View Single Post
      12-15-2007, 08:28 AM   #18
Kev
Resident Anesthesiologist
Kev's Avatar
Hong Kong
180
Rep
8,815
Posts

 
Drives: VW bug with a misplaced engine
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Seattle, WA

iTrader: (24)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
Would a Christian do this? Maybe I should also ask if an atheist would do this (what Obama did).
As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

-Jill Stanek
Although, I'm no fan of Obama, I don't see anything wrong with him being opposed to this law. In the actual text of the law, which can be found here, it defines alive as "a beating heart, clear sign of voluntary muscle movement, and pulsating umbilical cord". Obviously, this is not a good definition, because non-viable deliveries at 2nd trimester can still satisfy the criteria of being "alive" by the congress. However, they are considered medically "non-viable" by ACOG, the American College of OB/GYN. In this grey area, what are we supposed to do? Apparently, the author of the article is suggesting that we need to aggressively resuscitate and treat them as if they were viable pregnancies...... Did we determine how long do we resuscitate for? Did they have a specific protocol in mind to expand the NICU beds all over the country to accomodate these "babies"? Last time I checked, they didn't pass any compendiums to pay for the care of these "alive babies". So, who's gonna pay?

It's easy to pay lip service to your faith. However, someone out there has to deal with the mess that you created.

This is the problem when you have a bunch of religious fanatics with no medical knowledge running the damn country and telling how doctors with specialized training should do their job......
__________________
kev { divinum est sedate dolorem }