure you, my views are not based on anyone else’s views… how rude

If you are going to offer opinions about me, at least do it here.

Good question.

Saw this over at Bottom Line Up Front and it really pissed me off (my thesaurus has failed me… I can not find an adequate substitute to convey my irritation) , as it does every time I hear about Obama’s vote:

So I found the segment of Hannity & Colmes where this young lady shared her amazing story, and I got even more pissed off:

Even Colmes explanation of what Obama said, presumably in his defense, pissed me off.  (pattern forming here folks)

I decided to find out what Obama really said, on the record, during the debate over one of the versions of these bills.  Here, in his own words, in context, without editing, is Barack Obama’s position on the subject of care for babies who survive abortions.

Please keep in mind as you read through this document, when Obama refers to a “previable child”, he is referring to a baby who has survived an abortion and is now living outside the womb without attachment to the mother via umbilical cord.  We are talking about a separate, living, breathing entity who just happens to have survived an abortion.  What Obama wants you to believe is that the intent of the abortion persists beyond the womb and must be allowed to conclude as intended.  The full document is 103 pages.  Here you will find pages 85-88 covering Obama’s comments.  Some bold emphasis added, but the words are as spoken that day in the Illinois Senate:

STATE OF ILLINOIS
92ND GENERAL ASSEMBLY
REGULAR SESSION
SENATE TRANSCRIPT
20th Legislative Day March 30, 2001
child. The bill additionally provides that a live child born as a
result of an — of –of an abortion procedure shall be fully
recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection
under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good
medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical
records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the
child. I’d be pleased to answer any questions there may be.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Any discussion? Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Thank you. Madam President, will the sponsor yield for
questions?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
He indicates he will.
SENATOR OBAMA:
This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary
Committee, and so I won’t belabor the issue. I do want to just
make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is
about, as I understand it. Senator O’Maliey, the testimony during
the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was –is
that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where
the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is
still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns
that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not
being properly cared for during that brief period of time that
they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate
sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL5
Senator O’Malley.
SENATOR O’MALLEY:
Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the — the
way children are treated following their birth under these
circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my
opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that
appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a — a citizen of
the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it
deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out — that during the testimony a number of
members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an
abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that
your — you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the
testimony. And 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 I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much
difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not
going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one/ whenever we
define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the
equal protection clause or the 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. For that
purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The
second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is
that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide
treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to
describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the
Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or
cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor
that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as
possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is
necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably
crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said
before, this probably won’t make any difference. I recall the
last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of
here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it
was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh
Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I
I won’t, as I said, belabor the point, I think it’s important
to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we
might have compromised and — and arrived at a bill that dealt
with the narrow concerns about how a — a previable fetus or child
was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re
going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I
think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we
often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting
Present.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Further discussion? If not. Senator O’Malley, to close.
SENATOR O’MALLEY:
Thank you, Madam President and Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Senate. The one thing the previous speaker did say is that this
is a passionate issue. And — however, I don’t think it’s
challengeable on constitutional grounds in the manner that was
described. This is essentially very simple. The Constitution
does not say that a child born must be viable in order to live and
be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be
born. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. citizen, and we
need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinois and,
frankly, in the other forty-nine states and in the halls of
Washington, D.C., to make sure that we secure and protect those
rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, resecure
and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in
America, so be it, and it is constitutional. I would appreciate
your support.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
The question is, shall Senate Bill 1093 pass. Those in favor
will vote Aye. Opposed, vote Nay. The voting is open. Have all
voted who wish? Have all voted who wish? Have all voted who
wish? Take the record. Madam Secretary- On this question, there
are 34 voting Aye, 6 voting Nay, 12 voting Present. And Senate
Bill 1093, having received the required constitutional majority,
is declared passed. Senate Bill 1094. Senator O’Malley. Read the
bill. Madam Secretary.
ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:
Senate Bill 1094,
(Secretary reads title of bill)
3rd Reading of the bill.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O’Malley.
SENATOR O’MALLEY:
Thank you. Madam President. Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Senate, Senate Bill 1094 creates the Induced Birth Infant
Liability Act. In the form of a cause of action, if a child is
bom alive after induced labor abortion or any other abortion and
the doctor or health care provider harms or neglects the child or
fails to provide medical care to the child after the child’s
birth, it allows the public guardian of the county in which the
child was born, as well as the parent, to maintain an action on

Please note that, in Illinois, voting “present” and voting “no” are equivalent in that passage of bills is dependent on the number of yes votes received.

Colmes argument was that Obama has stated he voted four times against bills requiring care for children that have survived abortions because “Illinois already has a law that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is a ‘reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb or without artificial support’”.

Well… that’s interesting because he never mentions that position ONCE during the debate.  In fact, his position during the debate was in direct opposition to even the “existing Illinois law” he refers to in his defense.

But let’s go with that; let’s take him at his word.  The argument is that existing Illinois law provides for medical care after a botched abortion (aka birth) if there is a reasonable chance of survival.  Is that the standard that should be applied across the board under the concept of equal protection?   Is that the same standard we plan to apply to babies who are born without failed abortions?  Once outside the womb, do abortion babies have less rights then non-abortion babies because of the intent of the mother?  Can we at least agree that life begins at birth?  Can we agree birth occurs when the women no longer can point to the baby as a health risk because it is no longer attached to her in any physical way?

If not… why not put off the decision to abort until after the baby is born… maybe a week or so after the birth on a trial basis.  Things don’t work out, return the post-birth fetus to the hospital to complete the abortion.  How many seconds, how many minutes, how many hours, how many days after birth before we have rights in this country?

Obama was beyond wrong on this issue.  Either he had no clue what the law said or he placed such a low value on the life of a baby that he was willing to sacrifice a living, breathing infant for the “greater good” of the right to an abortion.

Hat tip to Jill Janek for posting the link to the debate.

David Paul Kuhn on POLITICO:

Obama peaked at a 5-point convention bounce in polling published last Tuesday. He was ahead 49 percent to 43 percent in the Gallup poll conducted before the Republican convention. He then soared to 50 percent for the first time of the election, by Gallup’s measure, while McCain fell to 42 percent.

Obama was ahead 49-43, then he “soared” to 50 percent… a 1% change is soaring? That’s not even outside the margin of error.

McCain, on the other hand “fell” 1%.

On the other hand:

McCain’s 5-point to 6-point bounce so far, like Obama’s, remains at par with historical expectations.

Obama “soared” while McCain was on par with expectations

Can’t wait to see how folks write about this: McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among Likely Voters 

Grabbed this off of POLITICO too — easier than transcribing it myself

During separate televised interviews last month, Pastor Rick Warren asked the two presidential candidates when a baby gets human rights. Obama replied that the question is “above my pay grade,” while John McCain won love from the right by saying quickly, “At the moment of conception.”

Now, Obama tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview taped for “This Week”: “What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into … It’s a pretty tough question. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don’t presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.”

In the ABC interview, Obama goes on to give the answer he wishes he’d given: “What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it’s one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don’t think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.

So let’s see if I understand this new “answer”… basically, it’s still above his pay grade, just with more words.

What if these families wrestling with these moral issues can’t make a decision and want to essentially try this whole baby thing out for a while.  A day or two after the birth, they decide the right choice is to abort, is it really fair to punish them because they needed more time and more information to make a decision that even Barack Obama acknowledges is a tough decision? 

I mean, heck, if they aborted too early they would not be able to change their mind, but if they wait until after the birth, after they really know if they want a baby, well at least the baby got a better chance at life. 

Seems much more fair, even to the baby, to give her a fair shot before deciding to abort.  Maybe a brief warranty period would help.  Abortion should be allowed for, shall we say, 5 days after a baby is born.  Then if it doesn’t work out, no harm, no foul, just leave her in a soundproof room somewhere until the abortion process has run it’s natural course.

Or…  hey I have a neat idea.  If we don’t know if it is morally right to kill babies in the womb, maybe we, as Americans who value life and fairness and protection of those who can not protect themselves, maybe we should protect those babies and not allow them to be killed… after all, isn’t that decision above everyone’s pay grade?

I missed the Obama/McCain Warren pseudo-debate and, from what I’m hearing, it confirmed much of what I have been saying for weeks.  However, since I did not see the pseudo-debate (although I caught some of it on the net),  wouldn’t be right to comment on it… directly.

Here is one take that I found enlightening:

Michael Graham in The Boston Herald -

“Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” - Sen. Barack Obama, on “When does a baby get human rights?”

In 1948, they had Harry Truman and “The buck stops here!”

In 2008, they’ve got Barack Obama and it’s “above my pay grade.”

<snip>

My grandfather helped push Patton’s tanks across Europe, and one reason for my grandfather’s unshakable party loyalty was his belief that Harry Truman saved his life by dropping the A-bombs on Japan.

If Truman hadn’t made the call - if he’d demurred that such a profound life-and-death decision was “above my pay grade” - my grandfather believed that he and untold thousands of Americans would have died invading the Japanese mainland.

<snip>

Watching Obama with the Rev. Rick Warren this past weekend, answering questions - or, more accurately, not answering - about his most basic beliefs was simply embarrassing.

Obama supports partial-birth abortion and voted against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” When he got the invitation to an evangelical forum hosted by a pro-life pastor, he had to know that issues regarding life and the law were going to come up.

 And his prepared answer to the most fundamental question about public policy and abortion (”is the fetus a human being?”) is that it’s “above my pay grade?”

 <snip>

But on the very top of the list of statements about our nation’s laws that should never be spoken by a guy whose job it is to sit next to the Big, Red Button is “That’s above my pay grade.”

With all due respect, Sen. Obama, being president is above your pay grade. And the voters are starting to figure that out.

 <snip>

Leaders don’t pass tough questions to the next “pay grade.” They don’t need five minutes to answer yes-or-no questions about the surge or Russia’s invasion of a democratic neighbor.

Politicians flip-flop on taxes and FISA and the Second Amendment to meet the political needs of the moment. They try to explain away the votes they’ve already cast, like Obama’s extreme pro-abortion voting record. Or they courageously cast 130 non-votes of “present” in the Illinois legislature and pass the buck that way.

That’s not leadership, that’s politics. And Barack Obama is 100 percent pure politician.

Bottom line (again): Senator Obama appears lost without a script, even when he knows a question is coming, and it grows more obvious by the day that he is not ready to lead, not just the United States, but at all.

Check out this article about twins from the Daily Mail, then come on back … I’ll wait.

Amazing!

Doctors were able to save a twin they assumed would die in the womb by cutting the placenta in half to isolate the healthier twin so that the death of the weaker twin would not result in the loss of both babies.  Seems to me they may have stumbled upon a new procedure for allowing twins that are seemingly not co-equals in the womb a chance to survive.

Mrs Jones said: “They thought it may be because the placenta had been divided. Inadvertently, it had evened out the distribution of nutrition between them, allowing Gabriel to survive.’

When Mrs Jones reached 31 weeks doctors carried out a caesarian to deliver the twins. Ieuan weighed 3lb 8oz and Gabriel 1lb 15oz. Both were kept in hospital, but since going home they have thrived. At seven months, Ieuan weighs 15lb and Gabriel 12lb 6oz.

Mrs Jones said: “The boys are so healthy, they have huge appetites too. Ieuan is the noisy one, while Gabriel is always laughing, it’s like he’s just so happy to be here.

“There is such a strong bond between them.

“They are always holding hands and if one cries, the other reaches out to comfort him.”

And to think, the doctors were so sure the weaker twin was going to die, their first course of treatment was to abort this baby by cutting the umbilical cord, but the cord was too strong.  The mother did not want to lose her baby, but the doctors convinced her that the one twin must die to save the other.

What I don’t get is why, with all the sharp toys these doctors had at their disposal to help them play god, none of them was sharp enough to cut through the umbilical cord…  something to think about.

Spot on commentary at Wizbang on the brouhaha over the revelation that a Thompson advisor was convicted of selling pot 28 years ago… wonder if he inhaled?

Miss Beth over at Wake Up America slams abortion supporters, but please be advised before you click on over to the link… graphic photos of partial birth abortions that will very likely sicken you if you are human… if not, perhaps there is room for you on the Dem ticket next November… here’s the link, but again, graphic image warning.  But it’s all just hypothetical “intellectual” discussion that candidates use for political gain without ever facing the horrible reality of what is truly infanticide…  no, even that is too sanitized… this is killing babies out of convenience, period.  Let’s see a debate moderator have the guts to throw one of these images up on a large screen behind the candidates and ask them, one by one, if they support partial birth abortion… how’s that for a gotcha moment Hillary?

Bottom Line Up Front takes a look at the major victory in the war on terrorism happening in Iraq; something that is apparently not worthy of major headlines. I can’t help thinking, again, what the outcome of WWII would have been had today’s media been reporting back then and had the political climate been such that acquiring and holding power within the US government would have been more important than winning the war.  How many times would we have surrendered and pulled back to within our borders? How many hearings would we have been held to get to the bottom of all this killing going on during the war? How many soldiers would have been accused of war crimes for split second decisions made on the field of battle?  Be sure to read the reader comments too…  such as this one from Johnny:

Wow, that article by Andrew Bolt is very moving. If a tenth of it is true, I feel totally vindicated for having fought there in 2003 to take down Saddam’s Ba’athist regime. May God bless the efforts to secure Iraq!

That’s all for now… have a gret one!