Obama’s Anti-Life Policies and Generation Y’s Admiration


by Jayne D. Frank

Recently after debates and speeches from the GOP candidates focusing on President Obama’s efforts to impose his pro-abortion policies on churches and religious-based organizations, I saw many tweets and other comments from younger voters saying “What’s this all about?” or “He did not.”  What they were referring to are the candidates’ reminders that then Senator Barack Obama voted for “Infanticide” – the Bill which would not sustain life for babies born alive after an abortion attempt.  So these young voters need to be reminded of this man’s lack of a morality by reading the article below:

AUGUST 22, 2008 7:30 A.M.

Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide
More important to protect abortion doctors than “that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it.”By Andrew C. McCarthy

‘ 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.”

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”

Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.

But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.

The record, however, doesn’t lie.

Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.

The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery.

Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time.

So something had to be done with them. They couldn’t be left out in the open, struggling in the presence of fellow human beings. After all, those fellow human beings — health-care providers — would then be forced to confront the inconvenient question of why they were standing idly by. That would hold a mirror up to the whole grisly business.

Better the utility room. Alone, out of sight and out of mind. Next case.

Stanek’s account enraged the public and shamed into silence most of the country’s staunchest pro-abortion activists. Most, not all. Not Barack Obama.

My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should 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 activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.

But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.

The shocking extremism of that position — giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life — is profoundly embarrassing to him now. So he has lied about what he did. He has 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?).

What Obama hasn’t offered, however, is the rationalization he vigorously posited during the 2002 Illinois senate debate.’

The images described by these nurses should have remained in the minds of every American, but young people seemed to have forgotten.   They also say that the notion that there are “death panels” in Obamacare is a farce.  However, what is not contested, is the language in Obamacare that people will get health care under Medicare, based on the “cost justification” which takes into consideration a person’s age and condition to determine if they will receive the needed procedures to save their life.  Fetus or Elderly – you are not safe in Obama’s vision of the perfect America, because you are not productive and will not be able to participate in paying “your fair share.”

As incredulous as it is, young voters, as well as his supportive African-American base, seem to be frozen in an adulation for this man, often looking at him as a Rock Star.   In his new singing debut, you actually saw people shivering as he sang to his audience.

I know that Generation Y and the blacks in America do not keep on top of what is happening in this country to a large extent, and that is a shame, for November, 2012 will once again ask Americans:  Do you want a President that loves his country, governs and protects all Americans (both unborn and elderly), will get out of the way of private enterprise so that jobs will be created, will uphold  his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and most of all, will not lie to the American people every time he stands before his teleprompters and cameras?  The choice is obvious – Obama must be a one-term President.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: