Somebody emailed me this YouTube link. As shown in some of the comments, many are outraged as to the claims and presentation of the video’s subject.
Contrary to many of these claims, both the video and its claims are true. The lady’s name is Jill Stanek (www.jillstanek.com) and she was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL. Read her bio here. On her web site, you can see first-hand documentation of Barack Obama’s comments and actions in the Illinois State Senate opposing the passage of the Induced Infant Liability Act, a measure that would outlaw partial birth abortion, and it’s infanticidal relative, live birth abortion. Live birth abortion is prematurely inducing labor and delivery and then leaving the infant to die on its own.
To quote the November 2, 2008, Washington Times editorial:
Despite all the details Mrs. Stanek provided in her testimony, Mr. Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act in the Illinois legislature in 2002 – a bill that would give legal protection and medical assistance to a baby born from a botched abortion. Mr. Obama stated that he feared the bill could undermine Roe v. Wade. When a similar bill was put to Congress, other lawmakers had better sense and bigger hearts: The Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98-0. It was signed into law by President Bush on Aug. 5, 2002. Infants born alive are now recognized as legal persons with full rights.
Anyone who claims a moral interest or concern in this presidential election should pay very serious attention to the sections from Obama and others relating to the notion that a child born after a failed abortion attempt should not be constitutionally protected as a “person” because an abortion had been attempted. The president is the most powerful leader of the free world and, whether Obama or McCain, their moral philosophy of who and what a person is has far more serious consequences for the welfare of the United States than their economic or diplomatic acuity.
Obama, for the other side, knew we could not consider such an infant worthy of protection while maintaining current abortion laws. Here’s how he put it on March 30, 2001:If we consider a fetus intended for abortion “as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements of the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protection that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination essentially, if it were accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.
So, Obama answers the metaphysical question – a fetus is only a person if it is intended for birth. But, not so fast – the metaphysical question is still dead. Some take the question much further with alarming conclusions.
Professor Peter Singer of Princeton caused a stir when he advocated the parental or societal right to terminate a living child for a variety of reasons, the point being that the child’s human personhood is not complete until recognized as such by the parents or some other societal guardian of such things. [Read more…]
Obama skillfully conceals his real comittments behind the parsing of words and supposed concern for legislative integrity, but his fundamental belief about the most integral part of human society–a person–is unmistakeable.
“In leadership, character matters,” say well-known leadership scholars Bernard Bass and Paul Steidlmeir. They explain further:
This is not to deny that evil people can bring about good things or that good people can lead the way to moral ruin. Rather, leadership provides a moral compass and, over the long term, both personal development and the common good are best served by a moral compass that reads true [emphasis added].
The greatest danger threatening American society is the substitution of economic and socio-political utility for a true moral compass. Something has gone terribly wrong when a significant segment of the Christian population conciously or otherwise discard the radical ethical difference between economics and moral issues such as abortion and the defintion of a person. History offers some important lessons about the consequences, good or bad, of how cultures view these two sets of values.
If character in leadership matters, then maybe any election ultimately is a one-issue decision: moral virtue versus economic utility.
Given all the other complex factors, when it comes time to pull the proverbial handle, which one matters most to you? That’s your one issue. The difference is critical.
——–
Citation from Bass and Steidlmeier taken from “Ethics, Moral Character and Authentic Transformational Leadership” (1998) accessed electronically at http://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.html.
