Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Death Penalty

Obama vs McCain Live-Birth Abortion Matrix

July 3, 2008 | By | 8 Comments

“Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like.”

Babies and Distributism, GK’s Weekly, 11/12/32

Where do Obama and McCain stand on abortion and ‘live birth’ abortion?

Position/

Candidate……..Sonogram of baby……Picture of baby

sonogram_side_by_side.jpg

Pro-Life ………………….Live ……………….Live


Pro-Choice ……………..Die ………………..Live


McCain …………………..Live ……………….Live


Obama …………………..Die ………………..Die

The Obama Abortion Live-Birth Matrix


Obama is the full-service abortion candidate.

Abortion from conception to birth

Abortion at partial birth

Abortion after birth

Obama aggressively demands that some babies born alive be left to die. Obama does not support any Born Alive Infant Legislation. Amanda B. Carpenter writes in Human Events, Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL where Obama spoke out against the legislation similar to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act,

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.


In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.


Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

Here is what Obama has said about abortion and judges he would appoint,

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it’s never been more important to protect a woman’s right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women’s health.

With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.


Throughout my career, I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.


When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law.


When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”

Obama is not the candidate of change.

Charmaine says, “It’s all about women’s perceived power — the power a woman has over her fate, her future, her convenience.”

The mother-feminist even wants control of life and death: The ultimate power.

The power-hungry feminist does not choose life for her baby. The pro-choice, abortion-option movement is the desire to have the power of life and death.”

Obama believes that feminist power over the baby is more important than the life of the baby.

Obama claims to support a woman’s health, but what he is demanding is the woman’s power over life and death.

obama_no_life_yes.jpg

###

Be sure to follow Your Business Blogger(R) and Charmaine on Twitter: @JackYoest and @CharmaineYoest

Jack and Charmaine also blog at Reasoned Audacity and at Management Training of DC, LLC.

Thank you (foot)notes,

Gary Bauer pointed us to the Barack Obama speech.

Tom McMahon may not the originator of the 2 X 2 matrix, but no one does them better. Enjoy his intellectual property at the 4-Blockworld. Free! It takes hard work to make complicated subjects so simple. Bookmark him.

Tom provides us perhaps the real reason women will vote for John McCain: Who can keep us safe in our current war?

A New Report Indicates Voters Most Interested in Barack Obama’s Position on Abortion

The Internet traffic monitoring firm HitWise indicates abortion is now the number one political issue voters are looking for when they conduct a search on Obama’s campaign web site.

Obama Should Embrace His [Pro-Life] Muslim Heritage,

As a great leader, Mr. Obama should take a principled stand on the issue of Muslims and Islamophobia. While anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. is substantial, it is not an insurmountable challenge.

The vast majority of Americans are sincere and open-minded; anti-Muslim sentiments are a product of fear and lack of understanding. These sentiments can be overcome.

From an article in the The Wall Street Journal by Mr. Junaid M. Afeef, director of public and government Affairs at the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago.

Be sure to follow Jill Stanek and see the pictures. Stanek, a nurse, has written extensively on Infant Born Alive abuses-deaths.

Also see www.Twitter.com/365days4choice

MEDIA ALERT: Charmaine Quoted in Christianity Today On Abortion Penalties

August 15, 2007 | By | 2 Comments

charmaine_yoest_pew_2006_1.jpg

Charmaine at a Pew Charitable Trust

panel discussion on national elections last year Charmaine was interviewed by CT Magazine in ‘How Much Time Should She Serve?’ Pro-life groups answer by defining the victims of abortion, by Susan Wunderink, posted 8/14/2007 08:46AM,

Several of the pro-life activists admit they have been participating in anti-abortion demonstrations for years without considering the question of penalties.

Abortion rights advocates see an opportunity in that confusion. Organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the new National Institute for Reproductive Health are encouraging people to ask politicians, “How much time should she serve?” The question shows “that choice can be a winning issue if you force people to stop evading the hard facts,” Anna Quindlen wrote in a recent Newsweek column. Quindlen suggests that people who have pro-life convictions haven’t thought past their animosity to the idea of abortion.

And Quindlen may be partially correct: Pro-Lifers want the baby to live. It is indeed odd that the liberals only will discuss punishment in a civil society when abortion is the topic. Liberals would fling open all jail house doors…then blame conservatives for the increase in crime.

Charmaine Yoest, [Ph.D.] vice president of communications at the Family Research Council, explained that she sees abortion as an act of violence against both a woman and her child. “We’ve always argued that the doctor is the appropriate target because they’re the ones who are actually performing — there’s no nice way of saying it — they’re the ones who are actually murdering the baby,” she said.

Land doesn’t deny that women who have abortions might be addled, but he, along with Yoest, Earll, and Gans, takes exception to them being described as bystanders—or as enlightened women making free, educated choices.

charmaine_yoest_pew_2006_2.jpg The above paragraph has the liberals most excited. 85% of women who see a sonogram of their baby do not go through with the planned abortion. Which, of course, liberal abortionists do not want. Liberals want abortion. Women should be informed.

The liberals would say, No, young lady, no, you cannot see a picture of your baby.

The CT article continues,

“Moreover, it’s a false assumption that even legal abortions are safe, said Yoest. “Women are still at serious risk. Abortion is the most unregulated health provider industry in the country today. We don’t keep good records of outcomes of abortion for women.” “

charmaine_yoest_pew_2006_3.jpg

Your Business Blogger played a small role in a number of medical device start-up companies selling to clinicians and hospital groups. Each decision maker would demand data and detailed studies of efficacy and risk.

(Back in the day, many doctors would not even consider my clinical studies from Europe as not being rigorous. Only US of A clinical trials were acceptable.)

The clinicians well understood that any medical intervention entailed some risk, but the health care business is about minimizing risk and improving outcomes.

Which the abortionists obviously don’t need. The desired outcome of a successful abortion is a dead baby.

Good Outcome = Dead Baby.

This is a horrific contradiction in medicine. That liberals do not understand.

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

The Hippocratic Oath (An Early Version)

I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

The liberal blogs are in a tizzie. See Pam Spaulding on AmericaBlog, Fundie Richard Land: Women who have abortions are mentally ‘impaired’ Liberals do not know the difference between ‘impaired’ and ‘uninformed.’

“The fetus beat us,” says our friend Naomi Wolf.

Are Children at Risk in Red States?

January 27, 2007 | By | 3 Comments

cns_logo.gif

Cybercast News ServiceA new book Homeland Insecurity… American Children at Risk says yes.

I think not. Red States are better than Blue States. Permit me one anecdotal statistic. Your Business Blogger packed up kith and kin and moved from the blue, communist “Free State” of Maryland and headed south, back to our beloved “Old Dominion.” (Home of the University of Virginia and George Mason.)

My car insurance instantly dropped 30%. My personal property insurance dropped.

So I asked USAA Insurance why the huge savings by my merely moving a few dozen miles.

Short answer: Lower risk.

Seems that Maryland is full of terrible drivers and home invaders, criminals and crappy schools. Insurance companies assess rates accordingly.

A citizen is more apt to be a victim of a car wreck or have his home burned down and personal property stolen living in Maryland. My former county in Maryland had horrific public tax-supported education, forcing the Penta-Posse into private alternatives.

A citizen is safer in Virginia. The (apolitical) (profit-motivated) insurance market proves it.

And coincidentally, Virginia is aggressive with criminals. The Commonwealth of Virginia is prompt in emptying death row with Dead Men Walking. Maryland is more “compassionate” with crooks walking…or running for office. Murderers get a pass in Maryland. Murders are executed in Virginia.

So I moved to Virginia. Safer.

tommcmahon_strawhat4.jpg

Tom McMahon And I’m not the only one. Tom McMahon originally pointed us to the United Van Lines Migration Study showing what states people move out of and into,

Maryland … continued its 15-year outbound tradition… the United Van Lines study, through the years, has been shown to accurately reflect the general migration patterns in various regions of the country… real estate firms, financial institutions, and other observers of relocation trends regularly use the United data in their business planning and analysis activities.

The only thing United Van Lines gets wrong are the colors. “Inbound” states should be red; “outbound” blue.

Which, as Alert Readers have noted, align with blue state/red state political leanings.

Business and citizens understand the market and benefits and safety of red states.

But not liberal elites. Like Michael Petit.

Monisha Bansal, a CNSNews.com Staff Writer writes in Children More at Risk in Red States, Book Claims,

(CNSNews.com) – A family group voiced deep skepticism Thursday about a new book charging that children in Republican-leaning states are at greater risk than their peers elsewhere because of conservative policies.

[The book] says the risks include “inadequate pre-natal care, lack of health care insurance coverage, early death, child abuse, hunger and teen incarceration.”

It was released Thursday by the child advocacy group, Every Child Matters Education Fund, whose president, Michael Petit, authored the book.

“Thanks in large part to the erosion of real federal spending on children and families, mostly engineered by conservatives, the child poverty rate is rising again even as the stock market has climbed,” Petit wrote in the book.

“Further, more people are uninsured, real wages are declining, prisons are overflowing, and millions of children live in distressed families facing their struggles alone, thanks in large measure to conservative policy,” he said.

Petit based his “red state” versus “blue state” distinctions on the 2004 presidential elections.

Based on that measure, he said, nine of the top 10 states with “the best outcomes for children today” are the Democratic voting blue states of Wisconsin, New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire, with Iowa being the sole red (or Republican voting) state in the group.

Reasoned, seasoned voices challenge the claim. My favorite political scientist is quoted,

Charmaine Yoest, vice president of communications for the Family Research Council, said she was “really skeptical” of Petit’s findings….

“They don’t appear to have taken into consideration a variety of variables,” she said. “You have to be pretty careful about positing causality, and I’m not certain that they have done that.

“They have a very simplistic and disingenuous analysis,” Yoest said.

“It is very clear that they are looking for more government programs that involve more government spending and higher taxes,” she said.

“Any time you hear advocates on the left talking about children you can be certain that they aren’t going to pay attention to the effect of family structure on the well-being of children,” Yoest said.

“This project appears to be no different,” Yoest argued. “There’s somehow this mythical idea that spending equals well-being for children when in fact the research data is incontrovertible.

“The overwhelming evidence has proven that the two-parent family – a mom and a dad, committed for life and caring for kids – provides the best outcomes for children,” Yoest said.

Charmaine, as usual, gets it right.

###

Thank you (foot)notes:

My endorsement of USAA insurance is unpaid.

Full Disclosure: Your Business Blogger served Jim Gilmore, former governor of Virginia. Whenever the courts sentenced death in a capital punishment case, Gilmore always, “Declined to intervene.” Virginia has good courts, too.

Bad for business: the prosecution of Abdul Rahman

March 28, 2006 | By | No Comments

Cross Post from Jack Yoest

helena-yoest--bows-her-head-in-prayer_abul_rahman_afp.jpg

Helena Yoest, [center, The Dreamer to right, Charmaine on right] bows her head in prayer before taking part in demonstration, to call for a stop to the prosecution of Abdul Rahman. Difficult to have a business conversation when heads are being sawed off as a matter of personal conviction. Uncertainty is bad for commerce.

So. In my dual goals of 1) World Peace and 2) Keeping the little woman out of Nordstrom’s, I dispatch Charmaine on a bit of civil(ized) disobedience. She takes two of my little women to attempt to cause havoc in Your Nation’s Capital. Protesting at the Afghan Embassy last Friday.

From the Agence France-Presse:

Helena Yoest, 9, bows her head in prayer before taking part in demonstration, in front of the Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington, DC, to call for a stop to the prosecution of Abdul Rahman.

Prayer in public. The Horror.

###

Was this helpful? Do comment.

Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

From AFP:

The AFP brand: A guarantee of excellence.

The AFP team: More than 2000 employees worldwide.

AFP products: Agence France-Presse produces each day 400,000 – 600,000 words in text, 1000 photos and 50 news graphics.

AFP around the world: Journalists in 165 countries, 5 regional headquarters.

Hugh Hewitt has more pictures.

Michelle Malkin has the story and an excellent round-up. She was there at the Embassy.

Remembering Jessica Lunsford

June 24, 2005 | By | One Comment

jessica_lunsford.jpg

Jessica Lunsford

This is why we have the death penalty. Convicted sex offender John Couey says that he buried Jessica Lunsford alive, her hands tied with stereo wire, after raping her.

* * *

From Tammy at A Mom and Her Blog.