I once had a small fellowship through The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in DC that, more than any other, influenced the good policies of the Reagan administration. I'd say that I agree with their positions, as a practical matter (i.e., in terms of what's achievable at the margin, versus what I'd like to see ideally) about 90% of the time.
Right now The Heritage Foundation is fighting an Obama administration attempt to eliminate a federal regulation forcing employers of doctors not to require doctors to perform abortions. I'm pro-life and I support a doctor who will not perform abortions. I know it's easier for a pro-life doctor if the government forces his employer not to require him to perform an abortion, but isn't the whole point of conscience doing what's right even when it's not easy? A doctor whose employer requires him to perform abortions should go work elsewhere. That's the American way.
I frankly think it would be great if all doctors who refuse to perform abortions withdrew their medical talent from all employers who force doctors to perform abortions. I think it would be great if pro-life doctors published a list online of all hospitals who force their employees to perform abortions, especially the third-trimester and partial-birth abortions that 60-80% of Americans oppose even being legal. I'd like to see millions of pro-life Americans in small towns and rural areas (and a few even in suburbia and big cities) go out of their way to patronize hospitals who do not force their employees to perform abortions.
Can you imagine the hue and cry from statist-liberals if a state forced its anti-death-penalty employees to perform executions? I'd like to see these statist-liberals, who want to regulate everything except abortion, publicly defending forcing a doctor to perform abortions against his conscience. I think hospitals and medical practices would perform substantially fewer abortions if pro-life medical customers took their medical dollars to places that do not force their employees to perform abortions.
Vote with your dollars in the market place--that's the American way.
Showing posts with label partial-birth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label partial-birth. Show all posts
Friday, April 3, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Obama Supported AFTER-birth Abortions
I have to admit that I missed this one during the campaign. Nobody could win the Democrat nomination for president without supporting abortion right up to the moment of birth, and indeed during birth, as the national Democrat party official supports partial-birth abortion, but this is the first time I've seen a Democrat actually support killing a born baby after a botched abortion. There can be no doubt that our right to life begins no later than birth, and that allowing born babies to die is infanticide. I can say that 100% of the Democrats in the US Senate supported the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 to outlaw killing a baby or letting it die after birth.
Yet Obama twice, in 2001 and again in 2003, refused to vote in favor of a bill in the Illinois General Assembly with identical language. Obama apparently lied during the campaign and claimed that the bills he opposed did not have the same language as the 2002 federal act, but it turns out that, not only did they have the identical language, but that Obama himself voted to put the identical language in the bills he refused to support.
Over the past 20 years or so, poll after poll by large liberal media organizations has shown that consistently 60-70% of Americans oppose third trimester abortion, and 75-80% of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion. I've never seen a poll that asked how many Americans oppose an AFTER-birth abortion, but I'd be willing to bet real money (If I had any) that you'd get close to 100%--with the exception of Obama. I know some pretty ardent pro-choice supporters, even in my own family, and not a single one of them supports partial-birth abortions or even non-birth abortions in the third trimester. I have never before met a Democrat who supported an AFTER-birth abortion. Killing innocent babies who have survived birth is so evil that in the modern world it sounds like something that only, say, mass-murdering Muslim monsters would do. Welcome to the Obamanation.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBkYTYzZDNjNDgyMWJmMzMxYzljYjYxNmEwMTdhYWE
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html
Yet Obama twice, in 2001 and again in 2003, refused to vote in favor of a bill in the Illinois General Assembly with identical language. Obama apparently lied during the campaign and claimed that the bills he opposed did not have the same language as the 2002 federal act, but it turns out that, not only did they have the identical language, but that Obama himself voted to put the identical language in the bills he refused to support.
Over the past 20 years or so, poll after poll by large liberal media organizations has shown that consistently 60-70% of Americans oppose third trimester abortion, and 75-80% of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion. I've never seen a poll that asked how many Americans oppose an AFTER-birth abortion, but I'd be willing to bet real money (If I had any) that you'd get close to 100%--with the exception of Obama. I know some pretty ardent pro-choice supporters, even in my own family, and not a single one of them supports partial-birth abortions or even non-birth abortions in the third trimester. I have never before met a Democrat who supported an AFTER-birth abortion. Killing innocent babies who have survived birth is so evil that in the modern world it sounds like something that only, say, mass-murdering Muslim monsters would do. Welcome to the Obamanation.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBkYTYzZDNjNDgyMWJmMzMxYzljYjYxNmEwMTdhYWE
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)