Well I guess your wise Barak would consider having this baby a mistake.

Change we can believe in

and punished as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02PALINDAY.html

What Barak Obama actually said was:

"Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, was asked at a brief press conference in Monroe, Mich., about the suggestion by some Republicans that Democrats — particularly liberal bloggers — were trying to advance rumors about the Palin family.

"“Our people were not involved in any way in this and they will not be,” Mr. Obama snapped, his voice raised. “And if I ever thought there was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they’d be fired, O.K.?”

"Mr. Obama said the pregnancy “has no relevance to Governor Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president.” He added that, “my mother had me when she was 18. How a family deals with issues and teen-age children — that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics.”

"“So,” he added, “I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories.”"

* * *

Don't judge (publicly) till you read, or you might look like a...

Dear Gotham

You write: "But why did we have to be dragged into this?"

So who dragged you in?

I wasn't dragged in. Knew it was NOMB from the get-go. Was rather shocked you thought it was OK to blog about it. So who dragged you in?

love, h

Hello Gotham and everyone,

my fingers are tired today so I will just copy and paste something from the open thread I wrote...and add on...

Palin,

Palin states that she is againt abortion even if her daughter was raped.

Now, I am sure there are many girls, women, who have chosen to have the baby after being raped, and that is a very private and personal decision to be absolutely respected. While there are other girls and women who have decided to abort and that is an equally private and personal decision to be absolutely respected.

Sarah Palin's stance is a private and personal stance that is to be absolutely respected....

it is not government or poltical fodder to bantered about by the religious manipulatives in our society that right now make up the power voices of the republican party....

But sadly we know why Palin was chosen to be the bait on John McCain's anti-abortionist line, she appears to be the juiciest, plumbest piece of female hormonal embryo producing bait he could lay his hands on...god, what a find!

ruth

I guess if McCain new about the pregnancy it must then be a plus for the cause...or we know if it weren't....she wouldn't have been picked, quite simple.

Really I think it is wonderful when a young girl decides to keep her baby instead of choosing to abort the EMBRYO, or have and give up to adoption.

But I also think it is wonderful when the young girl or woman is responsible enough to know she needs abort the EMBRYO.

Aborting an EMBRYO is choice, not murder, by any stretch of the imagination at least that is the case in Nations where actual grown-ups live, breathe and make mature adult laws and decisions....hopefully America will stay that way too....but there are those like McCain and Palin & Co......who would choose to drag us all back to the 18th century...and

want to DEMAND that every EMBRYO conceived be born under rule of law and their god perspective.

Raped were ya? too bad.....next...case!

prenancies shud be planned and wanted...we already have too many people on earth...

abort unwanted prenancies...like rape and incest or adulerously generated ones...damn!

oh, to answer your question, Gotham, the Nation is dragged into this family drama for only one very big imporant reason...votes....the lusted after evangelical anti-abortionist vote....Palin who seems to also be the hormonal queen has it locked up! McCain knows exactly what he is doing. Because you can bet if her daughert's pregnancy was going to be an issue that might cause a problem, Palin would not have been picked.

The more babies in the National picture perfect family values advertisement the better....votes, votes, votes and more votes...

So the question is.....will American fall for it or will they rise....higher and higher above the gimmicks and mockery of all this careful conniving drama.

hmmmmmm..time will tell and remember..

America is better than THIS(McCain and Palin and Co.)

evening all

Oh, Heath. I am almost done with The Dancer...had to stop for calls....but it is exquisite...beautiful to watch....the artistry is superb...the discipline awesome...it makes you wish you had that passion and vehicle of expression...loving it..thanks...

I give it five stars....a beautiful piece of work.

update..

This is how the game is going to be played by the McCain and Palin and Co....campaign

right from the horses mouth...Bill O'Ryely:), from Fox TV talking to his guest Laura Ingrahm

Bill..."so, this could be a minefield for the conservative"(I love how they call them conservatives, in stead of the religious right)

Laura Ingrahm.."no, I just got off the phone with some bigwigs(my words) and they are happy that she is taking responsiblity and having her baby"...she goes on to say...

"but, we all know that the LIBERAL LEFT want all these young people to have sex and then get abortions!!!!"

NO SHEET...that is what these manipulative conniving control freaks are shoveling in big bucketfulls on National TV

She say it is those LIBERAL LEFTS who love and encourage all that SEX on TV.....

so, we see how Palin and her many children and her young daughter's pregnancy will be used.....

as fodder for the evangelical family values picture post card of the 2008 Republican Presidential Campaign.

yeah, woman we make good fodder for the religious right(I mean conservative republican).....

fodder, embryos, hormones...a woman's job is never done.....

boy oh boy.....they are a sick bunch...

yes, if one is pro life by being pro choice that means only one thing....

we want kids to have sex to they can then have abortions......lots of them....

yes, she actually said that...

ruth

Gotham:

I am TOTALLY for your story! It is one thing for celebrities to have whatever shit they want in their lives - but those who GOVERN and could potentially have her fingers on the Nuke button one day, it is too much stress to take such decisions. And that she is either IRRESPONSIBLE or BLIND doesn't help at all -

... as according to the press release, Palin says

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned....."

CAME TO HER?? Came to her with the "news" (??) that she was FIVE months pregnant??

After giving birth to FIVE kids this idiot of a female needs "news" to be broken that someone on her DINNER table is FIVE months pregnant??

How in the world does one explain THAT? What if Osama dressed up as her Hubby was having dinner with for Five months? Would she even know the difference??

Cheers,
Desh

Hi Everyone,

Is it my imagination or have CNN's Wolf Blitzer, and John King become Mc Cain and Palin apologists?
Unlike Anderson Cooper who seems impartial,l these two guys seem to be biased Republicans.

What do you think?
Stan
?

So... the girl got pregnant (probably by accident), then decided to have the baby anyway.

How many times each day does this happen in America? Around the world?

Why is this news (except for her family and the child's father?)

I don't care. Hope the kid turns out healthy.Have a nice day.

Next!

The magician works to create an ILLUSION, by controlling your attention, creating a distraction.

The Magician has you watching the right hand while the left hand is performing the trick.

The last place you want to look at is where the magicians are directing your attention.

Thanks for the tip, Richard.

"But why did we have to be dragged into this?"

Awwww..Bwess his wittle heart, him got dwagged into something him doesn't understand....

Even your Messiah was born to an 18 year old girl...of course it was probably an immaculate conception!

The Enquirer is calling.......you should go there! I can see it now....8 legged dog, (republican of course) born to 47 year old horse... story written by , 'Light Salacious G.'

you'll sell lots of papers!

Andrew Sullivan, a conservative who strongly backed Bush in '00 and '04 writes:

The Press Is Asking Questions

In other words: doing their job. And the McCain camp is appalled:

"A senior McCain campaign official said the McCain camp was appalled that these rumors had not only been spread around liberal blog sites and partisan Democrats, but also were the subject of 'heightened interest from mainstream news media.'"

Now they've cleared the air on this - and good for them - what harm would it do to release the medical records showing that Sarah Palin delivered Trig on April 18 in Wasilla? This is not hard: there must be an obstetrician, medical records, and data that can easily refute this rumor. It is not out of the ordinary either: candidates routinely issue medical records. So let's have them. And then we can move on.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-press-is-as.html

*******

Jerome Armstromng at MyDD writes:

Get it?

Does anyone consider Andrew Sullivan a "liberal blogger" that's on our side? Is there any other "liberal blogger" that is promoting this story non-story other than Andrew Sullivan? I know there was a stupid diary that was on DailyKos but other than that shouted-down diary, its only Sullivan hyping this up for the media to say that Obama supporters are pushing this nonsense.

****

So why didn't the McCain campaign release the medial records, to shut down the false rumour?

Why are they playing a victim now, for hiding another rumor(which turned out to be true) which was circulated by the conservative Alsakan radio and right wingnut forums long ago?

Put the blame on others for your own fault.

Re. 3 by heath

Obama said:

"Let me be a clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits, and people's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor, or her potential performance as a vice president.

"And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18, and how a family deals with issues and, you know, teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off limits."

The issues here should not be "OMG! her daughter is pregnant out of wedlock", but "What are the candidates proposed policies for dealing with the issue of teen pregnancy?" That Palin's daughter is pregnant should not be of any concern to either campaign; that Palin's 'policies' of an active maintenance of reproductive ignorance are manifest failures IS.

Then again, Palin is the one making things like this an issue. It is pretty galling for an anti-abortion advocate(even in the cases of rape and incest) to take a stance that "it's a private matter for the family." Are you kidding me? And then take credit for the brave 'choice' in order to score political points?

I also fault Palin for knowingly thrusting her daughter's condition into the global spotlight. She could have turned down McCain's offer. I feel bad for the daughter having to face this in front of the whole world.

It is a pity that Bristol, who probably has no control over her mother's decisions to run for VP or the media's attention to her personal matters, will be in the spotlight.

On the other hand, Palin represents an important fact that the Right's "Abstinence Only Education" is less effective for preventing teenage pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases than actually teaching real prevention techniques, as well as so-called "family values" just don't work in real life.

I mean, how are people supposed to ignore this when Palin's own party, and she herself, has always claimed that this wouldn't happen if only people were God fearing and moral?

This should not be used as a personal attack against Governor Palin, though it does expose a flaw in the policies she represents, which is the real issue and would be whether or not her daughter was pregnant.

Obama is right. The Democrats shouldn't criticize Palin because her daughter has gotten pregnant out of wedlock and while still a teen. That would be insensitive and plain wrong. Plus, it's the fundamentalist "family values" crowd who insist on no sex before wedding. No need to reinforce this mindset.

But the Democrats should criticize Palin for dragging her teenage daughter into the public arena with this announcement. And they should pile criticize on Palin's refusal to support explicit sex-ed ...while saying nothing about her daughter. It wouldn't be necessary: the media coverage will make the link abundantly clear for anybody with half a brain functionning.

Sarah Palin is interesting; she is / was a member of a so called subversive group, the Alaskan Independence Party. I can't say I disagree with everything she says.

Of course the past is never indicative of the present because many people evolve.

But the group does talk about infiltrating other parties. The AIP's main aim is to secede from the United States, becoming either a territory or a sovereign nation. They aim to be entirely “self-sufficient" using profits from the oil and gas resources of the state.

Click my name and watch “Governor Sarah Palin welcomes you to the 2008 Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) Convention.”

I still think empirical evidence indicates that McCain subconsciously wants Obama to be president and there is a mysterious force at work representing divine intention.

When all said and done perhaps the political race is all a show, simply entertainment to keep the indentured servitude’s minds occupied with mind fluff.

The ego with it’s finite capability is no match for spirit and it’s infinite capacity. Although the ego can win in the short term with the use of force, the gravity of spirit wins out over time.

The ego driven will inevitably blunder itself away from success, while the spirit driven can actually blunder their way too success.

Many of the greatest scientific discoveries appeared to be accidents.

Sarah Palin is interesting; she is / was a member of a so called subversive group, the Alaskan Independence Party. I can't say I disagree with everything she says.

Of course the past is never indicative of the present because many people evolve.

But the group does talk about infiltrating other parties. The AIP's main aim is to secede from the United States, becoming either a territory or a sovereign nation. They aim to be entirely “self-sufficient" using profits from the oil and gas resources of the state.

Click my name and watch “Governor Sarah Palin welcomes you to the 2008 Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) Convention.”

I still think empirical evidence indicates that McCain subconsciously wants Obama to be president and there is a mysterious force at work representing divine intention.

When all said and done perhaps the political race is all a show, simply entertainment to keep the indentured servitude’s minds occupied with mind fluff.

The ego with it’s finite capability is no match for spirit and it’s infinite capacity. Although the ego can win in the short term with the use of force, the gravity of spirit wins out over time.

The ego driven will inevitably blunder itself away from success, while the spirit driven can actually blunder their way too success.

Many of the greatest scientific discoveries appeared to be accidents.

Sarah Palin is interesting; she is / was a member of a so called subversive group, the Alaskan Independence Party. I can't say I disagree with everything she says.

Of course the past is never indicative of the present because many people evolve.

But the group does talk about infiltrating other parties. The AIP's main aim is to secede from the United States, becoming either a territory or a sovereign nation. They aim to be entirely “self-sufficient" using profits from the oil and gas resources of the state.

Click my name and watch “Governor Sarah Palin welcomes you to the 2008 Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) Convention.”

I still think empirical evidence indicates that McCain subconsciously wants Obama to be president and there is a mysterious force at work representing divine intention.

When all said and done perhaps the political race is all a show, simply entertainment to keep the indentured servitude’s minds occupied with mind fluff.

The ego with it’s finite capability is no match for spirit and it’s infinite capacity. Although the ego can win in the short term with the use of force, the gravity of spirit wins out over time.

The ego driven will inevitably blunder itself away from success, while the spirit driven can actually blunder their way too success.

Many of the greatest scientific discoveries appeared to be accidents.

I got to be honest, I HAVE been enjoying this story. What does an abstinence-only, anti-abortion lifestyle get you? Apparently 5 kids with one of them pregnant.

But then I kept reading, and I saw something that pissed me off.

Sarah Palin announced that her daughter WILL be marrying the father.

Is this some sort of return to arranged marriages? The girl is only 17!! If gay marriage somehow dilutes the sanctity of marriage, what's with marrying people far to young to know what marriage even means? Anyone know the divorce rate of marriages-at-17?

Honestly I only clicked once.

Here is a power question to ask politicians.

“What is the difference between just telling the truth and being honest?”

The answers to might be entertaining.

I think it is safe to say that we are all aware of politicians and their importance in creating an image.

I think it is clear to see that McCain and strategists were well aware of the pregnancy situation in the Palin home and if that situation was going to be a negative to their cause Palin would not have been chosen to run as his VP

The situation is only of the upmost importance as to how McCain and repubican strategists are using Pain and her Daughter's pregnancy...and Palin is a very willing advocate of the anti abortionist stance so she is quite willing to let her family situation be used in this way.

Palin...this might be a bit harsh but I do not think Palin was picked as McCain's VP for her mind...when her family values picture is so plumb and ripe for the pickens of the anti-abortion evangelical crowd...

No, her daughter is off limits but how McCain and the republican strategists use this family situation, and family picture is not.

ruth

Not so fast...

Something fishy...

Palin's daighter is 5 months pregnant? So she won't dlever until after the general election.

She could have easily released her medical records to stall the rumors of her grandbaby...

I keep my fingers crossed, until I see a visibly pregnant Bristol (this can be faked too, right!), or medcial records of Gov. Palin.

Forget this non-issue (the personal side of it), each day new story is coming out about Palin's record, showing that McCain campiagn did little to no vetting.

There is already a talk in media about Palin being replaced...and the markets are responding:

Intrade Market Odds:

Sarah Palin to be withdrawn as Republican VP nominee before 2008 presidential election

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=638242&z=1220371741018

Last Trade : 12.9

Enjoy.

Chris Bowers: Palin Scandal Compendium

I'm trying to track all of the negative stories that have come out on Sarah Palin in the last three days. It isn't easy, as new revelations pile on seemingly every hour. In the extended entry, I give such a compendium my best shot.

My attempt at a Palin scandal compendium:
[Tipper: Click my name to see the original article with html links to text.]

1) Lack of experience hypocrisy.

McCain spent the entire summer attacking Obama over his lack of experience, and then picked a far less experienced politician for his running mate. McCain's 2008 presidential campaign actually started before Palin took office.

2)A reformer under investigation.

Palin is being sold as a reformer, even though she is currently facing an ethics probe (from other Republicans), and recently hired a lawyer to help her with that investigation. She is probably guilty too, considering that she did the exact same thing when she was a mayor. However, it wasn't illegal when she fired people for political purposes as a mayor. While occupying the governor's mansion, I believe it is.

3) Family values:

Her 17-year old daughter is pregnant. Not only did Palin thus expose her daughter to endless humiliation in front of the entire world by accepting the slot, but it isn't even clear if Palin told the McCain campaign about the situation before she accepted the slot. Oh, and Palin opposes birth control, even for married couples.

4) Extreme right-winger:

Even though she is being sold to moderates, it turns out she is an extremely hard-core wingnut, supporting Pat Buchannan and a whole host of other disturbing things.

5) Deep ties to Alaska pork: Palin claims she opposed "the bridge to nowhere," but she was actually in favor of it for a while. She also loves earmarks and Ted Stevens.

6) Secessionist? Oh yeah, and she also might be a secessionist. [Links to Alaska Independence Party. Also see Richard Thomas' #19]

6) Lack of prior relationship with McCain:

As it turns out, she only met, and talked with, McCain once before being selected. No wonder Republican lawyers are still vetting her. This is some excellent preparation by the McCain campaign for McCain's first presidential decision.

Palin was obviously picked entirely for political reasons, not because McCain knew her or believed in her at all. Even then, the pick was an extremely poor one. With more hurricanes bearing down on the Gulf Coast, the whole thing smacks of Arabian Horse master Michael Brown and post-Katrina FEMA. Unqualified people are placed in major positions of responsibility just because they are hard right-winger. This is how Republicans govern, and a national reminder of that is really crushing McCain in the polls.

Keep in mind that the first couple days after being selected are usually the best media that VP picks receive. It will actually get worse for Palin from here on out.

Ruth, I love you...but you've lost your mind...

This stuff that Baby Chopra is writing, and that all the left is writing, is going to backfire in your faces....

Keep up your nonsense and McCain will maul Obama in November...

This is amazing, what's going on...

Why isn't someone asking, "Can Obama be a good daddy and still be President?" No...they are too busy asking, "Can Sara Palin be a good Mommy and be VP?" Does that not smack of sexism?

If Obama had picked a woman for VP, who had had 5 abortions, carried condoms in her purse, and only ate carrots, tofu, and spinach...you goons would be out there praising what a lofty idea it was? why, Obama thought outside the box!!

This pick will galvanize middle America, the hysteria on the left, is only going to.... galvanize the left.... we're gonna have a Repub prez....we're gonna get constructionist judges, we're gonna see the end of Roe V Wade....

Isnt' it amazing that the left is questioning Sara Palin's judgement in delivering her Down's Syndrome Baby....yet they aren't questioning Obama's permissive stance on infanticide.......

Gotham is writing rotgut stuff here...his shallow, condescending attitude is consistent with the failure that he has been at nearly all ventures with which he's been associated....

This stinks to high heaven....liberalism equals compassion...bullshit.....

:(

They don't like her. They really don't like her.

The conservative base might be excited about McCain's selection of a secessionist VP candidate, but they're the only ones:

"Another week, another Frank Luntz/AARP focus group of undecided voters--this one in Minneapolis and with some bad news for John McCain: they don't like the choice of Sarah Palin for vice president. Only one person said Palin made him more likely to vote for McCain; about half the 25-member group raised their hands when asked if Palin made them less likely to vote for McCain. They had a negative impression of Palin by a 2-1 margin. "

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/08/focusedthe_sequel.html

What was the overall impression of the un-vetted one?

"They really saw this pick as a gimmick--and one that reflected badly on John McCain's judgment."

Hey...all you lefty loons....

Why is there no discussion here about Joe Biden's son and brother's legal problems?

Why is there no discussion here about Joe Biden's plagiarism and being a bald faced liar?

Why is there no discussion here about Obama pushing for 4 million bucks in earmarks to please a lobbyist...who happens to be Biden's son?

Why is there no discussion here of Obama's mama and her unwed teenage pregnancy? What if she had had an abortion.....

Why no discussion about Rezko...? this stuff wasn't made up by Republicans....

Why all this stuff?

Because you bozos are so reactionary and out of touch with the majority of Americans....

These are all rehtorical questions of course, I really don't expect any discussion of these issues here at Huffpo lite! It would interfere with your little template....

:( Hey Freeya, what's a frowny face mean? Analyze this....

PS....oh yeah...Bobby Jindal...you know..he's only been in office a few months, (that experience thing) and wow...did he ever do a better job evacuating southern louisiana than did that Democrat yahoo they had....

Let's see what America is feeling about McCain-Palin bullshit.

Gallup: Obama 50% (McCain 42)
Rasmussen: Obama 51% (McCain 45)
Bounce Growing +9 Hotline (48-39)

(This is the first time Obama has touched 50% mark in any national poll taken anytime this campaign season.)

skinny, take your crazy wingnut shit somewhere else. Palin's criticism is mainstream, not some made up shit, distortions and lies. AGAIN PALIN PREGNANCY IS NOT THE ISSUE. Good luck burying your head in sand, or in your ass. Pull out and think for yourself rather than repeating wingnut talking points, making same old attacks that had been adressed, when faced with criticism.

I respectfully disagree with Obama and others here. I see this as a very relevant point of discussion. If they want to present Governor Palin as a conservative Christian moral values candidate, then it's quite valid to point out her apparent failure to teach conservative Christian moral values to her own family.

There are literally dozens of women in the Republican Party more qualified for the vice-presidency, and better suited to it, than Sarah Palin. Olympia Snowe is one. Kay Bailey Hutchison is another. Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell is a third.

Why not pick any of these women, if you've decided you have to pick a woman? Well, in the case of these three, it's pretty clear why they're out in the cold.

Each of them supports abortion rights. Now, actually picking one of these women as the Republican vice-presidential nominee in spite of those views would, of course, have been the move of a true maverick, and the move of a man serious about placing the people best prepared for the job in stewardship of our nation.

No wonder John McCain didn't do it.

Especially given that his primary choice Joe Lieberman was pro-choice and Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge who was high on the VP list is also pro-choice.

Palin's pick, then, is purely sexist.

And the rethugs will cry sexism, at every oppurtunity and at any crticism of her policies, record and qualifications to be VP.

Skinny,

My fellow American, lefty loons, bozos, and you call folks on this blog reactionary? Norm....you are better than this...but hey if you want to keep it a secret....that is your business.

No, quite the contrary...about being out of my mind...I think I hit the ole nail right on the head with the Palin nomination and McCain's strategy..really, it is a no brainer.

Really, you can write some ugly stuff about folks here....you are better than this...it is not necessary....we are having political discussion and yes....we are rough on your party...but we are not attacking you personally....so why do you feel the need to slam people here.

you can slam our opinions all you want...but no need to stick poop all over people faces just because you do not like what they write about your poltical party....

you are pretty reactionary skinny and yes out of line, a lot.

and btw if you want discussion on Biden or others I think you will get plenty on the republican conservative religious right blogs....

but hey we might be a bit bias ...since there are a bunch of loony leftists here who want kids to have lots of sex in order for them to have lots of abortions....

have a great day my fellow American.....ruth

He-he! Just great! We get another, Palin, religiously deluded greedy agent of the system, "our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God."

"[Palin's] Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode.""

He-he. So funny.

Peace

This is dedicated to you Skinny...

Sarah Palin and her church and her pastor have made themselves abundantly clear on issues of reproductive privacy -- there won't be any. In a Palin world, if my daughter wanted birth control, she wouldn't be able to get any, and if I wanted sex education to be taught in my son's school, I would be out of luck. If a girl I knew were raped and impregnated by her uncle and she elected to have an abortion, she would not be allowed to do so. She wouldn't even be allowed to take the morning after pill in case he got her pregnant. Maybe there's something you guys don't get about this. Bristol Palin's pregnancy is at the heart of what women and the right wing have been fighting over for thirty years, and it isn't abortion, it's privacy and the right to control your own reproductive choices. There will always be abortion, and there will always be choice, but Palin would like the choice to be illegal and punishable. Same with birth control.

I like you, Barack, but you don't get it either. The issues of birth control and abortion have been made into public issues by the right wing, and millions of women and girls have suffered because the right wing wants to impose its ideas of what women should do upon every woman in America including those who don't share and have never shared their values. So, Barack, I suggest that you, as a man, should do the backing off.

Bristol Palin's pregnancy, which her mother has known about for months, is at the heart of this battle. It has been shown over and over that abstinence education doesn't work, while sex education does work. Do I accept that teenagers have sex? You bet I do, and I tell the ones I have borne how to make it safe and what to watch out for and be careful of, girls and boys. Sarah Palin, for whatever reason, did not do the same thing, and yet she presumes, PRESUMES, to tell me as a mother and a woman what I can and cannot do with my body, and what I can and cannot provide for my children.

Sarah Palin has constructed her appeal to the right wing around this "social conservatism" in exactly the same way that John McCain has constructed his appeal around his aggressive foreign policy views. Both are equally political, and as political as Cheney's ideas about the unitary executive, for example. Women are citizens, too, and our privacy is a political football, and has been used as such to win elections for a generation, so I supposed you mean well, you guys who are telling me to back off, but you don't get it. So shut up.

by Jane Smiley...huffpo

Dear Gotham and others,

It seems that you are neglecting to acknowledge Sarah Palin's strengths and are instead focusing on a couple of minor issues. You have said that she has no foreign policy exposure.

I would like to point out that she has had more experience in decision making and governing than Obama has had. She has had to balance a state budget and she has fought against political corruption in her state. She is a strong, gutsy lady and she is not afraid of the special interest groups. This in itself makes her a stand-out in the field of politics. Most importantly, she supports the protection of new life (those who have no voices of their own).

She has acknowledged the importance of having a servant's heart in representing the interests of the people.

She is not afraid of discussing the important issues facing the country. She is not afraid to allow for transparency in her personal life.

Obama won't even agree to having town meeting discussions so that his real approach to issues can be heard. He's good at giving speeches, but when it comes to speaking extemporaneously, he leaves much to be desired.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

Well where are the people upholding the rights of the poor and oppressed who have no voice of their own; o, I am sorry, they do have representation . . .

I'm calling my public defender (an agent of the state representing me against the state: har har har) right now!

Dear Richard,

You really "nailed it" in your Posting No.17:

"The ego with its finite capability is no match for Spirit and its infinite capacity. Although the ego can win in the short term with the use of force, the gravity of Spirit wins out over time.

The ego driven will inevitably blunder itself away from success, while the Spirit driven can actually blunder their way to success.

Many of the greatest scientific discoveries appeared to be accidents."

Again, I'll refer to what Michael Tsarion has said, "The Roach Cleaning is about to begin". The force of Spirit is awakening the mass consciousness and more and more people will be able to perceive the actual scenario instead of the one that is substituted for it.

With "Light" (Knowledge) comes the destruction of "Darkness" (Ignorance).

Thank You, Richard.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

skinny you write, "PS....oh yeah...Bobby Jindal...you know..he's only been in office a few months, (that experience thing) and wow...did he ever do a better job evacuating southern louisiana than did that Democrat yahoo they had...."

I think it my have less to do with the repulican Jindal and more to do the remembrance of times past when their President left them hanging on to roof tops for days without rescue, food or water. Yeah, that memory would be a great reason to evacuate pronto.

hmmmm...ruth

Betsy
Did you watch the Democratic Convention? On C-SPAN? His plan and the support of many that you could not see if you were watching on either CNN, MSNBC or FOX. None of these news shows covered the convention. If Anyone watched the convention on any of the news media networks, they did not see or experience the convention. Same with the coverage of Sarha Palin. If you are getting your info about her from the media then it is not reliable. It is just biased opinions. The debates will be more telling.

When Joe Biden's family was in crisis he stepped down from his Senate nomination to care for his family.

I know families with down syndrome children and it takes all their attention to deal with this challenge, mother and father.

If Obama had such challenges I would expect him to be with his family.

We are at a pivotal point in our history. We don't need our leaders split between our country and their personal family needs. With a downs syndrome child those needs are great and should not be passed off to someone other than the mother and father.

derek

Dear Skinny,

You mentioned some most pertinent points in your Posting No.25. THE HYPOCRISY IS OUTLANDISH!!!

You might find it interesting to learn of the statement made by Don Fowler, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (1995-1997), regarding the timing of Hurricane Gustav's arrival: "That just demonstrates God's on our side". It's on Youtube.com (Video - Don Fowler Amused by New Orleans Hurricane).

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

I watched a panel discussion on C-SPAN.
A question was asked,

Would a man with the same credentials as Palin be nominated?

The all republican panel at the republican convention said no. Every one of them said no. They are all McCain and Palin supporters.
What does that say?

derek

Watch C-SPAN. Take EVERYTHING you hear in the media with less than a grain of salt.

skinny is as bright as bushman!

he's a genuine lefty who pretends to be a righty! otherwise he won't be hanging around here so much for as so long as he does!

Dear Skinny,

Oh yes, here's another occurrence that demonstrates the characteristic ATTACK DOG MENTALITY of the left. This report was on J.D. Hayworth's radio show on Friday. He is in St. Paul covering the Convention and is broadcasting from there. J.D. served for twelve years as Congressman from Arizona. He's a great guy!!

He interviewed Rob Simmons, Connecticut Delegation Leader about an orchestrated, aggressive attack upon his delegation. His delegation was attacked by an organized group of anarchists outside the Convention Hall. The group was there under the pretense of demonstrating for "Peace" but, they heckled, intimidated and spit upon the older members of the delegation. They were utilizing in true form the tactics recommended by Saul Alinsky, in his "Rules for Radicals". Alinsky taught that any methods used are justified in accomplishing the end desired.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

cspan is replaying this panel discussion right now.

There is also an amazing Rally for Ron Paul in St. Paul as well being covered by cspan2 right now.

It's really well attended.
We are starting to have more choices.

Dear Skinny,

You made an especially interesting observation in your Posting No.25 when you stated, "Isn't it amazing that the Left is questioning Sarah Palin's judgement in delivering her Down's Syndrome Baby ... yet they aren't questioning Obama's permissive stance on infanticide?"

This is a classic example demonstrating where their priorities lie. They place the Political (Ego World) above the Moral (Spirit World).

What do you think Jesus would have said regarding infanticide?

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

"Betsy" S writes:

"Obama's permissive stance on infanticide?"

You stupid asshole, you should be ashamed of yourself, for repeating lies and distortions.

Don't make up shit, Obama doesn't support infanticide.

STFU.

Your ignorance is not an excuse.

"Betsy" S. quotes skinny:

"Isn't it amazing that the Left is questioning Sarah Palin's judgement in delivering her Down's Syndrome Baby ... "

No one is questioning that! Are you out of your minds?

1) It's Down syndrome, not Down Syndrome or Down's Syndrome or "a Down's child".

(See this blog for proper usage of the term, as well as myths about Down syndrome.)
http://elliotsexpeditions.blogspot.com/2008/08/awareness.html

2) It's not good politics to use disabled children for your own political agenda in your quest to overturn Roe.

3) You may think you are advocating your anti-choice cause, but you’re really just using an infant child with disabilities for your own political posturing because you have nothing else to stand on. Basically, Sarah Palin is a poor choice for VP, so you're making her out to be a saint. OK...Is this the new "John McCain was a POW!" argument?

You may think you are advocating your anti-choice cause, but you’re really just using an infant child with disabilities for your own political posturing because you have nothing else to stand on. Basically, Sarah Palin is a poor choice for VP, so you're making her out to be a saint. OK...Is this the new "John McCain was a POW!" argument?

I am sick and tired of the anti-choice movement using Palin's infant son to a) insinuate that Down syndrome children are a burden and she's a saint b) insinuate that millions of "liberals" are aborting because prenatal testing showed possibilities of Down syndrome (or would abort that "Down's syndrome baby" if they were Palin's position) while saying things like "a Down's Syndrome child", "unwanted", and sickeningly saying that Sarah Palin "stuck with her pro-life principles and delivered the baby."

I was reading an article by John Perry in Newsmax that began "thanks to the Down syndrome baby" in which the wingnut pundit repeated the "Down syndrome baby/infant/child" grammar five times.

Knock it off.

OK. You have an agenda. Palin isn't pro-choice. She was going to carry any fetus to term, God-willing. But don't make out Palin's son to be 'less' of a human being because you want people to vote for her.

And some on the Right are insinuating that God gave her son Down syndrome or some such bullcrap as a way to save millions of unborn children is just sick.

I'm also increasingly alarmed at stories like this one where people are supporting the ticket because they think Palin may be a champion of those with disabilites because of her personal life.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=8925236&nav=menu29_2

She hasn't mentioned yet and I don't know if that will be part of the campaign, but if anything, it's Democrats who are

pro education
pro mental health parity
pro health care
pro civil rights

and by far the biggest defenders of those with disabilties.

My entire life will be dedicated to Special Education. The fact that Palin's youngest child has Down syndrome has been known to me for awhile because the news reported it, but this sort of political posturing and abusive language is only going to get worse.

Please...just stop.

Irvine to skinny and "Betsy":

"Don't make up shit, Obama doesn't support infanticide."

This is a smear camapign and outright lies by the cosnervative right to excite their relgious base.

ALthough Palin is pro-life, she herself supports 'choice' in one case; when a doctor determines that the life of the mother carrying/delevering the baby is at risk. (She doesn't support 'choice' in case of rape and incest, unlike McCain though.)

Obama doesn't support 'choice' on late-term abortions in most cases unless the health of the mother is phsycially(note: not psychologically) affected as detremined by a doctor, similar to Palin's position.

The Right wing Rovian smear merchants will distort Obama's voting record to sell their lies, but his pro-choice position is mainstream.

These wingnut people are so frustrating. Its hard to argue with someone who's argument is sequence of non-sequiturs.

Having a disabled child makes her a saint, therefore she cannot be criticized, therefore she deserves to be President.

POW!

Sigh

It's not about a child - it's about the shallow people and political party that panders saintliness of a parent.

As for the post-abortion survivals, it is a lie that Obama voted to kill them or leave them to die. He explained his position in the Saddleback Forum.

These are all red herring arguments.

The Rethugicans will use ANYTHING they can. Anything and everything is 'fair game' and nothing is 'off the table' when pushing their neolithic agenda which is far removed from the causes they claim to support; in this case women's rights, especially women's reproduction rights.

One of Sarah Palin's policies is in the spotlight yesterday. From Washington Post:

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html

____________

Sarah Palin and John McCain almost certainly share the same opinion of contraception:

"Earlier today the Associated Press reported that Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, opposed funding to prevent teen pregnancies, a position that Palin also took as governor. "The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support," she wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates."

____________

And this from 2007:

Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"

John McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/

That would be President George Bush, the current head of McCain's GOP, and the fellow McCain agrees with so often.

___________

Here are the stats on teen pregnancies from BBC:

"The US is said to have one of the worst annual rates of teenage pregnancies in the developed world.

According to a report by Population Action International, published at the end of last year, there were 44 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in the US for 2000-2005.

This compares with figures in the UK - itself said to be the country with the worst teenage pregnancy rate in Europe - of 27 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19.

Put differently, America is estimated to have some 750,000 teenage pregnancies a year."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7593735.stm
_________________

On purpose? Nope.

"About one-third of girls in the United States get pregnant before age 20."

"More than 80% of births in this group "were unintended, meaning they occurred sooner than desired or were not wanted at any time", the CDC said."

_________________

So does abstinence work? Nope.

"A recent study of four abstinence education programs, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., finds that the programs had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth."

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp

_________________

So if abstinence doesn't work, and teens get pregnant, and you don't support them (policy-wise) before or after, what's that called?

Compassionate conservatism.

Whereas Obama is pro-infantside. Obama have voted repeatedly in
favor of killing babies AFTER THEY ARE BORN.

Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting
"present" and "no" on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act,
or BAIPA.
10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal
Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the
Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:
I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to
survive constitutional scrutiny.
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 – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to
term. …

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 anti-abortion statute. For that
purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be
burdensome to mothers.
Before voting "no" for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee
on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:
What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and
I can't support that.
8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's
prerogative.
An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama
voted against BAIPA because it included provisions that "would have
taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is
viable."
7. Anyway, doctors don't do that.
Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA
because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures
when fetuses are born alive during abortions."
6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof.
Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama
said "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing
what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee,"
according to the Illinois Leader.
5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.
During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, Alan Keyes famously
said:
Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that
situation died. ... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because
Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for
Christ to have behaved.
Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' condemnation as a blanket
statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue.
Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.
Nevertheless, induced labor abortion, the procedure that sometimes
results in babies being aborted alive, must be included as one Obama
condones. Obama responded first to Keyes as he recounted in a July 10,
2006, USA Today op ed:
... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and … I can't impose my
religious views on another.
4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal
principle.
In that USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer,
decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it:
But my opponent's accusations nagged at me. ... If I am opposed to
abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the
practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have
to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to
people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being
shelved to die was a political maneuver.
During the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, "The bill was
unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons,"
according to the Illinois Leader.
2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political
maneuver.
Obama has this quote on his website:
Pam Sutherland … of … Illinois Planned Parenthood … told ABC News,
"We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were
in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold
votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out
all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."
And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant
Protection Act was:
1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.
During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:
Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of
getting around Roe vs. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a
similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does
not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.
This was a lie on two points.
First, there was no such amendment.
Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The
concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as
chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003,
refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs
identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.
The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position
by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children,
the opposite of Obama's contention:
Illinois' paragraph (c): 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.
Federal paragraph (c): 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.
At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from
aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically
"encroach on Roe v. Wade"?
Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.

Paulisoso #55

"Whereas Obama is pro-infantside. Obama have voted repeatedly in
favor of killing babies AFTER THEY ARE BORN...."

The Truth Behind False, Outrageous Lies about Obama and ''Born Alive'' Legislation

STATEMENT

"Senator Obama strongly supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. He believes that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue, and he believes that women do not make these decisions casually, but wrestle with them in consultation with their doctors, pastors and family. Senator Obama understands that some will disagree with him and choose not to support him, and he respects those with different opinions. But the recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama -- the proud father of two little girls -- and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign. What Senator Obama’s attackers don’t tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions. They will not tell you that Obama voted against these laws in Illinois because they were clear attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade. They will not tell you that these laws were also opposed by pro-choice Republicans and the Illinois Medical Society -- a leading association of doctors in the state. And they will not tell you that Obama has always maintained that he would have voted for the federal version of this bill, which did not pose such a threat. The bills Senator Obama voted against in Illinois were crafted to undermine Roe v. Wade or pre-existing Illinois state law regulating reproductive healthcare and medical practice, which is why Senator Obama objected to them."

2001 AND 2002: OBAMA JOINED MORE THAN 40% OF THE ILLINOIS SENATE—INCLUDING NUMEROUS REPUBLICANS—IN OPPOSING “BORN ALIVE” BILLS
Obama Voted Against Two Born Alive Bills, With Almost a Quarter of the Senate, Saying They Would Be Struck Down. In 2002, Obama voted against a bill to create the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act to provide that if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent or public guardian of the child may recover damages for costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney’s fees against a hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after it is born. Obama voted against a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Further defines “born alive” to mean “the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that 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 of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.” Obama predicted the bills would be struck down by a federal court were they to become law. Obama said, “Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, we’re saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to term…That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.” [92nd GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N); 92nd GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R P; 30-12-10 (BO: N); Sun-Times, 3/31/01]

• 21 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1661. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican), Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shaw, Smith, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1661. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Shadid voted no on Senate Bill 1661. [92nd GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N)]

• 22 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1662. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican), Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Shaw, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1662. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Klemm (Republican), Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Smith voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R P; 30-12-10 (BO: N)]

• Six Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican Senator Kathleen Parker voted no Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Christine Radogno voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Adeline Geo-Karis voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Dick Klemm voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1093, SB 1094, SB 1095, SB 1661, SB 1662]

Obama Voted Present On “Born Alive” Bills. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, providing that no abortion procedure that, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall address the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child and provides that a physician inducing an abortion that results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practicable attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child. Also provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Obama voted present on a bill to create the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act states that it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect the life of a child born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion, provides that a parent of the child or the public guardian of the county in which a child was born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other abortion has a cause of action against any hospital, health care facility or health care provider that fails to provide medical care for the child after birth. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]

• 17 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1093. Senators Bowles, Del Valle, Halvorson, Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid and Viverito voted present on Senate Bill 1093. Senators Link, Madigan, Parker (Republican), Ronen, Silverstein and Welch voted no on Senate Bill 1093. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12]

• 18 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1094. Senators Bowles, Clayborne, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Myers (Republican), Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Viverito, Weaver (Republican) and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1094. Senators Del Valle, Link, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Silverstein voted no on Senate Bill 1094. [92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13]

• 18 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1095. Senators Bowles, Clayborne, Del Valle, Halvorson, Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1095. Senators Link, Madigan, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Silverstein voted no on Senate Bill 1095. [92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-5-13]

• Four Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican Senator Radogno voted present and Republican Parker voted no on Senate Bill 1093. Republican Senators Myers, Radogno, and Weaver voted present on Senate Bill 1094 and Republican Senator Parker voted against. Radogno voted present and Parker voted against Senate Bill 1095. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]

OBAMA SUPPORTED AND NARAL DIDN’T OPPOSE 2002’S FEDERAL BAIPA
Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

• NARAL Didn’t Oppose Federal BAIPA For Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That’s Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, “We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them.” [CNN, 8/5/02]

• NARAL Statement: “In the statement, NARAL says, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [NARAL release, 6/13/01]

2003 BORN ALIVE LEGISLATION OBAMA OPPOSED IN COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE SAME IMPACT AS FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Planned Parenthood: “Although The Definition Is Similar To The Proposed Federal Legislation, Its Application Would Have A Different Impact On State Abortion Law.” Planned Parenthood wrote in a fact sheet, “SB 1082 & SB 1083 are NOT the same as the so-called “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” which was recently passed in the U. S. House. The federal legislation is considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. It does not amend or change current Illinois law. Federal law does not regulate abortion practice. That is left to the states. Therefore, it is state legislation that would affect abortion practice in Illinois. The package of SB 1082 & SB 1083 creates new provisions in Illinois law. Although the definition is similar to the proposed federal legislation, its application would have a different impact on state abortion law.” [Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet, 2/28/03]

Illinois State Medical Society Opposed SB 1082. Robert Kane, legal counsel to the Illinois State Medical Society, filed a committee witness slip stating the Medical Society opposition to Senate Bill 1082. [Committee Witness Slip, SB 1082]

2005 BILL THAT PASSED AFTER OBAMA LEFT THE SENATE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT OBAMA DEALT WITH IN HIS COMMITTEE IN 2003, WASN’T OPPOSED BY PRO-CHOICE GROUPS
2005 Bill: “Unlike Earlier Versions That Failed, This Bill Does Not Spell Out What Medical Care Doctors Must Provide When An Abortion Procedure Ends In A Live Birth. The Legislation Also Specifically Says It Has No Impact On Illinois Abortion Laws.” “Activists on both sides of the abortion debate found a rare patch of common ground Wednesday: legislation that says any live birth - even one that occurs during an abortion - is a person with legal rights. The measure was unanimously approved by the House civil law committee and now moves to the House floor. Unlike earlier versions that failed, this bill does not spell out what medical care doctors must provide when an abortion procedure ends in a live birth. The legislation also specifically says it has no impact on Illinois abortion laws. Still, anti-abortion groups are pleased. ‘What it does is support the legal principle that infants that are born alive, regardless of their stage of development or the circumstances of their birth, are persons and deserve protection under the law,’ said Dawn Behnke, an attorney who lobbies for the Illinois Federation for Right to Life. Abortion rights supporters said they were satisfied that this legislation is not an attempt to restrict abortion. Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said the legislation will simply ensure babies get the medical care their doctors and parents think is appropriate.” [AP, 5/9/05]

The Born Alive Bill That Passed Into Law In IL—In Addition to Including the Language from the Failed 2003 Legislation and Federal Law—Stated That “Nothing In This Section Shall Be Construed To Affect Existing Federal Or State Law Regarding Abortion” or “Generally Accepted Medical Standards.” In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words ‘person’, ‘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. (c) 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. (d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion. (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards. [94th GA, HB 984, PA 94-0559, 8/12/05]

BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS
Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should “Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “‘For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when ‘there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,’ an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes ‘it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’ And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique ‘most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus’ and perform the abortion in the presence of ‘a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.’” [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]

• Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]

Let's move to some real criticism of Obama's polices, plans, positions and political philosophy on issues that are based on facts and informed opinion, not on some junk mail shit smears you believe in.

Post 57"
welsh- you should know since you are the king of junk mail smears.

We are talking about abortion on demand.
As for as a woman's right to choose that should be done prior to having sex which could result in another human being. She can choose BC pills, across the counter prevention contraceptives, IUd's, or god forbid abstinence, etc. The choices are many. Murder after the fact should not be one of them. After all I am a 54 year old fetus. Are you not glad that your mother did not choose the lazy liberal lame woman's way out.( However in the result of you I might make an exception and let her go for that abortion.)

Much Compassion~paulisoso

Mr. Welsh,

They've been pulling this shit since 1980 or earlier.

In 1980, late Monday night before Tuesday's election day, the "Moral Majority" stuffed people's doors in critical precincts all over Indiana with fliers saying that "BIRCH BAYH VOTED FOR LEGISLATION ALLOWING EXPERIMENTATION ON LIVE ABORTED FETUSES".

(Birch Bayh is the father of current Indiana Governor, Evan Bayh. Both are popular democrats in a very Red state.)

Of course it was a blatant LIE. There never WAS such a bill - ever, anywhere - for anyone to vote yes or no on.

It really had an impact. And was too late for Sen. Bayh to respond before people went to vote.

Tipper,

And how do you have a live aborted fetus?

In fact its easy, you ELECT to have 'em cut out when they're 8 months along and viable, see? Keep 'em breathing till you can get 'em off to Dr. Frankenstein's la-BOR-a-tory.

Doesn't matter that it was illegal under Roe v Wade. Really, a LOT of women would do it if you let them, see?

The people who spread this sewage are WICKED.

Just proves that wingnuts can't read well.

aka don't bother to read, at all.

Perhaps that also explains why our wingnut-in-chief paulisoso can't even spell "infanticide" correctly, but makes that outrageous accusation. And has a rats understanding of pro-choice and pro-life positions in politics.

Dear Paulisoso and others,

Thank you for presenting the information about Obama's political maneuvering around the issue of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). In Posting No.55 you wrote about what Alan Keyes said during the campaign in Illinois, "Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved". Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.

As Christ said, "As you do unto the least of these, so do you unto me". Jesus always stood for the sanctity of life. He made no differentiation between stages in the development of that life.

Barack Obama will not participate in a debate about this issue and others with his opponent in this race because he knows his record will show his actual position on issues. He will not support any issue that might be detrimental to his acquisition of his political goals. This is the type of so-called "Political Progressive" that Mr. Welsh is championing. How any politician who disavows moral considerations can be called progressive is a complete mystery.

Thank you again, Paulisoso.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

Dear Mr. Welsh,

You haven't answered my question yet. "What is your definition of Progressive Politics?"

"Betsy" S.

Post#61

Betsy
Thank for taking the time to champion the cause.

Being the same boring, raving lunatic he is I know you know this will only result in more name calling from Mr Welsh.
He and some of the others on this blog certainly cannot call themselves progressives. I mean they must think it is still the middle ages where rape and incest was quiet common, or 100 yrs ago when a women could not even say no to her husband, or 60 yrs ago when there was no multiple choice birth control for a woman and the only alternative was a back street abortion.

Where were these so called progressives when they were really needed?

Once women got the right to choose whether they would become pregnant or not(through the use of readily availible contraceptives) there was/is no need for abortion on demand.
Except for the lazy liberal lame woman.

However in the case of rape or incest I would allow for choice. I wouldn't like it, but I would.
What blow's me away is these liberal lames will not bat an eye at the thousands of innocent babies killed in this country by abortion every year, but yet they will stand in protest for hours in the pouring rain outside a prison where a convicted rapist or murdered is about to get the chair.
See I do believe in the sanctity of life for the innocence. However if you rob and then beat to death some little old grandmother I want you to fry! I don't give a crap about what kind of childhood you had. Life is about choices and taking responsibility for those choices, period.

Much compassion~paulisoso

Gotham,

Aaaaaaah.....here is where the liberals show their true colors. Liberals, the wonderful liberals who are OPEN-MINDED AND PROGRESSIVE and insist that we accept everything with an open mind. So now it is a problem that a teenage girl is pregnant and that Palin has a downs syndrome child.
Here's something to think about and it was pointed out recently by OBAMA himself--his own mother was 18 when she gave birth to him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh I just love liberals!!!!!!!

I think that this woman can lead just fine regardless of if her baby has downs syndrome and she has to care for him! Doesn't Obama have 2 children of his own--how come I don't here people saying he shouldn't lead because he has 2 children to take care of?

But then again I guess everything is just relative. Obama's Mom was 18 but that's OK b/c now we now that he is a brilliant politician who may become president, so it's OK in fact it's wonderful!!!! But now another 17 year old is pregnant but it is awful right b/c it's not a president's Mom or a Mozart's Mom or a brilliant mathematician's Mom--or maybe it is, unless the liberals all have crystal balls to look into and know the future. Maybe her child will be a saint or an Olympic superstar or perhaps THE NEXT PRESIDENT--do you see the logic here--if you're liberals act like liberals--see the potential in everyone and find a different argument against Palin.

Dear Paulisoso,

I totally agree wih you. The Liberal View is more compassionate to convicted criminals than it is to the unborn. The defenseless deserve no consideration in their view. They have no regard for Sanctity of Life for the Innocents.

It's no wonder our civilization is on the verge of destruction. The current age is one of Chaos and Insanity.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

Yes, I agree too. I had not read that far down when I first posted.
It is "no wonder our civilization is on the verge of destruction" as you wrote Betsy. The word "compassion" no longer has meaning. Rather it has been "mind-bended" and "warped".

So Betsy, Pauli and Olivia are having a conversation. Great. Keep it going.