Obama Voted For This Kind Of Murder

Barack Obama is in favor of infanticide, of this there can be no debate. He voted against the right to life for infants born alive after a botched abortion. What this means is that when an abortion fails and the child is born, it is left alone somewhere without care until it dies. I believe that life begins when blood begins to flow in the “product of conception” which is around 14 days after sperm meets egg. The Bible says that the life is in the blood and that is when the blood arrives. By the time most women find out they are pregnant, the blood has begun to flow and life has begun.

Reasonable people can debate this point of view and take positions in favor of or against abortion but no reasonable person could conclude that a baby who is born alive is not a human life. In reality a human exists in the womb long before it can survive outside the womb. We do not say a person on life support is no longer a human even though that person is unable to survive without help. Even when the embryo does not look like a person the DNA says that it is a human.

How does the culture of death embraced by the pro abortion groups play out? What happens when Obama’s infanticide position is put into practice? We found out from an incident in Florida.

An 18 year old woman decided to have an abortion and something went wrong. Her baby was born at 23 weeks while waiting for the death doctor to murder it. An unlicensed worker cut the umbilical cord of the live child and threw the baby in the trash. The decomposing corpse was found about a week later by police who were alerted about the incident. The autopsy shows the child had air in its lungs indicating it was alive when it was born. This child was murdered in a fashion supported by Barack Obama.

Only [Dr] Renelique didn’t arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic’s owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant’s umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips. Buffalo News

There is no way that any rational person could conclude that this child was not a human being and there is no way to deny that it was alive. This amounts to murder and the clinic should be shut down and the person who did this should be sent to prison for life for murdering this defenseless infant.

At 23 weeks it is unlikely the child would have survived but that is a decision that God and nature have to make, not some hack owner of a murder factory. Children have lived when born this early but we will never know this child would have. That chance was removed because of the same thing Obama supported when he was in the Illinois Senate.

This is disgusting and should sicken everyone who hears about it.

The sad thing is it will not.

Obama won’t be sickened. This is a guy who does not want his daughters punished with a pregnancy.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

31 Responses to “Obama Voted For This Kind Of Murder”

  1. Randy says:

    I thought you were for less government? Obama argued that further legislation was not needed because Illinois law already made the “born-alive” abortions illegal. This point was only verified when Jill Stanek, the nurse used in the article you linked to, reported the incidents she allegedly witnessed. The Illinois AG started an investigation into the matter because what she alleges happened was in fact, already illegal.

    Eric Zorn has done a great deal of research into the matter. Here you go:


    You are resurrecting an argument that Alan Keyes used to try and smear Obama back in ’04. It didn’t work then. It didn’t work in ’08. I don’t know what makes you think that this smear is going to work now.

    Jill Stanek herself has admitted she didn’t really understand the legislation that Obama voted against.

    Obama is pro-choice. So am I. You aren’t, and I respect that. But Obama in no way supports infanticide. It’s a baseless smear.

    While I support a womans right to choose, I think this is a much more respectful and honest way to make YOUR argument. This ad doesn’t insult anyone and it isn’t filled with hate. I think it may have opened an honest debate on the matter. Please take note:

    • Jill Stanek says:

      Correction, Obama argued at the time IL Born Alive legislation would lead to the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Read his IL Senate testimony here:


      Eric Zorn is not a reporter; he’s a liberal, pro-Obama columnist, not someone to source for objective reading on this topic.

      I “didn’t really understand the legislation Obama voted against”? That’s news to me.

      Obama is more than pro-choice. He is pro-infanticide. Read the above link to his actual Senate floor testimony and get back to me.

  2. Adam says:

    Big Dog is in favor of <a href=”“>civilian war casualties, of this there can be no debate. He supports the iraq war and the actions taken there by the US.

    This is disgusting and should sicken everyone who hears about it.

    The sad thing is it will not.

    Big Dog won’t be sickened.

  3. Adam says:

    Or are you saying you support the Iraq war for other reasons other than to see civilians senselessly killed?

  4. Big Dog says:

    Randy, I am in favor of less government but one of the things government is supposed to do is protect its citizens. It is clear to me from what Obama said that he was worried about a doctor getting in trouble for deciding a baby was non viable and that getting a second opinion to confirm that the child did or did not have one of the signs of life spelled out in the bill was burdensome and went against the original intent which was to murder the child.

    Obama was worried the bill somehow conferred rights to a fetus and wanted the federal language that specifically did not grant right to the child in utero. How does this square with laws that allow people to be charged with two murders if he murders a pregnant woman. Can’t have it both ways. The vote on the issue made it clear he felt it was a burden to have a second doctor confirm the child’s condition because having two doctors saying it was alive defeated the purpose of the procedure (abortion). This, in effect, allowed a born alive child to be ignored until it was absolutely dead.

    Adam, how do you know the US was responsible for this? Did your left wing idiot friends say so. The same ones who say we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians even though that has been shown as false…

    I am not in favor of civilian war casualties but understand that sometimes they happen as regrettable as it is. WE DO NOT TARGET INNOCENT CIVILIANS. I am not in favor of targeting them.

    I am in favor of killing the enemy. I support the war because I don’t want to see AMERICANS senselessly killed.

    If you were a patriot you would understand that but you have no problem with seeing your fellow countrymen killed because you think we are to blame.

    Randy, you support a woman’s right to choose. How come the government does not give us the right to choose to carry a firearm a right that, unlike abortion, is in the Constitution.

    The right to choose is absolute. We all get it or we don’t.

    Interestingly, the left chastised Palin for having a kid she knew had a defect. Why is her right to choose different? She chose to have the kid….

  5. Victoria says:

    So your argument against this article is that there have been civilian casualities in Iraq? Isn’t that usually what happens when there is a war? There was approximately 41,753,400 civilian deaths in World War II and there were people just like you at that time but if we had not won that war you would be speaking German right now and going “Heil, Hitler.”

    Do you know there have been 49,551,703
    abortions in the US since Roe V Wade? I was born way before 1973, out of wedlock and given up for adoption and I have since met my biological mother, who said she could have probably gotten an abortion at that time but she chose to give me life and I thank God for that everyday.

  6. Randy says:

    I would imagine that the legal argument for charging a person with murdering two people when that person ends the life of a woman carrying a fetus would consider the intent of the woman. It may also consider how far along in the pregnancy the woman was. There probably is no clear standard and that unclear standard probably varies from state to state. The choice is clearly taken from the woman in the case of murder though. It’s a slippery slope argument. I could charge someone with assault for looking at me funny, but it probably wouldn’t fly in court. It’s all about who makes the best argument in front of a judge or jury.

    It’s also not really relevant to why I have a problem with your post. It’s the use of the word ‘infanticide’. A fetus isn’t born, a ‘born fetus’ is an infant. Obama didn’t vote to support stopping life saving measures from being taken if a fetus is born. In fact, there was already a law on the books in Illinois that specifically stated that life saving measures were to be taken if a fetus, intended to be aborted, were ‘born alive’. It’s incorrect to say Obama supports infanticide. If you are anti-abortion, there are better ways to make your argument than being intentionally misleading.

  7. Barbara says:

    Don’t get me started on this subject. You people who believe in murdering babies should have to witness an abortion. At 3 months, the baby is burned with a saline solution and feels all the pain. How would you like to be burned alive. At 7 months, a baby is capable of surviving outside the womb, but when aborted, the doctor induces labor, delivers the baby, thrusts scissors in it skull and sucks out the brains, again feeling all the pain. Do you in your stupidity think this is what a civilization should be doing?

  8. Barbara says:

    Hi Victoria, I thank God your mom did not abort you. I’m sure God’s hand was upon you and has something special in life for you.

  9. Schatzee says:

    I believe infanticide is correct in the manner used here as it states that he voted against measures to assist infants BORN after a botched abortion attempt. I’m not trying to be argumentative – I think it’s just semantics myself but in this context it is appropriate. The fetus that survives an abortion attempt is born alive and therefore an infant. The mother’s intentions aside, once a child is alive outside the mother, I don’t believe anyone with a rational brain can continue to consider it a fetus or expendable.

    For the most part, I am actually pro choice although I could never have an abortion myself. I cannot prove scientifically and factually that a fetus has more rights than the person carrying it up until the time it is viable outside the mother’s body. To me, that is when there can be no doubt that we are talking about a life and it should not be taken either in utero or after leaving it.

    I am pretty sure that the additional charge of murder for killing a pregnant woman depends on the state and the circumstances. Some states do not allow the additional murder charge; some have limits (based on how pregnant the woman was); and some say it is up to the prosecuting authority to determine whether or not an additional charge is appropriate and sustainable. And really that is where the decisions should be made – at the state level.

    • Randy says:

      What part of Illinois law permits the stopping of life saving measures to save a born fetus (infant)?

      I totally agree with you on the business of murder charges.

  10. Adam says:

    Oh, I get it, Big Dog. You support the Iraq war for some other reason than the very narrow and inaccurate political attack I tried to say you support the war for? My mistake. I just assumed that since you support the war and the war was part of that girl’s death that the sole reason you support the war was because you support the death of civilians.

  11. Big Dog says:

    I knew what you were trying to do but there is no comparison. There is no doubt and the record shows that Obama voted against the law.

    He also said that getting a second doctor’s opinion would go against the original decision. In other words, why check to see if it is alive because she wanted to murder it anyway.

    Therefore, he is against protecting a baby born after a botched abortion.

    I did not say he supported abortion so he must support this.

    You are saying that since I support the war I must support the injuries to innocent civilians (and your picture could have come from any conflict). Since I never stated any such thing you cannot make the claim.

    Obama made his intentions clear.

  12. Adam says:

    I think it’s important to note what Randy said in the first comment. IL law made this illegal to start with. Nowhere in Obama’s statements about the legislation you mention does he give his support for “infanticide” and it’s only your own narrow political attack that suggests such a thing.

    Yes, Obama made his intentions clear. Obama clearly voted against the bill because he supported Roe v. Wade and this bill had no neutrality language to protect non “live-birth” abortions. Obama’s own words:

    But I suspect –and my impression is that the Medical Society suspects as well –that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making those determination and that ,essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physicians to induce labor and perform an abortions. Now if that’s the case… I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

    Instead you simply say “Barack Obama is in favor of infanticide, of this there can be no debate.” So again I say “Big Dog is in favor of civilian war casualties, of this there can be no debate.” After all, there can be no debate…

    • Jill Stanek says:

      IL law did NOT make post-abortion infanticide illegal. The portion of the IL Abortion Act of 1975 defining live birth was later struck down in court.

      The remaining portion stipulated a 2nd doctor be called in to assess an aborted alive baby only if the abortionist deemed it a good idea.

      If you fail to see the fox-guarding-henhouse problems there, you’re as whacked as Obama. I’m surprised you included his infamous quote from the IL Senate floor in 2002 (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf – pg 33).

      In that quote Obama was acknowledging babies could be aborted alive, but potentially resuscitating them would be a “burden to the original decision….” In other words, because the mother intended to abort, any other result that a dead baby would be a “burden” to her.

      That’s support of infanticide. Period.

      • Randy says:

        You don’t even understand the argument! I think you are looking for something in that transcript that you decided was there before you started reading it.

        “resuscitating them would be a “burden to the original decision….” In other words, because the mother intended to abort, any other result that a dead baby would be a “burden” to her”

        That doesn’t even make any sense. You have turned a burden on a decision already made into a baby being a burden on a mother, which clearly isn’t what Obama said.

        Please link or cite or something any supporting documents where the legislation already protecting infants ‘born alive’ as a result of a botched abortion was struck down in court.

        Face it. This is nothing more than a dishonest smear. This ‘infanticide’ campaign has failed MISERABLY in the past. I will leave it up to you to figure out why. I’ll give you a hint too, it’s not the media.

        • Jill Stanek says:

          Randy, google the 1993 Herbst v. O’Malley decision.

          In it the US District Court agreed to enjoin much of IL’s Abortion Act of 1975.

          One section of the IL Abortion Act enjoined in the Herbst decision included the definitions of “born alive,” “live born,” and “live birth.”

          To restate, there was no enforceable definition of “born alive” in IL law when Obama opposed IL’s Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

          The IL Born Alive Act would have restored that language. By opposing Born Alive, Obama was agreeing with the Herbst decision that an infant born alive as the result of an abortion should not be protected by the IL Criminal Code.

  13. Big Dog says:

    He suspects that doctors would be under the obligation. But suspecting it and it happening or being a part of the law are two different things.

    You see, if an abortion doctor botched an abortion he might not want to look to closely to see if the kid is alive and he might not want to get a second opinion because then he BOTCHED a medical procedure. If he ignores the child and it dies there is little evidence that it was not a successful abortion, or the original intent.

    I SUSPECT that this is how things will happen.

    You see, an abortion clinic is not like a hospital. There might be only one doctor and if more than one they are in different rooms and share the same goal, murdering babies for profit.

    In a hospital other doctors are there and come in during an emergency in order to save lives. As Obama stated, it is important to understand that the issue is ultimately about ABORTIONS not live births. In other words, if the abortion doctor decides not to do what Obama “suspects” they will, it is no big deal because the intent was to murder the kid anyway so what does it matter if it eventually dies.

    This was how his position was viewed from the time it happened. Keyes was unsuccessful with that tact but that does not negate the fact that Obama is not in favor of having a law that ensures a kid born alive is given a second look by another doctor because it would interfere with the original intent.

    The bill could have had neutrality language added. Instead of sitting around voting present he could have added it. It was not anti Roe, it was just viewed that way by pro choicers like Obama who are so worried a law will be used differently than intended. Instead, we get laws that allow this to happen.

    Judgment matters. If the law had the possibility of being misused against Roe or misused to allow kids born alive to die which way would you vote? I know how Obama voted and I know he did nothing to change it to make it more protective of the kid and Roe.

    I keep hearing people saying that the federal law was adequate blah, blah. If it was then why did they feel there was a need to have the same law in IL?

    You don’t have to have a debate about me. I honestly don’t care what you think about me or my intentions. When I have a public record of voting for things contrary to human decency then your assertions will carry weight.

    As it stands you are nothing more than a young liberal who has lived a misguided life and expects the government to take care of everyone. I only wish that your mother and the mothers of all the other liberals had exercised their right to choose.

    This picture is what Adam, Randy, and Obama are in favor of. Adam, of this there can absolutely be no doubt or debate. You support this end of story.

    You can play semantics with my words and try to play games to exonerate Obama of his sin but there is no way for you to deny this.

    There is no difference between you people and al Qaeda.

    • Randy says:

      I get it now. Your purpose is to incite, not debate.

      You are dishonest and this time I AM calling you a liar.

      You only pretend to give a shit about human life when it fits your political ideology. Since you are so “Christian”, please tell me where Jesus would make the distinction between whose life is precious and whose isn’t.

  14. Adam says:

    It’s hilarious and pathetic how you’ll say the most outrageous things and pile on the personal attacks when questioned about your bull crap.

    The truth is that you are disqualifying the real, stated reasons Obama voted ‘present’ and ‘no’ on the bills in question and substituting your own reality to say: “Barack Obama is in favor of infanticide.”

    But we both know you are not one to let facts get in the way of the myth you wish to propagate, so carry on…

  15. Big Dog says:

    I don’t deny that Obama’s motive was to protect abortion rights but his objection dealt with the IL bill not having the protection clause the federal bill has. The clause from the federal bill was inserted verbatim and he still voted against it.

    There is definitely a law in IL that requires a doctor to treat a VIABLE infant as a human and to provide care even if it is born alive after an abortion attempt. The issue is who decides viability. A child that is born with signs of life (those recognized medically) is viable until it dies.

    The IL law appears not to define viability which would mean an MD could use any criteria when the child is on the border, as in the case in Florida. The threshold of viability is around 22-25 weeks. A doctor in IL could claim a child born at 21 or 22 weeks is not viable and not treat it based on the wording of the law.

    The bill Obama voted against would require treatment regardless. This is why babies who are deemed non viable are left to die rather than treated.

    Obama can explain it any way he likes and he, in his mind might have believed what he did was right but he did not vote for the bill that was corrected to contain language he wanted and the consequences are that some children deemed non viable have been left to die.

    I believe his ultimate goal was to protect Roe but consequences have actions and like he said:

    “I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.”

    It is not clear cut because his actions can be interpreted at least two ways. Given that he still opposed after they amended to mitigate his earlier concern and he still voted no then it is clear he had other things in mind.

    A leader does not vote present unless he is trying to preserve a record. One day when you get the chance to lead something you might understand.

    Fact Check

  16. Victoria says:

    Per Real Clear Politics:
    At issue is an Illinois bill in 2003 called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that Mr. Obama voted against, which was modeled on federal legislation enacted the previous year declaring that in failed abortions resulting in a live birth, the baby must be given normal medical treatment. This was in response to a gruesome practice whereby abortions involving induced labor were resulting in unintended live births – and those infants were simply being left to die. It had passed the U.S. Senate without any dissent.
    Mr. Obama contended that he “would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported,” but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because “that was not the bill that was presented at the state level.” Except that it was.
    As it turns out – and as even Mr. Obama’s campaign admitted Monday to the New York Sun – the National Right to Life Committee wasn’t lying; Mr. Obama was. The specific difference cited by Mr. Obama in the CBN interview was that the Illinois bill didn’t contain the federal legislation’s language explicitly stating that it would not “undermine Roe vs. Wade.” (This was not merely off-the-cuff, as the campaign had issued a written statement to CNN in June offering the same rationale.) Not only did the bill contain the exact provision from the federal bill, but Mr. Obama voted in favor of adding it as an amendment. After the state bill was changed to be almost identical to the unanimously passed federal law, Mr. Obama voted against it.
    Though understanding the legislative process is not a common strength in political journalists, most of the reporters in question are smart enough to sift through the plentiful documentation of Mr. Obama’s voting history on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois at the Web site of the National Right to Life Committee. Further, they could even read the simple, yet thorough, narrative of National Review’s David Freddoso, who has written two stories spelling out the timeline and Obama’s actions along the way. (Some of the reporting is adapted from his new book, “The Case Against Barack Obama.”) Mr. Obama’s camp has shifted explanations this week, now claiming that the Democrat merely wanted a provision in the bill clarifying that it would not impact existing state laws. Yet as several pro-life activists have noted, Mr. Obama was the chairman of the legislature’s health committee when the bill came up again in 2003 and easily could have offered such an amendment. He didn’t.
    Regardless of the reasons for his vote, Mr. Obama cannot say that his critics are lying. He did oppose a bill virtually identical to the one unanimously passed in the U.S. Senate.
    The bottom line is that Obama lied, which he has done over and over because it was the expediant thing to do in order to get into office. Who knows if he is actually for infanticide or too stupid to know what is being voted on because I don’t think anyone would openly come out and state, “Hey everyone, I am for killing babies in order to preserve R v W” A baby laying there moving after an abortion is obviously alive and what would you call voting against a measure that calls for medical doctors to try and save said baby.” During the campaign he said some pretty cold things on certain topics like ”I don’t want my daughters punished with a baby.” There were some cracks in the veneer letting some light shine in and he wants to lift all bans on all types of abortions.

    Catholic bishops’ wrote a letter urging Obama to retain the policy the Bush administration passed late in 2008 protecting doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers from being forced to help provide services they object to on religious or moral grounds. The policy, which opponents contend expands the rights of anti-abortion activists, allows the government to yank federal funding from any of almost 600,000 hospitals, clinics, doctor offices, and health plans that refuse to accommodate health workers who don’t want to be involved with abortions or other procedures that violate their principles. What do you want to bet he blows them off in the name of R V W.

  17. Randy says:

    I posted a link to a column that cites, and reprints the relevant part of the Illinois law pertaning to what is and isn’t “vaible”. It’s really clear. If a doctor believes there is any reasonable chance for sustaining life outside the womb, whether it is on its own or by extraordinary measures, the doctor is to proceed in such a way as to preserve that life. Click on the link if you don’t believe me. Otherwise, you are remaining willfully ignorant.

    • Jill Stanek says:

      Randy, the “doctor” making that determination is the abortionist who has been paid to kill the child. Current IL law leaves it to the abortionist to determine whether an abortion survivor is potentially viable.

      In all areas except abortion liberals mistrust big business.

      • Randy says:

        Wow, that is one HUGE sweeping generalization you just made there.
        Who said I was a liberal. I am pro-choice. Does that automatically make me a liberal? Is there a template somewhere that dictates what liberals think?

  18. Victoria says:

    Some place in the US everyday a baby is born prematurely and some before what is considered viable. And the doctors fight like everything to keep that baby alive. Some babies make it and some don’t but they are given the chance. And then on the other end of the hospital babies are thrown into the trash can. You don’t want to believe the botched abortion one–then if the sainted one lifts the ban on partial birth abortions
    (which is absolutely infanticide) then what are you going to say then? I am not the willfully ignorant one–babies are babies–not blobs of tissue and not inhuman fetuses that you can sit here and talk about as if they are things that can be disposed of.

  19. Randy says:

    Victoria, you seem to be the one that believes Obama is sainted. You keep talking about it and referring to him as such. If Barack Obama even mentions in passing that he plans to overturn the ban on partial birth abortions, then we can debate it. Until then, there is no issue.

  20. Randy says:

    Here is a link about the Tribune quote:

    I also want to let everyone know that I did as Jill Stanek suggested and Googled the 1993 Herbst v. O’Malley decision. What came up were a bunch of propaganda sites. WND was one of them, and a youtube “discussion” involving Hannity, Colmes and Jerome Corsi. What needs to be Googled is the Herbst decree, which is the result of the Herbst v. O’Malley case. Ironically, I found the full text provided by none other than the NRLC. Here is the link:


    If you read the whole thing, (I think Jill Stanek is referring to the sections starting on page 12, but it is important to read the whole thing for the sake of context) you will see where the defendants in the case agree not to initiate any prosecution based certain definitions provided by the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. It didn’t strike down or remove any part of the original law, it only agreed to alter the methods in which they are enforced. This was done to help preserve the anonymity of the patient, and help ensure that doctors wouldn’t be prosecuted for the purpose of public opinion as opposed to actual criminal violations of the law. In fact, if you read on, you will see that the plaintiffs in the case had to specifically agree to remove their challenge WITH PREJUDICE to the definition of ‘born alive’ provided in the 1975 Law. You can refer to that definition here:


    The law that passed after Obama left the state senate only passed after language was changed. Obama has stated that he would have voted for it if he were still in the state senate had it included the changed and/or additional language. It is up to you to decide if you believe him or not. To argue that Obama absolutely supports ‘infanticide’ because he opposed a bill containing ambiguous language is simply dishonest.