Democrats & Liberals Archives

Obama: A Democratic Star

According to the polls and the pundits, a huge political wave is sinking congressional Republicans and lifting their Democratic opponents to new heights. The House seems to be in Democratic sight, the Senate not quite yet. For those Republicans that are worried that Democrats don’t stand for anything, I present a few words about Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic star, who stands for solving problems in a way that unites, not divides, the country.

Yesterday, on Meet the Press, Senator Barack Obama presented himself so well that he received compliments from David Broder. Obama said a lot and I thought all of it was good. I came away with the impression that Barack Obama is a junior Bill Clinton. Like Clinton, Obama has charisma, speaks eloquently and looks for ways of getting people together.

At one point, Obama claimed that the polarization categories - big vs. small government, permissive vs. traditional sex, market vs. non-market solutions, military vs. non-military solutions - we have been using since the '60s do not work. With reference to big vs. small government, he said:

My instinct is that the current generation is more interested in smart government. Let’s have enough government to get the job done. If, if we’re looking at problems, if the market solution works, let’s go with the market solution. If a solution requires government intervention, let’s do that. But let’s look at what are the practical outcomes. And I think that kind of politics is what the country’s hungry for right now.

In other words, let's stop arguing for argument sake. Republicans and Democrats don't need to ALWAYS disagree. Let's be realistic and try to solve problems. There is plenty of common ground. Let's try to work together.

During the interview, Obama admited he is thinking of running for president in 2008, and if he ran he would want to be a great president. So Tim Russert asked for his views about what is a great presidency. To which Obama replied:

But I think, when I think about great presidents, I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways so that, that, at the end of their tenure, we have looked and said to ours—that’s who we are. And, and our, our—and for me at least, that means that we have a more expansive view of our democracy, that we’ve included more people into the bounty of this country. And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues, partly because at the end of his presidency, people, I think, said, “You know what? We can regain our greatness. Individual responsibility and personal responsibility are important.” And they transformed the culture and not simply promoted one or two particular issues.

Soaring rhetoric! I love it. I love especiallly the part where he says "that means that we have a more expansive view of our democracy, that we've included more people into the bounty of this country."

Barack Obama is a Democratic star. His star shines so bright that even conservative David Brooks lauds him in print. Obama wants to unite us all, Republicans and Democrats, in the realistic solution of problems. He wants to help all of us, from the richest to the poorest. He wants to make us think again about the common good.

I'm not ready to tout Obama for president. But I am ready to tout Obama as a Democratic star with ideas for uniting Americans.

Posted by Paul Siegel at October 23, 2006 5:26 PM
Comments
Comment #189741

Paul

I also can laud him. I worry a little re his experience - the Senate is not a good place to train presidents - but I like him.

You guys will never actually nominate him, however. He is too moderate for the red meat liberals.

Posted by: Jack at October 23, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #189742

Paul,

I have to admit, I’m afraid this guy could actually pull of a Presidential win. I hope Hillary’s smear machine hits him with full force in the ‘08 primary season.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 23, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #189745

Paul,
I saw him too. Very impressive. Still young. Give him some time. He would make a good VP candidate this time around.

Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #189746

Uh oh, I spoke too fast. The dirt on Obama is way too easy to dig up. Live birth abortions? Are you kidding? Planned parenthood and all the liberals wouldn’t even touch that one with a ten foot stick. Obama is a sitting duck.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 23, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #189748
As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother’s right to “choose” stopped at her baby’s delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women’s rights or abortionists’ rights. Obama’s clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 23, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #189749

I am not afraid of a black man becoming president, if he is of the same caliber as barak Obama. I find his ideas refreshing and his intellegence is nice to see after 6 years of the village idiot and his merry band of fools. I, for one am tired of the politics of exclusion. I still believe that this is the greatest nation the earth has ever seen, but we have lost our way and some of the things that make us great. I believe that he would make an outstanding president. One that could even convert moderate republicans, the way Reagan converted moderate democrats.

Posted by: jimmy at October 23, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #189752

Personally, I think Harold Ford is a far more impressive and (this is important) nationally electable African American Democrat than Obama.

Obama is capable of giving nice speeches and has a feel-good Oprah-style story, but he’s a bit too much like Jonathon Edwards in my opinion. Give him ten or fifteen years to bone up his shallow resume.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 23, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #189753

Duane-o,

I searched and found your source. Very disturbing. I’m glad other well-known liberals supported the legislation banning … well … infanticide. That IS the correct word. Damn it.

Posted by: Trent at October 23, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #189754

You con’s are amazing. Jack, now as ever you seem to have the standard paranoid (and wildly incorrect) view that actual liberals run the Democratic party. The whole problem with the party is that it’s too afraid to swing left—they keep putting out ambivalent and conflicted centrists with no clear message (see: John Kerry). Part of this is that they are almost as beholden to corporate interests as the R’s. Obama, while interesting and charismatic, hasn’t done much in his short time in congress. I know it’s been a short time, but everyone had such high hopes…Where has he been to speak out against the wild excesses of this administration?

And Duane-O, you make Jack look like an objective intellectual. That partial-birth crap is drivel taken from a propagandist Christian rag. It would be like if I posted something from the Communist Workers Weekly on the Con blog site. You have no credibility with this crap and these people have been shown repeatedly to lie and cheat to advance their specious agenda.

Obama, like many Democrats, doesn’t want to start regulating Roe. But in any case, I think the Right fears to their cores a Hillary/Obama ticket.

Posted by: DavidL at October 23, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #189755

Come on guys: “Why Jesus Would Not Vote for Obama”? Please…let’s list a thousand reasons he wouldn’t vote for W. Start with “rich man into heaven” and end with “turn the other cheek.” This is pathetically partisan and, worst of all, bringing faith into politics in the most manipulative and ill-informed way.

Posted by: davidL at October 23, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #189757

DavidL, a Hillary/Obama ticket would be electoral suicide. If Hillary gets the nomination, she pretty much has to pick a moderate Southern white man for her VP slot unless she wants to make Dukakis’s numbers look like a landslide.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 23, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #189758

He speaks well, he is good to his family, he’s good looking…..but………..He’s still a Democrat. Unfortunatley that entails acceptance of killing babies, allowing the welfare roles to grow, fighting for high paying jobs for union workers while taxing the companies to death to pay for all the social programs that keep people dependent. No, I can’t vote for that. He’d have to change his position significantly, but then I couldn’t trust that he wouldn’t pull a flip flop.

Posted by: Ilsa at October 23, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #189765

Paul:

Nice to see a positive posting.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 23, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #189770

I appreciate the kind remarks about one of the greatest presidents ever to sit in the oval office, that being Ronald Reagan. Obama is a real comer for the D party at this time but he will need much more seasoning before he’s ready for the big chair. I am pleased to hear a national Democrat speaking about small government. That’s encouraging. Sure hope it catches on with the rest of the party.

Posted by: Jim at October 23, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #189771

The following is an exerpt from a BERKLEY U. newspaper describing a debate between Senator Obama and his ill-fated opponent, Alan Keyes during the 2004 election season. How’s this for a right wing propaganda site:

Keyes opposes abortion in all cases and Obama supports a woman’s right to choose. Keyes often compares abortion to the Holocaust and supports the Born Alive Infant Protection Act which requires doctors to save fetuses born alive during abortions. Obama says that this act is unnecessary.
Posted by: Duane-o at October 23, 2006 7:27 PM
Comment #189779

Transcript from Obama Keyes debate:

MODERATOR: Ambassador Keyes, we have to move on, and we have very little time in which to do it, but you have accused your opponent of infanticide. He says you don’t understand what that vote was about. You have to be very brief on this, though, but explain what it is you mean when you say he has voted for infanticide.

KEYES: Well, I think it’s very clear. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act that was aimed at making sure that children born alive after an abortion procedure would not be set aside to die like garbage—when babies at exactly the same stage of development are being accessed and then saved right there down the hall in the same hospitals where they are boasting about their ability to save preemies. I think that we have to take seriously the testimony of people like Jill Stanek and others, and not pretend that this problem does not exist.

There was a bipartisan vote in support of the need to stop this in the Illinois senate, so a lot of people heard and were moved by the cogent testimony, instead of extending the mentality of so-called “abortion rights” to the business of taking fully-born babies …

Now, everybody should understand this. This isn’t a child in the womb.

A fully-born, human infant for whom a birth certificate will be issued and a death certificate will be issued—and in between those two issuances, the child is not being treating with the same respect that you or I would demand for our right to life.

And I think that’s a travesty. Senator [Obama] ignored that travesty, not once, not twice, but three times on the plea now, I suppose, that this problem does not exist. I guess he’s calling the nurses involved liars.

MODERATOR: Senator Obama.

OBAMA: Well, you know, this is apparently the entire basis on which Ambassador Keyes decided to contradict himself with respect to his views about federalism and not carpet-bagging and not running in other states. According to Ambassador Keyes, this was the reason, this bill.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 23, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #189781

Hmmm…ugh.

Duane-o: I agree that this is reprehensible. I may be liberal in some areas, but I’m not so blinded by idealism that I can’t smell a rat. Some people have made a cult out of preserving abortion, and I can’t, for the life of me, understand why ANYONE would be able to condone the killing of a baby when it is capable of living on its own. This is one area I fear if Democrats take power: the lack of moderation when it comes to abortion. While I am not necessarily in favor of completely getting rid of the process, I am tired of this attitude that having an abortion is just like getting an ingrown toenail removed. It isn’t and anyone who makes it out as such is a liar.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at October 23, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #189783

Grr…not “process”…I meant “procedure”.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at October 23, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #189786

Jacob,

There have been many instances when the Democrats love affair with infanticide was the ONLY reason I voted Repug. This election cycle, I share that “throw the bums out” feeling with much of the country, but I cannot put my endorsement on the murder of children, so I have no choice but to look for the “R”s on my ballot once again.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 23, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #189788

Jacob, I agree with you. In addition, I think the Democrats were wrong to oppose the partial-birth abortion ban in 2003.

Posted by: Trent at October 23, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #189789

Duane-o, Jacob,
I concur. I have no great fondness for most of the republican party, but I cannot bring myself to support by extension abortion. I find that in general dems do not understand the importance of abortion to many voters. If dems would tone down abortion they would win easily. Parental notification, partial-birth etc. But no, they are to beholden to NARAL and Planned Parenthood. If dems would stop listening so much to them reps would be DOOMED. Even most Christians support abortion to save the mothers life and many support in cases of rape or incest.

Not enough stuff on Obama to decide yet, I think. Presidents do more than make nice speeches. So far hes not had to make many big decisions and thats a big problem. Also the Senate is completely different from the presidency. He needs some administrative experience. Governor or VP. But again, the live birth thing is a big nono. He runs with that on his record hes going down hard. Reps will shout that to no end. A Hillary/Obama run would be annihilated. Christian conservatives and rep moderates would OWN them.

Posted by: Silima at October 23, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #189793

Hell, for me Obama’s lack of “Experience” is a big turn on. Hell if the drunken village idiot can do a bang up job at being president then just about anyone can do it. Oh, sorry I fogot the recovering coke adict part.
I really think all of you out their thinking that to be president you need certain things on your resume’. I think that you are looking for any excuse to not vote for a “D” because you have been conditioned to believe they are then next thing to the devil.

Posted by: timesend at October 23, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #189795

timesend,

What part of “supports live birth abortion” don’t you understand?

Posted by: Duane-o at October 23, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #189799

Excuse me… Duane-o? I’m afraid you forgot part of Obama’s response in his debate with Keyes… Isn’t it fun that we can all twist other people’s words and give everyone the impression that Senator Obama hates babies. Get it right. You have to look closely at controversial bills, often times there are attachments. There is usually a reason why senators vote down bills such as this, you just have to LOOK. Take a minute, fact-check, educate yourself. Please.

MODERATOR: Senator Obama.

OBAMA: Well, you know, this is apparently the entire basis on which Ambassador Keyes decided to contradict himself with respect to his views about federalism and not carpet-bagging and not running in other states. According to Ambassador Keyes, this was the reason, this bill. And unfortunately, it’s premised on a falsehood. You know, if Ambassador Keyes had called me up, he could have saved himself a trip because existing Illinois law mandates that any infant that has a chance for survival is provided life-saving treatment. Not only that, you’ve got to have a second doctor there to certify that in fact that is the case. That continues to be the case, that is current law today, as it should be.

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade, which is why 21 other senators, Democrat and Republican, why the Illinois Medical Society objected to the bill. At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

Posted by: Erin at October 23, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #189800

I think Obama would be a better canidate than Hilary but lets face it, this country is never going to elect a female president or a black president its a sad fact of life. I dont care how far people “think” we have come in this country we’re still not there. I just hope the Democrats can put someone on the ticket that can get elected in 08. The Republicans are hoping the Democrats do something dumb like nominate Hilary so they can tear her apart. She will never be elected president and neither will Obama so the dems need to be looking for the next best thing and quick.

Posted by: lefty at October 23, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #189806

It is exactly that kind of thinking that would make it hard for a woman or any minority to win the presidency.
I don’t know if the American people are ready, but I would really like to think so. I think we need change and I think this country definitely agrees with that. The democrats need someone strong to run.
I honestly can’t think of anyone stronger than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama… Who do you think would the most successful in ‘08?
Who would you support?

Posted by: Erin at October 23, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #189815

Obama’s keynote speech at the democratic convention in 2004 is the reason I started following politics. Before then, other than vague feelings that the president should probably hire a speech therapist, no interest in politics whatsoever.

I never saw the speech live. Just heard the radio jocks talking about it the following morning. Well, I just had to see for myself what was so great about this guy that the radio jocks stopped talking about Britney Spears’ antics for one whole segment. So, I downloaded it from CSPAN, watched it and have been a political junkie since.

Ahh…the good old days. Ignorance was truly bliss.

Posted by: Nikita at October 23, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #189818

Speaking as a republican, If I had to choose between Hillary or Obama I would choose Obama, but…What has he accomplished that warrants presidential considerations? He’s been in the senate for two years…You need more than being likable and a polished speaker…maybe in 2012.

Posted by: Sam at October 23, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #189821

Sooner or later the moral majority is going to realize that the republicans are using them. They are going to continue to give lip service to the social issues that concern the moral majority while persuing their true agenda. That agenda includes freeing business of government intervention, freeing the rich man from his tax burden and destroying social security and medicare. They are willing to borrow and spend the nation into bankrupcy to achieve their goals.

I wonder how many of the moral majority are dependent on S.S. and or medicare. If the republican party is the party of morals and fiscal responsibility then I am the King of the World and I just haven’t realized it yet.

Wouldn’t it be great if any politician involved in a controversy such as the Folly scandal had to take a polygraph test on live tv. I wonder how Speaker Hassert would do.

Posted by: jlw at October 23, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #189829

Who cares if people support partial birth abortions or killing children. We have too many people in the world anyways. I am waiting for a candidate who supports the killing of more babies.

Save the Children!

NO!

Save those of us who are already here!

Posted by: keep pop in check at October 24, 2006 1:18 AM
Comment #189839

Trent, please don’t consider Worldnet Daily a reliable source for anything. Worldnet is a website that is constantly selling the Far-Right Evangelical Christian view. For instance, they viciously demonized Michael Shiavo and his supporters when the Terri Shiavo story was front page news.

I went and read some of the other articles that Stanek woman wrote for Worldnet, and discovered that she is one of those raving far-right Republicans who hates and smears all Democrats as well as Planned Parenthood, and stem cell research, in addition to being against any and all abortions, not just the very rare partial-birth kind. Mouth-frothing Pro-lifers like Stanek focused on late term abortions because they view that legislation as the first step toward outlawing ALL abortions in this country. Nevermind the fact that abortions performed at 21 weeks and beyond are rare, take two days in a hospital to be performed, and are often done due to the health of the mother, or for other horrific reasons such as the fetus suffering from hydrocephalus which causes the skull of the badly brain-damaged fetus to be so enormous and full of fluid, it is completely unable to pass through a womans cervix.
The truth is, late-term abortions made up only 1.4% of all abortions performed in the US in 2002 (the year before Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban), but all of these pro-lifers want us to believe they’ve been totally common. They aren’t, and they never were.

Finally, Alan Keyes as we all know is also a raving far right crazy who is always saying all kinds of nutty stuff. For instance, he once claimed that Obama can’t and shouldn’t call himself an African-American was because his African ancestors weren’t brought to the US as slaves.

As for this topic, I think Obama is a very smart and articulate and charismatic guy — and I’d vote for him before I’d ever vote for Hillary. But I’d still rather vote for Feingold in 2008. Now there is a man who is just as smart and articulate and charismatic, but one who can also proudly run on his record.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 24, 2006 2:35 AM
Comment #189842

THANK YOU ERIN! I knew that wasn’t the full text, and Obama’s response was cut for agenda purposes. I was going to look it up myself until I scrolled down and saw you had taken care of it.

Posted by: Kc at October 24, 2006 4:02 AM
Comment #189853

Adrienne, you’re right. Abortion has become a powerful issue for me and I reacted without doing even minimum research.

Posted by: Trent at October 24, 2006 7:35 AM
Comment #189857

Adrienne:

Here’s what I don’t understand about PBA. You said the procedure is rare (1.4% of all abortions) and that it is “often done due to the health of the mother…”. In my opinion, it should ONLY be done if there is danger to the health of the mother, as opposed to trying to discern the kind of life the baby would have. In trying to discern that, some parents might decide that a Down Syndrome baby won’t have a good quality of life, or that a child with spina bifida won’t, or that a child born without a hand won’t etc. That’s a dangerous road to go down, in my opinion.

If, in discussing this issue with you, I agree that PBA should be done when the mother’s life is at risk, or when severe health problems could occur for the mother, would you agree with that?

I’m trying to understand why some are so insistent that PBA be allowable under circumstances outside the health of the mother.

Regarding Obama…. he seems like a good guy. But rhetoric only takes you so far. It will be interesting to see how he has progressed and how he continues to progress. I don’t see him running in 08, as I think he’s floating a trial balloon. But its possible. If he can truly bridge the divide between Dems and Reps, I’d like that.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 24, 2006 8:18 AM
Comment #189872

Erin,

I would support Hilary Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008. I am a huge Obama backer and voted for him to be my state senator as well as U.S. Senator, but I don’t think he has the experience to get elected yet. Whereas Hillary Clinton has all the experience necessary, having been such an integral part of her husbands presidency. Can she win Arkansas, Iowa, Wisconsin? If so I think she’s in. I don’t think she can win any state in the south, because those people are not ready for a woman or a black democrat to be president. If you listen to their rhetoric about the democrats taking the house of representatives, it’s always about Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel and John Conyers being Speaker of the House, Chairman of the House, Ways, and Means Commitee and the Judical Committee respectively.

Posted by: Harold at October 24, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #189888

I’m sorry, but as an Illilnois resident, Obama hasn’t done anything. How can this guy be a rising star when his name is only on 1 piece of legislation?

I have no isse with the color of his skin. I do have an issue with people calling him a rising star when he has no Senate experience.

People are projecting onto him what they want him to be.

I saw he should stay in the Senate for at least 2 terms, then he can run for President. This way he’ll be seasoned.

He has no foriegn policy experience. We are at war right now, and with the Nuke issues with Iran and N. Korea, those issues will stil be a concern years from now. Maybe an Obama / Powell Presidential ticket would be the way to go. Powell as VP could direct foriegn and Military decisions, while Obama addresses domestic decisions. Or maybe a Powell / Obama ticket might be a good way to go.

He’s just not ready.

Posted by: Jeiden at October 24, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #189900

Gee, I am so surprised that the right wing nuts do not think Obama would be a good president. Thats good enough for me. Maybe I’ll send him a few bucks if he runs.Just the fact that he can speak in coherent sentences puts him miles ahead of W.

Duan-o : Speculating about what Jesus would or would not do? OK. How many bombs would he drop on Iraq? How many lethal injections would give?FYI. He would not be able to vote. A. He’s dead.You remember the story? That is except in some Florida counties. B. He is not a US citizen.

If you have not adopted an unwanted child you have absolutly no moral standing to enter the choice-abortion arguement. Zip. Nada.If you have then God bless you. Any thing else is pure flatulance and we know it.So please spare us.

Posted by: BillS at October 24, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #189909

I have to agree that Obama is lacking the experience right now, but someday I would be thrilled to see him run, or to run as vp, in ‘08…

Adrienne- Feingold is everything America needs. Elected in WI in ‘92 he’s got years of experience, charisma, and the ideas to really pull this country together, I think…

Harold- I completely agree with you. As a northerner living in the south I have been greatly suprised at the political biases that I have become accustomed to. The thing is, they are not voting for their best interests…

BillS- Here, Here. Leave Jesus out of it. And shall we retire the abortion issue? I think we can agree that we will never agree. Right?

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #189910

Bills

“That is except in some Florida counties. “

You got your geography wrong. That was Chicago

Posted by: Keith at October 24, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #189914

BillS,

Could you please explain your comment about having no standing in the abortion debate without having adopted an unwanted child. I think I see your point, but the logic is ridiculously flawed. For example, do you have an opinion of the war? If so, have you served? If not, it might be said that you have no right to voice your opinion. Further, do you have an opinion about the death penalty? Have you lost a family member to a murderer? If not than it might be suggested that you have no right to voice your opinion on that. Like I said, I can see your point, but I reject the idea that a man has no right to have an opinion because he doesn’t bear a child. Aside from that, good points.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 24, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #189920

I think that the war affects our standing in the world, as a country, and I would say that nearly everyone knows someone who is in some branch of the service.

I believe that what BillS meant, correct me if I’m wrong, is that there are over 120,000 children in our country alone who are waiting in foster care to be adopted. Every day more babies are born who are unwanted and get lost in the system. Everyday there are 4,200 abortions done in our country, which means that in one year, had those abortions not been done, there would be over a million more children in need of a home, assuming one third of the babies were kept by their parents. What would happen to those babies? Where would they go? And what percentage of those born would be special needs, do you know the placement rate?

So, unless you have had an abortion, or have adopted a baby, especially a special needs baby, you really should have very little to say.

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #189928

Erin,

I’ve heard that argument for years. I don’t buy it. Since women historically in this country do not see front-line battle, would you say women should have no right to express an opinion on war? (I realize that things ARE different now.)

Regardless, the reality is, men DO have a vote (as long as they vote) on issues such as abortion. It does take two to make a baby. Some babies are male, though that’s irrelevant to me.

At any rate, your argument boils down to the claim that it’s better to kill a fetus or unborn baby than to have it live in undesirable circumstances. I doubt you could find many of those raised in foster homes who wish they had been aborted.

Let’s keep this debate reasonable. There are conflicting interests here: self-determination for the woman vs. a fesus’/unborn baby’s right to live. For the record, I am not opposed to all abortion on demand, but the issue becomes much more difficult for me the longer the pregnancy persists.

Posted by: Trent at October 24, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #189930

Erin,

I guess I have more to say. Please take this as I intend it, a friendly comment. Claiming that men have no right to enter the abortion debate is a bad tactic. The fact is, men do have a vote, so telling them to just shut up can be nothing but counterproductive. It could have a polarizing effect, which obviously is not good for this debate.

Posted by: Trent at October 24, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #189941

Obama is a left liberal who talks moderate. He’s an F from NRA and I think Democrats here know that’s a problem in a Presidential. Also, as Jack said above the Senate is no place to build a political record on which to run. The best hope would be as a VP in ‘08 with a run in ‘16.

I agree with Neo-Con Pilsner that Ford, Jr. is a much better rock star for the Democrats. Plus he knows how to win in Tn as a democrat and an African American; that’s very impressive (he tends to avoid the gun issue altogether). Again I question the Party’s choice to run him for the Senate or to put any of their future stars into the Senate where their voting records, by design, get compromised.

Posted by: George in SC at October 24, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #189944

personally the worst thing obama could do in 08 is run for vice president. he is young and should stay in the senate for a few terms, Even as much as I would Rather see him As president Than Hillary.I like Powell Also But Really do you think he would run? I think he has had his fill of politics.But I Agree Powell Could Restore Sanity To The Republicans. BTW? was obama going to switch parties to run with powell?

Posted by: Rodney Brown at October 24, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #189957

Adrienne,

The truth is, late-term abortions made up only 1.4% of all abortions performed in the US in 2002 (the year before Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban), but all of these pro-lifers want us to believe they’ve been totally common. They aren’t, and they never were.

So, when you do the math, you find that equals out to about 56 late term murders every day in this country. By contrast, there have been about two American soldiers die per day in Iraq. If you’re conceding that PBAs aren’t a good thing, then why does your side continue to cleave to it as if it were the savior of all mankind?

BillS

A. He’s dead.You remember the story? That is except in some Florida counties. B. He is not a US citizen.
Where to begin? I beg to differ about His being dead, since there were over 500 witnesses to Him walking around for 40 days after His crucifixion and His body has never been produced. But even if he did fit both criteria you listed, He sounds like He would vote Democrat, you know, dead and not a citizen, or in other words, your base.

If you have not adopted an unwanted child you have absolutly no moral standing to enter the choice-abortion arguement. Zip. Nada.

Define irony: When someone poses an argument like this to you THE DAY AFTER the name change of your ADOPTED DAUGHTER is finalized in a Fairfield Co, Ohio courtroom. Nice try.


Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #189958

Erin,

Your interpretation of BillS’s remarks is pretty much what I thought, but I disagree with the logic underpinning it. For many abortion opponents, myself included, the issue is not one of gender but of morality. To my view, abortion is a grave sin that demands I speak out against it on principle. I do think the idea of banning all abortions is impractical, however desirable I might personally feel it to be, but any abortions after the first trimester, with the exception of to save the life of the mother, is uncalled for. Furthermore, I believe that life begins at conception and that the unborn are seperate people who have rights as well. Based on this, I think that abortion violates the rights of the unborn and discriminates based on age and place of residence.

Further, the argument that the increase in children in need, particuarly those with special needs, logically devalues these children. For instance, abortion in case of a child with special needs is not roundly criticized, the argument being that they would not have a good quality of life and be a burden on their parents and society. Based on this type of rationalization, why not round up and cull people with special needs?

The abortion debate is one that is healthy for our society, but we do need to be aware of what we’re saying. The unborn are the least visible and most helpless members of our society. How we treat them will inevitably affect how we treat other less priviliged members of that same society.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 24, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #189965

1LT B,

That is about as well rounded and intelligent defense of the unborn as I have ever seen. Thank you for your service and sacrifice. It is because of people like you that the rest of us have the freedom to argue these issues, a freedom many of us take for granted. Again, thank you!

Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #189971

I am not speaking for BillS, it was merely my interpretation of his comment.
I am pro-choice. But that doesn’t mean that I agree with every abortion. I don’t think that abortion should be used as a form of birth control, which in some cases, unfortunately, it is. But I think that we as a society need to look at birth control as a means to prevent abortions. We need to fund safer sex programs, make birth control more available… (which is not the same thing as promoting teen sex, but promoting safe sex among teens.) I also don’t agree with late term abortions, with exceptions. But I don’t think that the government should regulate or veto a woman’s right to an abortion and force her to give birth. I know that I am opening a different can of worms here…

I am also not saying that any life is worth more or less than another. But the stats are that special needs children have a harder time being adopted. I would never say that they are less deserving of life. Come on.

In my previous post I didn’t think I had mentioned anything about gender in the abortion discussion. Men are equally able to adopt, right? And it does take a man and a woman to create a pregnancy, therefore men should have a say in the pregnancy or the choice to abort the pregnancy.

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #189972

Obama is an intelligent man, good looking, and a great speaker. That makes him good material for politics.

As far as being too moderate for the left, why? Is there any major issue of our time which he actually opposes the left on? From what I can tell there isn’t a bit of difference between Kenney, Kerry, and Obama except that Obama has the ability to make people think that he, a far left liberal, is moderate.

Posted by: Stephen at October 24, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #189974

Erin, through reading in haste, I see I misinterpreted some of your comments.

This is a tough issue. Women historically have been placed in inferior roles in all cultures; it says a lot about Western ideas that after much struggle women are where they are now. I’m not saying gender inequality still does not exist in the west, but compared to the past and to other cultures today, women have come a long, long way. It is also true that the right to an abortion has everything to do with the women’s liberation movement. It is a self determination issue.

This is one of those debates where I can truly respect almost any position. If I could shape reality to my will, every women would get good prenatal care, including, if desired and/or necessary, abortion up until viability, which nowadays I think is around 22-24 weeks. It’s a conflict of interests, of course, and in cases of health, I think the woman’s interest must prevail, even beyond 22-24 weeks. But at some point, I think the scale tips, and the “right” of the unborn infant to live should trump self determination.

Ideally, there would be no unwanted pregnancies. We have the contraceptive and almost immediate abortion tools (morning after pill, Plan B, etc.) to theoretically make unwanted pregnancies very rare. But we don’t live in an ideal world.

Speaking from a purely political view, I wish the Democrats could find a general position that doesn’t alienate so many voters.

Posted by: Trent at October 24, 2006 5:00 PM
Comment #189988

Perhaps I can clear up what I meant. It is the difference between retoric and action. If one has such grave moral concern,grave enough to force it on others,then certainly one should step forward and take concrete action to really save a child and not just sit in judgement on others.There are abortion opponents that have done so. Our new Chief Justice is one. Their opinions have more credibility than those who just expect others to pay the price for their own moral rectitude.It much like a chicken hawk has has less credibility than a decorated war hero as to wether to go to war.
What I wrote is my opinion. I share it with others. It was given in response to thoughtless,wrote,attacks on Obamas character. If you disagree,fine. But rather than futile debate with me on an off thread topic consider adopting an unwanted child. The world and you will be better for it.

Posted by: BillS at October 24, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #189991

Men have as much a say in abortion as women do. The debate is entirely ethical, it has nothing to do with biology. Abortion is taking the life of an individual human being. The baby is a completely different organism from the mother. Unless someone wants to claim that men somehow have no voice in ethical issues, they should acknowledge that men have a voice on abortion.

To say that a parent could ethically abort a baby for the sole purpose of keeping from having a bad quality of life is ridiculous. First if you say that special needs are a burden on society we should just round them all up and kill them. Incidentally, that was carried out by the Nazis. Also, tons of normal babies have bad lives. Should we abort all babies born to families below the poverty line? They will probably have a bad quality of life. O wait that would eliminate a large portion of the democratic base…

There is no scale between a woman’s self-determination and a babies right to life. There is a babies right to life. A person’s right to self-determination may not ever include taking another’s life. Hence laws against murder. The only ethical case for abortion is to protect the mother.

Posted by: Silima at October 24, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #189992

Trent, thank you for taking the time to re-read and understand my point of view. I, too, wish that we lived in the sort of utopia you speak of and abortion was not such a political hot button.
If the democrats did not defend their position, however, there would be no position to defend. And this position needs to be defended because we do not live in a perfect world.
So many voters vote republican only because of these “moral” issues, and don’t look at the big picture.

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #189993

Man..I’d love to play poker with these guys one eve.With Cheney saying Hillary is going to be a tough one to beat.And Obama is too inexperienced to run yet,leads one to believe that they are more afraid of Obama than Clinton…..Go figure

Posted by: Alex at October 24, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #189997

Right on Alex. I suppose running a few businesses your daddy bought foryou into the ground is enough experience.

Posted by: BillS at October 24, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #190002

Erin,

I couldn’t let this one sail by without some sort of comment, “The thing is, they (Southerners) are not voting for their best interests…”

I think the best thing for you and other well-intentioned Northerners living in the South can do is take control of the election process and erect some poll taxes that would prevent them from voting; God knows they don’t know what is in their own best interests anyway, those dumb rednecks.

I mean really, if only you and others like you could take control, you could teach them how to read, write, and do some arithmetic, maybe in a few generations, the South may be able to produce some minds that are capable of reading the Decleration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. If all goes well the dumb rednecks may be able to vote again in another 150 years or so, by that time they will understand their rights well enough, right?

Posted by: Rob at October 24, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #190005

hey guys, i think Bush has paved the way for any and all comers to the presidency with no experience or expertise.. Bring on Obama and anyone else with a brain.
Pleease get off the abortion wagon for once. There are Christians and conservatives who support a woman’s right to choose. At this rate pretty soon we’ll be paying homage to ‘wet dream’ productions and having to give them a nice funeral.
gimme a break.

Posted by: kady at October 24, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #190007

Rob,

Right!

Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #190017
If you disagree,fine. But rather than futile debate with me on an off thread topic consider adopting an unwanted child. The world and you will be better for it.

Already got that one covered, as I stated above, Bill. If you want to use that standard, you open up a Pandora’s box, excluding just about everyone from debate at all. And BTW, this conversation is not off topic because Obama voted against a bill banning throwing LIVE babies away to die after a failed abortion.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #190019

Duane-o

You mean you have adopted an unwanted child? Good for you.That certainly raises my opinion of your opinions. Nothing worse than a hypocrit,don’t you agree?

Posted by: BillS at October 24, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #190029

There is nothing worse than a hypocrite, but I don’t think someone who hasn’t adopted a child doesn’t become a hypocrite by speaking out against infanticide. Have you sent money to poor Jews in Europe? If not then I guess you can’t condemn the Holocaust, right? Darfur? And yes, I have adopted a beautiful daughter who is the joy of my life. It’s a shame that so many beautiful children like her are not with us because someone had the “choice” between their lives and personal convenience.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #190032

Duane-o did you not read the remainder of the response from Obama that you so conveniently excluded? That bill was simply a tool to undermine Roe v. Wade.
As he stated,

“…existing Illinois law mandates that any infant that has a chance for survival is provided life-saving treatment. Not only that, you’ve got to have a second doctor there to certify that in fact that is the case. That continues to be the case, that is current law today, as it should be.”

We have veered severely off the topic, the bill was a ploy.
And they don’t “throw LIVE babies away after a failed abortion”

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #190033

Duane-o, I don’t care how he voted on abortion it is a non-issue to me. This is due to the fact that most voting against abortion and most vocal against are unwilling to SUPPORT the child AFTER birth.
Gun control is an issue for me. I am a firm believer in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th ammendments. So as far as I can tell this administration and congress gets a pretty low grade.
I remember JR. saying he would SIGN legistration extending the Clinton ERA assault weapons ban. So for me that is an F on the 1st, F on the 2nd, F on the 4th but he sure can change the subject about his +*@#-ups.
I just finished with the vote by mail here in Oregon and am a little pissed, we had so many good bills, that is untill you read the rest of the measure (which I am sure that is similar to Obama voting against eliminating live birth abortion).
As for no experience Jr.’s Resume’ before becoming president sucked but still managed to win out over someone who had much better experience, oh yeah he did loose the popular vote.

Posted by: timesend at October 24, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #190037
And they don’t “throw LIVE babies away after a failed abortion”

Not anymore, since congress passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which President Bush signed into law.

Live Birth Abortions

Testimony of Jill Stanek

I had been working for a year at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, as a registered nurse in the Labor and Delivery Department, when I heard in report that we were aborting a second-trimester baby with Down’s syndrome. I was completely shocked. In fact, I had specifically chosen to work at Christ Hospital because it was a Christian hospital and not involved, so I thought, in abortion. It hurt so much that the very place these abortions were being committed was at a hospital named after my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I was further grieved to learn that the hospital’s religious affiliates, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America and the United Church of Christ, were pro-abortion. I had no idea that any Christian denomination could be pro-abortion!

But what was most distressing was to learn of the method Christ Hospital uses to abort, called induced labor abortion, now also known as “live birth abortion.” In this particular abortion procedure doctors do not attempt to kill the baby in the uterus. The goal is simply to prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward.

To commit induced labor abortion, a doctor or resident inserts a medication into the mother’s birth canal close to the cervix. The cervix is the opening at the bottom of the uterus that normally stays closed until a mother is about 40 weeks pregnant and ready to deliver. This medication irritates the cervix and stimulates it to open early. When this occurs, the small second or third trimester pre-term, fully formed baby falls out of the uterus, sometimes alive. By law, if an aborted baby is born alive, both birth and death certificates must be issued. Ironically, at Christ Hospital the cause of death often listed for live aborted babies is “extreme prematurity,” an acknowledgement by doctors that they have caused this death.

It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Some of the babies aborted are healthy, because Christ Hospital will also abort for life or “health” of the mother, and also for rape or incest.

In the event that an aborted baby is born alive, she or he receives “comfort care,” defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until s/he dies. Parents may hold the baby if they wish. If the parents do not want to hold their dying aborted baby, a staff member cares for the baby until s/he dies. If staff did does not have the time or desire to hold the baby, s/he is taken to Christ Hospital’s new Comfort Room, which is complete with a First Foto machine if parents want professional pictures of their aborted baby, baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, foot printing equipment and baby bracelets for mementos, and a rocking chair. Before the Comfort Room was established, babies were taken to the Soiled Utility Room to die.

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking a Down’s syndrome baby who was aborted alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was between 21 and 22 weeks old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet that I could not tell if he was still alive. I held him up to the light to see through his chest wall whether his heart was still beating. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

After I held that baby, the weight of what I knew became too much for me to bear. I had two choices. One choice was to leave the hospital and go work at a hospital that didn’t commit abortions. The other was to attempt to change Christ Hospital’s abortion practice. Then, I read a Scripture that spoke directly to me and my situation. Proverbs 24:11-12 says, “Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die. Don’t try to disclaim responsibility by saying you didn’t know about it. For God, who knows all hearts, knows yours, and he knows you knew! And he will reward everyone according to his deeds.” I decided that to quit at that point would be irresponsible and disobedient to God. Sure, I might be more comfortable if I left the hospital, but babies would continue to die.

The journey God has taken me on since I first stepped out in obedience to fight abortion at a hospital named after His Son has been overwhelming! I travel around the country now, describing what I or other staff have witnessed. I have testified four times before National and Illinois Congressional Subcommittees. Bills are being introduced to stop this form of abortion that results in infanticide. The subject of Christ Hospital and live birth abortion has garnered much public attention. Descriptions of “live birth abortions” have now been told on national television, on radio, in print, and by local and national legislators. Among hundreds of examples are

Father Pavone’s radio show and EWTN television program, Defending Life
Fox Cable News programs O’Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes
Chuck Colson’s radio program, Breakpoint
Dr. Laura’s television program
Dr. Jerry Falwell’s television program, Listen America
Articles and editorials in U. S. News and World Report, World Magazine, the Washington Times, NY Times, Newsweek, Christianity Today, and Focus on the Family Citizen Magazine, to name a few
Another nurse from Christ Hospital also testified with me in Washington. Allison described walking into the Soiled Utility Room on two separate occasions to find live aborted babies left naked on a scale and the metal counter. I testified about a staff worker who accidentally threw a live aborted baby in the garbage. The baby had been left on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. When my coworker realized what she had done, she started going through the trash to find the baby, and the baby fell out of the towel and onto the floor.

Other hospitals have now admitted that they commit live birth abortion. It apparently is not a rare form of abortion. But Christ Hospital was the first hospital in the United States to be publicly exposed for committing this form of abortion.

On August 31, 2001, after a 2-1/2 year battle with the hospital, I was fired. I am free now to openly discuss the horrors of abortion after having seen its horror with my own eyes. I can personally testify to the fact that One + God = the majority. Each one of us has a voice that we must use to stop the atrocity of abortion.

Click here to read the Congressional Testimony delivered by Jill Stanek and her associate Allison Baker.

Note: Jill has shared with us the photos of the “Comfort Room” which was established at Christ Hospital, for the babies to die in.


Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #190039

In case you didn’t get that, this all took place in ILLINOIS, where Senator Obama said it could never happen.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #190040

Duane-o,

First, I think Obama is too inexperienced to be considered as a presidential candidate.

Second, pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Prior to ‘Roe v. Wade’ there were many abortions that no one knows of because the wealthy simply took a convenient “vacation”. The less affluent were forced to render their health into the hands of some “back alley” abortionist.

Under Roe, no state could regulate abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Regulations directly related to maternal health would be allowed during the second trimester.

Post-viability abortions, if regulated, would be subject to the mental and physical health exceptions set out in Doe v. Bolton.

This nonsense of allowing a child to die on a shelf in a utility room is just total BS or it’s murder. If it really happened it would be such a high profile case that it would certainly be more than a rumor.

I’d like to present you with a gender equalizing idea. Let’s simply begin requiring all males to undergo a vasectomy prior to the age of 14 and not permit reversal of the vasectomy until the male has undergone a psych eval, a criminal background check, and a conservative financial eval.

After all, if we men want to control what goes on with a womans body, we should be perfectly willing to control our own bodily fluids. How does that sound to you?

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 24, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #190042

KD”This nonsense of allowing a child to die on a shelf in a utility room is just total BS or it’s murder. If it really happened it would be such a high profile case that it would certainly be more than a rumor.”

It’s gotta be more than a rumor to get all the way to the U.S. congress passing a ban on such practices almost unanimously (Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer included. incidentally Cynthia McKinney voted against the ban)and then ending up on the desk of the POTUS. There was a version of this bill in the Illinois legislature before the Federal bill was passed. That’s the one Obama voted against.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #190044

I forgot to credit a source:

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm

And I’d also like to add:

In brief, current Supreme Court rulings allow the individual states to regulate abortion in the following ways:

* Banning elective abortions after viability;
* Requiring parental consent or notice before a minor can obtain an abortion, although usually a “judicial bypass” option must be made available;
* Requiring waiting periods before an abortion may be performed. (Usually 24-48 hours.);
* Requiring informed consent or counseling be obtained before an abortion. (States often mandate what information must be presented.);
* Requiring certain kinds of record keeping;


All the states must do is obey the law which amounts to recognizing a womans right to control what happens to her own body.

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 24, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #190047

“That’s the one Obama voted against.”

Duane-o,

I know I read someone comment on that yesterday while I was unable to reply.

Here:
“OBAMA: Well, you know, this is apparently the entire basis on which Ambassador Keyes decided to contradict himself with respect to his views about federalism and not carpet-bagging and not running in other states. According to Ambassador Keyes, this was the reason, this bill. And unfortunately, it’s premised on a falsehood. You know, if Ambassador Keyes had called me up, he could have saved himself a trip because existing Illinois law mandates that any infant that has a chance for survival is provided life-saving treatment. Not only that, you’ve got to have a second doctor there to certify that in fact that is the case. That continues to be the case, that is current law today, as it should be.

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade, which is why 21 other senators, Democrat and Republican, why the Illinois Medical Society objected to the bill. At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.
Posted by: Erin at October 23, 2006 10:33 PM”

Thanks Erin!

So Duane-o what do you think of my vasectomy idea?

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 24, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #190049

So, Obama was saying that hospital was violating the law. I notice he didn’t call for any prosecutions.

So Duane-o what do you think of my vasectomy idea?
Sounds good to me! Criminal background check, psych evaluation, monetary requirements? Yeah, I’m all for weeding out future liberals, just not after they’re conceived. Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #190051

Guess we are off topic. I have spent a lot of time in the Philippines. There,due to the great influence of the Catholic Church,abortion is against the law in the constitution. Birth control is hard to get and beyond the reach of most people. Result,every street market has someone selling poison concoctions to terminate pregnancies. They work by nearly killing the mother and always killing the fetus. There are no official figures kept of how many scared desparate young women die or are maimed each year but word of mouth is there are many. What they have outlawed is safe abortion. In the meantime the Philippines has gone from the second largest economy in Asia to one of the poorest in the world. Their biggest export is people. Their enviornment is being destroyed.Children sometimes live off the burning refuse dumps.

Posted by: BillS at October 24, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #190060

“Note: Jill has shared with us the photos of the “Comfort Room” which was established at Christ Hospital, for the babies to die in.”

Duano,

Show me. I just don’t believe that any infant that has a heart beat would be “shelved” to die. Maybe I’m wrong but I’ll have to be shown that I am.

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 24, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #190063

“Sounds good to me! Criminal background check, psych evaluation, monetary requirements? Yeah, I’m all for weeding out future liberals, just not after they’re conceived. Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 10:49 PM”

Cute. Very cute.

So, what about shifting the problem onto men? Would you subject all of your son’s to a vasectomy?

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 24, 2006 11:32 PM
Comment #190064

“every street market has someone selling poison concoctions to terminate pregnancies. They work by nearly killing the mother and always killing the fetus.”

Bill S,

That’s the part of the abortion debate the right wing refuses to address. Those farthest to the right even say the “morning after pill” is abortion. Certainly any reasonable individual should know that even RU-486 is “contraception” and NOT abortion.

I’ve read people stating that one reason to stay in Iraq is to further increase womens rights in that country and yet we’re still trying to limit womens rights in the USA.

Damn tremors are starting, but I think you get what I’m saying. This debate should be settled by women. No man has ever given birth. No man has ever bled to death after a back street abortion.

KD

Posted by: KansasDem at October 24, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #190071

KansasDem, as you well know the vasectomy idea is absurd, and I love it. The only way to respond to some ridiculousness is with the same. I do think men have a right to form and voice opinions on said topic. But you are very right, I have found that people who are fundamentally against abortion when faced with obvious problems, such as those in the Phillipeans, etc… have no solutions. Only more accusations of immorality. Thanks for your comments.

BillS- The situation in the Phillipeans is sad and unfortunate. It is terrible that governments will go so far to protect one group of people and in doing so jeopardize their entire coutry.

Duane-o, I don’t think anyone is denying the fact that partial birth abortions have taken place, as Adrienne pointed out earlier -prior to 2002 1.4 percent of abortions happened in this manner, however I am boldly denying that it happened like I it is playing out in your mind. No babies were left on shelves to die. It’s ludicrous.

Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #190095

Erin said:

BillS- The situation in the Phillipeans is sad and unfortunate. It is terrible that governments will go so far to protect one group of people and in doing so jeopardize their entire coutry.

Good point, I wonder if history will look back on the Democrats trying to have the military Mirandize terrorists we pick up in Afghanistan and Iraq and say the same thing.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 25, 2006 3:09 AM
Comment #190238
In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are “purely elective.” In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that “elective” does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony).

When I think of Barack Obama, THIS is the image that comes to mind. Or maybe THIS

Posted by: Duane-o at October 25, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #190326

Adrienne, 10/24 2:35a said, “Mouth-frothing Pro-lifers like Stanek focused on late term abortions because they view that legislation as the first step toward outlawing ALL abortions in this country.”

Actually, mouth-frothing pro-lifers like me focus on late term abortions because I held a live aborted baby for 45 minutes until he died. Try it sometime and you might become a mouth-frothing pro-lifer yourself.

Erin, 10/24 9:49p said, “the bill was a ploy.
And they don’t “throw LIVE babies away after a failed abortion”

You make no sense. What would cause a failed abortion other than a live abortee? Otherwise, it would be a success, right?

And Obama’s quote that you posted from his debate with Keyes - “At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill” - was a lie.

Read the Born Alive Infants Protection Act for yourself.

KansasDem, 10/24 10:19p said, “This nonsense of allowing a child to die on a shelf in a utility room is just total BS or it’s murder. If it really happened it would be such a high profile case that it would certainly be more than a rumor.”

Rumor? I testified under oath in several legislative hearings, as did another nurse who worked at Christ Hospital with me, Allison Baker. If we lied, don’t you think Christ Hospital would have sued us?

Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 25, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #190342

Ok !! Ive been a registered Republican since i could vote .. but i have since decided that i cannot support a party that doesn’t respect that this is our …OUR Country!!! the Peoples!! Not Corporates Not the pac’s .. Ive heard for years that politic’s is a game … Well it’s time to end the game .. corruption is rampant on both sides of the aisle and money is the God they seem to worship.. I say it’s time for a political novice. Someone who knows right from wrong good from bad and can stand up to the status quo and say enough is enough!!!! Wake up !! IT’S TIME TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM!!!!! cause this one is broken!!!! stay tuned for the details!!

Posted by: Geno NY at October 25, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #190343

Jill!!!

Excellent to see you here on watchblog. Your story is the reason I had to expose Barack Obama for the child murderer he really is. I tried to post links to your story and quotes from you, but none of these mouth frothing baby slaughter advocates seem to believe you. I guess they think you made it all up. Anyway, you are an inspiration to me and I’d like to encourage you to keep fighting the good fight!!

Posted by: Duane-o at October 25, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #190401

Jill Stanek,

The bill you linked to is the Federal version of BAIPA, not the one that Obama voted against. He articulated his objection to the state version of that bill and voiced his approval of the one you linked to. I fail to see how you can call him a liar, given that he did not even have the opportunity to vote on that piece of Federal legislation.

This is a common political trap, to purposefully write bills containing clauses (or missing essential clauses) in order to bait your opponent to vote against the entire bill on the basis of their objections to part(s) of it. This is then followed by attacks on that politician, claiming that they didn’t support the main purpose of the bill. Nothing more than underhanded political grandstanding at its finest.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 26, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #190402

Jill Stanek,

One more thing, if what you claim is true (not calling you a liar, I don’t know one way or the other as I’ve only recently heard of this particular issue and will have to read up on it more) then I commend you on speaking out.

Travesties within our medical system are one of my hot-button issues as well, as many on this blog can attest to.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 26, 2006 9:00 AM
Comment #190479

Jill,

I respect your right to express your views whether it be on this forum, in front of congress, or on your own website. I personally abhor the procedure you describe. Although I didn’t take the time to articulate my beliefs in detail you’ll notice that I ended my sentence with the words, “or it’s murder”.

Of course it’s much more complicated than that. A heartbeat and respiration alone do not truly define “life” or viability of life. IMO without neurological function no “life” truly exists, but I also recognize and respect opposing personal beliefs to the contrary as long as they’re not “forced” on society as a whole.

I certainly believe that reducing the number of abortions is a worthy goal. Pre-abortion counciling should be a requirement in all 50 states. The three-trimester thing needs to be looked at again. We certainly know now that “quickening” occurs as early as the 16th week which indicates neurological function. Therefore I’d personally limit abortions beyond the 16th week (RU486 certainly fits into the picture here) to those required to protect the womans health and life, pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, and a very few exceptions regarding the viability or health of the fetus.

Finally, there is the issue of contraception. Quite honestly your views on contraception, especially those regarding the Morning After Pill, cause me to question your credibilty on abortion issues. Contraception, and education regarding the use thereof, is the real answer to eliminating the need for abortion.

I’m sure you won’t mind me providing a link to your opinions regarding contraception:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/contraception/

Or your views on stem cell research:
Michael J. Fox is a cannibal
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41010

The bottom line is that you’re 100% anti-choice and IMO quite often anti-science. Of course you have the right to voice your beliefs, but I’d hope you can understand how I might doubt the credibility of those who call Obama a “baby killer” and refer to Michael J. Fox as a cannibal.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at October 26, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #190526

KD and Liberal Demon,

Thanks for your posts, and not just because I see we have pretty similar thoughts. It’s good to bear in mind what the SC actually does allow states to regulate in terms of abortion. And I’m glad to know more about Obama’s rationale and the bill he would have voted for.

Posted by: Trent at October 26, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #190605

KansasDem,

Wow, just…wow. Before posting last night, I didn’t have a chance to look at Ms. Stanek’s site or her beliefs; I skimmed this thread rather than reading it (still gotta do that, so I apologize if I’m just rehashing things that have already been said).

I thought she was just your average nurse who encountered something terrible going on in a hospital. Now I am forced to wonder what the odds are of someone who just happens to have her beliefs (no contraception?!?; just what the world needs, millions of unwanted children roaming around) stumbling on a clandestine ‘baby-killing’ operation going on in a hospital. Stranger things have happened, I guess, but it sure does smell funny now.

Trent,

What’s really unfortunate is that by taking such a hard-line stance, most pro-lifers are actually hurting their cause. Take the partial-birth abortion ban, for instance. Past manifestations of that legislation were struck down as being unconstitutional because they didn’t contain an exception to protect the life of the mother. Instead of moderating their position, abiding by the law of the land and including that exception, they just keep on trying the same thing over and over, knowing that it will be struck down every single time.

But, this has allowed politicians to bait their opponents into voting against it, so that they could then demonize them as “baby killers.” Sadly, it just shows that their politics trumps their ideology.

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 26, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #190621

Liberal Demon,

legislation were struck down as being unconstitutional because they didn’t contain an exception to protect the life of the mother.

Besides the fact that a partial birth abortion is NEVER necessary to save a woman’s life(this fact was admitted to be true by the man who has performed more PBAs than anyone), that exception does exist in the bill President Bush signed which will be decided by the SCOTUS this term. Where we draw the line is putting a “health” exception in it which would leave it wide open to lawyer(liberal) interpretation, like saying that a partial birth abortion is needed to save the “mental health” of the mother. And don’t act like you guys wouldn’t try it. BTW, I don’t agree with Jill Stanek’s hard line stance on birth control nor do the majority of pro-lifers.

Posted by: Duane-o at October 26, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #190625

Duane-o

Besides the fact that a partial birth abortion is NEVER necessary to save a woman’s life

I have heard differently, but I’m not all that familiar with abortion procedures; something I’ll have to research some more.

that exception does exist in the bill President Bush signed which will be decided by the SCOTUS this term. Where we draw the line is putting a “health” exception in it which would leave it wide open to lawyer(liberal) interpretation, like saying that a partial birth abortion is needed to save the “mental health” of the mother.

You are correct that the bill President Bush signed does include an exception for the life of the mother. I misspoke (well, mis-typed anyway) and you are correct on these points; one of the reasons it has been struck down in multiple court systems throughout the country is because it does not contain an exception for the health of the mother.

Moral arguments aside, Constitutionally, the act is required to have the health exception. This opinion has been reiterated by judges in multiple states, including Nebraska, California and New York.

This is double-edged sword; your position is that you fear what will happen with this exception (slippery slope) and the position of others is that they fear what will happen without the exception (slippery slope). Both are valid concerns, which is a condition that plagues virtually all abortion debates.

Another reason it was struck down is because the language it contains has been ruled “Unconstitutionally vague.” A ruling which seems to be pretty vague in and of itself.

BTW, I don’t agree with Jill Stanek’s hard line stance on birth control nor do the majority of pro-lifers.

Good to hear. That stance seems to me to be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water (pun definitely intended).

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 26, 2006 10:10 PM
Post a comment