Define a man as "property" and you have "slavery." Define a baby as a "choice," (or as Obama has stated, "punishment" for a "mistake"), and you have a multi-billion dollar abortion industry.
Did you know that abortion is the most common surgical procedure in the U.S.? Did you know that the "Freedom of Choice Act" is designed to grow that number, not reduce it? Did you know that Obama voted four times against the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act"? Did you know that when he says that he supports providing medical care to "babies" who are born alive, he doesn't mean a child born alive during an "abortion." Leaving a child that has been born alive--whether that child exited the mother's womb as a result of a "live birth" or an "abortion"--is infanticide. And Obama has shown four times, through his voting record, his support for infanticide.
In less than 10 years, the killing in Nazi Germany moved from unwanted children to three-year-olds to 17-year-olds to adults.
Definitions are important.
When slaves were defined as "property," they could be bought and sold, abused and neglected, raped and murdered . . . without recourse. The government's relationship to slaves changed dramatically when the definition of a slave changed from "property" to "human being," who, then, is "created equal" with the same "self-evident" rights "endowed by their Creator" to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" (The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776).
Now, did anything change fundamentally in the person of a slave? Did that person suddenly become more human or more valuable once defined as a person and not a piece of property? No. What changed was simply the relationship between a (former) slave and the American government, and as Paul Van Hoesen points out in his recent essay it took 89 years from the Declaration of Independence for slaves to be recognized as humans (http://www.pvanhoesen.com/images/The_wheels_of_Justice_Turn_slowly_but_they_do_turn.pdf) .
Today, we face a similar issue. A baby that is unwanted is defined as an "embryo" or a "fetus" or a "blob of tissue" or a "choice." However, matters become complicated when that fetus or blob of tissue arrives outside the mother's womb as an intact, living, breathing baby. Now, in Illinois, there currently does not exist a law to protect babies born alive during abortions.
Want proof? On page 29 of the State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, you'll find that the "Induced Birth Infant Liability Act," which became known as the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" would "create a cause of action where medical care, as provided for in Senate Bill 1663, is not provided" (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf).
As I read through the transcript, I took note of the following quotes from Senator Obama: " . . . one of the things that we were concerned about, was what impact this would have with the respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation" . . . adding a--an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments [confirm that the baby was, in fact, born alive and is also considered "viable"], is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion . . . this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births . . . because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after" (pp. 31-34, boldface mine).
"This issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births." Do you see what he's saying here? It's a matter of rhetoric. According to Obama, "abortion" cannot produce a "baby" because it is not, by contractual agreement, a "live birth"; he says that if it were, then the "original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion" would be "burdened."
Why can Obama say, with full confidence that "a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after"? It is because he considers a baby born during a "live birth" different from a fetus produced from a botched abortion.
(By the way have you ever considered the definition of "botched abortion"? A "botched abortion" is an abortion that produces a live baby. My friend Gianna Jessen is the product of a "botched abortion." It says so on her birth certificate. I've actually seen it with my own eyes. You can find out more about her at http://bornalivetruth.com.)
So, with his vote--against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act--Obama helped to ensure that babies born in IL during abortions would continue to receive the same treatment that brought the bill to the senate in the first place. Why were they voting on the issue? Evidence had been provided by a nurse named Jill Stanek that doctors in an IL hospital were actually leaving live babies to die. Those babies were not protected by law.
Did Obama know that evidence existed? Yes. In fact, nurses Allison Baker and Jill Stanek testified "before Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee," even though Obama would have you believe that no evidence was provided that babies were being left to die ( I'd like to submit that, again, this is a matter of rhetoric since Obama's definition of "baby" is very specific. According to Obama, babies are only born during "live births," so he can say with full confidence that "babies" were not being left to die.
Are babies that are wanted by their parents fundamentally different from babies that are unwanted?
When does a baby stop being a "fetus" and become a "baby"? And which is more important: providing medical care to help preserve the life of a baby born alive during an abortion or protecting the contract between the abortionist and the mother? According to Obama (through his voting record and the transcript records), the contract is the one in need of protection. If the contract prevails and the baby is left to die, what you have is a case of infanticide, which is one step closer to the elimination of those who can actually speak for themselves.
For a brief interview with Jill Stanek regarding Obama's position, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z65F0z-UKmk.
One last thought. . . while we would all agree that several issues were at stake during WWII and the Civil War, which issues do you think were most foundational--most critical--most pivotal? May I submit to you that regardless of the other issues at play during this election, the most foundational, the most critical, the most pivotal, is the protection of children who are born alive, whether they are alive because of a "live birth" or a "botched abortion," they still deserve full protection from the law. They are not "property," but rather, "humans," who are "created equal" with the same "self-evident" rights "endowed by their Creator" to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" (The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776).
No comments:
Post a Comment