We’ve all seen Obama on television speaking about how grief stricken he is about the deaths of the victims in the Colorado theater shooting and it is appropriate for someone in the position he currently holds to comment on such a tragedy.
However, Obama’s words are simply hollow and meaningless considering his lifelong and continuing support of infanticide by voting in favor of ‘sex selection abortion’, a practice that even Communist China doesn’t allow, partial-birth abortion, a gruesome procedure in which a child is allowed to come through a mother’s birth canal and intercepted by a doctor who plunges surgical scissors into the base of the childs scull opening a hole into which is inserted a suction tube that literally sucks out the childs brain and crushes its skull, and policies that forbid medical personnel from providing treatment to children that survive abortion procedures; policies that dictate that any child that survives an attempted abortion be left to die without medical treatment or comforting.
The procedures and actions described above, like the murders in the theater in Colorado, are horrifying and disgusting. But, even more horrifying and disgusting is seeing Obama on television expressing “grief” for the Colorado victims while he supports infanticide.
Obama Again Shows He’s No Friend to Women and Children as He Continues Support of “Sex Selection” Abortion and Infanticide
Obama and His Democrats Won’t Outlaw Sex-Selection Abortions, but Even Communist China Doesn’t Allow Them
From blogs.telegraph.co.uk by Dr. Tim Stanley, May 31, 2012
A bill put before the House to outlaw abortion based upon gender (generally targeted at females) has been defeated. Thanks to Democratic opposition, it failed to muster the necessary two thirds of the vote to pass. To put this bill into context, sex-selection abortion is so awful that it’s illegal even in China. Hillary Clinton and many leading feminists have condemned sex-selection abortion, too. But House Democrats evidently disagree with this moral consensus. So, too, does President Obama.
Late on Wednesday, Obama’s press secretary put out a statement that opposed the bill: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision. The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”
So the administration is against gender discrimination except when it’s a private medical matter. Would it feel the same about a concerted effort to terminate babies on the basis of race (something that was in an early form of this bill)? Presumably such a proposition is at least up for debate because the administration tolerates abortion on the grounds of disability. The logical fallacies about this position are as steaming as they are piled high. But they received support from House Democrats. Representative Barbara Lee said that this bill was an attempt to “restrict or deny” access to abortion and would lead, inevitably, to “backstreet abortions.” Again, to put the bill in context, sex-selection abortions are illegal in Britain. And we don’t have backstreet abortions.
Obama and the Democrats have taken a big gamble with this latest salvo in the culture war. They may have made a mistake. According to a 2006 Zogby poll, an astonishing 86 percent of Americans oppose sex-selection abortion. That figure probably hasn’t changed considering that, nationally, opinions about abortion have trending towards the negative. Gallup reports that now 50 percent call themselves prolife and only 41 percent say they are prochoice – a total inversion of the findings from 1996 that put the figures at 33 percent and 56 percent respectively.
Internationally, sex-selection abortion is generally regarded as a great evil, too. At the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, a platform was adopted that established “eradicating violence against the girl child” as global priority. It pledged to “enact and enforce legislation protecting girls from all forms of violence, including female infanticide and prenatal sex selection.” Following that call, bans have been enacted in Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, India and Vietnam. To repeat, even China – yes, China – has officially outlawed the practice.
Even within the liberal establishment there was some support for a ban. Way back in 1990, Dianne Feinstein said that she was horrified by the thought of sex-selection abortion and would perhaps back legislation. More recently, Hillary Clinton attacked the practice in an interview with the New York Times, saying, “Obviously, there’s work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, and unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they’d rather have a boy.”
So here’s the playing field in this latest culture war match: the American people, international opinion and Hillary Clinton on one side; Barack Obama and House Democrats on the other. No wonder the presidential election is getting closer by the day.
Dr Tim Stanley is a historian of the United States. His biography of Pat Buchanan is out now. His personal website is http://www.timothystanley.co.uk and you can follow him on Twitter @timothy_stanley.
Obama Supports Infanticide
From http://www.bkl1.wordpress.com, October24, 2008
It is THE HARD TRUTH that U.S. Senator Barack Hussein Obama has proven himself to be a supporter of infanticide – the practice of killing newborn infants.
The Senator’s voting record in the Illinois State Senate bears this out according to the Catholic News Agency (CNA).
On July 4, 2008, in an article on the CNA’s web site, Deal Hudson charges Obama with supporting infanticide due to his opposition to the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act (BAIPA) which was introduced in the Illinois Legislature in 2001 after Nurse Jill Stanek testified that newborn babies who were born alive after abortion attempts at Christ Hospital were left to die without attention from medical personnel. The BAIPA,opposed by Obama, would have required that any baby that was expelled from his or her mother and showed any signs of life was to be regarded as a legal person whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion.
Stanek testified before the Illinois Senate’s Judiciary Committee, on which then Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama sat. Obama voted against allowing the bill to go to the full Senate for a vote, but it passed out of the Committee and when the full Senate voted on the bill Obama voted “present”, not taking a stand one way or the other. The Bible, in Revelation 3:15-16 quotes Jesus as saying: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot, I would thou wert cold or hot. so then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold not hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
In 2002, the BAIPA was again introduced in the Illinois Legislature where Obama not only again voted no, but led the opposition to the bill and was the only Senator to actually speak out against it’s passage and the bill again failed to pass.
In 2003, the Senate Health & Human Services Committee was Chaired by Obama when the BAIPA was brought for a hearing. Chairman Obama refused to allow the bill to be brought up for a vote thus denying the BAIPA to reach the Senate floor for a vote.
It wasn’t until 2005, after Obama had moved on to the US Senate, that the Illinois Legislature passed the BAIPA.
The BAIPA that was adopted by the Illinois Legislature is identical to the Federal BAIPA that was approved in 2002 with no opposition, from even the most liberal left-wingers. Yet Obama voted no on the bill on multiple occasions. Yes, that ‘s right, even Ted Kennedy supported the BAIPA, but Obama did not.
Perhaps Obama should become more familiar with St. Matthew 18:6 wherein Jesus is quoted as saying “…whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Obama Continues Support of Infanticide
From http://www.wnd.com, January 27, 2009
President Obama’s nominee for deputy Secretary of State contends American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions, a position that contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.
James B. Steinberg’s written testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was highlighted by Sen. Jim DeMint, a pro-life Republican serving South Carolina.
In a written response to DeMint’s questions, Steinberg said the Mexico City policy — the newly overturned policy that forbade taxpayer subsidization of abortions overseas — “is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.”
Not so, said DeMint, pointing out Steinberg’s stance is in direct opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
DeMint cited the 1991 Rust vs. Sullivan decision in which the court ruled, “The government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an activity merely because it is constitutionally protected, and may validly choose to allocate public funds for medical services relating to childbirth but not to abortion.”
DeMint had asked: “For more than 30 years the Hyde amendments, which prohibit federal funding for abortion services, have been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses. Unfortunately, while this is the domestic policy of the United States, President Obama has vowed to reverse our foreign policy by repealing the Mexico City policy and use the federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion services overseas. Do you support President Obama’s efforts to lift the Mexico City restrictions? Do you believe our foreign policy should contradict long held domestic policies?”
Steinberg’s complete response was, “President Obama has supported repeal of the Mexico City policy, as has Secretary Clinton. Longstanding law, authored by Senator Jesse Helms, expressly prohibits the use of U.S. funds [for] abortion. The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.”
Just days ago, Obama imposed an executive order repealing the Mexico City policy that during President Bush’s tenure protected Americans from being required to fund groups that promote and pay for abortions around the globe.
The plan was originated by President Reagan in 1984. It prohibited non-governmental organizations that receive federal funds from providing or promoting abortions in other nations. President Clinton rescinded the rule Jan. 22, 1993, calling it “excessively broad” and “unwarranted.”
But when President Bush took office in January 2001, he immediately issued an executive order re-instituting the pro-life policy.
“It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion,” Bush said.
International Planned Parenthood Federation and other abortion groups refused to conform to the ban. They continued to provide and promote abortions and, consequently, were denied access to funding from U.S. taxpayers.
A Jan. 16 letter from 77 members of Congress posted by Life News had urged Obama to continue the ban.
“[T]his policy is important because it establishes a bright line between family planning activities and abortion, therefore ensuring that United States family planning funds are not co-opted by groups who promote abortion as a method of family planning,” the letter stated. “Such activities would send a wrong message overseas that the United States promotes abortion.”
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told the Washington Post, “President Obama issued executive orders banning the torture of terrorists but … signed an order that exports the torture of unborn children around the world.”
Perkins noted that Obama vowed at the debate with Republican candidate Sen. John McCain last fall at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church to find “common ground” on the issue of abortion and that he, as president, would work to “reduce the number of abortions.”
“His action today flies in the face of that vow and probably sets a record as the most quickly broken campaign promise ever,” Perkins said.
The Rust vs. Sullivan decision says rules and regulations regarding abortion funding were consistent with the Constitution.
“Indeed, the legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended that Title X funds be kept separate and distinct from abortion-related activities,” the opinion said.
“The regulations do not violate the First Amendment free speech rights of private Title X fund recipients, their staffs, or their patients by impermissibly imposing viewpoint-discriminatory conditions on Government subsidies. There is no question but that [the] prohibition is constitutional, since the government may make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds,” the opinion continued.
“Similarly, in implementing the statutory prohibition by forbidding counseling, referral, and the provision of information regarding abortion as a method of family planning, the regulations simply ensure that appropriated funds are not used for activities, including speech, that are outside the federal program’s scope.”
As a state lawmaker in Illinois, Obama opposed mandated physician help for babies who survive abortions.
The president has promised to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act,” a sweeping bill that would abolish pro-life rules and regulations across the nation.
The organization FightFOCA.com, launched to oppose the plan, already has collected 500,000 signatures in opposition.
According to Pastor Rick Scorborough of Vision America, more than 500 state, federal and local laws would be destroyed by the action.
“There are not enough words to convey the seriousness of this piece of legislation. Now is not the time to bury our heads in the sand and hope this will go away. It won’t. If we don’t do something about it, the basic fundamental right to be born will be taken from millions of unborn children, ironically, in the name of ‘freedom,’” Scarborough wrote.
Among the laws that would be overturned are the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, the Hyde Amendment restricting taxpayer funding of abortions inside the U.S., informed consent laws, waiting period laws, parental consent and notification laws, requirements that abortion businesses follow health regulations, a ban on non-physicians doing abortions and bans on abortions of babies who can survive outside the womb.
