I’ve been dreading writing about the Born Alive bill, the legislation Obama opposed in the Illinois related to babies who are accidentally born, alive, during abortions. I have a swirl of mixed emotions and thoughts, and realize that collectively they will offend nearly everyone. Here goes:
Obama has lied or dissembled on parts of the controversy. He’s claimed that he opposed the Born Alive bill in the Illinois legislature because it lacked a particular protection for Roe v. Wade. When the Right to Life committee rebutted him on that, he called them liars. The Right to Life committee was correct. He was wrong, and he shouldn’t’ have called them liars.
Some anti-Obama forces have taken a legitimate issue and turned it into an illegitimate smear. The legitimate issue is this: Obama supported legislation that could have potentially allowed for babies who came out alive during the course of an abortion to be left to die. (More on why he did that in a minute.)
The anti-Obama forces now claim that Obama, therefore, “favors infanticide,” which strikes me as an unfair characterization:
“His vote in favor of infanticide” – Catholic.org
“voted in favor of infanticide” – National Review
“Obama’s 10 reasons for supporting infanticide” — WND.com
“Barack Obama Admits He Supported Infanticide” – Human Events ]
“Obama On His Support for Infanticide” - LaShawn Barner
“Believes and favors infanticide. Not just abortion, but infanticide.” – Rush Limbaugh
“Obama’s support for infanticide.” – Inside Catholic
Someone who favors weak penalties for crimes may (or may not) make possible more murders. But that doesn’t mean he favors murder. President Bush was criticized for not giving proper body armor to our soldiers; that doesn’t mean he favored their potential murder. Pro-life folks will say that I’m making a distinction without a difference. If he allows for a baby to die, then he’s favoring infanticide. But to me there is a meaningful difference between saying that a candidate favors a situation that results in death and saying he wants to murder infants.
Obama today would support the Born Alive legislation. This may seem like a weak defense; sure, he would support it now; he’s been suffering politically! Nonetheless, he now says he would have supported the bill (endorsed by the pro life groups) that passed the legislature after he’d left and that he would have voted for the bill that passed Congress.
This doesn’t eliminate the issue of what judgment Obama showed back then (a fair issue) but it does reduce the possibility that Obama would allow for “infanticide” to occur on his watch. Obama and McCain now have identical positions.
This episode does indeed tell us something about Obama: he has been very, very pro-choice. The episode does show him to be a down-the-line pro-choice legislator. In fact, the charge that Obama is the most pro-choice candidate in years may well be true (though the other Democrats were pretty pro-choice too). When I read through the legislative history, I came to believe that Obama’s general impulse was: when it doubt, side with NARAL. If you’re ardently pro-life, you are absolutely justified in being scared of Obama for that reason alone, without having cast him as a serial killer.
In fact, if you’re pro-life there are substantively far more persuasive points to be made against Obama – the most important of which is that he strongly supports the Freedom of Choice Act, which would wipe out many state laws restricting abortion.
The Born Alive ad doesn’t prove what it intends to prove. (Explanation here)
Obama’s claims that he is an abortion centrist are becoming increasingly difficult to believe. I do think it is possible to be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. You can want the choice to ultimately be with the woman but still want to reduce the number of abortions in America. That’s why the position articulated by Obama at the Saddleback Civil and to some degree in the Democratic Platform was conceptually important. If he were actually to follow through on that, providing a concrete agenda for reducing the number of abortions through adoption tax credits, maternal health care and prevention, he could make a strong case that his past pro-choice activities should be seen in a new, broader context: one in which he wants to put the power of the state behind reducing the number of abortions.
However, as I’ve written repeatedly, the evidence is mounting that Obama does not place real emphasis on abortion reduction. He’s run two abortion ads now – neither of which mention abortion reduction. His new campaign book doesn’t mention providing aid to pregnant mothers, instead only backing the parts of abortion reduction favored by pro-choice groups (i.e. birth control and sex ed). In the heat of the political campaign – perhaps in his yearning to win Hillary voters — the Obama campaign has sided with the pro-choice forces, not the pro-life progressives who wanted to keep abortion legal but reduce the numbers. Maybe he’ll prove me wrong in the next few weeks but as of now, it’s awfully hard to take him seriously on abortion reduction, especially in light of his previous down-the-line support of the pro-choice agenda and his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, which would likely increase the number of abortions.
And now for the nub of the issue: Was Obama right or wrong about the Born Alive bill?
Having read through the various arguments back and forth, here’s my gut about what actually happened and what was actually at stake. The crux of the debate was over what, legally, counts as “alive.” At the time, some doctors, courts and lawyers were operating on the assumption that a baby was effectively viewed as alive only if it was “viable,” i.e it could survive, even with life support. That was, in effect, Obama’s view.
The bill declared that the very act of being born and still being alive, gave you protections. Being alive was defined as one who “breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.” Before the law: a baby who had a pulsating umbilical cord but who would not – in the view of the doctors – survive would be allowed to die. After the law: the question of viability would be removed from the equation. If they were born, then they were deemed to be alive. Period.
As a result of the redefinition, doctors would need to treat any living baby that was produced through an abortion the same as one produced through an intentional birth, including taking urgent steps to keep it alive. That’s why some pro-choice leaders viewed it as an attack on Roe v. Wade. The abortion process sometimes results in non-viable fetuses/babies living for a short time; to outlaw that, was to prohibit a legal form of abortion.
To some degree, what this is really about is who you trust to make that decision. The pro-choice forces and the Illinois Medical Society argued that “the doctor” was in the best position to make such a decision, not some anti-abortion activists. The Born Alive bill was accompanied by legislation making it easier to sue, feeding doctors fears that it really would be the trial lawyers working with anti-abortion groups that would wrest authority from the doctors.
On the other hand, the pro-life forces argue that the doctor in charge happens to be an abortionist, someone with a vested interest in claiming that the baby was not viable. For an abortionist to admit that the baby was viable he would be admitting that he failed at the basic task of performing a successful abortion – a profound conflict of interest. This strikes me as a very legitimate concern on the part of the pro-life advocates. They argued that its “alive”-ness should simply be assumed: if the baby is alive, it’s then a case for the neo-natal doctor.
I hope you can see from my description that the born alive bill was neither a slam dunk, unconstitutional, boneheaded bill (as the Obama campaign said) nor a clear, black-and-white verdict on whether you care about life. It was a gray-area dispute over how non-viable fetuses brought forth during an abortion should be treated.
I think I also now understand why Obama has given such varied and shifting answers on this. My guess: the real reason he opposed it is that her preferred the old definition that focused on viability. But try saying that out loud: “I believe that babies that are still alive should be allowed to quietly die. ” It’s actually a defensible position. If you support mercy killing for terminally ill patients, for instance, you’d feel totally comfortable with allowing non-viable babies brought forth during an abortion to die, too. But it is excruciatingly difficult to explain without sounding like Dr. Kevorkian. You’d have to say what many people believe and yet is still harsh in the articulation: “Some things that are alive should be allowed to die. It is neither compassionate nor wise to sustain life that will not survive.” How’s that for winning campaign line? Better just say it’s “unconstitutional.” (For a more positive view of why Obama did what he did, see Doug Kmiec’s book excerpt. For a less positive view, read the National Right to Life Committee’s site)
My personal view is that Obama made a mistake in opposing the bill. He obviously made a mistake politically. But more important, he made a mistake in concluding that because the legislation was coming from the pro-life forces that it was therefore a trick entirely lacking in merit. He claims he’s about bringing people together but in that case, he did not succeed in forging a workable compromise. In fact, when workable compromises came before him, he either voted no or did not embrace them. No, he did not show himself to be an infant killer. That charge is, as he’s said, a lie. But he did show himself to be uninterested in forging common ground around abortion. He now says he wants to do just that but given his ardently pro-choice record, the burden of proof is on him to show that he’s sincere about that.
posted September 26, 2008 at 1:41 am
Sorry, I think you’ve misread and misrepresented. Here’s how I see it:
Obama’s statement on the floor about the Illinois bill, which was widely (not just by Obama) viewed as a potential threat to abortion rights, is quite clear on the issue of viability, and what the implication of the bill’s language was vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade. And he was equally clear later, saying he’d have voted for the final version of the bill (as well as the federal version), because that language issue had been addressed.
I see no basis at all for your suggestion that the provenance of the legislation (“pro-life forces”) had anything to do with Obama’s conclusions. His statement, again, makes a clear legal argument. But I don’t have to meet the standards he does, so frankly, I’ll take the word of a former constitutional law professor over that of any Right To Life Committee. His opposition, as he expressed it on the floor, sounds like a professor of constitutional law trying to keep his footing on a steep slope while pinning down the crux of an issue.
The real controversy appears to be this: The Right To Life Committee says a version of the bill that reportedly addressed that issue couldn’t get out of a committee that Obama chaired. I have tried to find documentation of this, to see if the language did, in fact, conform to the rewritten Born Alive bill, but cannot find it anywhere. This is what the anti-abortion groups are talking about, I believe. But where is it?
Without looking at all three of these versions of the bill (the one Obama initially opposed, the one that ultimately passed, and the alleged committee-stalled version), I don’t think you can actually make most of the claims you’re making here.
And to expect Obama’s ads to appeal to “pro-life progressives,” when efforts to reduce the numbers of abortions slide so easily into limiting access, and emphasizing that in an ad would send up an alarm among pro-choice voters–well, I just think that’s completely unrealistic. Except for your reasoned dismantling of the “Obama supports infanticide” nonsense, I don’t buy any of this.
posted September 26, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Jasph,
You’d be surprised how often Obama defenders repeat Obama’s ever-shifting talking points on this issue, without ever actually reading these bills, each of which is just three sentences long. So let me help you out on that.
Here is the original Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, SB1095:
[end of text of the 2001 bill]
Obama voted against that bill in committee. On the Senate floor, he was the only senator to speak against it. He said that “whenever we define a previable 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 nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term.” Since the bill undeniably applied only to a “previable fetus” (his term) who had already achieved “complete expulsion or extraction from its mother,” this statement clearly demonstrates that Obama holds an extremely expansive scope of Roe v. Wade and the “right to abortion,” extending beyond the womb in some circumstances.
Obama found paragraph (c) particularly objectionable (it is referred to as the “immediate protection clause.” Nor has Obama changed his mind about this — in an Obama campaign memo issued to the media on August 19, 2008 — yes, 2008 — the Obama campaign characterized clause (c) as “Language Clearly Threatening Roe.” Here, again, is that clause — the clause to which Obama continues to this day to say is inconsistentent with his view of abortion rights: “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.”
Please explain, someone, a situation in which that “immediate protection clause” would lead to a result inconsistent with Roe v. Wade. Obama’s continued objection to this clause — a clause that merely reiterated the “born-alive personhood” principle that was at the core of both the federal and state BAIPAs — undercuts Mr. Waldman’s suggestion that Obama has changed his view on the root issue here.
Anyway, the bill shown above passed the Illinois Senate, but died in a House committee. The same thing happened in 2002, with the same bill language (the bill number in 2002 was SB 1662).
By 2003, the Democrats had taken control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became the chairman of the committee to which the reintroduced BAIPA (SB 1082) was referred. On March 13, 2003, Obama presided over a meeting of his committee, at which the “immediate protection clause” was stricken from the bill, and replaced with the “neutrality clause” copied verbatim from the federal BAIPA. At that point, the state BAIPA became virtually identical to the federal BAIPA, which Congress had passed the previous year without a single dissenting vote. Obama then led all his committee’s Democrats in voting down the amended bill, killing it, 6-4. Here is the exact text of the bill that Obama killed that day:
***** [end of text of 2003 bill]
To see the text of the original 2001-2002 Illinois BAIPA, side-by-side with the 2003 version that Obama killed in his committee, so that you can more easily see exactly where one sentence was stricken and replaced with another, go to the very end of this memo:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html
To see the amended 2003 Illlinois BAIPA that Obama killed, side-by-side with the virtually identical language of the federal BAIPA that had been enacted into law in 2002, go here:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html
As Mr. Waldman indicated, Annenberg’s FactCheck.org went through the documentation on this and satisfied themselves that these documents we’ve posted are authentic.
From the time of his 2004 U.S. Senate race, Obama recognized that his actual articulated reason for opposing the Illinois BAIPAs — that a living, squirming baby entirely outside the mother must not be regarded as a legal person under his vision of Roe v. Wade, if that baby is “previable” and was born during an abortion — would be very difficult to defend. Therefore, he began to assert, falsely, that the state BAIPA that he had opposed was very different from the federal BAIPA, because (he asserted) only the federal BAIPA had the “neutrality clause.” On August 11, 2008, National Right to Life released documents proving that in fact Obama had killed a bill virtually identical to the federal bill, including the exact same “neutrality clause.” On August 16, Obama, asked about this by CBN’s Dave Brody (in an interview also televised on CNN), responded that NRLC was “lying.” A subsequent investigation by Annenberg’s FactCheck.org concluded, “Obama’s claim is wrong . . . The documents from NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082 [the 2003 Illinois BAIPA].”
It is easy for Obama to say now that he “would have” supported the federal bill, since it became law in 2002, before he entered the Senate. But the statement makes no sense, because all of the the objections Obama made to the Illinois BAIPA bills, if they had been valid, would have applied just as much to the federal BAIPA bills. There are dozens of federal laws that deal with abortion. The federal BAIPA applied exactly the same “born alive personhood” principle to all federal laws (including any abortion-related laws that contain any of the defined terms) as the state BAIPA that Obama killed would have applied to all Illinois laws, including homicide laws. The same U.S. Supreme Court constitutional doctrines apply at both levels — if Obama had been right in asserting that the state BAIPA was unconstitutional (under Roe), then the same objective would have applied to the federal BAIPA. Yet federal BAIPA has now been law for six years, with no constitutional challenges.
The federal BAIPA did not restrict abortion, unless you mean an “abortion” that would be completed outside the mother. And the state BAIPA, which Obama killed, would not have restricted “abortion” either, unless by “abortion” you mean acts committed on infants who were entirely outside their mothers, and alive.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
Washington, D.C.\
legfederal // at // aol -dot – com
http://www.nrlc.org
posted September 26, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Nice post Douglas Johnson. Here’s my analysis: Obama thinks if a woman pays for an abortion, she is entitled to a dead baby even if it made it out of the womb alive.
posted September 26, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Not for infanticide?
No, he is pro-choice for infanticide. He is probably personally opposed to infanticide, but he wants it to be a viable option for those who really wanted a completed abortion.
Obama and people like him define humanity in more and more limiting ways. The question of viability is nonsense. Technically speaking, a newborn is still completely dependent on caregivers in order to survive. You leave a newborn alone in a room for 5 days with a wallet full of money and a basket of food and water for that time – do you think when you check in after those 5 days you will have a living being?
One of the victims of this procedure lived for an 8-hour nurse’s shift. After being alive for 8 hours with no aid except for the warmth of the arms of a nurse, you are telling me that that scrappy human being has no rights to medical care at all?
posted September 26, 2008 at 11:08 pm
My husband and I had a chance to talk with one of Obama’s (paid) people about this issue a month or so ago. What it really came down to, and this guy pretty much said as much, was that it was a purely political issue. And the fact that it was brought forward by pro-lifer’s was paramount in how Obama dealt with the issue. The assumption was that since it was a bill brought forward by pro-lifers, it must be intended to undermine abortion rights. In fact, the Obama peep we talked to tried to paint the pro-life people as the problem since they brought forward the bill twice without neutrality language.
However, this whole thing became an issue after an attending nurse for late term abortions at a hospital outside of Chicago witness living infants, born in the process of an abortion treated as medical waste. She was horrified and contacted the police and the state’s attorney’s office, thinking that it must surely be illegal to leave a living infant in a pile of dirty laundry in a linen closet to die. However, such behavior was completely legal. Thus began the quest to get the “born alive” bill passed. Now, at the end of the day, my expectation of the human politician, viable or not, is that he or she would be appalled that such things happened and work to make it illegal. And if the bill brought forward to fix the problem seemed to them to present a threat to other things they valued, such as the right to a legal abortion, then it would be incumbent upon them to present a bill which fixed the problem while protecting the right to an abortion. If Obama had done such a thing, he would have shown himself to be what he claims to be – a new kind of politician, willing to overcome the divisiveness that is tearing our nation apart to solve our problems. However, he did no such thing. I agree with Mr. Waldman – Obama has a lot to prove if he wants me or anyone else who has looked at the issue to believe that he offers any sort of change – much less change we can believe in. His record does not support this idea in the least.
posted September 30, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I think you are playing word-games with the phrase infanticide. When the Greeks left babies to die on hill-sides, was that not infanticide? I had always thought that it was.
One can kill by omitted acts as much as by comitted acts; a fact courts take into consideration in homicide cases all of the time. It sounds to me like this is a matter of not wanting the charge of infanticide to be true, rather than using it consistently.
posted September 30, 2008 at 4:59 pm
And let me just say, that, at a minimum, the meaning of the word ‘infanticide’ in this case is ambiguous. Declaring it is a ‘lie’ to say witholding medical care from babies is infanticide, is to make an accusation of bad faith which is unjustified in this context.
People can have have legitimate disagreements over whether this is infanticide, and they can mirror disagreements about euthanasia and murder. Once one says, however that one side or the other is ‘lying’, they have abandoned the debate and resorted to name-calling.
posted September 30, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Complements are due to you: I think this is as judicious a presentation of the question as is humanly possible. I’m a pro-life voter who is going to support Obama despite his great weakness on this issue. I’d like to be more optimistic about his rhetoric about being moderate, but I think you are right to note that at the end of the day he’s not going to offend NARAL.
My one question would be about timing. These votes happened while Obama was still in the Illinois State Senate. In the Summer of 2006, I believe, Obama gave a speech on faith and politics where he talked about being upbraided by a pro-life voter for his anti-life rhetoric on his website. His response to that voter’s letter was to review the language on his website, and change it on the grounds that the language really was divisive. I don’t know that it means much. But it’s possible that he is evolving on the issue at least to some small degree, and therefore really wouldn’t approach the same bill from the same partisan stance today.
That said, I am pessimistic about Obama on abortion. I’m taking my lumps on it on the grounds that the Republicans really haven’t done anything to change the culture. We aren’t going to legislate abortion out of existence. And the partisanship and rancor on the issue make it less likely that we will persuade our misguided pro-choice friends that they are wrong. There really needs to be a radical rethinking about how to promote life in this country. The Republican party as presently constituted no longer seems to me to be a good vehicle for that. There needs to be a firm repudiation of Rove and Rovian tactics, for starters. (This is me repenting of having voted for Bush not once, but twice. The price for pro-life ‘orthodoxy’ has simply become too high. I want the Republicans out of power so that they can regroup and remember that they are fighting for something other than simply retaining power.)
posted September 30, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I don’t know if you read your own blog but I have to ask if you have ever looked up the existing law in Illinois??? Have you also looked into the fact that the pro life movement resisted efforts to put language in the bill that specifically and unequivicoally deemed that bill to have no effect on roe v wade. Did you know that after that language was inserted into the bill it passed unanimously?
Let me help you out
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-zorn_21aug21,0,6556075.column
I just figured since you did such a bang up job on your investigation and you took some time to really think through your analysis you might want to know the truth so it could help you out a little bit.
Youre welcome
posted September 30, 2008 at 9:29 pm
I’m very unimpressed with this analysis.
“Someone who favors weak penalties for crimes may (or may not) make possible more murders. But that doesn’t mean he favors murder.”
What about someone who favors NO penalties for murders?
This article is trying to be even-handed at the expense of the truth.
posted September 30, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Speaking of abortion, and with all this hate directed at Obama, there are two questions I’d like to see put to Ms. Palin during Thursday’s V.P. debate, and which Gibson, and Couric (let’s forget Murdoch’s hired-hand Hannity) should have already asked :
1.)Why did you as mayor of Wasilla force female rape-victims reporting the crime to pay out of their own pocket for the forensic-kit and exam needed in the work-up (see NYT 9/26/08)?
2.)Was your policy of requiring rape-victims to pay for their own forensic exams a result of your publicly stated belief that even women who become pregnant as a result of rape should be required to carry that pregnancy to full term and birth?
I see no reason why Palin, as candidate for the office of Vice President of the USA, should continue to be shielded from answering these questions publicly.
posted September 30, 2008 at 11:35 pm
aix1825, I see a reason why Palin shouldn’t have to answer those questions: because even liberal web sites such as Slate.com have thoroughly debunked the story you refer to. The Slate story is here if you care to read it:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/09/26/debunk-a-bunk.aspx
The idea that Palin has been “shielded” from *anything* by the media is pretty laughable at this point. Especially considering the free pass Obama has gotten from the media not only on this issue but on Rezko, Ayers, Rev. Wright, Fannie/Freddie, etc., etc.
posted October 1, 2008 at 3:05 pm
The main reason, I suppose, aix1825, is that this smear has been pretty thoroughly discredited. Even Slate has acknowledged it by now… http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/09/26/debunk-a-bunk.asp
posted October 16, 2008 at 1:06 pm
For what it’s worth, I appreciate the analysis done here. I think the fact that you have both conservatives and liberals criticizing you is testament to that. Thank you, sincerely, for your willingness to deeply consider such a difficult issue.
posted October 16, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Let me just state for the record that, as a man, I have no intention of ever having an abortion. I therefore cede the debate to women, whose decision it is, and to those persons deemed pertinent to the debate by women.
I do have a nagging question though. Why are anti-abortionists called Pro-Life? So many of them seem to have no problem with war, and a lot of them are actually Pro-War. Evidently, it’s wrong to kill a fetus by abortion, but it’s okay to kill a fetus by slaughering a pregnant woman during war.
And, what are Iraqis? Chopped liver?
posted October 16, 2008 at 4:41 pm
What can be said about Obama in general? When the wind blows in one direction, in favor of his party he steps into the wind and goes for the ride. If however it goes against the party, he either argues against it or does nothing letting others take the heat. He is the perfect “the buck never got here” type of senator.
In contrast, I know for a fact that McCain has and still ruffles feathers in his own party. If he disagrees with something no matter what party is pushing it he stands up for what he believes is in the best interest of the voters.
How can you debate anyone when they change their stand on the issues?
How can you say you are for Obama, when most of the time in a rebuttal he states that he agrees with McCain.
Health Care. Obama himself states that as part of his health care plan the Government will closely pursue Preventive care, he hinted at, and if you just look at the shinning lights you would have missed it, that they will then regulate what you need to do to prevent disease. Sound great! however, how many people remember when the Government said with absolute certainty that eggs where evil, and to prevent heart attacks we should reduce our intake of eggs?
I clearly remember that because I was in the Army at the time and eat eggs every day! Now of course they have backed down and claim eggs are not as bad as they lead us to believe. So what about red meat? what about alcohol what about ? When you give a freedom away to anyone, you have to remember it will be abused! What punishment? He did not dare to say, but in his stern voice you could ascertain that it would be fines. How else are they going to pay for it?
Lastly. Taxes and spending. They go hand in hand. For every program the government starts or funds they need to raise money for it. Now we all know that once the government starts something, like the tax on your phone bill to support something from the Civil War, the do not get rid of it. So Think about it They raise the tax on people, including sole proprietors, s Corps, and LLC’s that make $250,000 a year or more. I don’t know what businesses you work for but every company I worked for made more than $250,000 a year. That includes a small 3 person construction company. So, what do the companies do? Well 1 of 2 things, increase the price you have to pay or lay-off workers. Now We already borrow money from China, so where will the next big spending, extra “gift” to the american people going to come from?
posted July 16, 2009 at 4:43 am
Hey Obama is black and is your President. So live with it!
What is the number of children born without arms or legs that have been miraculously restored and verified by a before and after video by a prayer to Jesus?
1. Too many to count
2. Over 1,000
3. Several dozen
4. Zero, but only because their faith was not strong enough, and a video is testing God, and conveniently God should not be tested
posted September 18, 2009 at 10:22 am
Those who believe this Bill is killing a life. I find it odd, that some are willing to lessen its impact by calling Obamas untruth, a mistake? Yet you seem to be more interested in the tone used,by those who see it as infanticide, then by the act itself?
posted September 26, 2009 at 3:23 am
Simpleton,
Your mother named you well.
posted February 17, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Students opine that the sample essay creating seems to be the really time wasting issue. Nevertheless, people count on the essay writing service support every time when it is needed.
posted February 26, 2010 at 7:15 am
well worth the read.I found it very informative as I have been researching a lot lately on practical matters such as you talk about…
Steroids Buy Free Bets
posted March 2, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Some time before, I needed to buy a good car for my business but I did not earn enough money and could not purchase something. Thank goodness my colleague proposed to take the mortgage loans from trustworthy bank. Therefore, I did that and used to be happy with my financial loan.
posted March 5, 2010 at 7:13 am
Thank you very much for posting Look very interesting. Shop Buy Cheap Discount
posted April 28, 2010 at 10:16 am
And you finally have to a consensus, where you proceed a sense of what really ought to be done, and then they entrust it to me and then I unholster it. I without fail frame it in the sentiment, the thoughtful sense.
posted May 29, 2010 at 7:25 am
It’s not hard to realize decisions when you recall what your values are.
posted June 2, 2010 at 2:45 pm
We should be chary and discriminating in all the advice we give. We should be signally painstaking in giving advice that we would not think of following ourselves. Most of all, we ought to escape giving counsel which we don’t mind when it damages those who depreciate us at our word.
posted June 16, 2010 at 8:54 am
A human beings begins cutting his perceptiveness teeth the first time he bites off more than he can chew.
posted June 16, 2010 at 11:45 am
A man begins icy his perceptiveness teeth the first chance he bites off more than he can chew.
posted June 18, 2010 at 7:30 am
A humankind begins cutting his insight teeth the first chance he bites off more than he can chew.
posted June 19, 2010 at 1:53 am
I like the idea and content of your article.well done.Efforts are good and viewer may concern your thoughts.
posted June 22, 2010 at 5:49 am
To be a adroit charitable being is to procure a amiable of openness to the far-out, an ability to trust undeterminable things beyond your own manage, that can take you to be shattered in uncommonly extreme circumstances on which you were not to blame. That says something uncommonly weighty thither the get of the honest compulsion: that it is based on a trust in the uncertain and on a willingness to be exposed; it’s based on being more like a spy than like a jewel, something kind of dainty, but whose mere precise attraction is inseparable from that fragility.
posted June 22, 2010 at 9:17 am
To be a noble charitable being is to be enduring a amiable of openness to the world, an skill to guardianship unsure things beyond your own pilot, that can lead you to be shattered in hugely exceptionally circumstances pro which you were not to blame. That says something remarkably outstanding relating to the prerequisite of the principled passion: that it is based on a conviction in the fitful and on a willingness to be exposed; it’s based on being more like a shop than like a sparkler, something kind of fragile, but whose acutely item beauty is inseparable from that fragility.
posted June 23, 2010 at 8:13 am
a
http://002evolves.blogspot.com
posted June 24, 2010 at 12:09 pm
To be a noble human being is to from a philanthropic of openness to the far-out, an gift to guardianship undeterminable things beyond your own control, that can front you to be shattered in uncommonly extreme circumstances pro which you were not to blame. That says something remarkably weighty thither the condition of the principled passion: that it is based on a corporation in the fitful and on a willingness to be exposed; it’s based on being more like a weed than like a jewel, something fairly tenuous, but whose very particular attractiveness is inseparable from that fragility.
posted June 29, 2010 at 9:11 am
To be a adroit lenient being is to be enduring a kind of openness to the mankind, an gift to trust aleatory things beyond your own pilot, that can take you to be shattered in unequivocally extreme circumstances on which you were not to blame. That says something exceedingly important relating to the prerequisite of the ethical life: that it is based on a trust in the unpredictable and on a willingness to be exposed; it’s based on being more like a weed than like a treasure, something fairly fragile, but whose extremely particular attraction is inseparable from that fragility.
posted June 29, 2010 at 1:37 pm
To be a noble human being is to from a philanthropic of openness to the in the seventh heaven, an gift to guardianship undeterminable things beyond your own control, that can govern you to be shattered in hugely outermost circumstances for which you were not to blame. That says something uncommonly outstanding relating to the get of the righteous compulsion: that it is based on a trust in the uncertain and on a willingness to be exposed; it’s based on being more like a plant than like a treasure, something kind of dainty, but whose very special beauty is inseparable from that fragility.
posted July 3, 2010 at 3:00 pm
To be a adroit charitable being is to have a amiable of openness to the world, an cleverness to trust unsure things beyond your own manage, that can front you to be shattered in very extreme circumstances as which you were not to blame. That says something remarkably impressive relating to the prerequisite of the ethical passion: that it is based on a trustworthiness in the unpredictable and on a willingness to be exposed; it’s based on being more like a shop than like a treasure, something fairly feeble, but whose very special attractiveness is inseparable from that fragility.
posted July 3, 2010 at 6:09 pm
To be a good human being is to have a amiable of openness to the mankind, an cleverness to group uncertain things beyond your own control, that can govern you to be shattered in very exceptionally circumstances for which you were not to blame. That says something uncommonly impressive relating to the prerequisite of the honest passion: that it is based on a trustworthiness in the uncertain and on a willingness to be exposed; it’s based on being more like a shop than like a prize, something kind of dainty, but whose extremely special attraction is inseparable from that fragility.
posted July 11, 2010 at 11:09 am
To be a good charitable being is to be enduring a make of openness to the in the seventh heaven, an cleverness to trust undeterminable things beyond your own manage, that can govern you to be shattered in unequivocally outermost circumstances on which you were not to blame. That says something very outstanding about the get of the principled life: that it is based on a trust in the up in the air and on a willingness to be exposed; it’s based on being more like a plant than like a sparkler, something rather fragile, but whose extremely precise attraction is inseparable from that fragility.
posted July 12, 2010 at 7:52 am
I don’t like the sound of all those lists he’s making – it’s like intriguing too divers notes at high school; you sense you’ve achieved something when you haven’t.
posted July 12, 2010 at 8:01 am
In harry’s sustenance, at some pass‚, our inner pep goes out. It is then burst into passion beside an contend with with another magnanimous being. We should all be glad recompense those people who rekindle the inner inclination
posted July 15, 2010 at 4:15 am
In everyone’s sustenance, at some pass‚, our inner pep goes out. It is then blow up into zeal at near an encounter with another benign being. We should all be thankful for those people who rekindle the inner transport
posted July 16, 2010 at 3:57 pm
In the whole world’s time, at some time, our inner fire goes out. It is then burst into flame beside an encounter with another magnanimous being. We should all be indebted recompense those people who rekindle the inner inspiration
posted July 26, 2010 at 8:36 pm
blog.beliefnet.com is great! Payday loans are epensive just like the tai fare but they are only short term Payday loans like tais are a simple response to a genuine need almost always in circumstances when an alternative is not available
posted August 16, 2010 at 5:19 am
In the whole world’s sustenance, at some pass‚, our inner fire goes out. It is then break asunder into flame beside an be faced with with another magnanimous being. We should all be indebted recompense those people who rekindle the inner inclination
posted August 17, 2010 at 5:11 am
In harry’s time, at some occasion, our inner foment goes out. It is then burst into flame at near an face with another hominoid being. We should all be glad for those people who rekindle the inner spirit
posted August 18, 2010 at 3:31 am
In the whole world’s life, at some occasion, our inner foment goes out. It is then blow up into zeal at hand an face with another human being. We should all be indebted for the duration of those people who rekindle the inner inspiration
posted August 19, 2010 at 6:31 am
In the whole world’s time, at some dated, our inner throw goes out. It is then burst into flame beside an be faced with with another benign being. We should all be thankful recompense those people who rekindle the inner inspiration
posted August 20, 2010 at 5:50 am
In everyone’s life, at some dated, our inner throw goes out. It is then blow up into zeal at near an contend with with another benign being. We should all be thankful for the duration of those people who rekindle the inner inclination
posted August 21, 2010 at 5:50 pm
In everyone’s existence, at some occasion, our inner fire goes out. It is then burst into passion by an encounter with another human being. We should all be glad recompense those people who rekindle the inner inspiration
posted August 22, 2010 at 5:30 am
In everyone’s life, at some pass‚, our inner fire goes out. It is then burst into passion beside an face with another human being. We should all be glad quest of those people who rekindle the inner inclination
posted August 23, 2010 at 8:48 am
In harry’s life, at some occasion, our inner pep goes out. It is then blow up into flame by an be faced with with another benign being. We should all be glad for the duration of those people who rekindle the inner transport
posted August 24, 2010 at 9:03 am
Vex ferments the humors, casts them into their right channels, throws off redundancies, and helps feather in those secret distributions, without which the fuselage cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the man fake with cheerfulness.
posted August 24, 2010 at 11:04 am
In harry’s life, at some occasion, our inner pep goes out. It is then blow up into zeal beside an face with another benign being. We should all be glad for those people who rekindle the inner inspiration
posted August 26, 2010 at 3:24 am
Distress ferments the humors, casts them into their right channels, throws bad redundancies, and helps nature in those confidential distributions, without which the body cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the soul act with cheerfulness.
posted August 26, 2010 at 3:47 am
In everyone’s time, at some time, our inner foment goes out. It is then burst into passion beside an be faced with with another benign being. We should all be glad for those people who rekindle the inner inspiration
posted August 27, 2010 at 10:30 am
In the whole world’s life, at some occasion, our inner pep goes out. It is then blow up into passion by an be faced with with another hominoid being. We should all be thankful for the duration of those people who rekindle the inner spirit
posted August 28, 2010 at 2:51 pm
In everyone’s life, at some dated, our inner throw goes out. It is then break asunder into passion at hand an face with another magnanimous being. We should all be glad for those people who rekindle the inner transport
posted September 8, 2010 at 3:57 am
Thanks for such a remarkable post and the examine, I am completely impressed! Keep stuff like this coming. vhalpgxywawgznzpnfrsvraoytpkkwqcclh
Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.
posted September 21, 2010 at 8:56 am
I must say that overall I am very taken with this site. It is apparent that you know you subject matter and you are passionate about it. I wish I had got your ability to write. I have bookmarked your site and look forward to more updates.
posted September 22, 2010 at 7:40 pm
This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is particularly nice one and gives in-depth information. Thanks for this nice article eoagxodeibw
posted September 25, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Finally, an issue that I am passionate about. I have looked for information of this caliber for the last several hours. Your site is greatly appreciated.
posted September 26, 2010 at 5:42 am
Thanks for such a great post and the review, I am totally impressed! Keep stuff like this coming.
posted September 26, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Hi webmaster, commencers and everybody else !!! The blog was absolutely fantastic! Lots of great information and inspiration, both of which we all need! Keep them coming… You all do such a great job at such Concepts… can’t tell you how much I, for one appreciate all you do!
posted September 27, 2010 at 7:08 pm
The publish is really the best on this laudable topic. I concur with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your future updates. Just saying thanks will not just be enough, for the exceptional lucidity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. De delightful work and much success in your business dealings!
posted September 28, 2010 at 9:04 am
Usually I do not write on blogs, but I would like to say that this article really convinced me to do so! Congratulations, really nice publish.
posted September 28, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Usually I do not write on blogs, but I would like to say that this article really convinced me to do so! Congratulations, rather nice submit.
posted September 29, 2010 at 9:58 pm
I must say that overall I am exceptionally taken with this site. It is apparent that you know you subject matter and you are passionate about it. I wish I had got your ability to write. I have bookmarked your online site and look forward to more updates.
posted September 30, 2010 at 10:08 pm
The post is really the best on this laudable topic. I concur with your conclusions and will eagerly look forward to your future updates. Just saying thanks will not just be enough, for the exceptional lucidity in your writing. I will at once grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. De delightful work and much success in your business dealings!
posted October 2, 2010 at 6:38 am
Thanks for making such a killer blog. I come on here all the time and am floored with the fresh information here.
posted October 4, 2010 at 4:39 am
Terrific concepts on this site. It’s rare these days to find websites with data you are seeking. I am happy I chanced on this webpage. I will certainly bookmark it or even register for your rss feeds simply to be updated on your new posts. Keep up the nice job and I’m sure some other folks researching valued information will actually stop by and benefit from your website for resources.
posted October 5, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Easily, the publish is really the greatest on this laudable topic. I concur with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your future updates. Saying thanks will not just be sufficient, for the wonderful lucidity in your writing. I will instantly grab your rss feed to stay privy of any updates. Solid work and much success in your business enterprise!
posted October 7, 2010 at 2:39 am
To be a upright lenient being is to have a philanthropic of openness to the far-out, an ability to trusteeship unsure things beyond your own manage, that can govern you to be shattered in uncommonly exceptionally circumstances as which you were not to blame. That says something uncommonly outstanding with the get of the honest passion: that it is based on a trust in the unpredictable and on a willingness to be exposed; it’s based on being more like a shop than like a treasure, something rather dainty, but whose extremely item handsomeness is inseparable from that fragility.
posted October 12, 2010 at 7:53 am
To be a noble lenient being is to be enduring a amiable of openness to the in the seventh heaven, an skill to guardianship uncertain things beyond your own pilot, that can lead you to be shattered in uncommonly exceptionally circumstances for which you were not to blame. That says something uncommonly outstanding relating to the get of the ethical passion: that it is based on a trustworthiness in the up in the air and on a willingness to be exposed; it’s based on being more like a spy than like a treasure, something somewhat fragile, but whose very particular handsomeness is inseparable from that fragility.
posted October 12, 2010 at 11:05 am
To be a upright benign being is to procure a kind of openness to the in the seventh heaven, an cleverness to guardianship aleatory things beyond your own control, that can lead you to be shattered in uncommonly outermost circumstances for which you were not to blame. That says something remarkably outstanding relating to the prerequisite of the principled autobiography: that it is based on a conviction in the unpredictable and on a willingness to be exposed; it’s based on being more like a shop than like a treasure, something kind of feeble, but whose very item beauty is inseparable from that fragility.
posted December 18, 2010 at 12:58 am
This website is the prime net page. spezlaeb
posted December 22, 2010 at 6:55 am
This website is the most excellent online site. nvnwmtxo
posted December 24, 2010 at 10:37 am
I am looking for football online 360. How can I find it?
posted January 7, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Thanks for the info about Making Sense of the Born Alive Controversy: The Verdict on Obama
- Steven Waldman
posted January 9, 2011 at 4:15 am
Amazing post about Making Sense of the Born Alive Controversy: The Verdict on Obama
- Steven Waldman!
posted January 9, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Unbelievable post about Making Sense of the Born Alive Controversy: The Verdict on Obama
- Steven Waldman!
posted January 13, 2011 at 9:26 am
Quality blogpost that is related to Making Sense of the Born Alive Controversy: The Verdict on Obama
- Steven Waldman!
posted January 18, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Those who possession of to the orthodox faiths demand that the authority of their obedience rests on revelation, and that expos‚ is acknowledged in the pages of books and accounts of miracles and wonders whose features is supernatural. But those of us who take protracted discarded the intuition in the miraculous unruffled are in the attendance of revelations which are the cellar of faith. We too partake of our revealed religion. We accept looked upon the clock of men and women that can be to us the symbols of that which is holy. We acquire heard words of venerable wisdom and reality spoken in the possibly manlike voice. In of the quarter there have come to us these participation which, when accepted, give to us revelations, not of exceptional creed, but of a real and inevitable faith in the incorporeal powers that motivate and stay in the center of [a themselves's] being.
posted February 17, 2011 at 9:01 am
I like your bloge very much. Great job author of blog.beliefnet.com
posted June 28, 2011 at 9:47 am
well worth the read.I found it very informative as I have been researching a lot lately on practical matters such as you talk about…
Merry Zhou
posted June 28, 2011 at 12:52 pm
We accept looked upon the clock of men and women that can be to us the symbols of that which is holy. We acquire heard words of venerable wisdom and reality spoken in the possibly manlike voice.
posted July 1, 2011 at 3:09 am
our inner foment goes out. It is then burst into flame at near an face with another hominoid being
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/making-sense-of-the-born-alive.html#ixzz1QpqFgsJy
Pingback: How Obama Won the Abortion Part of the Debate: Common Ground and Sacred Sex - Steven Waldman
Pingback: A Pro-Life View of Abortion as “Intrinsically Evil” - God-O-Meter
posted September 15, 2011 at 11:54 am
die besten fahrradträger im test und vergleich online kaufen