Originally posted at Live Action News
To rationalize scalding, scalpeling or suctioning an unborn baby to death, since the passage of Roe v. Wade,abortion advocates have made it their mission to downgrade developing babies into clumps of cells.
That is, until now!
Apparently Barack Obama must have forgotten that he does not believe that the children he’s repeatedly justified leaving to die if born alive in botched abortions, in reality, are actual babies.
In a speech highlighting the plight of working families, Obama admitted what everyone knows, but some refuse to confess: in-utero babies are very much alive and have “feet that kick” to prove it.
“Too many women face unnecessary difficulties on the job, like the difficulty of being paid less than a man for doing the same work. That’s a difficulty.”
Then, Obama, who once referred to a baby as a “punishment,” talked about women “being reprimanded or fired for taking too many bathroom breaks when [they’re] pregnant.” The president said, “Clearly that’s a man making that decision because they don’t have five pounds of kicks pressing down on their bladder.”
In the name of women’s choice, Obama approves of aborting that same “five pounds of kicks,” and has been clamoring for six years to have taxpayers fund those killings.
Unfortunately, the president’s ‘five pounds of kicking feet’ slip of the tongue may require that Americans be reprogrammed into believing that ‘kicking feet’ does not necessarily make a developing fetus human.
In the meantime, what Obama’s flippant remark has successfully provided is proof that all along, even the most ardent abortion advocate has been well aware that “choice” is a code word for killing a human with kicking feet.
Originally posted at CLASH Daily
Michelle “Mixed Message” Obama traveled to Cambodia to encourage young girls to speak up. While there, the U.S. first lady told a Cambodian audience that educating girls allows them “to participate in the political life of their country and hold their leaders accountable,” an idea that should float nicely in a country run by a dictator.
Meanwhile, here in America, with the approval, funding, and hearty endorsement by the Obama administration, by way of feticide, every day 3,000-4,000 babies are denied the right to ever use their voices, half of them girls. So in essence Michelle’s message about girls using their voice only applies if Cambodian mothers choose not to use their voice to say “I’m here to have an abortion.”
While we’re on the subject of abortion, participating in political life, and holding leaders accountable, Mrs. Obama’s husband Barack has been delving into a similar realm, politically speaking. Seems that despite Michelle encouraging “voice usage”, her husband apparently believes that Israeli voters speaking out at the polls is something they shouldn’t be permitted to do.
Melding the quashing of voices and abortive tactics the same way he uses the tax dollars of pro-lifers to pay for abortion procedures they disagree with, it has been revealed that Barack Obama moved U.S. taxpayer monies through non-profit organizations to interfere in the Israel election.
Evidently Obama was exercising his right to choose who should be Prime Minister of Israel and sent a team of government-funded abortionists to Israel to abort Bibi Netanyahu. The only thing missing from this scenario was a bereted band of New Black Panthers stationed outside Israeli polling stations beating back Likud voters with billysticks.
Unfortunately, despite Barack’s best efforts, Bibi was “Born Alive”, so to speak.
Now the only hope Barack Obama has to fulfill his dream of political abortion is to find another way to undermine Bibi’s survival. From the looks of things, the president is counting on Iran to bring to fruition what appears to be his original intent to terminate the Jewish state.
Here’s the problem with all of this: How can Michelle Obama travel to a country ruled by an authoritarian strongman leader, large numbers of school dropouts, and endemic poverty to speak against the very conditions Barack Obama is intentionally cultivating here in America? Worse yet, in Cambodia she encouraged schoolgirls to do what her husband absolutely forbids here at home, which is to allow citizens “participation in political life” by holding him accountable.
Moreover, how can a representative of a government that is restricting First Amendment rights more and more every day be taken seriously when she encourages girls to “use” their voices?
After all, under the Obama regime those who express views that disagree with the president’s are retaliated against by government entities such as the IRS. Fox News and Tea Party activists are publicly mocked and derided for expressing an adversarial opinion, and conservative commentators vilified endlessly by the husband of the woman inspiring others to speak up.
Not only that, but when Bibi came to the United States to verbally express the dangers he believes will ensue if Obama assists Tehran in acquiring a nuclear bomb, Obama did what Michelle suggested schoolgirls in the Cambodian city of Siem Reap do to those who discourage voicing one’s opinion – he ignored Bibi.
Nevertheless, in an effort to undermine an entire sovereign nation from expressing their preference at the polls, if Obama does what he usually does it’s highly likely he’ll attempt to quell the voice of the Israeli people because a democratic election delivered a result opposite to what Barack Obama had hoped.
The truth is that much to Barack Obama’s chagrin, like a woman who visits an abortion clinic late-term only to give birth to a living baby destined to be aborted, Bibi survived.
Now, without an available laundry room to toss the prime minister into in hopes he’ll fade away without oxygen, warmth, and hydration, not to burden the original intent of getting rid of Bibi, Barack Obama must find an alternate route to rid the world, once and for all, of Bibi Netanyahu’s voice.
And so the Obama hypocrisy continues.
We have Mrs. Obama circumnavigating the globe promoting education, political activism, the benefit of holding politicians accountable, as well as free expression for girls. Meanwhile here at home, both girls and boys are being deprived of a voice because, with Michelle’s hearty approval, they’re being denied the right to life. Not to mention Michelle’s husband sic’ing the federal government on any political adversary that demands he become accountable to the nation.
Couple those double standards with President Obama opposing both nationally and internationally the right of individuals and nations to exercise their voice if what is voiced differs from his planetary vision for a progressive Islamic panacea.
Compounding that glaring dichotomy is Obama orchestrating a Chicago-style effort to abort the Israeli Prime Minister by sending a taxpayer-funded goon squad to pulverize the fearless leader whose voice advocates dealing with Iran in ways contrary to what Barack Obama demands.
Originally posted at Live Action News
Imagine having a laundry service that caters to a large health care facility. The usual delivery of dirty bed linens arrives and sits around for 48 hours. Finally, a tired worker drags the large duffel-type bag over to a workstation and starts to yank the contents of the bag out onto a table or the floor. All of a sudden, something unexpected tumbles out. It’s not hospital slipper socks, nor a damp towel. It’s not even a standard crumpled up pile of blue Chux. Wrapped in a sheet like a shroud is a fully formed stillborn baby.
That scenario is exactly what took place in St. Paul, Minnesota when workers from the Crothall Laundry were going about their day washing soiled sheets from Regions Hospital.
In response to the grisly discovery, the Minnesota hospital issued an apology, saying that the babe in the bedsheets was a 22-week-old fully-formed fetus who had died prior to birth. After delivery, the stillborn was taken to the morgue, where its small body was swaddled in a hospital sheet. Apparently, someone mistakenly tossed the tiny baby in with dirty linen, sending both the bedclothes and the stillborn to the laundry.
The hospital’s chief nursing officer, a contrite Chris Boese, said in a statement, “This was a terrible mistake, and we are deeply sorry. We have processes in place that should have prevented this but did not. We are working to identify the gap in our system, and to make sure this does not happen again.”
Staff at Regions Hospital claim they called to notify the family to express regret, and also extended support and counseling to the laundry service employees who got to see, up close and personal, what a 22-week-old fetus looks like. The interesting thing here is that, based on the need for psychological counseling, it’s clear that what the laundry workers saw didn’t resemble a blob of tissue – because if it did, counseling obviously would not have been necessary.
In hospitals that do perform abortions, it’s been alleged that leaving a baby to die in a laundry room is not unusual. Since having closed its Reproductive Health Clinic, Regions Hospital no longer performs elective abortions, so it’s unlikely that the child who ended up in the laundry was a result of a late-term abortion gone badly.
The “born alive” question arises because over the years, the definition of “pro-choice” has expanded to include the right to let a pesky infant who simply refuses to die live out its final minutes on a shelf in a soiled laundry room, cold and gasping for air.
And while to some that may seem shocking, Americans must agree that laundry room execution is acceptable, because in November a president was re-elected who believes that giving life-saving treatment to a wriggling little scrapper who defiantly resists going directly into the red biohazard bag “burdens the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”
Clearly, it’s Barack Obama’s opinion that the sacred right to a hands-off form of infanticide trumps treating an unwanted baby with the dignity and respect every human being rightly deserves.
The Kermit Gosnell murder trial is currently rousing America from its “abortion is a benign procedure” stupor, is proving that babies do occasionally emerge from the womb alive as a result of a botched abortion. In Italy, one defiant warrior aborted at 22 weeks for the sin of being “disabled” struggled to survive under a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached. It was under that sheet that a priest who had come to the laundry room to pray found him. The baby boy was transported to neo-natal care, where he later cooperated with the “original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion” and died.
Americans are coming to find out that infanticide isn’t a radical viewpoint in pro-choice circles. Recently, pro-choice community pillar Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates sent a lobbyist named Alisa LaPolt Snow, complete with pearls and a conservative business suit, to speak to the Florida legislature in defense of the practice of allowing babies who survive an abortion to die without medical intervention.
Ms. LaPolt Snow also believes that the “right to privacy” decision as to whether post-abortion children shivering and struggling to live be given medical care is a matter solely for the mother, her family, and the abortionist. Snow’s opinion, albeit articulated in a different way from the president’s, is indistinguishable from Barack Obama’s, and from his deep concern over the issue of human rights burdening the original decision to dispose of a baby.
And so, Regions Hospital extended apologies to the parents of the 22-week-old stillborn infant, who was transported from the Crothall Laundry back to the hospital morgue to be inspected by the medical examiner. In the meantime, traumatized laundry workers may seek counseling after finding the remains of a baby about the same gestational age as thousands who are terminated every year in this country. The difference is that the latter group is deprived of dignity and consists of nameless infants who are tossed onto the right-to-choose garbage heap without even a second thought.
Jesus told His followers that the way to recognize Christian brethren is by inspecting fruit. Jesus said, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.” Thus, “by their fruit you will recognize them.”
At the National Prayer Breakfast, partial “bitter clinger” Barack Obama, missing only a gun, tried to tell the crowd of 3,000 that he was a Scripture-quoting, Bible-toting Christian. Using the Word of God to justify the advancement of liberal policy, the president linked left-wing economic policy with obedience to Scripture and, by doing so, dared critics to disagree with God.
As the foundation of his faith, Obama referenced a key Scripture from Genesis wherein God asked Cain, after Cain killed his own brother, “Where is your brother Abel?” to which Cain replied, “I don’t know, am I my brother’s keeper?”
The president said his faith is based on “[l]iving by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need.” He maintained that those values are the ones that define his “faith journey,” which has also translated into “policies that support research to fight disease and support foreign aid.”
Seems the president hasn’t read the Scripture that says, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much,” because Obama-style Christianity is yet to acknowledge the glaring contradiction in wanting to be trusted with the world’s poor while disregarding the “very little” needs of a blood brother, impoverished and living in squalor in a Kenya slum.
Nonetheless, the president said that his faith also inspires him to voluntarily “give up some of the tax breaks” he enjoys. If Obama has his way, the rest of America will not be afforded the gratification of similar voluntary charitable contributions. In essence, establishing governmental mandates to support liberal causes is a religion unto itself, whose dogma redirects tithing from the faith community to the federal government, where alms gathered under compulsion are distributed through benevolent bureaucracy.
After the collection plate is filled, give-up-the-tax-break proceeds fund brother’s-keeper essentials like abortion, contraception, sterilization, and fighting disease with an ever-expanding food stamp program.
Barack Obama deciding to openly declare that Jesus applauds the “yes we can” brand has opened him up to public scrutiny. By exploiting biblical Christianity for political gain, he has invited examination from, among others, Republican presidential hopeful and devout Christian Rick Santorum, who dared broach the subject of the president’s innovative “theology.”
More recently, on Morning Joe, Reverend Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, a man Obama allegedly prayed with, also compared the president’s words against the backdrop of his actions. Based on the condition of some wormy fruit, as diplomatically as he could, Graham cast serious doubt on the state of Barack Obama’s tree and expressed uncertainty as to whether the latter is really a Christian.
Graham did confirm his belief that Rick Santorum was “a man of faith … because his values are so clear on moral issues.” About Santorum, Graham said, “I just appreciate the moral stances he takes on things,” a sentiment Reverend Graham did not express when speaking about Barack Obama.
Under close examination, America’s self-described “Christian” president’s fruit includes anti-Christian stances such as condoning and supporting gay marriage, calling Romans 1:26-27 an “obscure passage,” and being vehemently pro-choice. The president even opposes saving the lives of infants born alive during botched abortions, which translates into infanticide.
To Christian brethren who deem contraceptive and abortion anathema, in lieu of God’s will, Obama has instituted governmental doctrine by foisting his will on people of faith, denying those with whom he supposedly identifies the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Someone should remind the president that immediately following the “my brother’s keeper” verse in Genesis, when Cain claimed he didn’t know the whereabouts of the brother he had murdered, the Lord knew and said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.”
Besides the blood of unborn children crying out from the ground, in addition to being a champion of choice, the “peacemaker” president has condoned and helped spread racial division. While claiming to be a follower of Christ, Obama criticizes, disrespects, and has all but turned his back on Israel, the “apple of God’s eye.” Against Isaac and the nation of Israel, Barack Hussein Obama has sided almost exclusively with Ishmael.
On his first Christmas in the White House, Barack Obama requested that the Nativity scene be removed from the East Room — a request that was overridden. Shockingly, when speaking in Christian venues, he has also requested that the crucifix, the universal symbol of Christianity, be obscured from view. On more than one occasion, the president has misquoted Scripture, and while he often decries injustice toward Muslims, he has yet to speak on behalf of Christians being persecuted worldwide.
Franklin Graham rightly pointed out that under close inspection Obama appears to have some problematic fruit. Graham said, “Under President Obama, the Muslims of the world, he seems more concerned about them than the Christians being murdered in the Muslim countries.”
Caring for the poor, fighting disease, supporting foreign aid, and publicly declaring the sanctimonious attitude of being willing to give up tax breaks are the noble aspirations that President Obama claims define his pick-and-choose religion. Barack Obama’s customized Christianity is such that it discounts and mockingly downplays the Sermon on the Mount and then, in order to advance gay rights, resurrects and convolutes Jesus’ teaching of the Beatitudes.
Clearly, the President feels at ease redefining everything from “fairness” to the “American dream” to “traditional marriage,” all the way to the foundational tenets that define America. But fear not — in due time, the God of the Bible will surely expose the folly of those who, in an attempt to justify a liberal agenda, exploit Scripture and attempt to redefine Christianity.
Originally posted at American Thinker blog
It seems that whenever the subject of government-subsidized abortion is broached, prominent Democrats notoriously change the subject. The ploy is to appeal to the emotions of those who refuse to monetarily participate in an unending killing spree by insisting that without tax dollars to fund infanticide, women will die.
What the left fails to mention is that since the enactment of Roe v. Wade, millions upon millions of female fetuses have been routinely executed because of the self-centered choices of mothers who care more about their own lives than the lives of their children.
Statistically, since 1973, 60 million fetuses have died, but as of 2008, only 362 (or 0.0006%) of the 60 million women submitting themselves willingly to a legal abortion have died.
Therein resides the dichotomy of liberalism. The left attempts to defend unbridled insanity by appealing to selfish emotion that, if analyzed, defies logic and reason. Thus Democrats, headed up by the most pro-abortion president in the history of America, remain determined to force Americans who disagree with slaughtering the unborn to pay for something they morally and spiritually repudiate.
With that in mind, the President is anxious to display his unwavering commitment to abortion rights. Apparently, Obama is planning to veto the Protect Life Act, calling it “a divisive, politically motivated piece of legislation that unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that women and their families have today.” In other words, Obama heartily approves of abortion and believes no law should be passed that allows people who disapprove of the barbarism to be excused from paying for it.
Despite predictable Democratic scare tactics, the Republican bill merely attempts to close the door Obamacare opened that would allow government to finance abortion, something the Hyde Amendment has prevented for decades.
Detractors of the Protect Life Act argue that the bill threatens the rights of women and prevents them from getting a healthcare policy that covers killing the unborn even on the rare occasions when an abortion is medically necessary to preserve the life of the mother.
Echoing the president, liberal California congressman Henry Waxman described the bill as “an assault on women’s reproductive health and their constitutional rights to choose when to bear children.” Clearly, Waxman is convinced that pro-life Americans should be coerced into being accomplices to murder by bankrolling women who would rather make the “healthy” reproductive choice to dispose of the child growing within their womb.
Predictably, Nancy Pelosi takes it a step further and employs the ultimate in liberal illogical logic. According to Mrs. Pelosi, Republicans who support a bill that merely says women should pay for their own abortions “will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene.”
Nancy’s words are reminiscent of what actually does happen to infants born alive in botched abortions. Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Act because he believes that providing warmth, oxygen and hydration for a child who refuses to cooperate and die “burdens the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”
Unlike Obama voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, doctors attest that the Protect Life Bill “does not change or alter the practice of medicine or the responsibility of physicians in any way.” However, in order to convince the hesitant to reject the bill, Pelosi clings to the twisted argument that if the funding of killing stops, women die.
According to the histrionic words of Nancy Pelosi, if Americans don’t agree to fund the butchery of unborn human beings who are the ones being tossed into red biohazard bags on the floor, the lives of the mothers who choose to place them there are at risk.
Thus, the logic of liberals continues to defy the reasoning of thinking, feeling human beings. Democrats like Obama, Pelosi and Waxman are convinced that financing the death of the innocent is a valiant endeavor because by using everyone’s tax dollars to finance abortion, Americans are doing the moral thing and saving the lives of the selfish.
Originally posted at American Thinker
The entire time Casey Anthony was on trial, the voices in the media pontificating about justice for the victim didn’t seem to notice the hypocrisy of a group that gives its approbation for the slaughter of thousands every day demanding justice for the wrong suffered by two-year-old Caylee Anthony.
Even still, few would argue that the senseless death of a helpless tot isn’t heartrending. However, the larger heartbreak is that in a nation that has faithfully sown the culture of death; the idea of a mother wanting to be free from responsibility by taking the life of her offspring is not all that far-fetched.
Whether America believes Casey Anthony is guilty or not is not the issue. The issue is that no one is totally convinced she didn’t. Most believe Casey dumped the body of her dead child in a swamp and then for 31 days partied and treated herself to a ‘Beautiful Life’ tattoo while her tiny daughter was decomposing inside a plastic bag.
A mother doing such a thing shouldn’t be surprising, because under the auspices of a woman’s right to ‘privacy’ in 1973, with the passage of Roe v. Wade, child murder officially became legal in America. Over the next three decades, developing fetuses were reduced to less than human and women were convinced that disposing of unwanted offspring is a commendable goal.
Lest we forget, the value of life in America has been reduced to this motto: “Every child a wanted child.” Clearly, Caylee was unwanted by someone and if Casey took her daughter’s life, she’s no different from women who justify a similar decision as being nothing more than an exercise in ‘reproductive rights.’
For almost 40 years, in sterile environments and with the approbation of the United States legal system, millions of little Caylees have lost their lives. The only difference between 60 million aborted babies and a little girl with brown curls from Orlando, Florida is that for at least a couple of years Caylee got the chance to color, wear a baseball cap, and swim with Grandma in the family pool.
If Casey Anthony actually did kill her daughter, she joined the ranks of 98% of the women who choose to abort their unborn children for the sake of convenience. If guilty of the crime for which she was acquitted, single party girl Casey did nothing more than take a little longer to make up her mind about how and when to buy personal freedom in exchange for the life of her child.
Twenty-four months after Casey missed the chance to submit her baby to a partial-birth abortion, the young woman may have decided that it wasn’t too late to take the situation into her own hands. For an immature, narcissistic person like Casey Anthony it’s easy to see how the lines may have become blurred. It’s possible that Casey rationalized that when a woman decides to dispose of a child, what’s a couple of months in either direction. Six months in utero, 2-½ years’ post-partum, either way it doesn’t make much of a difference.
Furthermore, Ms. Anthony may have been personally persuaded that as long as a heart sticker was over the duct tape that suffocated her daughter, she could party hearty with a clear conscience. It could be that Casey agreed with popular opinion that human life is only fully ‘human’ if a person can survive without depending on another. As a pre-verbal toddler, Caylee certainly couldn’t survive without her mother, and ironically, like so many others before and after her, Caylee very well may have perished because of her mother.
Since Roe v. Wade was decided, the march toward infanticide has been ongoing. It began with a first trimester cutoff for an abortion; within a few years, women and their doctors became the arbiters of whether or not fully developed children should be granted life or tossed into an incinerator.
The next step was inevitable: partial-birth abortion became an option to get rid of fully developed, viable human beings. The brutal procedure desensitized the public to pro-choice politicians who vote against giving medical assistance and comfort to dying infants, born alive in botched abortions, to avoid “burdening the original decision” to kill a child.
Therefore, in American society the value of life has eroded to the point where women now give birth in restrooms and dispose of newborns in toilets and sewers, or place lifeless infants like garbage into plastic bags and hide them under beds. Many of these murdering mothers are then acquitted, much like Casey Anthony, which is indicative of a chilling truth that a mother murdering her own child is not nearly as offensive anymore as a child being murdered by a stranger.
Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder, but her freedom doesn’t erase the fact that Caylee is dead. Regardless of who killed Caylee Anthony, her death was caused by a person who lacked respect for human life. If it was her mother, kudos go to pro-choice America, whose indoctrination has been unrelenting in its effort to convince women that mothers come before children; a woman’s life takes precedence over her offspring; and the right to choose is an honorable objective.
In the end, a two-year-old child was murdered and a mother who appeared guilty was ultimately acquitted. Also acquitted was a pro-death society largely responsible for not taking into consideration that when life is cheapened we’re all potential victims of someone’s justifiable reason for disposing of us. The sad truth is that in America a seed of death has taken root, and the murder of Caylee Anthony is just one of the many fruits produced on that bitter vine.
Originally posted at American Thinker blog
Family practitioner/uncertified OB/GYN Dr. Kermit Gosnell has been charged with the systematic murder of hundreds, maybe even thousands of children. In addition, it appears Kermit is personally responsible for collateral damage in the form of an occasional dead woman or two.
Dr. Gosnell is charged with the death of 41 year-old Karnamaya Mongar who, while exercising the right to choose, died while submitting her unborn child to safe, legal and not-so-rare feticide in Kermit the Killer’s clinic. Ms. Mongar “overdosed on painkillers during an abortion in her 18th or 19thweek of pregnancy” in a health center the dead woman’s brother said was both “dirty and bloody.”
Dirty and bloody are standard slaughterhouse fare. Executioners are notorious for failing to keep pristine sterile environments. So, it’s no wonder Gosnell reused “unsanitary instruments and perform[ed] procedures in filthy rooms.” In fact, according to patients who made it out alive, “Some of the rooms had litter boxes and animals present at the time of the operations.” Filth may be why Gosnell was named in 46 malpractice suits, one of which involved a 22 year-old woman who died of sepsis and a perforated uterus.
According to District Attorney Seth Williams, women came from as far away as the mid-Atlantic because Gosnell could always be counted on to perform a late-term abortion. However, unlike Kermit’s minority patients, “White women from the suburbs were ushered into a separate, slightly cleaner area because Gosnell believed they were more likely to file complaints.”
In addition to providing third-trimester reproductive services, Dr. Gosnell is also charged with purposely birthing and then barbarically killing seven viable infants, “born alive during failed illegal late-term abortions.” None of the seven dead human beings were granted the right to life by their mothers, who entrusted Kermit and unlicensed clinic workers with the job of cutting their child’s spinal column with a pair of dirty scissors and disposing, bagging, or placing their pieces in oversized mason jars.
A search of the Family Women’s Medical Society building “revealed that bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses were scattered throughout the building. Jars containing the severed feet of babies lined a shelf.”
Remember serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer? Jeffrey also saved body part mementos. Much like Dahmer, Dr. Gosnell collected trophies, but the doctor’s consisted mostly of low-income, minority babies. The difference between Dahmer and Gosnell is that Kermit’s victims were a lot smaller and the doctor was happy to exterminate regardless of gender.
Unlike Dahmer, who earned nothing for murder, necrophilia and cannibalism, Gosnell’s butchery earned “$1.8 million in one year alone.” According to authorities, in a few short hours Doc pocketed “$325 for first-trimester abortions and $1,600 to $3,000 for abortions up to 30 weeks. The clinic took in $10,000 to $15,000 a day” in blood money.
Now, three decades and a pile of dead bodies later, Gosnell is accused of “Infanticide, Conspiracy, Abortion at 24 or more weeks, Abuse of a Corpse, Theft, Corruption of Minors, Solicitation and other related offenses.”
Running a lawful enterprise in a needy community, Dr. Gosnell likely viewed himself as a committed servant of the commonweal. It would be both confusing and frustrating for someone like Kermit to find himself in prison. All the man was trying to do was offer a legal service to low-income women without the hindrance of small details like length of gestation or postnatal fetal fortitude.
Logically, a dead baby is a dead baby. Does it really matter how far along the developmental trajectory a child is destroyed? Besides, if the President of the United States is not in a “pay grade” to determine when life begins, should an uncertified Pennsylvania OB/GYN be held to a higher standard? Whether it is 10 weeks, 24 weeks, full-term or born alive, either way the same unwanted baby would be dead, so why penalize a mother for not knowing enough to visit her friendly neighborhood abortion clinic a few weeks earlier?
Let’s face it, the only reason Kermit, his wife, and eight other clinic workers are sitting in a jail cell is largely because of a pesky federal law enacted during pro-lifer George W. Bush’s administration. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act requires medical facilities that earn their keep by killing the unborn “to provide appropriate medical care and treatment for…children who were born alive after a failed abortion.”
Additional thoughts on the subject published exclusively on Jeannie-ologyand not part of the original article:
In Kermit’s world, what’s the big deal? Mom comes to Dr. G for help because she doesn’t want a baby. Gosnell slides the litter box out of the room, quickly brushes off the obstetrical table, induces labor, and a squirming baby is delivered. As the infant gasps for breath, lets out a whimper and shivers from the cold air, Champion of Choice Dr. Kermit severs the spinal cord, tosses the baby into a garbage bag, and when Mom comes to, she’s none the wiser. Thanks to Dr. Gosnell, another satisfied customer sips some warm orange juice from a plastic cup and goes home relieved and liberated from the prospect of unwanted motherhood.
In fact, when it comes to the Born Alive Act (HR 2175), there is one man in particular who might empathize with Kermit and his dilemma. Barack Obama prides himself on placing the right to choose above the right to life. Barack even opposed a bill preventing partial birth abortions which, in essence, except for a few minutes here or there, is no different than what Kermit Gosnell administered daily in his blood-splattered clinic.
President Obama may not literally cut tiny, pencil-thin spinal cords with scissors, but he proudly attests to being more concerned with Roe v. Wade not being “undermined” than wrapping a shivering infant, with skin as thin as tissue paper, in a blanket. Barack Obama believes providing the frail and powerless with oxygen and warmth “burden[s] the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” “Burdening the original decision” with a living child is precisely the type of situation Kermit Gosnell has been working hard to avoid for 30 years.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell is likely going to jail for literally addressing Barack Obama’s concern that nothing should interfere with the decision of a woman and her doctor to induce labor and destroy a living human being. The difference is, with scissors in hand Kermit personally makes short work of a process Obama thinks may take a little longer, but in the end has the same result.
Although Barack believes “America is no longer a Christian nation,” requests that the “IHS” symbol for Jesus’ name be draped when speaking at Catholic Universities, and hosts annual Ramadan dinners, the President also claims his life is fashioned after Jesus Christ.
In the run-up to the election, public opinion polls indicate 18% of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. Suddenly, a few weeks after making a rare appearance at St. John’s Episcopal on a day when a pro-Palestinian was coincidentally a featured guest speaker, another question about Obama’s Christian faith arises.
During a meeting between Obama and Albuquerque, New Mexico residents, the President “fielded questions on a variety of topics, including education, immigration, energy, and housing policy.” The President extended Jesus-like comfort to a man who burst into tears over health care. Obama told the distraught gentleman that he “viewed the government’s obligation to caring for veterans as a ‘sacred trust,’” a perfect segue into religious faith discussion.
Responding to a question from the group, the President addressed faith, abortion and chili peppers. According to Obama, his inspiring Christian journey unfolded in the following way:
I’m a Christian by choice. My family…weren’t folks who went to church every week. My mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew but she didn’t raise me in the church, so I came to my Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead. Being my brothers and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”
In Barack’s designer-Christian world, the words “Christian” and “choice” are somehow reconciled. Obama claims, “The precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to [him] in terms of the kind of life that [he] would want to lead – being my brothers and sisters’ keeper.” Yet America’s most ardent pro-choice politician supports, funds, and advocates for the destruction of millions of preborn “brothers and sisters.”
Wasn’t it Jesus, son of an woman unwed when He was conceived, who warned, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me?” (Matthew 25:45) Scripturally, there isn’t anyone more “least of these” than a defenseless, innocent “fruit of the womb,” whose “fearfully and wonderfully made” existence was “ordained” by God before the foundation of the world. Yet Obama, Christian by choice, manages to justify not protecting God-intended life.
Obama responded to the abortion question by reiterating a “safe, legal and rare” platform, which includes partial birth abortion and condoning denying medical care to babies born alive after botched abortions, all of which are specific to an Obama-styled Gospel.
While discussing deep faith and Christ’s precepts, and before accepting a gift of garden-grown chili peppers and drinking sweet tea with the folks, Obama should have expounded on Jesus’ command to “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” (Mark 10:14 and 16).
Or maybe an Obama-tinged exegetical teaching on Jesus’ healing and resurrecting children from the dead. Or, maybe more pointedly, the President’s view on what Jesus meant when He predicted terrible times, when “Brother will deliver brother over to death, and father his child,” (Mark 13:12).
Jesus never once made an exception for killing children, whether “safe, legal [or] rare,” which is thankfully why true and righteous “government rests upon Jesus’ shoulders,” not Barack Obama’s.
It is never my intention to offend anyone so I felt it necessary to clarify the words, “Jesus, Son of an unwed mother.”
Few consider it offensive to call Mary an “unwed” mother because the ancient world perceived pregnancy before consummation of a marriage a disgrace. Mary was “betrothed” to Joseph, but the marriage was not yet consummated when Jesus’ mother was divinely impregnated with the Son of God. Thus, Mary was, indeed, what modern society would call, or perceive as, an “unwed” mother, at least for a time.
The beauty of Mary’s sacrifice included willingness to be a vessel of God including selfless acceptance of public scorn and disgrace. If Mary were alive today, Obama and his minions would have put approbation on, financed and even encouraged young Mary dispose of Jesus, which was the sole point of the reference and how it was said.
Joseph struggled with Mary’s pregnancy knowing he was not the child’s father. Yet Joseph “married” Mary because he was a “just” and “righteous” man, called of God to be Mary’s husband and to raise Jesus.
“Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, being a just man, and unwilling to put her on public display, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home on account it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. “ Matthew 1:18-21
As luck would have it President Barack Obama may have found a potential Cabinet appointee today right on the front page of the Sun Sentinel and realized that he might have prematurely chosen Governor Kathleen Sebelius as head of Department of Health and Human Services. Sebelius is controversial and pro-choice projecting herself to be someone who is moderate and wants to lower the abortion rate in her state. She is a typical example of the “My Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred, and personally I believe abortion is wrong” group. Followed up by the schizophrenic liberal clarification, “However, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation” Abortion, not resume, could dominate Sebelius confirmation.
Like most liberals what they say and what they do are two different things. Regardless of what she “says” Sebelius always comes down on the side of extreme abortion rights, such as her veto of a bill that attempted to place restrictions on late term abortions (Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act (CARA). Sebelius has fought against parental consent or any effort to curtail late-term abortions.
She is also an ardent supporter of Dr. George Tiller a Kansas late term abortionist who admits to having performed over 60,000 abortions. Congratulations Dr. Tiller you wiped out three coliseums full of human beings, quite an accomplishment. Tiller dismisses the concern for infants born alive calling them “just sloppy medicine.” Her relationship with the renowned Dr. Tiller is personal and financial, quite radical for someone who claims that “…all life is sacred, and personally believes abortion is wrong.” I can’t imagine who Sebelius would hang out with if she had no conscience at all. Maybe she would scrub up and hand Dr. Tiller the scalpel, suction and saline and then gleefully drag the biohazard bag’s contents to the dumpster?
Shocking as it might be, Kathleen Sebelius is moderate compared to likes of our esteemed Commander in Chief when it comes to abortion. Personally, I think Barack Obama deserves someone who doesn’t play both sides of the fence when it comes to this issue because he certainly doesn’t. Not that Obama has a conscience– but he rescinded the Bush’s “conscience exemption” originally instituted to protect health care professionals who found participating in an abortion morally reprehensible to be exempt from and having the “right to refuse” participation. Can anyone say Dr. Mengle?
Nazi doctors gave the following arguments in their defense: “involuntary research on prisoners had a long history, prisoners were already sentenced to death, they were only following orders, there were no clear international ethics standards respecting research, the toleration of a lesser evil to tolerate a greater good, those who did not participate might have been killed” (Tarantola, 1993).
If Kathleen Sebelius has any scruples on the issue she very well might be the wrong person for the job. Barack Obama has consistently voted against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), which is a bill on the Illinois, as well as the Federal level, which would make illegal death by neglect of born alive but unwanted infants. In other words botched abortions where the unthinkable happens and the infant is born alive, you know “sloppy medicine.”
Regardless of Obama’s misrepresentation of how he voted on the Illinois bill the truth is, “…he was part of the legislative committee that added that very ‘neutrality clause’ to the bill he voted against in 2003” (News Busters, Warner Todd Huston, Obama Lied About Vote Against Live Birth Abortion Ban, Media Mum, 8-13-08). Long story short, Barack Obama is so committed to making sure babies born alive during botched abortions not make it off the cold, stainless steel table still breathing that he voted against a bill that included the amendment with the Roe-protection wording, which he claimed he was so concerned about.
Obama is proving why, before becoming President, he had the reputation of being the most radical, left-wing US Senator. One reason obviously was his unabashed support of the most heartless pro-choice practice, which is late term abortion and the abandoning, without medical care, of any aborted baby “born alive.” That small detail didn’t seem to bother 52% of the American electorate who felt he was the harbinger of “Hope” and “Change.” I’m sure this voter base would heartily support any Cabinet choice he made and should applaud his appointment of like minded appointees, especially if Kathleen Stebelius shows some cracks in her armor and goes wobbly when it comes to refusing to aid a baby who has the extreme misfortune of being born alive in Barack’s hope laden America.
Obama has made clear that he doesn’t want to “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion” by having an additional physician to attend to a live born infant. You know a sort of undermining of the original intent, which was a lifeless, dead baby. This could be a problem for Ms. Sebelius if her conscience and her Catholic faith should unexpectedly kick in.
That is why I think Obama should have someone in the position of Health and Human Services who would have the stomach to assist Dr. George Tiller after he is appointed Surgeon General. A person who will make sure that the original decision of the woman will never force her to be, as the President says, “punished with a baby.” My recommendation for the position is Belkis Gonzalez the women’s clinic worker in Hialeah Florida who “delivered a live baby during a botched procedure and then threw the infant away” she is tailored made for the Obama Administration.
Barak needn’t worry, even if Gonzalez is prosecuted, convicted and sentenced she will probably only face a year in prison, if anything at all. The woman who delivered the baby in the Miramar Woman’s Center in Hialeah waited until she was 23 weeks pregnant to decide she didn’t have, “the resources or maturity to raise a child.” Lucky for her Belkis was there. Upon giving birth to her baby girl, who she named Shanice, “She came face to face with a human being and that changed everything.” It may be above my pay scale to say so but, “Oops, we can’t have that!” So Ms. Gonzalez “…scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth” into a red plastic bag and threw Shanice away.
The little girl had taken a breath because her small underdeveloped lungs were filled with air, meaning she had been born alive. “The baby was just treated as a piece of garbage. People all over the country are just aghast,” said the lawyer representing the mother. I beg to differ with you Mr. Brejcha the whole country is not “aghast” 52% are applauding the bravery of Ms. Gonzalez. Maybe President Obama can speak on her behalf and appeal to the judge on the basis that she will be gainfully employed by his Administration and will be operating fully under his jurisdiction and direction. Kathleen Sebelius can go back to Kansas and as far as Belkis is concerned, “You’re hired!”
Copyright 2009 Jeannieology. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed