Obama’s First Promised Action Upon Entering the Oval Office

Posted on October 29, 2008. Filed under: InsideSTL.com Articles |

This is the article which appeared on InsideSTL.com on 10/28/08. As I do every week, I want to thank Tim McKernan and everyone else at InsideSTL.com for giving me another forum each week. Currently, they are unsure whether they will keep the STL Politics section which hosts these articles. If you enjoy reading these each month, please visit their site at www.insidestl.com, read the other great content they have and support their advertisers and drop them an email on the Contact section and tell them you would like to continue to read more in the STL Politics section. Thanks for reading.

In 2003, Congress passed a bill that was supported by a vast majority of American voters. Obama has already vowed to sign already-proposed legislation into law which would negate the 2003 bill immediately upon entering the Oval Office. The bill Obama opposes is the Partial Birth Abortion Ban which was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. On July 17, 2007, Obama told members of Planned Parenthood, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). That’s the first thing that I’d do.” The content of the two opposing bills offer voters a rare chance to voice their stance on abortion rights through the candidate they support for president. A look at the content of these two bills shows the true extremity of Obama’s support of abortion.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban which was passed in 2003 was passed with the sole purpose of outlawing one of the most gruesome methods of abortion. This barbaric process is known as “dilation and extraction” and this was the only method of abortion which was limited by the bill which Obama has vowed to overturn by signing FOCA into law. The bill also strictly defined the procedure so there is no chance that other methods would end up fitting the partial birth abortion definition and also be banned. Opponents claimed that this type of procedure was very rare, however, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that the method was used 3,000 to 5,000 times annually.

(Warning: The following testimony is not for the faint of heart, it is a graphic description of an extremely brutal and inhumane procedure.) Nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer gave the most realistic description of this disgusting procedure when she testified to the House Judiciary Committee in 1995 when work first began on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Nurse Shafer testified that the nursing firm she worked for place her at an abortion clinic. The position did not bother her because she claimed she was very pro-choice before the assignment. What she saw at the clinic would change her views forever. She told the Judiciary Committee about the first partial birth abortion for which she assisted. Here’s her official testimony, “The mother was six months pregnant… Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby… As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen, the baby’s heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched the doctor do these things.”

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was drawn up in 2007 by pro abortion Democrat legislators such as Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton after the Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Under the findings section of the bill which explains why the bill was written, the 9th finding states, “Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on an abortion procedure, which has no exception to protect a woman’s health.” However, this is a flat-out lie because the exact wording of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban has always included this exact exception under Sec. 1531, “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.” 

FOCA does much more than just reverse the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. According to Planned Parenthood, an adamant supporter of FOCA, the legislation will overturn any state laws mandating that parents be notified of a minor seeking an abortion. Planned Parenthood’s FAQ sheet on FOCA states, “Minors have long been included within the protections of Roe. Parental consent or notification statutes have been used as a tool to deny access to abortion services for minors. When such laws deny or interfere with the ability of minors to access abortion services, they would violate FOCA.” However, according to a Zogby International Poll from July 2008, 76% of Americans and 74% of women feel a physician should be legally required to notify parents that their underage daughter is seeking an abortion.  

Obama told Planned Parenthood in the same speech where he vowed to sign FOCA into law, “Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure…That presumption is also wrong,” The ban was not the “federal ban on abortion” as Obama labeled it, it was a federal ban on a barbaric procedure with no proven medical benefits. According to an ABC News poll, it was supported by 69% of Americans. His statements show how extreme his pro-abortion views really are. Obama has no intention of working to unite both sides on the abortion debate. He’ll vigorously defend all forms of abortion, no matter how gruesome and heartless they are. This is what the nation will be facing with an Obama presidency and a Democrat super-majority in both houses of Congress.

Below are the links to the full-texts of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and the Freedom of Choice Act. Please take a look at these bills if you believe I am cherry-picking certain aspects or taking parts of them out-of-context. Thanks.

Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s108-3

Freedom of Choice Act: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1173/text\

Below are some additional comments on the subject which I wrote in response to the claims that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was only opposed by Obama because it did not have an exception for the mother’s health. It also attempts to address those who claim the content of the original article is meant to force religious views on others.

Anyone who actually read the article will know what I’m about to say so you may just want to skip over this. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban always included an exception for the mother’s health. It is quoted word-for-word in the article itself. Therefore, taking that the exception has always been in the bill and the bill also very strictly defines the exact partial-birth abortion procedure that would be banned, why else would Obama oppose it? The bill does not reach any further than the exact procedure described in detail in the article. No other procedure is even alluded to in the text. Therefore, taking that the bill is very specific and not a sweeping ban on abortion and the exception for the mother’s health is in the bill, by opposing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, Obama is, in fact, supporting the partial birth abortion procedure. Of course Obama is not out saying, “Gee, I love that partial birth abortion!” no one could ever come out and say they supported the gruesome procedure. However, to not be able to see that Obama’s other reasons for opposing it are not true, clearly leads voters to the only logical conclusion that the true purpose of the Freedom of Choice Act which Obama supports so strongly, is to ensure the Partial Birth Abortion Ban cannot prohibit the barbaric form of killing unwanted children.

Let’s also get honest about the abortion debate. Everyone states that abortion of all types is justified for what are referred to as “hard cases.” These are the cases that involve rape, incest, or cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life. Out of the over 48.5 million abortions committed since 1973 when Roe v Wade was decided, less than 7% were “hard cases.” The other 45 million abortions were done for “social reasons” such as, it wasn’t the right time for the mother, relationship problems at the time of the pregnancy, fear that the pregnancy would interfere with educational or career goals. Therefore, if abortion was permitted in only the “hard case” situations that everyone uses to justify the legality of abortion (which 54% of Americans support making abortion only legal for “hard cases” according to a July 2008 Zogby poll) there would have been a 93% decrease in the number of abortions performed. Also, to claim that because a child would grow up poor, or in foster care is the most arrogant and elitist argument in support of abortion. Who do people think they are to be able to determine just which lives are worth living and which are not? Ask someone living in foster care or on a low income if they feel they would have been better off aborted and never living, I’m sure most will be thankful they were brought into the world.

This is not a religious issue. I would hate to think that being an atheist means that you don’t care about human atrocities that are performed. This is purely a humanitarian issue. If you took the time to actually read the text of the bills, you would also see that partial birth abortions actually have more health risks to the mother than benefits. In fact, there has been no health benefits found to the procedure. One of the main doctors who testified in support of the procedure admitted to the New York Times that he lied about the supposed legitimate medical reasons to perform the action. It’s funny how Obama and his supporters consider any gun ban as “sensible” and label any opposition as gun-nuts, but as soon as one of the most horrific actions committed by our society is outlawed, they consider it a sweeping assault on abortion rights. Let’s at least be honest about what we support and quit hiding behind reasons to oppose the bill that don’t exist.



Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


    Is this really a new type of politician? Or is the Obama machine just using politics as usual in their campaign?


    Subscribe Via RSS

    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Add your feed to Newsburst from CNET News.com
    • Subscribe in Google Reader
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • The latest comments to all posts in RSS


Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: