Barack Obama has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice to Kill Act. Anyone concerned with the rights of babies, parents, taxpayers and local governments should work to defeat this legislation.
FOCA Would Wipe Away Every Restriction on Abortion Nationwide
This would eradicate state and federal laws that the majority of Americans support, such as:
- Bans on Partial Birth Abortion
- Requirements that women be given information about the risks of getting an abortion
- Only licensed physicians can perform abortions
- Parents must be informed and give consent to their minor daughter’s abortion
FOCA would erase these laws and prevent states from enacting similar protective measures in the future.
I have the video for Gianna’s story you will want to watch.
I am always pleased to discover new blogs that apply Christian faith to issues in our culture. You will want to take a look at Flashpoint. It is the blog of Women of Faith in Culture. This article, by Executive Director Sarah Flashing is wonderful.
Yesterday, the Feminist Majority put out a statement against Colorado’s Amendment 48. Apparently, Amendment 48 would recognize the personhood of embyos. This is what the Feminist Majority had to say about that:
“We want to make sure that women have more rights than an egg!”
Well, either their statement reflects a profound ignorance–because those of us who are pro-life do not equate eggs with embryos– or this is what they have been wanting to say all along.
With smoke and mirrors, they speak of the embryo in its pre-fertilized state so as to avoid the scientific truth we know about all embryos…that they are living human organisms. Eggs are not.
Why do they do they insist on ignoring this scientifically obvious difference? Because the Feminist Majority really does believe that grown women have more rights than smaller humans, and that this goes against the conscience of the majority of Americans. It is necessary to their agenda to obfuscate this issue because an egg with moral worth is not an egg, its an embryo.
Young women in their reproductive years are being psychologically primed to donate their eggs for research purposes, but these eggs never remain eggs, they become embryos. If they are persuaded to believe falsely that their eggs forever remain eggs, then they don’t have to consider that the eggs they give up actually become their embryonic offspring. What woman is not repulsed by the notion if giving up her offspring for research? For the Feminist Majority to speak of fertilized eggs as simply eggs is scientifically false and a deliberate attempt to confuse the same women they believe have more rights than these much smaller humans. How can they, the Feminist Majority, claim to respect the rights of women if they can’t respect our basic intelligence?
One of the big lies during the third debate came on the topic of abortion. McCain said that Obama’s position on the issue is radical, including his repeated opposition to the Illinois version of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. Obama responded this way:
There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.
What Obama claims is factually untrue, however. The Attorney General reported that the practice of abandoning infants born alive during late-term abortions was not covered by the law. Jill Stanek and others suggested that as many as 20% of all late-term abortions resulted in a live birth. Further, Obama lied about why the bill was being proposed. Existing law was ineffective at protecting infants born alive.
And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.
Except, there wasn’t a law on the books. No one should be surprised that the people performing the abortions and leaving the children to die would object to more oversight to prevent that practice.
Face it. Obama is not telling the truth about his oppostition to this law.
Also take a look at:
Shelley Mandell, President of the L.A. Chapter of the National Organization for Women, heartily endorsed Sarah Palin at the October 4th rally in Carson, CA. (See the video) Elena, with the California NOW chapter, sent me an email reminding me that NOW has very clearly distanced itself from Ms. Mandell with a strongly worded statement in favor of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
In fairness to Elena, she did help me find an article on the NOW website opposing the blatant sexism displayed toward Sarah Palin.
NOW for Sarah Palin? – the evangelical outpost.
The National Right to Life Committee continues to challenge Barack Obama for his stance on abortion and his roll in the Illinois, Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. One should reasonably ask, “What did the BAIPA do?”
It established in black-letter law that for all legal purposes, any baby who was entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who showed any of the specified signs of life (breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles), was to be regarded as a legal person for however long he or she lived, and that this applied whether or not the birth was the result of an abortion or of spontaneous premature labor.
Barack Obama voted against this bill.
When David Brody confronted Obama about it, he called the NRLC liars and repeated his claim that the NRLC was lying during his interview with Pastor Rick Warren. Later, Obama had to admit they were correct. Fact Check confirmed this in August, stating,
… Obama’s claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.
Obama then claimed it was because the bill lacked certain language he thought it needed. Again, he lied.
The NRLC uncovered documentation that refuted Obama’s contention that he voted against SB1082 because it didn’t have the same “neutrality clause” of the federal BAIPA that protected abortionists.
Barack Obama owes the NRLC an apology for calling them liars, and he owes the American people an explanation of why he really opposed this bill. It would have prevented no abortions, but would have required doctors to provide normal care for infants born alive after surviving an abortion.
Obama pretends that existing law already required this, but he knows that’s a lie as well. The Attorney General told the legislature that the law didn’t prevent this from happening, and that the legislature needed to make the law more clear. That’s why the legislature considered this bill on three separate occasions. Obama voted against it all three times, and killed it in his committee in 2003.
The National Right to Life Committee video ad
While conservative bloggers have criticized Barack Obama for his views on abortion and what amounts to infanticide, it is significant that even the NY Times looks askance at Obama’s opposition to this bill. The Chicago Tribune has articles here and here that are lengthy and, to me, stunning.
This is a great article that you should take note of. I have dad some contact with the California chapter of NOW and it has encouraged me to write a series of post on abortion and the beginning of life.
The original LA Times article is here
Stand to Reason has a review – LA Times Asks the Right Question
Michael Gerson wrote a moving article about the New Eugenics; killing babies that may be imperfect. He points out that Civil rights for women, blacks and other minorities have risen while protections for “defective” babies has fallen dismally.
The wrenching diagnosis of 47 chromosomes must seem to parents like the end of a dream instead of the beginning of a life. But children born with Down syndrome — who learn slowly but love deeply — are generally not experienced by their parents as a curse but as a complex blessing. And when allowed to survive, men and women with an extra chromosome experience themselves as people with abilities, limits and rights. Yet when Down syndrome is detected through testing, many parents report that genetic counselors and physicians emphasize the difficulties of raising a child with a disability and urge abortion.
This is properly called eugenic abortion — the ending of “imperfect” lives to remove the social, economic and emotional costs of their existence. And this practice cannot be separated from the broader social treatment of people who have disabilities. By eliminating less perfect humans, deformity and disability become more pronounced and less acceptable. Those who escape the net of screening are often viewed as mistakes or burdens. A tragic choice becomes a presumption — “Didn’t you get an amnio?” — and then a prejudice. And this feeds a social Darwinism in which the stronger are regarded as better, the dependent are viewed as less valuable, and the weak must occasionally be culled.
Christians must not sit on the sidelines while this happens in America. Now is a good time to speak up and tell the truth.
Read the entire article by Michael Gerson – Trig’s Breakthrough.
You may also want to read Andrew Sulivan’s article, Why Trig Matters for an additional perspective.
Here is a really good article on how Christians should respond to the news that Gov. Palin’s daughter, Bristol, is pregnant.
Being pro life means we want young women to turn away from abortion. We want them to choose life for their babies. Being pro life means we accept the fact that young women (teenage girls) get pregnant when they are not married and/or not ready to have children and we help them make a good decision.
This should not become a political football. It should be an act of compassion for Bristol and her baby.
Interesting linksHere are some interesting links for you! Enjoy your stay :)
- Double Standards
- Frontpage Article
- Media Bias
- Middle East
- New Mexico
- Quote of the Day
- Sarah Palin
- Top photos