![[Email]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
August 12, 2008
Chicago Sun-Times Nails Obama on His Infanticide Votes
Jack Higgins, Chicago Sun Times
![[Facebook]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.wrtl.org/blog/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
August 11, 2008
Obama Caught Red-Handed in Cover-Up of Infanticide Votes
The smooth and ever-apologetic Barack Obama has been caught red-handed in his attempt to gloss over his infanticide votes as an Illinois State Senator to prevent living, breathing babies who survive abortion attempts from receiving lifesaving care.
Doug Johnson, Legislative Director for the National Right to Life Committee, has uncovered committee documents from 2003 revealing that Obama voted for a “neutrality clause” amendment to an Illinois bill requiring treatment for these infants and, immediately afterwards, led the committee Democrats into killing the amended bill by a 6-4 vote.
The born alive bill that Obama killed as committee chair was virtually identical to the federal law he now says he would have supported.
As background information, Jill Stanek, a nurse who worked at Christ Hospital in Chicago (right in Obama’s backyard), blew the lid on the hospital’s practice of inducing premature labor in a woman seeking a late-term abortion. The “tiny” problem that ensued is that some of these babies were born breathing and alive. Eyewitness accounts reveal that babies were left on the counter in the soiled linen room to die. Stanek herself held one precious baby for 45 minutes until he died.
The U.S. Congress responded by enacting the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) in 2002 with not a single dissenting vote in either house. Included in the bill was a “neutrality clause” which read: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.” With this clarification that unborn babies were not included in the bill’s provisions, even the likes of Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold and Hillary Clinton allowed the bill to be passed and it was signed into law by President Bush.
Since the bill applied only to federal law, one would think the Illinois legislature would move heaven and earth to allow Illinois docs and nurses to at least attempt to save the lives of living babies, fully separated from their mothers, as much as humanly possible instead of dumping them on a cold stainless steel counter until they died.
Enter Barack Obama, who served as chair of the Illinois State Senate Health and Human Services Committee which presided over similar proposed Illinois legislation. In 2003, after the 2002 federal bill with the “neutrality clause” had passed and even the National Abortion Rights Action League had removed its opposition, Obama and his Illinois colleagues had a crack at righting this terrible wrong occurring under their noses in Illinois.
As a presidential candidate, Obama has repeatedly stated (and convinced the mainstream media) that his votes on three separate occasions against Illinois bills to provide treatment for babies born alive following an abortion attempt were because there was no “neutrality clause” and he feared that the legislation would negatively impact Roe v. Wade. He justifies his votes by saying that he would have voted for the federal version of the bill as an Illinois Senator had the opportunity presented itself.
Now we know the real, and very sad, story. Obama is covering up his infanticide votes by trying to trick people into thinking he isn’t heartless — he just needed some clarifying language and the Illinois bill would have had his vote. Right.
This story needs to be spread far and wide to all who care about protecting human life and especially those who are somehow deluded by Obama’s slick explanations.
To read the entire report by Doug Johnson, the National Right to Life Committee Legislative Director, please click here.
Barbara Lyons
August 8, 2008
Ethical iPS Cells Star in New Discoveries
Last November, teams of scientists in Wisconsin and Japan discovered iPS cells, ones which appear to have the same capabilities as embryonic stem cells without the ethical baggage. Now, scientists at Harvard have created 20 new human stem cells lines using iPS cells that are disease-specific.
The Harvard team took cells from patients with ten different diseases, including Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, diabetes and Down’s syndrome to create these disease-specific lines. While not yet available to inject into patients, these cell lines give researchers a wealth of material to look for clues as to the development of the diseases and possibly to develop drug treatments.
What is fascinating about this story is that the person who led the Harvard team, George Daley, is the same person who is “pining for clones, whining for eggs” as reported in this blog earlier this week. Daley claims that cloning is superior technology, even though he can’t accomplish it. Some ideas die hard, but Daley’s mythical clones should be put to rest for good.
To read the report by Dr. David Prentice on this new discovery, please click here.
Barbara Lyons
August 7, 2008
The Nightmare of an Obama Court
Few things send more chills down the spines of right-to-lifers than the prospect of an Obama-shaped U.S. Supreme Court. As Stuart Taylor writes in the National Journal:
“Among the starkest contrasts between John McCain and Barack Obama is the dramatic difference in their promised approaches to judicial appointments, especially to the closely divided Supreme Court.” This statement should be in bold in everyone’s brain as they consider the presidential election.
In 2009, six of the nine justices will be 70 or older. Should Obama be elected to two terms, he will likely have the ability to replace Stevens, Scalia and Kennedy. A Stevens replacement would be a “clone” of his views that the court can and should legislate from the bench. A Scalia replacement would be a disaster. Kennedy’s replacement would be a solid vote for making law from the bench instead of Kennedy’s propensity to shift from side to side, depending on the issue.
If you really want to shiver, consider the possibility of Hillary Clinton on the court.
Obama has said that “most of the time” conservative and liberal justices will arrive “at the same place,” what “matters at the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction will only get you through 25 miles of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
Folks, under that criteria, you and I have a shot at being appointed — as long as we are pro-abortion, of course.
Obama would also have the ability to appoint hundreds of lower court judges who will be happily confirmed by what is expected to be a Democratic Senate.
The biggest loser, of course, would be the unborn babies who have waited far too long for the justice they deserve.
To read the entire National Journal article, please click here.
Barbara Lyons
August 6, 2008
“The Focus is on Reducing Live Births to Teens”
“The focus in on reducing live births to teens.” It sounds like it is right out of the mouthpiece of Planned Parenthood. Think again. It is from Judy Gerrity, project coordinator for wellness and prevention of teen pregnancy at Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS), as quoted in this morning’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
If you are not shocked and chilled, you should be. It is a shift from preventing teen pregnancy to reducing live births. And, it raises the question as to how live births will be reduced and the obvious answer is by abortion.
MPS is revamping its “human growth and development” curriculum from kindergarten through high school. The School Board has not yet reviewed the proposed changes. United Way of Greater Milwaukee wants to target fourth-graders to reduce the city’s teen birth rate by almost half in 2015, says the Journal Sentinel.
Details are sketchy but the goal is alarming. The African-American abortion numbers at 24% of Wisconsin abortions are already way too high when compared to the African-American population base of 6%. Milwaukee parents should reject the goal and be very wary of the details of this plan.
To read the full article, click here.
Barbara Lyons
August 5, 2008
“Pining for Clones, Whining for Eggs”
Such a clever title — I wish I had penned it. It belongs to our great friend Dr. David Prentice who recently examined what is going on in the cloning world. And the title aptly sums up the current scenario. Scientists desperate to create human clones are whining that they cannot get enough human female eggs.
Why the eggs, you ask? Well, cloning is so inefficient that it takes many tries, and thus a huge number of eggs, to create a single human clone. To create a human clone, the nucleus of an egg is hollowed out and the DNA of the person who is to be cloned is transferred into the egg. Only one company has verified in a published report that it created a human clone.
Scientists are pushing payments to women to produce the eggs they require. Even in California and Massachusetts where such payments are prohibited. Why the fuss if it’s just eggs that are needed? Because there is significant danger to women who undergo hyperstimulation to produce as many as 30 eggs at one time.
Prentice quotes Stanford professors Magnus and Cho who give these figures:
“Between 0.3 and 5% or up to 10% of women who undergo ovarian stimulation to procure oocytes experience severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which can cause pain, and occasionally leads to hospitalization, renal failure, potential future infertility, and even death.” The problem is so serious and offensive that a group of women have created a Hands Off Our Ovaries website.
Prentice asks, as do we, why scientists are going through so much trouble and putting women at risk when there are easier, cheaper, and much more successful alternatives to advance research that are ethically impeccable. Why not advance the recent discovery of iPS cells taken from the skin of patients and the use of nasal adult stem cells? Prentice thinks there is an economic interest in cloning. In the end, it may be all about the money.
To read the full Prentice report, click here.
Barbara Lyons
August 4, 2008
Want Payment for Cancer Treatment in Oregon? Nah, Says the State, But We’ll Pay for Your Assisted Suicide Drugs
The State of Oregon has done it again. Turned down payment for Randy Stroup’s chemotherapy for prostate cancer because it’s too expensive. But, not to worry, because Oregon will gladly pay for the lethal assisted suicide drugs that Stroup never requested.
Crass, you say? Not to the bureaucrats in Oregon. They have to watch out for the bottom line after all. The same thing happened to patient Barbara Wagner just a few months ago. Think of the bucks Oregon can save if Stroup and Wagner would just kindly take their lethal drugs like good little patients and go away.
Columnist Cal Thomas penned a thoughtful yet chilling piece on the plight of Stroup. “According to the Washington Post,” Thomas writes, “several federal agencies have come up with figures for the dollar value of a human life to analyze the costs and benefits of new programs they believe will save lives. Saving lives is the announced intention, but if government gains the power to determine when a life is no longer ‘worth’ saving and orders the plug to be pulled or the death pill to be administered, then what? This is the future of the socialized medicine that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party wish to impose on us.”
As Thomas so aptly points out, right-to-lifers have been saying for decades that death by abortion to solve social problems will lead to deadly solutions for other members of the human family. Unfortunately, our predictions are coming true.
Barbara Lyons
