Powerful:
In this powerful ad sponsored by BornAliveTruth.org, abortion survivor Gianna Jesson questions Barack Obama for his active opposition as state senator to IL's Born Alive Infants Protection Act.As Dennis Byrne wrote at Chicagotribune.com: Voters should be troubled by Obama's abortion stance:Born Alive was introduced to stop IL hospitals from leaving babies who survived their abortions in soiled utility rooms to die.
Gianna was aborted 31 years ago by a saline abortion procedure.
Gianna testified for the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2001 and attended the presidential bill signing in 2002.
Born Alive passed on the federal level overwhelmingly. The abortion group NARAL even expressed neutrality on the bill, which passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate 98-0.
Barack Obama is such an abortion extremist, he has positioned himself to the left of the entire U.S. Senate and NARAL.
If it were up to Obama, Gianna would not be here today.
Can we just listen to ourselves? We're debating whether some babies born alive have a right to medical attention.In order to grasp the full extent of Obama's "barbarism," readers should check out: Obama Transcript on Infanticide Bill: "Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online examines the barbarism of Barack Obama who refused to protect children who managed to be born alive after failed attempts to abort them."How have we come to this? Can't we all agree that everyone whose heart beats, brain functions and lungs respire at birth should have a chance to live? If we're a compassionate, rational and just society, we would say, "Of course, every infant has a right to lifesaving medical attention. Even if it's not wanted." (Continue reading)
Related videos: Obama's record on infanticide and abortion...
The born-alive protection is doing the same thing the partial-birth ban has done, but with a slightly wider scope.
The partial-birth ban has caused docs doing post-viability abortions to kill the fetus in utero and document the death before starting to take it out. Now the born-alive protection is causing docs doing near-viability (middle of second trimester) abortions to adopt the same change in protocol. Of course earlier in the pregnancy its harder to do an intracardiac injection so cruder methods may be necessary. You want to minimize bleeding, so the best thing is probably to go in with a laproscopic snake and jam it up the nose into the brain.
BAIPA is inducing the docs to do a better job of making sure you DON'T get born alive. Is that good? Is it better for some babies to be killed in utero rather than dying as extreme premies from lack of life-support after being born alive by mistake? If yes, why? The opposite seems more likely. At least the born-alive gets a glimpse of the world. A chance to draw breath. Thanks to BAIPA some babies who would have had that chance, won't. Happy now?
This is a good argument for banning post-viability abortions (and all for that matter). Is it really so difficult to understand that killing a newborn is immoral?