Wednesday, August 29, 2012

"Tissue" talks



Melissa Ohden appears in this Susan B. Anthony List ad in Missouri telling her story as a survivor of abortion. She was aborted and discarded-- discarded-- until a nurse heard her cry, and resuscitated her.

Barack Obama spearheaded the opposition to "Born Alive Infant Protection" laws when he was a state senator in Illinois. He succeeded in blocking laws that were designed to ensure that children like Ms. Ohden who survive abortion are given medical treatment.

Ms. Ohden is a rare survivor of America's holocaust. There are 50 million Americans who did not survive, and who are not here to speak.

It's worth noting that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that Illinois state senator Barack Obama voted against was supported by the militantly pro-abortion group NARAL. From National Review Online:


Even NARAL didn’t oppose [the Born Alive Infant Protection Act]. At the time of the vote, CNN reported that NARAL’s spokesman said the following:
We, in fact, did not oppose the bill. There is a clear legal difference between a fetus in utero versus a child that’s born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that the country can provide...
The logical import of Obama’s vote against BAIPA is that he disagrees, i.e., once a baby has been targeted for abortion it thereafter has no inherent right to the food, comfort, and medical care provided to other babies born alive. Indeed, during Illinois state senate deliberations on BAIPA, Obama stated that one of his objections was that the bill was “designed to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” Apparently, once the decision to abort has been made, a child is doomed even if born alive.
Does President Obama maintain that, but for BAIPA, an abortion provider continues to retain dominion over babies he fails to abort for some unspecified time after birth? Would Obama permit the abandonment of any other class of babies, e.g., those born with abnormalities? Precisely where does he draw the line?
... it’s tough to get to the left of NARAL on matters described as “reproductive rights.”

And yet Democrats have the gall to call pro-life advocates "extremists".


May God have mercy on our country. 

28 comments:

  1. Jerrold Nadler voted for the bill. The bill passed the House 380-15.

    It seems that was Obama to mantain an extremist position at that time...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Jerrold Nadler voted for the bill. The bill passed the House 380-15.”

      You are confusing the BAIPA bill passed at the federal level with the one introduced to the Illinois Senate committee. The two are not the same.

      The Illinois bill did not have the same wording as the federal bill when it was introduced. It could have easily been interpreted as granting personhood to a fetus. It also could have been interpreted as requiring a second physician to be present at every abortion procedure. That is what Obama was talking about when he said it was “designed to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

      There were other problems with the proposed bill. For example by its wording the bill could have been interpreted as mandating that any fetus delivered, whether by miscarriage or abortion, with a detectable beating heart would have to undergo resuscitation efforts or the attending staff could potentially face criminal charges. This could include a fetus delivered after just a few weeks gestation, which I should not have to tell anyone is well outside the window of viability. It is for these reasons that the original bill was opposed by the Illinois Medical Society.

      The sponsor was asked to change the wording of the bill to explicitly state that it did not negate current abortion laws. It was not and got shot down every time it was introduced for several years, 5 times in 2004 alone. Until the House Committee chair added such exclusionary language in 2005. The bill passed easily.

      “It seems that was Obama to mantain an extremist position at that time...”

      The bill was killed in committee by a 6-4 vote. If Obama had an extremist position, so did the majority of the committee which he chaired.

      -L

      Delete
    2. @L:

      Please describe that alternate bills Obama introduced to protect children born alive after abortion that would not have had the faults you have claimed.

      What did Obama do to protect these children?

      Delete
    3. @L:

      [The sponsor was asked to change the wording of the bill to explicitly state that it did not negate current abortion laws. It was not and got shot down every time it was introduced for several years, 5 times in 2004 alone. Until the House Committee chair added such exclusionary language in 2005. The bill passed easily.]

      Obama could have introduced the bill with the exclusionary language. Why didn't he?

      And you are being disingenuous about the chronology of the bill. Obama resigned from the Illinois State Senate in 2004 to run for the US senate.

      He was not in the Illinois senate in 2005. You failed to point that out.

      Why would you be trying to mislead regarding Obama's quite explicit and emphatic support for infanticide?

      Delete
    4. “Please describe that alternate bills Obama introduced to protect children born alive after abortion that would not have had the faults you have claimed.”

      Alternate bills were unnecessary as existing Illinois Law already provides such protection without such faults. From the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, Section 2b

      Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony.

      “What did Obama do to protect these children? “

      He expressed his support for existing law that already protects such individuals. As a bonus he also saved taxpayer time and money by not wasting committee resources on redundant and/or confusing legislation.

      Let me know if there is anything else I can look up for you.

      -L

      Delete
    5. first: this is the bill passed in 2000 with 202 democrats yes (among them Nadler).
      Read it:
      http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-106hr4292eh/pdf/BILLS-106hr4292eh.pdf

      Second:
      Obama voted against Illinois bill even when was added the neutrality clause identical to the federal bill.

      Delete
    6. @L:

      The Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 does not require the physician to help the child.

      It merely requires the physician to use the same skill, etc in dealing with a child after an induced abortion that he would use in dealing with a child after a spontaneous abortion. That can, of course, be no care at all. The only thing the 1975 law requires is that the standards be the same. If a physician would not help a child after a spontaneous abortion, he is permitted (actually required) by law not to help a child after an induced abortion.

      The 1975 law permitted passive infanticide after an abortion, as long as the infanticide was carried out without regard to the spontaneous or induced nature of the abortion.

      The law that Obama aborted required that a living child after an abortion be given medical care, which the 1975 law did not.

      That's why the Illinois BAIPA law, and the federal law, were necessary. The federal BAIPA passed the House by a vote of 380 to 15 and passed the Senate unanimously and was signed by President Bush.

      Do you think they all thought it was unnecessary?

      Let me know if there is anything else I can explain for you. You really are a slimebay, L.

      Delete
    7. “Obama could have introduced the bill with the exclusionary language. Why didn't he?”

      He and others on the committee asked the original sponsor to ammend the legislation and the neutrality language was added. The committee unanimously (that means Obama, too) accepted this language. But it was not sufficient to allay the fears of a majority of the committee that this bill, and it’s companion bill, would not affect existing federal and state laws regarding abortion or existing medical standards.

      Why Obama did not include such an ammendment himself I am unsure. It may not be customary in the Illinois Senate Committees. Perhaps it is necessary for the sponsor should to do so. I am not privy to the workings of Illinois Senatorial Committee bylaws.

      “And you are being disingenuous about the chronology of the bill. Obama resigned from the Illinois State Senate in 2004 to run for the US senate.

      He was not in the Illinois senate in 2005. You failed to point that out.”

      I didn’t know it was necessary to point out commonly known facts. I apologize for the lapse.

      “Why would you be trying to mislead regarding Obama's quite explicit and emphatic support for infanticide?”

      Obama expressed his support for the existing Illinois abortion law that has a “born-alive” clause, his support for the federal born alive act signed in 2002 and has stated that he would have voted for the Illinois “Born Alive Infant Defined” Bill as passed in 2005. Which part of that is “explicit and emphatic support for infanticide”?

      -L

      Delete
    8. domics:

      “first: this is the bill passed in 2000 with 202 democrats yes (among them Nadler).
      Read it:
      http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-106hr4292eh/pdf/BILLS-106hr4292eh.pdf

      Second:
      Obama voted against Illinois bill even when was added the neutrality clause identical to the federal bill.”

      I was mistaken in my belief that you thought the bills were one in the same. I apologize.

      After the neutrality clause was added the wording of the bills was essentially the same, you are correct. However, the state bill carried with it a companion bill which laid out the criminal liabilities associated with the Illinois version of the BAIPA. This companion bill could very well have altered the existing state and federal statutes concerning abortion and altered standard obstetric practice. Mostly for this reason a majority of Senators chose to kill it in committee. The federal has no criminal liabilites associated with it.

      -L

      Delete
    9. mregnor:

      “The Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 does not require the physician to help the child.

      It merely requires the physician to use the same skill, etc in dealing with a child after an induced abortion that he would use in dealing with a child after a spontaneous abortion. That can, of course, be no care at all. The only thing the 1975 law requires is that the standards be the same.”

      Yes. If a 25 week fetus is delivered following an abortion and is showing signs of life then Illinois law requires the same standard of care a 25 week fetus delivered spontaneously and prematurely would receive. That standard would give about a 50% survival rate.

      “If a physician would not help a child after a spontaneous abortion, he is permitted (actually required) by law not to help a child after an induced abortion.”

      Yes. If a 10 week fetus is delivered following an abortion and is showing signs of life then Illinois law requires the same standard of care a 10 week fetus delivered spontaneously and prematurely would receive. That standard would be no care since the survival rate at 10 weeks is 0%

      “The 1975 law permitted passive infanticide after an abortion, as long as the infanticide was carried out without regard to the spontaneous or induced nature of the abortion.

      The law that Obama aborted required that a living child after an abortion be given medical care, which the 1975 law did not.”

      I think this is where you are wrong. From the 1975 law if a fetus is born alive they are to be given medical care appropriate to their gestational age, regardless of whether they were born alive following an abortion or a spontaneous delivery.

      It sounds like you are suggesting that a “born-alive” fetus from an abortion attempt should receive more medical care and attention than one “born-alive” from a spontaneous delivery. Am I wrong in that assertion?

      “That's why the Illinois BAIPA law, and the federal law, were necessary. The federal BAIPA passed the House by a vote of 380 to 15 and passed the Senate unanimously and was signed by President Bush.

      Do you think they all thought it was unnecessary?”

      I think they all thought is was expedient.

      “Let me know if there is anything else I can explain for you. You really are a slimebay, L. ”

      It is one of our human failings that in haste and anger we sometimes resort to name calling. Do not worry though, you have my forgiveness.

      -L

      Delete
    10. L.,
      ok this is your explanation but it is not what Obama during his campaign said:
      "Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section."

      Now we know that Illinois bill had the neutrality clause replacing section c of the Illinois Bill!

      Delete
  2. That single issue would be enough to sway my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The leftists on this site will not be persuaded by this because they are not persuaded by anything. They ask us to prove that a fetus is a living human being, and then nothing reaches their standard of proof.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trish,

      I'm not 'persuaded' because this attempted abortion was actually illegal under 'Roe versus Wade', which legalized abortion up to the point of fetal viability.

      I'm pro-choice, but only up to 20 weeks gestation, unless there's serious maternal or fetal disease, which also is the law in the state (Western Australia) in which I live. I regard those who'd ban abortion completely to be just as extreme as those who'd allow abortion by choice throughout the entire pregnancy right up to delivery.

      Please, don't complain that I'm being inconsistent in allowing abortion in the first 20 weeks and banning it for social reasons in the last 20 weeks. I'm bored with conservatives insisting in seeing everything in black and white.

      Delete
    2. Was the girl alive when she was aborted? Yes or no?

      Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the first trimester. Doe v. Bolton, decided on the same day, legalized abortion after the first trimester if the woman's "health" was in danger. Health has been very broadly defined. The result is that late term abortions happen.

      Even the term "fetal viability" is self-defeating. A fetus is considered viable if she can survive outside the womb. Fetuses prior to viability DIE outside the womb. They die because they are alive.

      "Please, don't complain that I'm being inconsistent in allowing abortion in the first 20 weeks and banning it for social reasons in the last 20 weeks."

      I'll complain about it if I damn well please. Don't tell me what I can complain about. You want to put restrictions on a woman's body as well, at a later date than I do. You want to force women to "have" their children, at a later date than I do. Yes, you are "inconsistent." You also want to kill children like Melissa.

      Tell me when life begins. Tell me when you are sure that no life exists. It isn't "viability".

      TRISH

      Delete
    3. "I regard those who'd ban abortion completely to be just as extreme as those who'd allow abortion by choice throughout the entire pregnancy right up to delivery."

      That's essentially the position of the current president of the United States.

      How can you encounter abortion survivors and be so sure that we're only "aborting fetuses" and not killing children? I guess what I'm asking you is, when you see someone like Melissa, do you think that maybe the abortion industry is feeding you a lot of baloney when they tell you that fetuses are not children?

      TRISH

      Delete
    4. TRISH,

      Yes, it's a commonly held myth that late term abortions are illegal. The pro-choice crowd (their label, not mine) likes to make that argument because they want people to believe that abortions only happen when the child is a few tiny cells. To be sure, most abortions happen with a few days after the woman discovers she is pregnant. Almost no one waits to get big as a house and then goes down to the abortion clinic. But in a country as large as ours, late term abortions happen every day and they are legal.

      And you are right. Even abortion survivors do not persuade the stubborn. They have convinced themselves that a fetus and a child are two very different things. They are not. A fetus is a child in utero.

      Little John

      Delete
    5. Bachfiend,

      Allowing abortion "by choice" is the rallying cry of the abortion industry. If abortion were only to save the life of the mother, almost no one would be against it. Most states allowed abortion in that case even before 1973.

      It's elective abortions that are the issue here. We're killing our children "by choice."

      Little John

      Delete
    6. The abortion that this woman survived was actually illegal? Who knew!

      No, Bachfiend. It wasn't. Abortions happen right up until the day the kid pops out. They are legal. I don't think you know the circumstances of the abortion that this woman survived, you're just making an unfounded assumption based on misinformation you've heard about late term abortions being illegal.

      Joey

      Delete
    7. Bachfiend obviously doesn't care that this woman survived a horrific attack perpetrated by her own mother. Hey Bachfiend, what do you think about pouring water down the nose of a known terrorist in order to extract life-saving information? Is that beneath your high morals?

      The Torch

      Delete
    8. >>Fetuses prior to viability DIE outside the womb. They die because they are alive.<<

      Yes, Trish, that's what the other side of this debate doesn't understand. They don't know how they sound when they say that the fetus wasn't viable so it was okay to abort. They think it means that the fetus obviously wasn't anything resembling a baby and it wasn't killed. Unfortunately, viability just means that the child can survive on its own. Unborn children that are not yet viable are those who can't survive on their own.

      But both are alive. It's a question of if they die when exposed to world outside of mommy's tummy.

      JQ

      Delete
    9. @The Torch:

      Liberals blanch at the thought of pouring water down a terrorist's nose. We're better than that! We're not better than piling up baby corpses. Let me explain the disconnect.

      Liberals like Muslim terrorists because they are perceived as a downtrodden minority group that's simply lashing out at America for being the rotten place that it is. They don't like babies because they put a damper on liberals' otherwise raucous and eventful sex lives.

      Joey

      Delete
    10. Hey yo Joey:

      Liberals aren't getting laid quite as much as you think. Or as much as they claim they are.

      JQ

      Delete
    11. TRISH:

      If you listen to this audio from the Illinois State Senate hearings on this bill, you will hear Barack making the same mistake. He thinks "viable" means alive. Viable means able to survive outside the uterus.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkbuhXzbvI&feature=related

      I'm glad we have such a scientifically literate man as our president.

      Another former president who doesn't understand biology is Bill Clinton.

      Clinton on embryonic stem cell research: >>If it’s obvious that we’re not taking embryos that can – that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies, and I think if it’s obvious that we’re not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this…<<

      More Clinton: >>he definition of which frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they’re not going to be fertilized. I believe the American people believe it’s a pro-life decision to use an embryo that’s frozen and never going to be fertilized for embryonic stem cell research…<<

      >>But those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don’t want a big storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use. There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those…<<

      Bill Clinton's no Rhodes scholar. Oh wait a second, yes he is!

      JQ

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmh9p1rlkQk&feature=related

      JQ

      Delete
  4. Hey Bachfiend:

    What happens at twenty week of gestation that makes you want to draw the line there? What is the difference between an unborn child at twenty weeks and an unborn child at twenty-one weeks?

    Are you sure that an unborn child at twenty weeks is not alive, and a child at twenty-one weeks is alive?

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's just a feeling that he has. That's all. After twenty weeks, it seems like a baby. Prior to twenty weeks, it's not cute enough.

      Joey

      Delete
    2. Right,

      To clear up my position. I have given the wrong impression that I regard a fetus at NO stage in development as being a 'human being'. This erroneous impression arose because I disputed Michael's claim that a fertilized human ovum is a 'human being' from the word go. And hence, an unimplanted morula, an implanted blastula and a 5 week embryo are all 'human beings' - no debate.

      There's plenty of debate actually. What there isn't debate is that a newborn is a human being. And that one day earlier, the fetus in the uterus was also a human being. At some arbitrary point, a conceptus achieves 'personhood' with all the protections of law. The Supreme Court decided that it was a the time of fetal viability and didn't define it. The court left it to the states to regulate abortion as they see fit.

      There are many American states which make abortion illegal after 20 weeks (my position and the law of the state I live in), but don't make an exclusion for serious maternal or fetal disease as Western Australia does. If an exclusion is sought, the woman has to be counseled as to options and the decision made by a panel of doctors nominated by the Minister of Health. In a review after 5 years, all the exceptions were for fetal abnormalities such as spina bifida or trisomy 21. Exceptions were denied for minor remedial fetal abnormalities or psychosocial reasons.

      Melissa was obviously well over the limit - I suspect she would have been 27 or 28 weeks, and even at the time abortion would have been illegal.

      If you want to regard a pre-20 week fetus as being a 'human being', then I have no problem with that. When I was a practicing pathologist, I would fairly frequently receive products from spontaneous abortions. If on examination, I recognized a fetus, id make a complete external examination and assess the gestational age - and then stop, unless the parents had signed a consent form for further examination. Otherwise, I would just issue a report concluding for example '17 week male fetus, externally macroscopically normal', and append a note asking if the parents wanted the fetus to be returned (many people do desire closure and being able to have a burial - I've even had parents requesting products of conception with no fetal parts present to be returned too, and I was quite happy to go along with that too).

      What I don't think you're entitled to do is to inflict your beliefs on others. Abortion should always be available as a backup in cases of failed contraception, rape or incest. Abortion shouldn't be encouraged. It should be the last resort, not the first resort. If there has been 50 million abortions in America since Roe versus Wade, then that's a sign of a failed education system. All children should have comprehensive sex education, and all women should have access to cheap effective contraception if desired.

      I don't have any direct personal interest in elective abortions. Although I do have a niece (ironically from the religious wing of the family) who fell pregnant while single and hid the pregnancy well past 20 weeks, so it's not true that being 'good' stops experimentation (she kept the baby and later married someone else several years later; my sister was initially very bitter that the father didn't accept any responsibility).

      And by the way Joey, 17 week fetuses are very cute. They're just not viable.

      Delete
    3. As an aside, this morning I read in the 'Melbourne Age' that the Victorian Health Department conducts periodic reviews of 'sentinel cases' in which the outcome of care in the health system has been disastrous, to see if anything can be learned and if procedures need to be changed to avoid similar errors in the future).

      In passing, the article mentioned a case which will probably be in the next review. It seems that a woman with 31 week twins was offered a partial abortion because one of the twins was normal and the other wasn't. No further details were provided. It could be that one of the twins had trisomy 21. It could be that there could have been a fetus to fetus transfusion occurring, causing one twin to be on the verge of heart failure and the other to be starving, so to save one the other had to be sacrificed. I don't know the rationale.

      The wrong twin was aborted. I don't know what a review would be concentrating on. The error of aborting the wrong twin, which is staggering enough? Or the rationale of performing a partial abortion at 31 weeks, which is well over the limit, and potentially, as happened here, extremely hazardous? And with every extra week of pregnancy improving the survival chances of the fetuses. It depends on the exact details.

      Delete