[Hoot Gibson]

This is the most under covered major news story that I can recall. It is a perfect example of how our media selectively reports "local crime stories" to further a national political agenda. Remember all of the national attention and biased media coverage accompanied the Trayvon Martin case? Very few Americans know who Kermit Gosnell is and the trial of this serial killer (accused of 7 murders) is in week six.

Biased news coverage is bad enough, but the mainstream media has imposed a near blackout of this story. Why? Because the alleged killer operated a filthy abortion mill that does not fit the pristine image of a "family services clinic," which liberals have worked so hard to create.

[INDENT]

Death Doc Kermit Gosnell's Silent Co-Conspirators

Planned Parenthood now says it's "appalled" by the Philadelphia house of horrors run by accused serial baby-killer and pregnant-mom murderer Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Bull.

The appalling inaction of the nation's largest abortion provider, along with countless other clinics and "pro-choice" groups in the know, speaks far louder than their belatedly self-serving words.

The criminal trial of Gosnell is entering week six. The death doctor faces seven counts of first-degree murder for severing the spinal cords of babies born alive during abortions. That's in addition to one count of third-degree murder in the death of Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old Bhutanese refugee who died of a monstrously negligent drug overdose at Gosnell's "Women's Medical Society" clinic. Her family has brought a separate civil suit against Gosnell.

Conservative and pro-life journalists have covered the gruesome case since Gosnell's arrest more than two years ago. Through social media, last week faithful chroniclers of this evil killing spree finally forced national outlets to acknowledge their selective attention to mass murder. While mainstream journalists flogged partisan story lines about the GOP's "war on women," turned birth control crusader Sandra Fluke into the nation's Florence Nightingale and splashed the photos of Sandy Hook children all over their front pages, the mostly poor and minority women and babies victimized by Gosnell went ignored.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...z2R15gpKnb
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

[/INDENT]

[nky]

As some on here will argue.........abortion is legal so what's the big deal?:HitWall:

This is only one example how many more are out there? Is it a women's right issue or a money making deal on the bones of dead babies?

[Hoot Gibson]

As some on here will argue.........abortion is legal so what's the big deal?:HitWall:

This is only one example how many more are out there? Is it a women's right issue or a money making deal on the bones of dead babies?

Whoever would argue that position, and there may be one or two radical liberals who do so without getting all the facts, will be wrong. Killing live born babies is still considered murder in this country, even though they were deemed "non-viable" by Doktor Gosnell before their births. Can you imagine what the impact on poll numbers would be if the eyewitness account of a baby swimming for its life in Gosnell's toilet had been reported in national coverage? There is a war on women in this country (and on infant girls), but it is not being waged by the Republican Party.

[TheRealVille]

As some on here will argue.........abortion is legal so what's the big deal?:HitWall:

This is only one example how many more are out there? Is it a women's right issue or a money making deal on the bones of dead babies?

That form of abortion is not legal.

[TheRealThing]

That form of abortion is not legal.

Ya think? Imagine a baby swimming for it's life in that scum's TOILET. We are a nation headed for some dark days. Government should have a hot line set up so that born alive (disclaimer; they're alive at conception as far as I am concerned) babies could be rescued by EMT's. We have ambulance services with overlapping jurisdiction all across this land.

Of course in those cases, the Gosnell's of this land, and I would bet they number far more than anyone would like to believe, would have to answer for aborting the so-called viable.

[nky]

Wonder who voted against Illinois "born alive" bill back in 2002, 2002, and 2003?
‘A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.’

[TheRealVille]

Wonder who voted against Illinois "born alive" bill back in 2002, 2002, and 2003?
‘A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.’

Who?

2001
February 22: Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Senate Bill 1095) was first introduced in the Illinois Senate.
March 28: Then State Senator Barack Obama voted "NO" on the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Re: dating, the bill was introduced one day, and the vote was held the next. The tally is dated the day the hearing on the bill began.)
March 30: Obama spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.
March 30: Obama voted "PRESENT" on the Senate floor.


2002
January 30: Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Senate Bill 1662) was reintroduced after failing to become law the prior year.
March 6: Then State Senator Barack Obama voted "NO" on the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
April 4: Obama spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.
April 4: Obama voted "NO" on the Senate floor.
July 18: Congress passed the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
August 5: The federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection was signed by the President into law.


2003
February 19: Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Senate Bill 1082) was reintroduced after failing to become law the prior year.
March 13: After first voting for an amendment to make the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act identical to the federal version, Obama voted against the bill. (Re: dating, the bill was introduced one day, and the vote was held the next. The tally is dated the day the hearing on the bill began.)

http://www.bornalivetruth.org/timeline.php

[nky]

^interesting

[Hoot Gibson]

Who?




http://www.bornalivetruth.org/timeline.php

Obama argued against the Illinois version of the law and consistently fought its passage by either voting "No" or "Present." The law was identical to the federal version the final time that it came up for a vote in the Illinois Senate. Obama even went on record by referring to a live born baby as a "fetus." No left wing propaganda is going to change Obama's record on this matter. If you want me to post the audio of Obama's reference to a baby as a "fetus," I can do so, but I suggest that you just walk away from this issue before you embarrass yourself again.

[TheRealVille]

^ On his no votes, it was always inline with the medical definition of viable. If they word it to where it doesn't goes against RvW(supreme court ruling), he is for it. This has been explained time and again. A baby born before 22 weeks cannot live outside the womb, and that's how his vote always went. If it is on the living side of where a baby can live outside the womb, he is for protecting their rights.

[nky]

Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.
Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

[Hoot Gibson]

^ On his no votes, it was always inline with the medical definition of viable. If they word it to where it doesn't goes against RvW(supreme court ruling), he is for it. This has been explained time and again. A baby born before 22 weeks cannot live outside the womb, and that's how his vote always went. If it is on the living side of where a baby can live outside the womb, he is for protecting their rights.

If a baby is born alive and breathing, it is not a fetus, it is an American citizens with all of the rights that the U.S. Constitution grants to the rest of us. Infanticide is not a form of abortion, and viability has nothing to do with the definition of a human being that exits the birth canal alive. Obama was wrong then and you are wrong now if you believe otherwise. Seriously wrong.

[TheRealVille]

Obama argued against the Illinois version of the law and consistently fought its passage by either voting "No" or "Present." The law was identical to the federal version the final time that it came up for a vote in the Illinois Senate. Obama even went on record by referring to a live born baby as a "fetus." No left wing propaganda is going to change Obama's record on this matter. If you want me to post the audio of Obama's reference to a baby as a "fetus," I can do so, but I suggest that you just walk away from this issue before you embarrass yourself again.

No it wasn't. He voted for an amendment to make it identical to the federal law. It wasn't amended. The final version said "any". All versions of the IL bills included pre-viable.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/...icide.html
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext...3&Session=

[TheRealThing]

Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.
Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

:Clap: I always said, give these guys enough rope and they'll hang themselves. Thank you Hussein for that entirely rational look through the eyes of lucidity. I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Hoot Gibson]

No it wasn't. He voted for an amendment to make it identical to the federal law. It wasn't amended. The final version said "any". All versions of the IL bills included pre-viable.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/...icide.html
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext...3&Session=

Viability has nothing to do with what happens after a child is born alive. Not morally and not legally. Babies who are born following an unsuccessful attempt to suck the life out of them are entitled to medical treatment. I find it hard to believe that anybody could dispute that position and even harder that anybody could go on record with that position and then become president of the United States of America. It is mind boggling. If I had voted even once for such a man, I would be begging for forgiveness.

[TheRealVille]

^Part C was where he worried that it would go against RvW. They are not identical. Yes, viability has every thing to do with born alive under law. I don't have to ask forgiveness to anything that has no chance of living, even with medical help. That's the beauty of you voting your way, and me voting my way.

IL

(5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 © A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.

Federal

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002’’.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘§8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant
‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various adminis- trative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘per- son’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
‘‘© Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.’’.

[nky]

So you can't recognize a child being born or giving it aid because it may be used to over turn Roe?

[TheRealVille]

So you can't recognize a child being born or giving it aid because it may be used to over turn Roe?

By law, if it is pre-viable(22 week) no, you don't have to. It can't live anyway, even with help. Part c of the federal bill makes it plain that it can't go against RvW, which is where viability is defined. That is where Obama stepped away from the IL bill. They wouldn't word it like the federal version.

[TheRealThing]

So you can't recognize a child being born or giving it aid because it may be used to over turn Roe?

:worthy: You da man, nky.

[nky]

yea.................................ok then

[Hoot Gibson]

^Part C was where he worried that it would go against RvW. They are not identical. Yes, viability has every thing to do with born alive under law.

IL


Federal

Killing a baby after it was born was a crime before the act was signed into law. Obama was and remains in the pocket of Planned Parenthood and was the most vocal opponent of the proposed legislation. Obama did not argue in favor of the law, he argued in favor of allowing hospitals and doctors to continue to allow babies born following botched abortions to die in agony and without medical treatment. That is a fact an no amount of liberal propaganda will change the record. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending Obama's actions. Do you think that if a doctor arbitrarily rules a fetus "non-viable," proceeds with an abortion procedure, but the being survives to be born alive is a baby - or do you agree with Obama that such a being is a fetus, because of the doctor's pre-birth determination?

[Hoot Gibson]

So you can't recognize a child being born or giving it aid because it may be used to over turn Roe?

Obamist Logic 101.

[TheRealThing]

By law, if it is pre-viable(22 week) no, you don't have to. It can't live anyway, even with help.

Ooh, ooh, :howdy: I got one. What would happen to that same pre 22 week "fetus" is we wait a few weeks? Is that when we have to either flush it or stick scissors into the base of the skull?

[TheRealVille]

Ooh, ooh, :howdy: I got one. What would happen to that same pre 22 week "fetus" is we wait a few weeks? Is that when we have to either flush it or stick scissors into the base of the skull?

That's when it becomes murder. After viable, it could live outside the womb, and would be like any other child's rights.

[TheRealVille]

Obamist Logic 101.

No, supreme court logic.

[TheRealVille]

Killing a baby after it was born was a crime before the act was signed into law. Obama was and remains in the pocket of Planned Parenthood and was the most vocal opponent of the proposed legislation. Obama did not argue in favor of the law, he argued in favor of allowing hospitals and doctors to continue to allow babies born following botched abortions to die in agony and without medical treatment. That is a fact an no amount of liberal propaganda will change the record. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending Obama's actions. Do you think that if a doctor arbitrarily rules a fetus "non-viable," proceeds with an abortion procedure, but the being survives to be born alive is a baby - or do you agree with Obama that such a being is a fetus, because of the doctor's pre-birth determination?

Not a pre-viable fetus.
A pre-viable fetus can't live outside the womb. You might want to consult the medical community, and figure out a way to keep them alive at an earlier stage. If a 15 week old fetus could be made to be able to live outside of the womb, I'm for it.

[TheRealThing]

A pre-viable fetus can't live outside the womb. You might want to consult the medical community, and figure out a way to keep them alive at an earlier stage. If a 15 week old fetus could be made to be able to live outside of the womb, I'm for it.

Leave them within the safety of their Mom's womb and lets see about it then.

[TheRealVille]

Leave them within the safety of their Mom's womb and lets see about it then.

Until that fetus is viable, the mother has the right to get it out of the womb.

[Hoot Gibson]

No, supreme court logic.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that a live, breathing child is a fetus. Never.

[TheRealVille]

The Supreme Court has never ruled that a live, breathing child is a fetus. Never.

They have ruled on what's viable, though. It can't live for long, pre-viable, even with medical help.