It is official, I’m voting for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Certainly in the Indiana primary, but hopefully in the national election as well. I had been leaning toward the former first lady over the past couple of weeks, but a recent article I received in regards to Senator Obama has put me completely into Hillary’s camp.
The piece, written by a former nurse (Jill Stanek) working in Illinois during Obama’s tenure in the state senate, is admittedly one-sided. That being said, when you ignore the typical sarcastic adjectives of this biased article, plenty of scathing material remains.
It begins in February of 2004 with Obama’s wife, Michelle, discussing her fundraising invitations that describe a $150-a-plate luncheon that would raise awareness on “right-wing” tactics employed in an attempt to stop partial-birth abortion. Stanek summarized its contents, noting, among other things, that “Mrs. Obama referred to this form of abortion as “a legitimate medical procedure” and asked supporters to attend the aforementioned luncheon for her husband, who would fight “cynical ploys” to stop it.”
Now, you probably have heard the term ‘partial-birth abortion’ thrown around, but you may not actually be aware of what the procedure entails. I will provide a description here, but I warn you; if you are easily sickened, even by written details, skip to the next paragraph. Partial-birth abortion is an operation that takes almost-born babies (well into their third trimester), rips the back of their neck open with a pair of scissors, sucks their brain out, and crushes their skulls.
As terrible as this seems, partial-birth abortion is not the actual subject of Stanek’s article. She implores registered voters to pass on Barack Obama because of his ignorant neglect of a prominent problem in Illinois hospitals during his tenure in the state legislature: infanticide.
Yes, you see Ms. Stanek was a nurse in one of these hospitals at this time, and she made a very unpleasant discovery. Children were being born, full-term, mind you, and neglectfully shelved to die in spare utility rooms. Legislation passed unanimously at a federal level to put an end to this type of abortion, but evidently, Senator Obama did not receive the memo.
At the state level, in Illinois at least, the legislation was stopped in its tracks. Stanek points out that it was Obama’s presence and priorities that prevented it from being passed. In fact, as an interesting side note, it should be made known that it was finally put into action in 2005…just months after Obama was elected to national office.
Moving back to the time in state office, Stanek reveals that after the first refusal to pass the common sense legislation, Obama chaired a committee that tended to the very issue. While serving on this group, Obama stifled any dissent, going as far as ending a meeting prematurely to avoid discussing a pro-life issue with a family who had traveled over three hours to testify before the committee.
Evidently, Senator Obama was not bothered by any of this. Neither was he bothered by the fact that similar legislation gives more rights to livestock than to the full-term babies of Illinois. Nor was he bothered at the reality that these babies feel excruciating pain in both partial-birth and full-term abortion. No, the only thing he was actually bothered by was the fact that Alan Keyes used this story as the basis for his reason as to why Jesus Christ would never vote for Barack Obama.
Now, I consider myself a part of the pro-life movement. I am also a realist. I understand that as important as the pro-life debate is, issues as pressing as the Iraq War should often take precedence. I also am aware that completely banning abortion would cause another set of serious problems (women dying in back alleys trying to perform abortions with coat hangers, for example). However, I would have to agree with Mr. Keyes in his summation of Senator Obama. I’m not a fan making bold proclamations on Christ’s behalf, but I see the reasoning here. The last thing we need is a president as cavalier on such an important issue as Barack Obama. We need a president who is willing to recognize all of these problems and proceed accordingly. We need Hillary Clinton.
John McCain may be stronger on pro-life issues, but he is out to lunch on Iraq. His rationale: The Iraq Surge has worked well enough that we should continue to mire ourselves in a quagmire. Barack Obama is strong on the Iraq War (immediate withdrawal), but, obviously, frighteningly out of touch with the importance of the pro-life debate. Hillary Clinton is the most well-balanced candidate of the bunch, and the best choice for president that we have had since her husband left office. She has the heart of a liberal and the values of a conservative. Senator Clinton may be painted as a cold, evil woman by the media, but that’s just because they have decided that they want Senator Obama to win. How so? Clinton is a superior, yet less flashy version of Obama. Don’t be fooled by a smooth exterior, just look at the facts.
So with this in mind, I implore everyone to make the right choice this spring and do it again come November. America is at a crossroads. Do we want someone who will continue to trample our nation’s relations with other countries? Do we want someone with only four years of experience in dealing with issues at the national level?
I know that I don’t.
I want Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States, and you should too. Help her make the next step in this process on May 6th; it is simply the right thing to do.
To read Jill Stanek’s article on Barack Obama, follow the provided link:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment