Wednesday, June 26, 2019
www.CHALDEAN.org the Official Chaldean Community Website

 

Chaldean Questions
Would you like your spouse to be both smarter and more attractive than you?

Community Events & Annoucements

Announce your event, activity, or meeting by e-mailing info@chaldean.org



CHALDEAN COMMUNITY POSTINGS





Chaldean Words of Wisdom
Chains of habit are too light to be felt until they are too heavy to be broken.

www.CHALDEAN.org Factoids
Word of the Day

 

Article of the Day

 

This Day in History

 

Today's Birthday

 

In the News

 

Quote of the Day

Top News and Information
FOR SALE - Michigan Businesses
FOR SALE - SAN DIEGO


Latest News & Information

Current Articles | Archives | Search

Does Obama Really Support Infanticide?
By Brenda Hermiz :: Friday, October 10, 2008 :: 23813 Views :: Government & Society

California, USA – They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings.  Is it true that a leading presidential contender would allow them to be murdered?  In what many, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers,” some are alleging that Obama is an abortion extremist.  How could the killing of millions of babies somehow not be among America’s greatest moral failings?  Is the claim that Obama supports infanticide true?

For Rebecca Kalla of San Diego the revelation has been a devastating blow.  After spending hours helping to put up posters of Obama, the Chaldean (Iraqi Catholic) returned weeks later and removed all 108 posters she helped affix. 

“There is no debate on this issue.  If you are for the killing of babies, then vote Obama, if you are for valuing human life then don’t,” says Rebecca Kalla, of San Diego.  “I am sorry it took me this long to learn about this issue.  I was stubborn and close minded.  It just seemed so unreal that when people told me I thought they were just trying to smear him.  Plus, I thought if this was true the media would have covered it, right?  Now I know, and I can’t in good conscience vote for him.”

Is Kalla Correct?

Andrew McCarthy investigated the issue for the National review and writes, “There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

Bipartisan independent research does conclude that as an Illinois state senator, Obama did in fact vote to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, media adulation seems to have insulated him from his past.

How Clear is the Record?

Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. The speaker in the video included at the end of this article that has nearly 2 million views on YouTube.  She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die. Stanek’s account enraged the public and shamed into silence most of the country’s staunchest pro-abortion activists.

Many pushed legislatures, including Congress, to take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.

Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion radical activists as Sen.Barbara Boxer went along.  Nonetheless, the record shows that Barack Obama vigorously opposed the Born-Alive bill repeatedly.

Research is clear that Obama did lie.  Obama, hoping to confuse the issue, has also purposely offered various conflicting explanations, ranging from the assertion that he didn’t oppose the anti-infanticide legislation (he did), to the assertion that he opposed it because it didn’t contain a superfluous clause reaffirming abortion rights (it did), to the assertion that it was unnecessary because Illinois law already protected the children of botched abortions (it didn’t — and even if it arguably did, why oppose a clarification?).

Why Would Obama Support Infanticide?

Kalla is shocked to learn of Obama’s position.  “This is very sad.  How could he?  Why would he?” 

Obama offers the rationalization during the 2002 Illinois senate debate.  Barack Obama argued that protecting abortion doctors from legal liability was more important than protecting living infants from death.

A transcript of a state senate debate, which took place on April 4, 2002. That transcript is available here (the pertinent section runs from pages 31 to 34). After being recognized, Obama challenged the Born-Alive bill’s sponsor as follows:

OBAMA: Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously, this is an issue that we’ve debated extensively both in committee an on the floor so I — you know, I don’t want to belabor it. But I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what’s going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements you’ve set forth?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: First of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the … practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that … an attending physician be brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where … there’s a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child … may be [viable,] … the attending physician would make that determination as to whether that would be the case…. The other one is where the child is actually born alive … in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability.

SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. 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. Is that correct?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: In the first instance, obviously the physician that is performing the procedure would make the determination. The second situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and then there’s an assessment — an independent assessment of viability by … another physician at the soonest practical … time.

SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.

Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that 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.

Others also add the obscene amount of campaign money and support that Obama’s campaign has received from Planned Parenthood for his continual stand on abortion.  Obama is the only candidate that has received 100% support by NARAL a pro-abortion advocacy group. 

“This is staggering,” says Kalla.  Obama knew that children were being born alive but looked after by the abortion doctors instead of the baby.  I can not understand how anyone can vote for Obama after learning that he would rather protect the liability or malpractice of a corporation or doctor over a baby being born alive.  We have really now entered the twilight zone.  I am so sorry it took me this long to learn of this,” she says as she shakes her head in disgust.  

The below video is for mature viewers.  Watch at your own risk. 

 

info@chaldean.org