February 20, 2008
The Vote That Will Cost Obama the Presidency
Never heard of BAIPA? You will:
As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.
Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother’s right to “choose” stopped at her baby’s delivery.
The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.
I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women’s rights or abortionists’ rights. Obama’s clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois’ drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)
[snip]
Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to “explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
I don’t recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash.
Neither do I recall religion being brought into the partial-birth abortion ban debate. I recall comparisons made to U.S. laws ensuring animals being killed are treated humanely. I recall testimony that late-term babies feel excruciating pain while being aborted.
Obama stated pro-life proposals must be “amenable to reason.”
OK, Sen. Obama, let’s reason. Explain why you support abortion for whatever rationale, at whatever gestation, by whatever means. Explain why you support infanticide, if banning it might interfere with abortion.
If you still think that places like Ohio, Missouri (a place that elected John Ashcroft Governor for two terms before sending him to Washington to serve in the Senate), or a Mountain West state like Colorado (that went comfortablly for Bush in 2004) will drop for Barack Obama after being throughly vetted, I still have that oceanfront property here in Minnesota I’d like to sell you.
I am not exaggerating folks… Barack Obama: Worst. Abortion. Voting. Record. EVER.
http://race42008.com/2008/02/20/the-vote-that-will-cost-obama-the-presidency/trackback/
February 20th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
This is horrid. I absolutely cannot believe it. I geniunely like Barack as a speaker, but good lord, if this man somehow wins the White House I shudder to think at what might happen. This literally made me gag.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
colorado will go for obama, it is not as conservative a state as people think. the governor and legislature are both democrats.
the things the governor and legislature are promoting are being recieved quite well.
the only way Mccain beats Obama in the Mountain west is going to be a strong conservative on the ticket- nothing else.
you can count Nevada in the same boat as Colorado on that front
February 20th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Kavon, I have been using this story to send to all my pro-life friends and to those on the fence between voting Republican and Obama. Amanda Carpenter covered this story for Human Events back in ‘06: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647&page=1
February 20th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Kavon, I am stunned. Here is a question that you may know the answer to: if the federal law banning the practice passed, why isn’t Illinois following it? Are there loopholes in the act, is the state defying Congress, or is it something else that I haven’t thought of?
The thought makes me ill and I’d appreciate it if you can shed some more light on things for us.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I don’t honestly see how somebody who is pro-choice could support his position.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
That was absolutly appalling, I’m disgusted and the overwhelming majority of Americans will be too.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
This article makes me soo sad. Obama must be stopped.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Very, very disappointing. He has to be stopped. The protection of life is paramount.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I have long been pointing this vote out to my friends. I can’t see him carrying any red state if this part of his record is exposed.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Even most of us who are pro-choice favor heavy restrictions late in pregnancy. Much less AFTER pregnancy.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
The Clintons would be exploiting this if Hillary hadn’t tried to have a “perfect” pro-choice record.
This should be HER Sister Souljah moment.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
If anybody has contact info for anyone high up in that campaign, email them the suggestion in #11 please.
I’m still rooting for her not only because she is (probably) easier to beat, but because she would do much less harm if we are destined to have a Democratic President.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
One would think that as soon as a baby is born, simple murder or homicide charges would come into play if the baby’s life was terminated.
I can’t even believe this is even a topic of conversation in the US in 2008. What a barbaric practice.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I consider myself a moderate on abortion (meaning a dangerously radical leftist to most on this site). But this item (if accurate) is horrifying. I agree that it could give pause to most folks in the middle who are thinking about supporting Obama.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
What about McCain’s pledge for endless war, Kavon? Maybe you should talk about how “pro-life” more pointless wars in the middle east will be?
February 20th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Peter: Learn to read and quit distorting things.
Doesn’t the fact that Obama wanted to kill babies only a little disturbing to you?
February 20th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Wow, I really butchered that sentence.
But you’re still more of an idiot than me, Peter.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
#15 “What about McCain’s pledge for endless war, Kavon?”
I expect many people in Japan appreciate the US military presence these past 60+ years that has preserved the peace. McCain’s point was that sometimes a military presence is the right approach for endless peace, and we should be smart enough to know when to pursue that course.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
#18 Notice how many South Koreans complain and moan about our presence in their country.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
My Dad did a lot of business training in South Korea and he was amazed how much they love Americans. Random South Koreans on the street treated him, a normal non-military US citizen there on business, like a moviestar. Everybody wanted a picture with him or an autograph
February 20th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
This is a bit strange to me. In New Hampshire Clinton attacked Obama as being secretly pro-life or at least not strongly pro-choice. He voted “present” on certain abortion measures. So it strikes me as confusing that he would be so adamant about this particular bill. I guess I will have to do a little research to find out the answer because this article presents only one side.
I do find it rather ironic that the article about says it wasn’t about religion, but the title of the link has “Jesus” in it.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
ProRomney,
The U.S. Army does not exist to make the people of Japan feel safe. We’ve been acting like an empire for years and we can’t afford it any longer.
John McCain has said he would continue this idiot foreign policy of George Bush without mentioning how our country is going to afford it, nor he has mentioned how he’s going to find the soldiers to fight all the new wars that he has proposed.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
But if you want bankruptcy and bloodshed, go vote for him. Conservatism’s dead. Let’s be happy about it!
McCain 2008: More death and destruction for everyone
February 20th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Peter #23: “But if you want bankruptcy and bloodshed, go vote for him.”
Will do. Thanks for the permission slip.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
BobH,
You want 5,000 more of our soldiers dead for no reason?
Go get em’, tiger.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Another fear-mongering, war-starting, constitution-shredding, once-a-year pro-lifer isn’t going to cut it anymore. I’m sick of these Republican clowns who we’re supposed to get excited over.
The quality just keeps on going down and down. Reagan, Bush, Bush, and now McCain? Since when did warmed-over liberals become great “conservatives” that we’re supposed to get excited over? You’re all prepared to lose power for a stupid war that has nothing to do with our national security or your own well-being. President Bush gives you a WAR and you’re HAPPY?
That’s all? A war? He gives you a stinking war and you dance and yell and cheer over it because your masters tell you to???
You’re a bunch of sheep who cheer as your rights slowly are taken away. John McCain is someone to get excited over.
Woooopppdeeedooo…let’s go start some more wars. The first two obviously haven’t killed enough people already.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Obama is in trouble with this vote. This will be what drags him down. This is the cause he has campioned. This is the record that he stands on.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Since Obama has such a weak resume, the few things he has made stands on will be his undoing
February 20th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
This is one of the advantages we have, that Hillary hasn’t had. Because she’s distrusted by activists in the Democratic party, she’s been unwilling or unable to attack Obama from the right, and her attacks from the left end up looking remarkably flimsy because, well, you have to practically wander off the political stage to get farther to the left then Obama.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
to get to the left of Obama*
February 20th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I agree Matthew, say what you want about McCain, but he is on the center-right and that is where the majority of Americans are
February 20th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Q. Why is the breaking McCain story not on here?
A. Because you people are out to screw Mike Huckabee!
February 20th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
In the debates McCain should ask Obama when he voted in favor of allowing the killing of newborn infants and whether he would sign a bill to allow that nationally.
Obama’s record in support of infanticide may be too liberal even for some of his zombies. I suspect most of his zombies will make excuses and ignore it because it feels so good to vote for a black man and lose your race guilt. Can’t let the death of infants get in the way of self-centered guilt cleansing.
I think most Obama zombies would do better to go to therapy than foist their psychological illnesses on the nation.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Rick, what breaking McCain story?
February 20th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
EGS,
You have become slowly a bit more unhinged and racial. Its disturbing.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Axel: EGS is right.
As to the substance of the post, while I agree that Obama won’t win the Electoral College, I don’t think that any single policy will take him down. I think that the aggregate of his extremism (Marxism, post-birth abortion, foreign policy cluelessness, etc) will do him in. The only danger I see in saying that this policy or that policy will definitely prevent him from winning is that a lot of people probably said that a pot-smoking, draft-dodging, pro-abortion Democrat who cheats on his wife couldn’t win the South in 1992, and yet Bill Clinton won substantial portions of the South. There’s not going to be a single death knell for Obamania. It will be a death by a thousand cuts.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Mac in bed with lobbyist.
Literally.
Check out Drudge.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
So really, could someone here inform the readership of the simple question asked above?
If the IL law was anything like the national law, which passed unanimously, with even the pro-abortion groups taking a pass, then why did it fail in IL?
Seems pretty obvious, on the face of it, that it must have been a very different bill.
Details matter.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
What Rick is referring to is the “Big Bomb” that the NYT has been waiting to drop on McCain-that supposedly he had an affair in 1999 with a Washington lobbyist.
To bad that both parties deny it, and that there is not one single shred of evidence to support it.
But these are the times we live in. What is supposed to be the most respected newspaper in America reports unsubstantiated innuendo as a news story.
And the difference now between the NYT and the National Enquirer is what exactly?
February 20th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Tano, when one of the details is that Obama supports killing infants the other details are irrelevant.
If the choice was Obama or Hillary, I’d walk across broken glass to avoid Obama because he supports so much more evil.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
#39, The Enquier isn’t as good toilet paper for dogs
February 20th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Aha.
Boy that sure didn’t take long.
So whats up, Kavon, you think your readers dont know how to use Google?
Here is a more accurate reading of the Illinois law that Obama opposed.
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/01/from-the-archiv.html
February 20th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Axel G, I’m not racial, I just observed many liberals were voting for racial reasons. It’s not an issue to me like it is to guilt ridden liberals. My mother was Iranian and I remember what it felt like getting dirty looks when I was with her.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Thanks for that link, Tano — it’s good to have contrasting views. I’ll look into this issue further.
The Times article doesn’t seem to have much in it — it’s mostly a lengthy recap of Keating 5 and McCain-Feingold, with a very nebulous imputation (though no evidence) of a possible affair with a lobbyist for whom there’s also no evidence he did any favors.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Both sides say that they were just friends. I know plenty of girls at school whom I have a close friendship with and it is just that, a friendship.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Obama’s 10 reasons for supporting infanticide
by Jill Stanek
January 16, 2008
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59702#
Obama stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:
I just want to suggest … that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — child, a 9-month-old — child that was delivered to term.
I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
Before voting “no” for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:
“What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.”
An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against BAIPA because it included provisions that “would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable.”
Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said “there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee,” according to the Illinois Leader.
During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:
“Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. … At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.”
Illinois’ paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Federal paragraph (c): 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.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Here’s Tano’s supposed “gotcha” article:
How is this suppose to make me feel better exactly?
February 20th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Peter:
Republicans are not clowns and the war is not stupid. They are defending our country from terror. There is a reason we are fighting. We are fighting to keep this country great and free for our children.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Wow I voted for Obama in the Idaho Caucus. But I will definitely be going for McCain in the generals now
February 20th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
“The Vote That Will Cost Obama the Presidency”
Hardly…I agree with the comment that this one issue will certainly not cost him the Presidency. His supporters like him, they won’t believe this stuff, and even if they do, they will find a way to rationalize it away. That’s the problem. I agree with Rush that this is not just a political campaign that is going on here, this is a movement. For Hope? Change? You name it…Vote for Obama and your wildest dreams will come true. No matter how sickening this abortion record and mentality is, it’s not “the dream” that his supporters have in their mind, so they will reject it.
Hillary doesn’t look so bad any more, does she?
February 20th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Tano #37
“Mac in bed with lobbyist.”
“Literally.”
Really?
First, regarding this article, so much for Obama respecting our civil rights when he is incapable of protecting and respecting the rights of the most vulnerable individuals on this planet…the newborn.
And second, so much for the NYT’s endorsement of McCain. It was never a real endorsement, but largely just a tool to help derail Rudy’s candidacy. The Times used the McCain endorsement as a part of their platform to launch their vicious and malevolent attacks on Rudy, which contributed to the early demise of his candidacy.
At the time, there were rumors that the NYT was sitting on a story regarding McCain, though their prime concern was to dispose of Rudy’s candidacy via a “breaking news†story regarding the alleged misuse of taxpayer funds to cover his mistress’s security bill. This ultimately was revealed as a non-story, forcing the Times to retract their original comment a few days later, deep in the heart of the pages of the newspaper even though their original story was a top story. Hardly anyone took note of the retraction and in any event, the damage had already been done.
But I digress. If the NYT sees fit to print this McCain sexual innuendo and malicious gossip without the support of any evidence, why don’t they at least try to play “fair†and also publish the brewing scandal regarding Obama’s use of drugs and backseat limo homosexual sex antics? At least that story has a witness who will soon take a lie detector test, which is more than the McCain story has at this juncture.
“When his story was ignored by the news media, Larry Sinclair made his case last month in a YouTube video, which has now been viewed more than a quarter-million times. And when it was still ignored by the media, Sinclair filed a suit in Minnesota District Court, alleging threats and intimidation by Obama’s staff.â€
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626
February 20th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
[...] I just have to comment on this tidbit from Kavon’s recent post on Obama and abortion: Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, [...]
February 20th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Iranians get dirty looks because they took Americans hostage and are crossing the border to kill our troops in Iraq. I don’t know why the British did not exterminate the entire area a century ago. We could have free oil.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Tano #37
“Mac in bed with lobbyist.â€
“Literally.â€
Really?
First, so much for Obama respecting our civil rights when he is incapable of protecting and respecting the rights of the most vulnerable individuals on this planet, the newborn.
And second, so much for the NYT’s endorsement of McCain. It was never a real endorsement, but largely just a tool to help derail Rudy’s candidacy. The Times used the McCain endorsement as a part of their platform to launch their vicious and malevolent attacks on Rudy, which contributed to the early demise of his candidacy.
At the time, there were rumors that the NYT was sitting on a story regarding McCain, though their prime concern was to dispose of Rudy’s candidacy via a “breaking news†story regarding the alleged misuse of taxpayer funds to cover his mistress’s security bill. This ultimately was revealed as a non-story, forcing the Times to retract their original comment a few days later, deep in the heart of the pages of the newspaper even though their original story was a top story. Hardly anyone took note of the retraction and in any event, the damage had already been done.
But I digress. If the NYT sees fit to print this McCain sexual innuendo and malicious gossip without the support of any evidence, why don’t they at least try to play “fair†and also publish the brewing scandal regarding Obama’s use of drugs and backseat limo homosexual sex antics? At least that story has a witness who will soon take a lie detector test, which is more than the McCain story has at this juncture.
“When his story was ignored by the news media, Larry Sinclair made his case last month in a YouTube video, which has now been viewed more than a quarter-million times. And when it was still ignored by the media, Sinclair filed a suit in Minnesota District Court, alleging threats and intimidation by Obama’s staff.â€
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626
February 20th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Axel,
“Iranians get dirty looks because they took Americans hostage and are crossing the border to kill our troops in Iraq. I don’t know why the British did not exterminate the entire area a century ago. We could have free oil.”
What a stupid thing to say. I hope that was a jest done in bad taste. Do you truly support genocide?
February 20th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Kavon,
Don’t play innocent here. You know exactly what these bills were - the usual pro-life maneuver to pretend that a bill is going to outlaw some outrageous practice (one that was already illegal), and to insert language that would undermine the legality of all abortions. These clowns are pulling this stuff on a daily basis, in every state capitol in the country.
Which is, obviously, why the bill has been defeated repeatedly.
Your post was really deceptive, trying to pretend that this bill was something like the federal legislation that passed unanimously. What are you trying to do? Just feed grossly misleading talking points to your audience, assuming they wil just repeat them without thinking?
From Aron’s comment quoting Obama at the time:
“whenever we define a previable fetus as a person…”
You see what was going on? Define the previable fetus as a person.
Hell, if you do that, then you effectivly outlaw abortion.
That might be your preference, but all you are really doing here is pointing out that Obama is pro-choice.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Tano,
” You know exactly what these bills were - the usual pro-life maneuver to pretend that a bill is going to outlaw some outrageous practice (one that was already illegal), and to insert language that would undermine the legality of all abortions.”
I can understand why the anti-life mob would not want voters to make the logical connection between the barbarity of one practice and the barbarity of others. Were that to happen, we could be down the slippery slope where ALL life is considered precious and sacred, and we couldn’t have THAT, now could we?
February 20th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
MWS,
I was just being over the top in response to EGS.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:10 am
Axel,
Okay. That certainly wasn’t clear to me in your original post. Thanks for the clarification.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:17 am
[...] drfrank wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptObama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to “explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.†… Read the rest of this great post here Posted by [...]
February 21st, 2008 at 4:06 am
# 45 Jonathan
Sorry man, there are no girls that are just friends. You are either trying to hookup with them or failed and then ended up in the friend zone.
As far the the McCain situation, Republicans should be happy at least this time she is an adult female.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:12 am
Florida as a married man all my female friends are just friends (besides my wife). It’s not hard to be “just friends” when you really love your spouse.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:59 am
I’m still trying to figure out where the federal government has any Constitutional authority over anything even remotely related to abortion. Obama obviously doesn’t care about restraints on his power as a member of Congress since he’s a marxist, but what about the “conservatives” who claim to love “constructionist” judges? The powers not delegated to the United States government are reserved to the States or the people. The Bill of Rights is a superfluous restraint on federal power, intended to make sure the Congress sticks to its enumerated powers listed in Article I Section 8.
This good law which protects a baby from being killed after birth is also unconstitutional. A good law can be unconstitutional and a bad law can be perfectly constitutional. The important thing to consider is: WHO DECIDES? WHO HAS LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OVER ISSUES SUCH AS ABORTION? The federal legislature and the federal courts usurped this power from the states and the people.
Anyone with a brain and any sense of decency should reject any federal intervention in this area and should, at the state and local level, do everything to protect the lives of innocent babies- including the unborn.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:47 am
61
I was joking and quoting a comedian.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:48 am
I was not joking about the McCain comment. Actually I was, which is kind of sad because it’s true.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
“WHO DECIDES? WHO HAS LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OVER ISSUES SUCH AS ABORTION? The federal legislature and the federal courts usurped this power from the states and the people.”
What a bizzare interpretation.
The Roe decision took the power away from government and gave it to the individual woman, at least for a while.
The pro-life movement is trying to take the power away from individuals and give it back to government.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I am a pro-lifer. I swear to God,
I will eat ramen noodles and wear patched clothes so I can donate money to defeat this guy. I swear to God, I will get each of my neighbors personally to know about this stuff. And for you secular types, I mean it. Its not just an expletive. I. Swear. To. God.
February 21st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Obama also favors partial birth abortion, I believe.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Anyone who thinks pro-choice is a viable term for pro-abortion simply doesn’t understand the English language. Pro-choice is not one sided. The Baby doesn’t have a choice. And, abortion is no more a religious matter than is murder. Abortion is violating someone’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When there are two, (or more) heartbeats inside a woman’s body, there is one or more living beings in there. If you are in favor of abortion, it is a pity that your mother was not.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
[...] came across this on race42008.com. It is a very troubling report in regards to what Barak has done in the past about the life issue. I’ll be interested to see [...]
August 20th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
[...] my original post “The Vote That Will Cost Obama the Presidency” from February 20th, 2008 [...]