Marathon Pundit: Jill Stanek: "Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide"

Last April the US Supreme Court upheld federal law banning partial birth abortions.

According to Mark Sricherz' Why the Democrats are Blue: Secular Liberalism and the Decline of the People's Party, this is how the top Democratic presidential candidates reacted to the SCOTUS decision:

"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health," is how Hillary Clinton responded.

John Edwards added, "This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake--starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."

Joining in that discussion was Barack Obama, who said, "I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."

Once again, the three candidates were talking about partial birth abortion, which I don't know how anyone cannot call "infanticide."

Fellow Obama constituent Jill Stanek calls it that.

From her WorldNet Daily column:

I was intimately involved in the five-year process to pass the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, testifying before committees twice that then-state Sen. Barack Obama sat on.

Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on on BAIPA.

10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable 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.

Click here to read the other nine. As for Reason Number 10, the name of the act then-state Senator Obama was discussing was the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Technorati tags: