From a 2008 article on watersblogged!:
Robert George of the Witherspoon Institute says it well:
Sen. Barack Obama’s views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.
Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
One of the stories I most remember from 2008 is the current president’s connection to a story about an Illinois nurse discovering a newborn left to die in a linen closet.
Then an Illinois state senator, the current president voted against a bill that would have required that Illinois abortionists provide lifesaving treatment to babies born alive.
According to a 2008 article from publicdiscourse.com:
A few years ago, after it became clear that some infants who were born alive in the course of an attempted induced abortion at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere were being left to die without even comfort care, Republicans and Democrats around the country united in an effort to make the practice illegal and declare that any child outside the womb, even if she was an abortion survivor whose prospects for long-term survival might be in doubt, was entitled to basic medical care. Even the most ardent advocates of the pro-choice position agreed that a child born alive, even after an attempted abortion, deserves humane treatment.
The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 passed both houses of Congress without a dissenting vote. Similar acts passed in many states. It did not pass in Illinois while the current president was a state senator.
One of his excuses for voting against it was that there was already a law on the Illinois books. However:
the Attorney General of Illinois refused to prosecute cases brought under the 1975 law (including a notorious case in which Nurse Jill Stanek at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn had found a dying infant left to expire with neither comfort nor even palliative treatment in a linen closet!) precisely because the limitation of its protections to “viable” infants and its leaving of the decision as to what constituted “viable” to the abortionist, the provision of the 1975 bill protecting babies who survived attempted abortions was unenforcable.
As the future president put it:
In arguing against that bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate, Obama said
As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it -is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.
The president’s campaign stated he would have voted for the bill if it contained a certain amendment; however, it did include that amendment at the time he voted it down. Every pro-choice Illinois senator voted for the bill after the future president left.
When Obama was challenged to explain himself, earlier in this campaign, he at first insisted that he opposed the Born-Alive Act in Illinois because it didn’t have a neutrality clause. When critics contended that this claim was false, Obama accused them of “lying.” But then the critics produced indisputable documentary evidence that in fact Obama had voted against a bill that did include the neutrality clause. Obama had plainly misrepresented his record.
The Public Discourse summary:
But Obama still did not tell the truth last night. As his original 2002 statements make clear, he sought to defeat the Born-Alive Act because he recognized that it bears at least implicitly on the larger question of abortion in America. He seemed to realize that the logical implication of protecting the child born alive after an attempted abortion is that abortion involves taking the life of a child in the womb, and that acknowledging that, even at the extreme margins of the practice of abortion, could put the legitimacy of abortion itself in question. Therefore, Obama chose to defend the widest possible scope for legal abortion by building a fence around it, even if that meant permitting a child who survives an abortion to be left to die without even being afforded basic comfort care.
Some of Senator Obama’s supporters are now making one last, rather desperate-sounding attempt to defend his votes against protecting infants born alive after unsuccessful abortions. Their argument goes this way: Permitting children who survive attempted abortions to be abandoned is so heinous, so barbaric, that for someone to accuse Senator Obama, a decent man who is himself the father of two daughters, of supporting what amounts to legalized infanticide is too outrageous to merit an answer. There is a problem, though. In light of the documentary evidence that is now before the public, it is clear that the accusation against Senator Obama, however shocking, has the very considerable merit of being true.
In an attempt to shelter the sanctity of Roe v Wade, the current president allowed the most innocent humans to suffer:
Moreover, the Born Alive Act would have had the effect of at least ensuring comfort care to babies whose prospects for long-term survival were dim and who might therefore have been regarded as “nonviable.” As Obama and the other legislators knew, without the Born Alive Act these babies could continue to be treated as hospital refuse. That’s how the dying baby that Nurse Jill Stanek found in the soiled linen closet got there.
Sounds like the same man who later stated that Grandma should be given pain medications rather than a hip replacement.
Who are these people we have in politics and media? They seem to have no human compassion. How did we get to the place where our society is overwhelmingly influenced by the heartless, evil, and murderous? How did so many of us become convinced that these were the good guys?
Don’t forget, these are the people in charge of collecting our private data, about to control our healthcare, militarizing our police, taking God out of our military and society at large, and the list goes on.
May God help us.