Friday, June 06, 2008

Fetal Lynching

The Audacity of Death

According to Barack Obama, Gianna Jessen shouldn't exist.

Miss Jessen is an exquisite example of what antiabortion advocates call a "survivor." Well into her third trimester of pregnancy, Gianna's biological mother was injected with a saline solution intended to induce a chemical abortion at a Los Angeles County abortion center. Eighteen hours later, and precious minutes before the abortionist's arrival, Gianna emerged. Premature and with severe injuries that resulted in cerebral palsy. But alive.

Had the abortionist been present at her birth, Gianna would have been killed, perhaps by suffocation. As it was, a startled nurse called an ambulance, and Gianna was rushed to a nearby hospital, where, weighing just two pounds, she was placed in an incubator, then, months later, in foster care.

Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, "I guess I don't die easy." Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim's birth certificate. Gianna's medical records state that she was "born during saline abortion."

* * *

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama twice opposed legislation to define as "persons" babies who survive late-term abortions. Babies like Gianna. Mr. Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House. Gianna was present when President Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002.

When I asked Gianna to reflect on Mr. Obama's candidacy, she paused, then said, "I really hope the American people will have their eyes wide open and choose to be discerning. . . . He is extreme, extreme, extreme."

"Extreme" may not be the impression the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have bought Mr. Obama's autobiography have been left with. In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama's presidential manifesto, he calls abortion "undeniably difficult," "a very difficult issue," "never a good thing" and "a wrenching moral issue."

He laments his party's "litmus test" for "orthodoxy" on abortion and other issues, and even admits, "I do not presume to know the answer to that question." That question being the moral status of the fetus, who he nonetheless concedes has "moral weight."

Those statements are seriously made but, alas, cannot be taken at all seriously. Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.

To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess." And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.

Then there's Mr. Obama's aforementioned opposition to laws that protect babies born-alive during botched abortions. If partial-birth abortion is, as Democratic icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan labeled it, "too close to infanticide," then what is killing fully-birthed babies?

* * *

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama seldom speaks about abortion and its related issues. But his few moments of candor are illuminative. When speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Obama will admit things like "I don't want [my daughters] punished with a baby." Or he'll say that voting for legislation allowing Terri Schiavo's family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop her euthanasia was his "biggest mistake" in the Senate. Biggest mistake?

Worst of all are Mr. Obama's accusations against antiabortion advocates. He recently compared his relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, a member of a group responsible for bombing government buildings, to his friendship with stalwart pro-life physician and senator Tom Coburn.

In his campaign book, Mr. Obama accuses "most anti-abortion activists" of secretly desiring more partial-birth abortions "because the image the procedure evokes in the mind of the public has helped them win converts to their position."

All this explains why the National Abortion Rights Action League voted unanimously to endorse Mr. Obama over Hillary Clinton, as did abortion activist Frances Kissling, who called Mrs. Clinton "not radical enough on abortion."

It's surprising that 18- to 30-year-olds, the most pro-life demographic in a generation, are the same voting bloc from which Barack Obama, the most antilife presidential candidate ever, draws his most ardent supporters.

What's not surprising is that Gianna Jessen, who turned 31 last month, plans not to support Obama.

In "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama denounces abortion absolutism on both ends of the ideological spectrum. That is audacious indeed considering Obama's record, which epitomizes the very radicalism and extremism he denounces.


Blogger Torrance Stephens bka All-Mi-T said...

slappz, obama gives them more credit tyhan they deserve. Next he will say the same thing about stem cell research, I hate to say it but I think Bush did some good on that tip by forcing scientist to think out the box. We need more of that as opposed to finger pointing

and with respect to ayers, well the air is still open on that, my 2 cents

have a great sunday folk

11:22 AM  
Blogger no_slappz said...

torrance, Bush has -- wrongly -- kept the federal government out of stem cell research.

But any non-government laboratory can dive in. Universities and other research organizations can develop stem-cell technology without restriction.

11:20 PM  
Blogger shine said...

--You make many bold statements. It would be more useful to direct readers to exact quotes or articles. As you know, statements can be taken out of context and manipulated.

I had hoped that you would stick with the abortion issue in this post. The rants and ravings against Obama certainly weaken your argument. This would be a more compelling piece if you would have simply argued the facts.

Perhaps if you knew the law, or understood the origin of abortion law, you would be able to articulate both sides of the issue. The right to privacy--the right to control ones own body--along with liberty interests are constitutionally protected. This is a complex issue--our indv. rights must be balanced with the state's interest. Maybe I should send you some case law before you post another blog concerning abortion.

9:06 PM  
Blogger no_slappz said...


The Supreme Court ruling that permits abortion is the same argument used by the Supreme Court to permit slavery.

In the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ducked the question of the Constitutionality of slavery with a simple statement.

The justices said that blacks were not humans, HENCE they were not granted the rights the Constitution bestows on Americans.

Since blacks were not considered humans and only humans were protected by the Constitution, there was no cause for the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of enslaving non-humans.

The abortion argument uses the same side-stepping gambit.

Since only humans are protected and granted the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, the question, again, boils down to whether or not the Fetus is a human being.

The Supreme Court has refused to give a definitive answer. However, the non-answer means that the court acknowledges there is a period between the moment of conception and birth where the fetus changes from non-human to human. When does that occur?

Obviously a Fetus is human at conception. One only needs to think of pre-natal development as a movie running in reverse -- from delivery of the baby backwards to conception.

The ball starts rolling at conception.

However, by claiming the growing mass of cells is not human, the Supreme Court states that the growing mass of cells does not receive the protections of the Constitution.

This is not a clever argument. It is a pathetic argument. But people willingly and sadly accept it because they are unwilling and incapable of admitting to themselves that an abortion is murder.

To side-step an argument by claiming the involved parties are not protected by the Constitution because they are not human is a horribly debasing form of argument UNLESS the argument involves actual non-humans -- dogs, cows, fish, and every other form of life that is NOT human.

4:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home