Well put! Although, I am a little disheartened that this Dr. is getting more coverage than the slain Army recruiter.

If this president was shocked and outraged by partial birth abortions, he would not have twice voted to deny medical care to the children spunky enough to survive the attempted murder.

Just heard the report that Tiller the baby killer, killed 60,000 babies in 35 years.

To bad the laws didn’t get him 35 years ago.

Perhaps Scott Roeder (the man accused of the murder of Dr. Tiller) is the sort of single-issue, fanatical, right-wing, extremist, potential home-grown terrorist that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano tried to warn us about… and conservatives skewered her for it. And to think, this entire incident could’ve been avoided had all the parishioners brought their pieces to worship. Sometimes I’m glad I’m Jewish.

This morning when I got up Foxnews.com was featuring an OReilly piece where Bill’s producer stalked Tiller, confronted him in a gas station, and Tiller had to call the police for assistance. As if to give instructions on how to confront him.

Then, OReilly defended the stalking…

Sad

I think Fox finally removed it

doubtingthomas: If this president was shocked and outraged by partial birth abortions, he would not have twice voted to deny medical care to the children spunky enough to survive the attempted murder.

Here’s the truth…

such protection was already on the books as Illinois state law.

(LINK) Fight the Smears
The attackers torture and twist logic and history by willfully misinterpreting votes by Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate to come up with their wild accusation.

Here’s the truth about Barack Obama and the bill:

– At the time Barack voted against a bill containing language designed to protect infants who were “born alive,” such protection was already on the books as Illinois state law.[1]

– The accusations against Barack are so reckless that not even the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill will support them. In fact, he freely admits that “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.”[2]

– The bill was opposed by many legislators and groups like the Illinois Medical Society because of the unintended impact it would have had on other laws and legal precedents in Illinois.[3]

– Barack is on the record[3] saying that he would have supported a similar bill that came up in Congress — but that didn’t pose a threat to a woman’s right to choose the way the Illinois bill did.[4]

Don Berra, budb, doubtingthomas, and magnum,
So if your wife was pregnant and her life was at risk, you would prefer that she die rather than have an abortion? And you believe that no woman should have the option of abortion to save her life? She should always die?

Lisa, queen of stats, your link to an Obama campaign web site is kind of pointless, of course he says he doesnt support infanticide, not that that position would effect your opinion of him. He did, in fact, vote against a bill that would provide medical care to those babies who survived an abortion. The bill he references applies ONLY to babies who were intended to be live birthed, not those who survived an abortion.

Next you bring up the straw man “what if it was your wife who was dying”, show us the stats on how many women have abortions due to life threatening situations.

http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/avery/partial_birth_abortion_feel_good_bad_831.htm
[Partial Birth Abortion] was developed as an alternative to an older, more ghastly procedure: dilation and evacuation. This is when the mother is partially dilated and some sort of grasping tool is used to pull the fetus out—piece by piece.

This procedure is somewhat dangerous to the mother, though, as bones begin to calcify at about 13 weeks gestation (24 weeks is the legal point of viability, at which time states are allowed to limit abortion rights), and shards or even entire body parts can be accidentally left in the uterus after the fetus is dismembered inside, causing infection and other injury.

Partial-birth abortions account for less than 0.2 percent of all abortions in the United States. Of those, most are performed at 20-24 weeks of gestation, or late into the second trimester but within the Supreme Court’s time frame. A study conducted in 1996 could only locate two cases of “partial birth abortion” performed after 24 weeks in that year in the United States.

Of those performed, the reasons most commonly given (although again I emphasize that statistics are very difficult to come by) were:

*The fetus had died late in development, and delivering it through natural means would have harmed the mother both physically and psychologically. (This type of procedure is not prohibited under the ban, but accounts for many, and possibly a majority, of the procedures included in statistics.)

*The fetus suffered from anencephaly, meaning that while it would carry to term, it would not have developed most of its brain. If not still born, such a child will usually die less than five days after birth. This defect is not usually discovered until late into the second trimester, when a partial birth or dilation and evacuation are the only options. The ban then leaves mothers with a choice between dilation and evacuation, or giving birth to their brainless child, then watching it die.

*The fetus developed a severe case of hydrocephalus, a swelling of the skull (due to a flooding of cerebrospinal fluid around the brain) which in extreme cases makes it impossible to pass through the birth canal. Many (about one in 500 American children) suffer from milder cases of the disease, but the ban does not make exceptions for cases wherein the mother would suffer permanent debilitating injury (swelling can go up to 250 percent normal size), only to give birth to a hopelessly brain-damaged, if not stillborn, infant. I think it would be interesting to see how Congressmen would feel about their wives or daughters being permanently handicapped in order to go through the trauma of giving birth to a deformed, dying child.

I’ll re-post to try to make this easier to read.

(LINK)
[Partial Birth Abortion] was developed as an alternative to an older, more ghastly procedure: dilation and evacuation. This is when the mother is partially dilated and some sort of grasping tool is used to pull the fetus out—piece by piece.

This procedure is somewhat dangerous to the mother, though, as bones begin to calcify at about 13 weeks gestation (24 weeks is the legal point of viability, at which time states are allowed to limit abortion rights), and shards or even entire body parts can be accidentally left in the uterus after the fetus is dismembered inside, causing infection and other injury.

Partial-birth abortions account for less than 0.2 percent of all abortions in the United States. Of those, most are performed at 20-24 weeks of gestation, or late into the second trimester but within the Supreme Court’s time frame. A study conducted in 1996 could only locate two cases of “partial birth abortion” performed after 24 weeks in that year in the United States.

Of those performed, the reasons most commonly given (although again I emphasize that statistics are very difficult to come by) were:

*The fetus had died late in development, and delivering it through natural means would have harmed the mother both physically and psychologically. (This type of procedure is not prohibited under the ban, but accounts for many, and possibly a majority, of the procedures included in statistics.)

*The fetus suffered from anencephaly, meaning that while it would carry to term, it would not have developed most of its brain. If not still born, such a child will usually die less than five days after birth. This defect is not usually discovered until late into the second trimester, when a partial birth or dilation and evacuation are the only options. The ban then leaves mothers with a choice between dilation and evacuation, or giving birth to their brainless child, then watching it die.

*The fetus developed a severe case of hydrocephalus, a swelling of the skull (due to a flooding of cerebrospinal fluid around the brain) which in extreme cases makes it impossible to pass through the birth canal. Many (about one in 500 American children) suffer from milder cases of the disease, but the ban does not make exceptions for cases wherein the mother would suffer permanent debilitating injury (swelling can go up to 250 percent normal size), only to give birth to a hopelessly brain-damaged, if not stillborn, infant. I think it would be interesting to see how Congressmen would feel about their wives or daughters being permanently handicapped in order to go through the trauma of giving birth to a deformed, dying child.