But first an announcement for tonight:

"Dear Friends,

You are invited to attend an emergency conference call this Tuesday evening, September 23, at 9:30 PM Eastern (6:30 PM Pacific) to hear abortion survivor Gianna Jessen and nurse Jill Stanek expose the shocking truth about how Barack Obama voted 4 times as an Illinois State Senator to deny lifesaving medical help to infants who were born alive after a failed abortion.
Jill is the nurse who discovered that these helpless babies were being left to die in the dirty utility room along with the trash, and testified before Barack Obama to tell her story. Gianna is the amazing and beautiful woman who herself survived an abortion 31 years ago.

Barack Obama now has the audacity to deceptively deny his own voting record and is personally attacking Gianna and trying to smear her credibility!

Please register below for this urgent conference call (that will also be simulcast on the web) to hear the truth directly from these two courageous women and to help Gianna defend herself from Obama's cowardly personal attacks.

Spread the word and ask all of your friends to join this vital discussion as well. Gianna urgently needs your help, and people need to know the truth about Barack Obama.

Please join us Tuesday evening at 9:30 PM Eastern, 8:30 PM Central, 7:30 PM Mountain, 6:30 PM Pacific."-Click www.bornalivetruth.com to register for event tonight!!!

Jill Stanek appears on an excellent story on this issue at CBNNews.com

'Born Alive' Act Continues to Dog Obama-"It's an issue that has dogged Obama since his days in the Illinois State Senate. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act would have required medical attention for infants born alive during an attempted abortion. Obama voted against it more than once. Why? Click play to get more insight from CBN News Political Reporter David Brody, as well as more on born-alive infants from failed abortions from Jill Stanek with Born Alive Truth."-This is a great interview. I find it interesting that only Conservative News Mediums are carrying this story and Big Media is missing it. I wonder why?

Other Appearances concerning this issue from www.BornAliveTruth.com site:

Christian Broadcast Network – NewsWatch, Jill Stanek, 9/17/08
Hannity & Colmes, Gianna Jessen, 9/17/08
CNN’s The Situation Room 9/16/08
Governor Tim Pawlenty discussed born alive on C-SPAN, 9/3/08
MSNBC RNC Convention coverage discussed born alive, 9/2/08
Hannity & Colmes discussed born alive, 8/21/08
The O’Reilly Factor talked about born alive, 8/21/08
Hannity & Colmes interviewed Jill Stanek, 8/20/08
Hannity & Colmes discussed Obama’s views on born alive with Ann Coulter, 8/19/08
Hannity’s America discussed born alive and PP commercial, 8/18/08
Hannity & Colmes discussed botched abortion and born alive, 8/15/08

And a recent radio interview on The Greg Knapp Experience, 9/17 Jill Stanek

This has been an eight year cover up of a story of these two women and the babies they are concerned for in Big Media and finally because Obama is the nominee for President aborted babies are getting a voice and awareness is slowly

Unborn babies vs Obama, NARAL, ACLU and Planned Parenthood

Update to South Dakota abortion ban that voters will be able to vote on in South Dakota (See South Dakota vs Planned Parenthood: Abortion free state for 12 days and running!!! and Testimony of co-founder of NARAL and Dr. of the largest abortion clinic in the world has a pro-life change of heart)

Obama Statement on 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision-""Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women's health. With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election."Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
"When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."

Pro-Abortion Forces Deliberately Mislead South Dakota Voters About Initiative Measure 11-"The ads that the abortion proponents ("Healthy Families") placed on their website today, in an effort to defeat Initiated Measure 11, is deliberately misleading in an effort to confuse the voting public. At the same time, the abortion proponents exploited and misrepresented a personal tragedy. Vote Yes for Life has the following response to that misleading ad:
1. The law that appears on the ballot as Initiated Measure 11 is an extremely well written and well crafted law. The law was drafted by South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long at the request of leaders of the State Legislature. Attorney General Long assembled and presided over a panel of eleven legal experts for the purpose of insuring that the law was well crafted. It was drafted over a period of about eight months.
Any suggestion that the law is anything other than well drafted and well thought out is false and deliberately misleading. The voters of South Dakota can trust their Attorney General.
2. The ad claims that South Dakota "already voted on this."
This is a false representation. In 2006, the Legislature passed a law that prohibited abortion, but it did not contain exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother. That law was referred to the election in November of 2006 and was voted on.
The 2008 law is totally different and represents what the voting public said they wanted in place of the 2006 law.
In 2006 and again in 2007 and 2008, every poll taken in South Dakota, showed that the vast majority of South Dakota voters (between 58% and 67%) wanted abortion prohibited. But many thought that there should be exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. Although 44% of the voters voted for the 2006 law with no exception, the 2008 Initiated Measure 11 prohibits abortions but incorporates the exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother, and represents what the South Dakota voters wanted as their law.
3. The ad implies that a procedure resulting in the death of a twin that has "Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome" is illegal under the law. That claim is not only false, but a shameful exploitation of the mother shown on the ad who lost her child.
Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome is a very rare complication that threatens the life of the babies in utero. However, today there are modern medical procedures that are used to save the children.
If, however, one of the children dies in utero as a result of those medical interventions, the loss of the baby does not violate the law under Initiated Measure 11. The claim that the mother, under the new law, could not have had a procedure to save the life of one or both of those children is totally false.
There is no reason for a doctor to deliberately kill one of the twins in an effort to save one of them, and physicians do not do so as part of accepted standards of medical practice. Under Section 2 of the law, only if the procedure is designed to deliberately and intentionally kill the baby, is it prohibited - unless it is permitted by one of the exceptions. An unintended death is not a violation of the law, and the law permits the procedure even if there is a risk that one or both babies could die from the procedure.
Section 2 specifically requires that the doctor's act is "with the intent of causing the termination of the life of an unborn human being." Medical treatment intended to save the lives of the babies is not prohibited. Further, Section 13, paragraph 1 of the law states:
"Medical treatment ... that results in the unintentional injury or death of the unborn child is not a violation of this Act."
It is offensive that the abortion proponents would use this personal tragedy to mislead the public, and it is exploitive of a mother who suffered a tragic loss.
4. The ad says that there is no way for a doctor to "give good advice" and that every case should be judged on an "individual case" basis. The implication is that the law prevents both.
That implication is deliberately misleading. Section 4 of the law specifically preserves the right of a doctor to make "a judgment that an abortion is necessary because there is a serious risk" of injury to a major bodily function of the mother. A doctor is not liable under the law if he performs an abortion to preserve the health of the mother, unless the "physician knowingly disregards accepted standard of medical practice."
This means that only if the doctor knows good medicine does not require the abortion, is he prohibited from performing the abortion.
5. The ad makes the false claims that the voters can't know what they are voting on.
The abortion proponents make these false claims because they cannot win a debate about this law if they made candid admissions about its content.
The law simply says that it is illegal to deliberately and intentionally kill an unborn child except in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at risk or there is a serious risk to the health of the mother.
Having actors read Section 15 (chapters 187 and 188 etc.") is intended to create the false impression that the law is difficult to understand. Section 15 is a technical section meant for the courts to let them know that one other law is not repealed."

Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood Teams Up With Girls Inc For Pro-Abortion Workshops-"Girls Inc. is back in the news over abortion and now the group for young women is teaming up with Planned Parenthood. The organization, which has come under fire for adopting a pro-abortion position, is conducting workshops in Montana with the nation's largest abortion business.
The girls group came under fire in 2005 for adopting a statement saying it backs abortion and supports the Roe v. Wade decision that ushered in an era of approximately 50 million abortions.
At the time, pro-life groups called for a boycott of the American Girl doll because the company making them teamed up with Girls Inc. for a promotional....Planned Parenthood has teamed up with Girls, Inc. in the past for events so Sedlak says the partnership is nothing new.
He said the workshop will be held from July 28 through August 1 and he says local pro-life advocates will be there to protest it....About its abortion advocacy, Roche said, "Our philosophy is that women should have the right to make decisions about themselves.""Girl's Incorporated supports a woman's freedom of choice, a constitutional right established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe vs. Wade," the group says on its web site.
ACTION: Contact Girl's Inc and encourage the group to back away from its pro-abortion position. Contact: Girls Incorporated, 120 Wall Street, New York, NY, 10005-3902, (p) 800-374-4475, (e) communications@girls-inc.org"

Is an unborn human a person? Great, Great Grandson of William Wilberforce says yes and so do 70 Colorado Physicians.

Update on Colorado state ballot initiative (See Is the Democrat National Convention a Providential God Send to the state of Colorado for the sake of the unborn? and Colorado)

ELECTION 08: Colo. 'personhood' amendment would answer question Roe posed-"When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun authored the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide, he acknowledged that if the definition of "personhood is established" to include the unborn, then the case for abortion rights "collapses" because the unborn's "right to life would then be guaranteed" by the Constitution.It's been 35 years since that infamous decision was handed down, and on Nov. 4 voters in Colorado will decide whether to add an amendment to the state constitution stating that "the term 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of conception." It will be Amendment 48 on the ballot but is more commonly known as the Personhood Amendment, and it is the first time in U.S. history that citizens will vote on such a proposal. The amendment takes aim at Roe without even mentioning the word "abortion" and marks a new strategy in the nationwide abortion debate....The amendment has forced pro-choicers to answer questions they'd rather avoid, Burton and other Amendment 48 supporters believe. Asked by a reporter during a Sept. 8 TV debate when a person gets legal protections, Fofi Mendez, a spokeswoman for the campaign to defeat the amendment, responded, "In the state of Colorado they acquire those legal rights when they are living and breathing and walking around like you and I are." Mendez' answer immediately drew criticism from her debate opponent, Burton, who said the definition didn't include room for many disabled people. A petition drive put the amendment on the ballot. The Colorado secretary of state said an estimated 103,000 signatures were valid, considerably more than the 76,000 that were required. The group behind the amendment -- Colorado for Equal Rights -- submitted 130,000 signatures, with 500-plus churches playing a large role by circulating petitions....The issue, she said, should focus squarely on abortion and the unborn. Amendment 48 has garnered some attention worldwide and has the support of Gerald Wilberforce, the great-great grandson of 19th-century British abolitionist William Wilberforce, the subject of the 2007 movie "Amazing Grace."

Over 70 Colorado Physicians Sign Statement Saying Personhood Begins at Fertilization-"Colorado for Equal Rights has announced the support of over 70 physicians and pharmacists, including neonatologists, family physicians, ob-gyns, pediatricians, and other physicians nationwide. These physicians have stated that they concur with the statement, "A 'person' includes any human from the time of fertilization." A list of these physicians is available at http://www.personhood2008.com/. "We are honored to have received these endorsements from such respected physicians," stated Kristi Burton, the sponsor of the "Personhood Amendment" which is set to appear on the 2008 Colorado ballot. "Science clearly proves that life begins at the time of fertilization. We are secure in the fact that we have science and reason on our side, and we are pleased to have the medical community supporting our efforts.". Sponsored by Burton, a 20-year-old law student, the Personhood Amendment states: "Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado…the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." "As support for Amendment 48 accumulates, we are very encouraged as we get closer to November's election," continued Burton. "Every human life should be protected, and the endorsements we continue to receive prove that our easy to understand amendment is one that all Coloradans can support."

Other Pro-Life News

Indiana

Indiana Gov Candidate Thompson Gets Major Funding From Abortion Advocates-"Indiana gubernatorial candidate Jill Long Thompson trails pro-life Gov. Mitch Daniels in the money race in terms of cash spend and cash on hand. But the money she does have is coming to her from a top pro-abortion group because she support unlimited abortions paid for at taxpayer expense.
A new report indicates Thompson raised $1.6 million for her campaign from April through June 30, just under the $1.83 million Daniels took in during the same time period.
Of those funds, much of it came from the pro-abortion group Emily's List, the top pro-abortion group in the country when it comes to bankrolling candidates....In endorsing Thompson, Fichter said she joins other Emily's List-backed candidates like Senators Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi...Last month, Indiana Right to Life endorsed Daniels for re-election saying there is a striking difference between the two candidates on abortion.
"Mitch Daniels pledged to support pro-life legislation as a candidate in 2004 and he has been true to his word," IRTL director Mike Fichter told LifeNews.com at the time. "Now it is time for pro-life Hoosiers to show their appreciation for Governor Daniels by actively working to secure his re-election."...During his first term, Governor Daniels has signed into law key legislation placing Indiana on the leading edge of national pro-life efforts.
That included a bill allowing women to see an ultrasound of their unborn child prior to the abortion, a bill to ban human cloning, and a measure establishing an umbilical cord blood bank to advance life-affirming stem cell research using cord blood instead of killing human embryos.
Daniels also ended 25 years of Indiana abortion clinics operating without any significant health and safety regulations by signing into law new licensure and inspection requirements for abortion centers.
Also, under the Daniels administration, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles approved Indiana's Choose Life license plate that provides funding for pro-life pregnancy resource centers statewide.
Related web sites:Indiana Right to Life - http://www.protectinglife.com/"

Austria

Vienna Cardinal Awards Papal Knighthood to Notorious Pro-Abortion Austrian Politician-"On June 25, Vienna Archbishop Cardinal Christoph Schönborn awarded Vienna Deputy Mayor Renate Brauner the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great, one of the highest honors conferred by the Catholic Church.
While the US Bishops Conference has agreed not to confer honors on supporters of abortion, European bishops have not yet addressed the issue. In their 2004 document, Catholics in Political Life, the US Bishops' Conference states: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honour those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honours or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." (see coverage: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/jun/04062102.html)