Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, in his 'Catholic America' column documents the lie told by right wing extremists about Barack Obama and infanticide. He call this "the latest venom eruption on hate-monger sites." and documents that "For the record, Senator Obama did NOT vote for infanticide while in the Illinois State legislature." Stevens-Arroyo testifies that " I have read the exact wording of the bill and the term 'infanticide' does not appear anywhere. Fear-mongering with this word is, at the least, a stretch; and, at the worst, a lie. It is a concern for Catholic America because some of the verbal terrorism comes with a Catholic label."
Thank you, Mr. Arroyo-Stevens for setting the record straight.
28 comments:
I have been looking for an explanation of this. I have heard of this accusation and have been reluctant to support Barack Obama because of it. I appreciate this information.
In Obama's own words on why he voted against the act:
He "Obama" explained, “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 — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. 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.”
None of the tree poison pills mentioned at all.
Wonder why you won't post my other comment?
Since you didn't post my other comment will you post this?
Max,
I'm am putting a high level standard for civility on this particular item.
You've indicated that the issue with the Illinois Act(which duplicated a federal law already on the books) is abortion and not infanticide. Fine. Let's discuss abortion. Let's not use loaded and false accusations.
Katherine,
I believe not providing medical care for babies who survive abortions is infanticide. Silly me, I thought all Catholics would agree. The comment you will not post refuted the alleged poison pills in the bill. As for civility, Arroyo's article refers to "verbal" Catholic terrorism.
I guess that meets your standard of civility.
BTW, my previous comments were not loaded or false.
The Right to Life movement is a moral cause and should not being tellng lies. I think this accusation comes not from them but from Republican Party officials.
Good post, Katherine. The record needed to be set straight here.
I have read the exact wording of the bill and the term 'infanticide' does not appear anywhere.
What a relief! They don't call a law that would deny medical care to a child who survives abortion "infanticide," so it must be something else.
They don't call a law that would deny medical care to a child..
If this law Obama voted against would deny medical care to a child then it was right for him to vote against it.
Sally said,
If this law Obama voted against would deny medical care to a child then it was right for him to vote against it.
Really?
Uh Sally, you are confused. He voted against a law that would provide medical care to baby that survived an abortion. But its not infanticide, just ask Katherine.
Rich says it was a law that denied medical care. Max says it was a law that would give medical care. Katherine said Bush vetoed a law to give babies medical care that Obama voted for. McCain said there already was a law giving babies medical care.
This is very confused.
This is very confused.
No its not, just google Born Alive Infants Protection Act. He voted to deny medical care for babies who survive abortions.
Don't count on this blog for objective and balanced information. BTW,I would also say that for any pro McCain blog . Look at various sources, its easy enough to find. CNN did a good segment on it with Bennett and Carville.
And McCain voted for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002 when it passed Congress.
So how could Obama vote against abill in 2003 which was already a federal law in 2002?
katherine,
That question could be answered if you publish my referral to Jill Stanek. Why didn't you publish it?? There was nothing objectionable in there....except possibly you don't want the Catholic Obama fans to go to her website. Come on...where is your courage????
Some facts about Jill Stanek:
1. She believes the oral contraceptive is a form of abortion.
2. She has said that the Chinese people eat fetuses.
3. She believes in vampires but does not believe in evolution.
4. Has made false accusations of rape.
future comments here cannot be anonymous. Thank you.
Fine, Katherine. I still want to know when you are going to publish my defense of Jill Stanek?? Or do "Don's" stupid "facts" still stand??
Susan
Terre Haute, Indiana
Susan,
I really want to hear your response to Jill saying that Chinese people eat fetuses.
Oh, for God sake Betty,go to Jill's website and see what is on there for yourself. Jill Stanek....check it out! Don't pay attention to what "Don" says.
Susan,
I found this article by her. Any comment?
"Sweet and Sour Fetus: Chinese cannibalism
by Jill Stanek"
Betty,
As I said go to her website and see if you find anything that is out of the ordinary.
Aha, Betty. I found the article to which you are referring. Actually, Jill is NOT making the argument at all. She included the article that appeared in another publication (Epoch Times or something like that) stating that this is going on (the eating of fetuses) Her statement is that IF this is true it is another example of the dehumanization of the fetus. Sorry, Betty, she is not the one making the statement at all. Will you publish this, Kate???
O.K., Kate....where is my comment AFTER I read the article supposedly "written" by Jill?????
I repeat...how many times have I sent this to you.......Jill Stanek did NOT write the article. It is a story from two publications (The Epoch Times and New Magazine) that she is reproducing. She specifically says IF (Yes, she says IF) it is true it is an example of the dehumanization of our world. She did not write the story...she did not make it up. I know, Katherine, that you hate Jill Stanek because she had the nerve to face down and correct your pet Barack when she testified before the Illinois Senate Committee concerning the goings on at Christ Hospital. If you think that is a sufficient reason to assassinate her character maybe YOU should say a Hail Mary before YOU post some of your comments/editorials on this blog. Will you post this before it passes into your old posts? Or will you leave the impression with the folks out there that she is a vampire believing, rape accusing, nut job. You can try to control the world all you want, Katherine, but the TRUTH will out in the end.
I repeat...how many times have I sent this to you.......Jill Stanek did NOT write the article. It is a story from two publications (The Epoch Times and New Magazine) that she is reproducing. She specifically says IF (Yes, she says IF) it is true it is an example of the dehumanization of our world. She did not write the story...she did not make it up. I know, Katherine, that you hate Jill Stanek because she had the nerve to face down and correct your pet Barack when she testified before the Illinois Senate Committee concerning the goings on at Christ Hospital. If you think that is a sufficient reason to assassinate her character maybe YOU should say a Hail Mary before YOU post some of your comments/editorials on this blog. Will you post this before it passes into your old posts? Or will you leave the impression with the folks out there that she is a vampire believing, rape accusing, nut job. You can try to control the world all you want, Katherine, but the TRUTH will out in the end.
first of all, I'm back from my doctor's visit. Thank you to all who expressed concern.
Susan,
I look at the material and it is correct that Nurse Stanek devoted her column to someone else's report. In the headline, she offers it as a fact and in the body she says "if" this is true.
The fact she bothered to devoted a whole column to it suggests she accepts some credibility and is suggesting it to others.
I don't hate her. I do think this shows that in a maybe innocent way, she does not do her homework and check her facts. I think she is more an overly emotional and not very careful thinker rather than in anyway a person worthy of hate.
If she was a more thoughtful person, she would put something out apologizing for spreading the bogus story.
Katherine,
You make me laugh.
Susan
Why does she publish things if they are phoney? Yes, I think she is a little tightly wound. I would not consider her a good source for factual information.
Gina
Post a Comment