The last Presidential debate Senator McCain challenged Senator Obama’s opposition to the Illinois born alive act. As a State Senator, Mr. Obama worked to defeat the bill on four separate occasions.
The born alive act is simple: any child that survives an abortion attempt and is born alive must be protected. Similar bills have been introduced around the nation as evidence has come forth that abortion clinics allow these infants that survive abortion, to die of neglect.
In the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama voted against the bill in committee, in on instance as Committee Chairman used his powers to prevent the bill from being heard, and worked hard to defeat the bill in a manner in which his opposition would not be widely known. In one instance, when the bill survived Mr. Obama’s procedural attempts to kill it, and the bill was finally voted on in a public vote, Mr. Obama voted present. Mr. Obama did not want to register his opposition to the act publicly on the Illinois Senate floor because he rightly reasoned his opposition would be viewed by the American public as extreme.
What Mr. Obama failed to recognize, however, is that the dominant mainstream media would gladly guard Mr. Obama’s extremism and that when such came to light, explain away his actions as either insignificant or justified. This media effort occurs because in most network and major newspaper newsrooms, allowing a born infant that survives abortion to die is not extreme as all is justified to protect the most cherished right of an abortion. And so, Mr. Obama’s pro-abortion extremism has not played.
But thanks to the power of the Internet and the willingness of some to come forward – the full scale of Mr. Obama’s efforts to sacrifice born alive children on the altar of political expediency is being revealed.
Ms. Jill Stanek is a nurse by profession and now a pro-life activist blogger by passion. Such was not always the case. Ms. Stanek was on duty in a Chicago hospital as a delivery nurse when she was forced to witness the death of an infant who survived an abortion. The infant, though a survivor of the abortion, was simply abandoned to die so that the intent of the abortion could be fulfilled. You do not have to take the hippocratic oath to understand the horrible tragedy in a child being allowed to die at a facility that claims to dedicate itself to healing and life. Ms. Stanek had seen enough and dedicated herself to passing legislation to protect children who are born alive.
Ms. Stanek testified before the Illinois Senate in support of protection for such infants but, according to Stanek, here testimony “did not faze” Mr. Obama.
Stanek appeared before Mr. Obama’s committee on a second occasion bringing pictures of infants who would be protected by the legislation “trying to show them unwanted babies were being case aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted.”
When the hearing concluded, Mr. Obama, according to official committee records, thanked Ms. Stanek for being forthright and then stated his opposition to the legislation stating “what we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”
As Mr. Obama’s Presidential campaign ramped up the issue hung in the background until earlier this month an independent organization began running ads in New Mexico and Ohio. The television ads featured an abortion survivor, Gianna Jessen, challenging Mr. Obama on why he did not want to protect people such as herself. (You can view the ad here).
Mr. Obama with his own ads, accusing the McCain campaign of falsehoods (Mr. McCain’s campaign is not responsible for the ads) and simply stating the ad was a lie.
In the recent Presidential debate, Mr. Obama modified his statements. Mr. Obama first said Mr. McCain’s statements about his opposition to the born alive act were false, but then stated his opposition was because the act would endanger Roe. Protecting live children who are born in no fashion endangers Roe and in fact even Planned Parenthood did not oppose the federal born alive act – an act, which despite Mr. Obama’s claims otherwise, is identical to the version he opposed as an Illinois Senator.
Unfortunately, in the current media and cultural environment, it is not viewed as important to explore the attitudes and legislative positions of a Presidential candidate relevant to whether children, who are alive and born, are deserving of protection.
It is a sad commentary on America that we are willing to ignore the substance of such an important issue.
We appear to be about to elect a President who, in order to deliver to his political base, refuses to see any justification for laws to prevent born children from being left to die of neglect in a house of healing – and you expect him to stand up for you?