Jill Stanek vs Obama on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act Part 1
Part 1: New Documents Revealing Obama's cover up on Born Alive Infant Protection
Part 2: Jill Stanek vs Obama. Jill documents her credibility in response to Obama's smears.
Part 3: Jill Stanek vs Obama. Obama a Providential God send?
Part 4: Jill Stanek vs Obama. Obama changes "fact sheet". More media attention is being given to the unborn and Obama's voting record on abortion.
Part 5: Jill Stanek vs Obama and the mainstream media. The Media attention continues to mount..
Part 6: Jill Stanek vs Obama. Introducing a new term, Obamaside. Have you ever been Obamasided? Let me explain...
Part 7: Jill Stanek vs Obama. Obama caught on tape arguing against giving medical attention to aborted babies...
The Providence of God or coincidence- concerning this most damaging issue of Obama's campaign: the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Consider that about 8 years before Obama would be running for president a nurse held a babies body in her arms as that child was allowed to die with no loving attention from Doctors, Nurses and later to find out 6 Democrat Politicians including Obama. The only loving attention this baby received was at the hands of a Christan Nurse and later at the federal level. Jill Stanek was a nurse in an Illinois hospital, interestingly enough, called Christ Hospital, that brought this happening and many more to the attention of Illinois law makers, including Obama, and then to federal law makers. In 2002, a bill was passed without one dissenting voice in the senate called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act which provided protection for a human life that survives an abortion. Jill Stanek was the nurse that testified before congress and Obama on behalf of the babies born alive. In Illinois the act didn't pass until after Obama left his position in 2005. She claims Obama was instrumental in blocking this bill from passing in Illinois. Review the evidence for yourself below, with this well documented post by Jill and more. Is it Providence that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act has it's roots in the state of Obama's political career? Is God saying something to us as a nation concerning the unborn or is this all coincidence? See also, Tim Tebow and God's Providence, South Dakota makes abortion free history on 07/21/2008 and then in November 2008 South Dakota and Colorado may make US History's firsts and a new label Providence.
Breaking news: New documents show Obama cover-up on born-alive survivors bill-"Last week Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee drew my attention to a previously unnoticed January 2008 article by Terence Jeffrey stating Barack Obama actually did vote against a version of the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was identical to the federal version, contrary to multiple public statements Obama or his surrogates have made to rationalize his opposition to the IL bill for the past 4 years. Since then we have found 2 separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts. In fact, Barack Obama is more liberal than any U.S. senator, voting against identical language of a bill that body passed unanimously, 98-0. In fact, Barack Obama condones infanticide if it would otherwise interfere with abortion. Here is the statement with documentation released by NRLC this morning...New documents just obtained by NRLC, and linked below, prove that Senator [Barack] Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the IL Born-Alive Infants Protection bill....In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was first introduced in Congress....To view the original 2000 BAIPA, click here....In 2002....The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, click here. To view a chronology of events pertaining to the federal BAIPA, click here.)...Meanwhile, Barack Obama, as a member of the IL State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions. His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 - even after NARAL had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002. When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting "infanticide." Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill. As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004....During Obama's 2008 run for President, his campaign and his defenders have asserted repeatedly and forcefully that it is a distortion, or even a smear, to suggest that Obama opposed a state born-alive bill that was the same as the federal bill. See, for example, this June 30, 2008 "factcheck" issued by the Obama campaign, in the form that it still appeared on the Obama website on August 7, 2008. The Obama "cover story" has often been repeated as fact, or at least without challenge, in major organs of the news media....Two recent examples: CNN reported on June 30, 2008...The New York Times reported in a story on August 7, 2008...NRLC and other pro-life observers have always regarded Obama's "defense" as contrived, since the original two-paragraph BAIPA on its face applied only after a live birth; the "neutrality clause" added in 2001 merely made this explicit, and therefore the new clause did not change the substance of the original bill....The Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, then as now, were a solidly liberal group, yet only one of them voted against the original BAIPA without the "neutrality clause," and he cited a different reason. Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who supported the bill, and who described himself as "as pro-choice as anybody on Earth,"...When the original bill - with no "neutrality clause" - came up on the House floor on September 26, 2000, it passed 380-15....These facts should give pause to those who have unskeptically accepted Obama's claim that the IL BAIPA bills that he opposed in 2001 and 2002, which were modeled on the original federal BAIPA, were crafted to attack Roe v. Wade....For the moment we can set that debate aside, however, for this reason: Documents obtained by NRLC now demonstrate conclusively that Obama's entire defense is based on a brazen factual misrepresentation....The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the IL state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4....The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style. To see the language of the two bills side by side, click here....To see the official "Senate Committee Action Report" on this meeting, click on one of the links below. (The document is dated March 12, 2003, which is the day that the committee convened, but Chairman Obama recessed the meeting until March 13, which is the day that these votes actually occurred.) Here are links to the official document that records these votes, in three different formats.Senate Committee Action Report in HTML (web browser) formatSenate Committee Action Report in JPG (photo) formatSenate Committee Action Report in PDF (Adobe document) format...To view the text of SB 1082 as it was originally introduced (without the neutrality clause), click here. To view the text of Senate Amendment No. 1 (the neutrality clause copied from the federal law), which Obama and his colleagues added to the bill at the March 13 meeting (before killing the bill), click here....NRLC has also obtained two additional documents that report information on these events that is fully consistent with the Senate Committee Action Report. To see the "Senate Republican Staff Analysis: Senate Bill No. 1082," click here. (If this Word document requests a password, simply hit "cancel" and it will be displayed.) The first portion of this analysis was written before the March 12-13, 2003, meeting of the committee that Senator Obama chaired. The committee's actions, amending the bill to exactly track the federal born-alive law, and then defeating the bill, are reported on the bottom half of the second page.) Finally, to see an Associated Press dispatch dated March 13, 2003, reporting on the 6-4 committee vote that killed the bill, click here...His claim has been accepted on its face by various media outlets, producing stories that have in turn been quoted by the Obama campaign and Obama defenders in attacking anyone who asserts that Obama opposed born-alive legislation similar to the federal bill. It has also been forcefully repeated by advocacy groups such as NARAL (see, for example, this June 30, 2008 "alert" from NARAL).
It appears that as of August 7, 2008, only one writer - Terence Jeffrey, a contributing editor to HumanEvents.com - had correctly reported the essence of this story, in a column posted on January 16, 2008 (read it here), but his report was ignored by the Obama campaign and overlooked by others at the time. Now, the uncovering of the Senate Committee Action Report and the contemporary Associated Press report shed new light on Senator Obama's four-year effort to cover up his real record of refusing to protect live-born survivors of abortion.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
"Index of Documents Regarding Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill" (will be updated as new items come in)
Timeline of important events in the history of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
NRLC archive on the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
NARAL press release, July 20, 2000, expressing strong opposition to the original federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 4292).
The official report of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, explaining the intent of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 2175), and explaining why such legislation was necessary (August 2, 2001)"
EXCLUSIVE: Barack Obama Talks to CBN News During Compassion Forum-Video of this interview will be posted on tomorrows blog.
"Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that's the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it's just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main -- they're trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.
Obama: Let me clarify this right now.
Brody: Because it's getting a lot of play.
Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.
So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.
Brody: I wanted to give you a chance to clear it up.
Obama: I appreciate it.
Brody: Thank you so much."
I wish I could ask Obama to respond to the documentation on Jill Stanek's blog. He claims she is lying and others like her. Either Obama is or Jill is. Obama's response had not at all cleared up the fact that he voted "Do not Pass as Amended" on the bill from coming with the necessary wording and yet voted for the amendment!!! Which gives evidence other then Jill's says so or Obama's say so that Obama did indeed under his leadership block the bill from passing even with the amendment that Obama voted that it needed. I have a hard time seeing where exactly Jill is lying. It is easier to see where Obama is omitting the fact that he blocked the bill from passing that he voted to amend!!! So his claim that Jill is lying is unfounded and for me actually proves Obama is doing the smearing and lying by omission not Jill. Either way Obama's voting record makes him the most pro-choice Presidential Candidate in history. This is going to be a hurdle and a half for Obama as it ought to be. I am praying for CHANGE for Obama and the salvation of his soul if he is not already saved and if he is saved for maturity in his faith.
On tomorrow's post see how Jill responds to Obama's responses in the media with documentation to back it up once again. Obama provides documentation for his point of view but again completely misses the claims made by Jill and those of the pro-life community. Obama is skirting the issues on this subject and not properly backing up his claims that the pro-life community is smearing him. The only smearing that is going on here is that of the pro-life community by Obama. Again, Providence or Coincidence? It makes you wonder what else he may be skirting around. It is one thing to flip flop but another thing to treat millions of US citizens of the pro-life community so disrespectfully and is this how he is going to respond to future criticism as our President?
"So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous."-Obama. Well according to your voting record and the nurse that testified and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act being deemed necessary by a vote of 98-0 actually proves that yes Dr's will not only abort and partially abort but also, will allow a surviving baby to lay in a utility room to die. Not only Dr's but 6 democrat politicians including a democrat presidential candidate. So far as I can tell by the documentations and not somebodies say so "that's what's been happening." If we were in a court of law and we had to decide one way or the other it is clear the evidence has not been well responded to, yet.
Other Pro-Life News
Could Obama strike down all state pro-life laws?-"The editor of a pro-life news service says a draft copy of the proposed Democratic Party platform that will be approved later this month in Denver continues the party's historic pro-abortion stance and mirrors Barack Obama's extreme support for abortion. The proposed Democratic Party platform announces unequivocal support for Roe v. Wade and direct taxpayer funding of abortions. Steven Ertelt, editor of LifeNews.com, obtained the draft platform from a pro-life group that is urging the Democratic Party to moderate its stance on abortion. Ertelt says the platform draft also expresses support for the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" -- a bill Senator Obama promised Planned Parenthood last summer would be the first piece of legislation he signs as president. According to Ertelt, the measure would overturn all of the pro-life laws nationwide. "In other words, that piece of legislation would overturn any laws that any state legislature has passed -- for example, prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortion, allowing parents a right to know when their teenage daughters are considering having an abortion, a right to know or informed consent, or any other common-sense limits like partial-abortion bans that we've put on the books. That would overturn all of those laws," he states bluntly."
Patrick J. Buchanan: A Catholic Case Against Barack-In the Pennsylvania primary, Barack Obama rolled up more than 90 percent of the African-American vote. Among Catholics, he lost by 40 points . . . But if Barack had a problem with Catholics then, he has a far higher hurdle to surmount in the fall, with those millions of Catholics who still take their faith and moral code seriously. For not only is Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate, with his straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby’s skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: I Haven't Been Denied Communion Over Abortion-" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is one of the leading abortion advocates in Washington, but she said in a recent interview that she has never been denied communion because of it. Unlike other pro-abortion politicians who have faced scrutiny from local Catholic officials, she says she hasn't. Interviewed on C-SPAN on Sunday, Pelosi was asked about other pro-abortion politicians like Sen. John Kerry and Mayor Rudy Giuliani who have come under fire for being pro-abortion Catholics. Pelosi said the Catholic officials in San Francisco, where her House district is located, have not given her flack for strongly supporting abortion....The most recent pro-abortion politician to come under fire regarding communion was pro-abortion Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, considered a potential running mate for pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. Sebelius has drawn the scorn of Kansans across the political spectrum because of her close relationship with late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller and her numerous vetoes of bills that would place common sense limits on abortions in state law. In May, Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City, said Sebelius needs to refrain from receiving communion until she changes her position supporting abortion. He called on Sebelius to take the "necessary steps for amendment of her life."
Troopers Run Amok, Conduct Mass Arrest of Peaceful Pro-lifers In Maryland-"The group stood peacefully on public property and did not "march" into the street as one news organization erroneously reported. Without warning, an estimated twenty patrol cars arrived on the scene and began arresting pro-life participants without a word. Those arrested were not told what they were being charged with, nor were they read their rights....Two minors in the group were soon released, but the adults were held overnight. The men and women were held in two separate cells, but could hear each other. They passed the hours joining together in singing Christian hymns. The last of the pro-lifers were released on Saturday, August 2, at about 10:45 AM. The group was eventually charged with loitering, failure to obey a lawful order, and disorderly conduct."
Arizona: ACLU seeks to hold ‘America’s Toughest Sheriff’ in contempt over abortion-"The ACLU has issued this press release that begins: “The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion yesterday to hold Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio in contempt for disobeying a court order that would allow women prisoners in Maricopa County to obtain timely, safe, and legal abortions.” The press release includes a link to the contempt motion."
Communism in America?
Obama Will ‘End 30 Years of Ultra-Right Rule,’ Communist Paper Says-"The Communist Party USA’s newspaper is defending Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama against potential defectors on the left, saying his candidacy represents a “broad multi-class, multicultural movement.”
