Thursday, October 30, 2008

Why I cannot vote for Obama



Some things are so morally critical that they cannot be ignored. Barack Obama three times voted against a bill that would require medical care be given to "aborted" babies born alive. Watch this to find out what happens to these babies. This is so sickening to me, the thought of having a man who condones such practices for President of this country is heartbreaking.

14 comments:

Kelley said...

I held my beautiful baby girl in my arms as I watched that and as I type this. I am sickened at the thought of this barbaric practice, and even more so that people are allowing it to happen. Obama scares me, and this is just another reason why.

Maile said...

Wow, wow, wow. This is so shockingly sad. I've been reading about abortion on a lot of blogs the past couple days. Although I don't love either candidate, Obama's liberal views on social issues will be the deciding factor to sway me the other direction.

BTW, this is your cousin Peter's wife. I found your blog on your brother's blog a while ago. I'm also interested in homeschooling as my kids get older.

Renee said...

This is so distressing and shocking. What does this say about our country, our culture that we could even allow ANY of this to be practiced in our medical community? Let alone, possibly have a President who supported this?!

Thanks for stopping by my blog.

Renee'
http://rmboys2.wordpress.com/

Kelley said...

I put this on my blog, too, and am saddened by the responses. I'm not sure how to respond to them, but I certainly don't agree with them. Do you mind taking a look and telling me what you think?

Aidan's mom said...

Kelley,

I respond from a viewpoint that knows 3 women personally who needed that type of procedure prior to viability live. If the same event occurred in their pregnancies today. HELLP syndrome at 21 or 22 weeks, they would have no choice but to undergo a cesarean and likely bleed out for a baby that is not yet viable.

I had this same horrific disease strike me, but I was 28 weeks. So I took my chances at bleeding out because my son was viable at that point. If that had happened to me 6 weeks earlier, I would have been forced to undergo that lifethreatening cesarean with no chance at a surviving baby.

There are sadly medical reasons for this procedure. And the women I have met that undergo an IDX at that stage are faced with a "Sophie's choice"....their life or the life of their nonviable fetus. I call that no choice at all. But to take away their only chance at survival is something I cannot abide by.

Paula said...

Aidan's mom,
What procedure are you referring to? The issue discussed in this video is whether or not to grant medical care to a baby that is born alive following an attempted abortion. The law did not impact whether or not a woman could get an abortion at all. Since you seem to be discussing a different issue I don't really know how to respond to you.

Aidan's mom said...

Kelley,

The procedure I am referring to is sometimes referred to a "partial birth abortion" (not a medical term by the way, the RTL movement came up with this name for it). The technical name is intact dilation and extraction. It is the procedure referred to in the video by the woman, Jill Stanek.

When a woman develops Class I HELLP, it is a variant of preeclampsia. But suddenly your red bloods cells are bursting, your liver is in danger of rupturing, and your platelets fall to almost undetectable levels. When this happens after viability (as it did for me), you are counseled by the delivering physician that you can undergo cesarean with the express understanding that because you have almost no detectable platelets, you are at high risk of bleeding out and dying. I was willing to take that risk because my baby was past viability. But I have met women who were not yet at viability who get Class I HELLP syndrome. HELLP can only be cured by delivery of the placenta.

IDX (intact dilation and extraction) was often used in women who developed HELLP prior to viability. There is much less blood loss than a cesarean and with no chance for the baby to live prior to viability, it is the most likely way to save the mother's life.

This procedure is now illegal. And this is what Jill Stanek is referring to in her video.

I do not oppose the idea of providing medical care. I oppose the notion that this protection did not already exist under Illinois law.

Just one example of the fact that Illinois law already provided for medical protection of a fetus that survived an abortion is the following:

"Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should "Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion." The Chicago Tribune reported, "'For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when 'there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,' an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes 'it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.' And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique 'most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus' and perform the abortion in the presence of 'a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.'" [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]"

Obama is leary of voting for something that provides for the idea of conferring full rights to a fetus prior to viability, thus opening the door to legislation that would make abortion illegal.

My example was to provide you with an idea that a law that some people believe had good intentions (The BAIPA) has had consequences with now deny IDX to women in the situations described above.

Carolyn said...

Abortion is very very sad. When I was reading the church's recent statement "The Divine Institution of Marriage", it was their side comment on the number of abortions that left me most saddened. "Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 43 million innocents." Abortion is very wrong, but so is our society's shift away from traditional family relationships and planned parenting that would leave 43 million babies unwanted.

There should be a dual focus in fighting this problem. The death of innocents must stop and the education of youth and protection of their purity must begin with renewed vigor.

Paula said...

Aidan's mom,
your arguments seem to me to be confounding the BAIPA (Born Alive Infant Protection Act) with the Partial-Birth Abortion Act. They are two completely separate pieces of legislation. My original post (including the video) addresses the protection of born-alive infants. The legality of Partial Birth Abortion is a separate issue. However, even that law contains the clause
"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."
I'm not a legal expert, but it seems to me that the HELLP cases you discuss would qualify for that exception if necessary?

Aidan's mom said...

Paula,

Yes they are different acts. One of the problems that lawmakers face when considering laws such as what we are discussing is what future attorneys will do with them.

This is likely the reason Barack Obama was leary of voting for the Illinois law. Not only was there already current protection for the very infants you describe, but he was probably approaching it from a legal point of view. Looking at it from a perspective of whether or not a lawyer for the RTL movement could take that law and construe it to confer additional rights.

I am not an attorney but Barack Obama is. And apparently a pretty good one at that, given that he was president of the Harvard Law Review.

An internet friend Judit made this point on another blog and I find the question relevant.

"Do you believe, as this video would have you believe, that he is the kind of person who likes to allow babies to be left to die? Undoubtedly a heartbreaking situation to imagine. But really? That's what you think of him?"

She went on to say, "But implying things like Obama is a baby murderer is not really at a level of discourse that I care to engage in. For me it's right up there with Obama is a terrorist."

She said it well for me. The smearing is getting out of control.

The problem I have with some of the bloggers (not necessarily your blog) that have been posting this video is the pretense that nobody would deny a woman's right to an abortion. Yet, the underlying agenda of most of these advocates, including Jill Stanek on this video aims to do just that. She goes so far as to say that she believes birth control pills should be banned.

It is all just becoming way too intrusive. I mean birth control pills? My body...not anybody else's business how I plan my family. If I choose to use bc, that is my choice.

Paula said...

Hi Aidan's Mom,
The true brilliance of democracy is that it keeps any single brand of thought from totally dominating all others. It looks like the system is still working :-)
blessings,
Paula

Aidan's mom said...

Agreed. I like civil discourse about these topics. The America where we can't discuss our differences is the America that is really in trouble.

Best to you,
Lori

Soren said...

The clip is moving, and it is also propagandic. What gets to me the most about it though is how it capitalizes on peoples emotions. It's not trying to give people a straight and fair point of view on the topic, but a very biased one.

The other thing is how often people misinterpret bills, and how both representatives in states, and in congress vote on them. It's not necessarily that they vote against or for the issue as a whole, but it might be something in the bill that, that senator thought should be changed. I mean think, once it's passed, it's law. So if there's unclear wording that could lead to a loop whole that a senator catches, he/she will probably vote against the bill.

Take for example the bailout bill. It wasn't passed the first time, even though a majority of congress was in support for the bailout, it was passed later, after being corrected.

I'm not advocating abortion, but that movie does fail to give a wide perspective of the deal. Wikipedia does a much better job ;)

Benjamin said...

I come late to the discussion (just wandering by the blog), but I'd second what Soren said. I do think Obama is very liberal on abortion -- probably the most liberal president(-elect) we have had on that issue -- but not nearly as much as this video implies. His own statement on the matter: "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that" (Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008). My understanding is that the facts do hold up his statement, and at least partially hold up his assertion that there was already a law on the Illinois books that required doctors to care for a born-alive child (although the interpretation of that law is disputed).

Ironically, Obama was heavily criticized during the Democratic primaries(i.e. by the National Organization of Women) for not being sufficiently pro-choice. Wherever it is that he actually stands, he's definitely far to the left of me on abortion (as are most politicians), but a detailed look at the issue via original sources indicates that he is not that far left.