INFANTICIDE THIS IS!!
A MURDERER HE IS!!
HE WHO VOTED "PRESENT" MOST OF HIS 150 DAYS IN THE SENATE!!
HE VOTED "PRESENT" OVER 300 TIMES IN THIS PERIOD!!
Obama Votes Against Born Alive Babies. Jill Stanek Tells All.
Apparently Barack Obama is not very concerned about human life, unless it directly affects his own success. I'll bet you that any day now he'll find it politically expedient to help his poor half brother over in Africa that is living on less than one dollar a month, but that's just the kind of guy that he is.
Now back to letting babies that are born alive, just die. Well, I think Jill Stanek expaines it just fine on the video.
Obama's 2003 Vote On "Born Alive" Abortion Bill Under Fire
August 20, 2008 11:10 a.m. EST
Kris Alingod - AHN News Writer
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) opposition to an Illinois state law protecting infants born alive after abortion procedures is coming back to haunt him. Pro-life advocates brought up the issue over the weekend as the presumptive Democratic nominee began to court evangelical voters.
Obama voted against a state version of the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was signed into law in 2002 amid broad bipartisan support. He told CBN on Saturday that he opposed the measure because it undermined Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, and that pro-life advocates were "lying" about his record as a state legislator.
"I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say -- that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level," he said.
The CBN interview was held immediately after Obama attended a faith forum organized by megachurch pastor Rick Warren.
But the National Right to Life Committee (NLRC) had released documents a week earlier saying a 2003 version of "born alive" bill in the Illinois Senate had the same language on Roe v. Wade as the federal bill. Obama was chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in the state legislature at the time.
The group demanded an apology from Obama for calling anti-abortion advocates "liars" and challenged the Democratic lawmaker to declare their document a forgery.
"Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel," NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson said in a statement on Monday.
The Obama campaign has dismissed the charges as "outrageous lies."
"The suggestion that Obama - the proud father of two little girls - and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign," Obama spokesman Justin DeJong is quoted by Chicago Tribune as saying.
Obama's abortion stance came under fire last month after he told Relevant Magazine that a mother's "mental distress" is not enough reason for late-term abortions. The Christian Defense Coalition launched a campaign at the time labeling the freshman senator "the Abortion President."
Obamacare Death Panel's First MURDER(S)
- 12-22-2010
- Categorized in: Business, Constitution, Economics, Government, Healthcare, Law, Politics, Science
11Share116Email2300Share2428
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revoked its regulatory approval of the drug Avastin to treat late stage, metastatic breast cancer. Each year, the practicing oncologists chosen by 17,500 American women to save them from their life-threatening, heavily progressed cancer prescribe Avastin to treat them.
The FDA explained that it was revoking approval of the drug for that use because it decided that the drug does not provide "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients." Risk? The drug is prescribed for women who are otherwise going to die from cancer unless the drug saves them at least for a time. The far greater risk to these women is from the FDA, not the drug.
As The Wall Street Journal said last Friday in response to the FDA's explanation:
Ponder that [word] "sufficient." The agency is substituting its own judgment about clinical meaningfulness for those of practicing oncologists and terminally ill cancer patients.
That FDA judgment was determined last summer by an internal agency panel of 13 experts, only two of whom were breast cancer oncologists, and none of whom were breast cancer patients.
The Death Panel's First Murder
Last week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revoked its regulatory approval of the drug Avastin to treat late stage, metastatic breast cancer. Each year, the practicing oncologists chosen by 17,500 American women to save them from their life-threatening, heavily progressed cancer prescribe Avastin to treat them.
The FDA explained that it was revoking approval of the drug for that use because it decided that the drug does not provide "a sufficient benefit in slowing disease progression to outweigh the significant risk to patients." Risk? The drug is prescribed for women who are otherwise going to die from cancer unless the drug saves them at least for a time. The far greater risk to these women is from the FDA, not the drug.
As The Wall Street Journal said last Friday in response to the FDA's explanation:
Ponder that [word] "sufficient." The agency is substituting its own judgment about clinical meaningfulness for those of practicing oncologists and terminally ill cancer patients.
That FDA judgment was determined last summer by an internal agency panel of 13 experts, only two of whom were breast cancer oncologists, and none of whom were breast cancer patients.
Death Sentence for Mrs. Turnage?
Contrast the FDA's elitist, authoritarian, Ruling Class explanation for its bureaucratic dictat with the real world experience of Mrs. Turnage, whose story was told in a New York Post commentary on December 15 entitled "Don't Kill the Drug That Saved My Mom," by her son Josh Turnage. Josh explained:
In June 2006, my mom was diagnosed with Stage II breast cancer. She underwent a double mastectomy, reconstruction and six months of chemo…. Then just 44, she had "triple negative breast cancer," a rare and particularly lethal form of the disease.
As Josh observed, traditional therapies typically do not work against the disease that threatened to kill his mother at that early age. As a result,
A year after the initial diagnosis, the doctor told our family that the cancer had gone metastatic, or Stage IV, and had spread to her right lung. Such news is typically a death sentence.
But her doctor urged her to try a new experimental drug called Avastin, just approved by the FDA for breast cancer. Josh explained the results:
We got a miracle. After four months of Avastin treatment in combination with chemo, the cancer effectively vanished -- the doctors literally couldn't find any trace of the disease in her body.
In January, 2009, Mrs. Turnage's chosen doctors decided she could terminate her chemotherapy treatments and just continue with exclusive use of Avastin. Today, nearly two years later, she's still cancer-free.
Mrs. Turnage is a "super responder" to Avastin, one of a minority of patients receiving the treatment for whom the drug is powerfully effective. Tumors shrink for about half of patients receiving Avastin. On average, patients taking the drug with chemotherapy experience twice as many days or months with no progression of their tumors as those not taking the drug. That means they live longer, on average a few months longer, with their families and friends. Whether that and the chance for much greater success as for Mrs. Turnage is worth it is for patients to decide, with the advice of their doctors, not government bureaucrats.
As Josh rightly says, "We're talking about Stage IV cancer; the FDA should let patients and doctors decide if a medicine's benefits are worth the risks." That has been the tradition of freedom in America.
...
| banklån |
...
...
No comments:
Post a Comment