The Problem With Stanek’s Entire Argument

Stanek’s claim is that Obama was stopping a bill to outlaw infanticide and that such a law was required in Illinois because of what she claims occurred at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn.  However, the response from the Illinois Attorney General to the claims points out that if such events occurred, those events would already be illegal.

Media Matters makes the point:

The July 2000 letter was a response from Ryan’s office to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. In a letter on Ryan’s letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote in part:

On December 6, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH’s internal review did not indicate [emphasis added] a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act.

No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.

[…]

While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.

From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that “[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois.” But the state’s conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims — IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law. (The word “indicate” is in italics above because in his quotation of the letter, Freddoso substitutes the word “include” for the word “indicate.”)

In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: “[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. … We took (the allegations) very seriously.” Zorn wrote further: “Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, ‘The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.’ “

From Zorn’s 2004 blog post:

As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General’s office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker.

Why?

“Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law,” IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. “We took (the allegations) very seriously.”

Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, “The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.”

Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views — simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.

In other words, contrary to Freddoso’s claim, the IDPH’s reported position supported Obama’s explanation: Current law already “mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies.” Freddoso writes of Obama’s assertion: “This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan” [emphasis in original].But the letter does not, as Freddoso claims, assert that “[s]uch measures were not already the law in Illinois.” Nor does the IDPH; indeed, Zorn quoted the IDPH spokesman saying that the actions alleged by Stanek would have violated the law at the time.

The entire argument is bogus.  Infants were protected in Illinois prior to 1999 and after 1999.  No law had to be passed–it was a rather obvious effort to overturn Roe v. Wade.

And people who worked for Jim Ryan should know that.

11 thoughts on “The Problem With Stanek’s Entire Argument

  1. Arch sez: “The entire argument is bogus.”

    …Jill “Jolly for Porn” Stanek is bogus. She preys off the gullible and willingly ignorant to scoop up money for herself and her hare-brained “Chinese people eat babies” schemes.

    Now if only she didn’t know so many car dealers…

  2. New laws overlap old laws all the time. You are making a silly argument. For example, hate crimes. It’s already against the law to kill someone. If you kill someone in part because of their race, they are also guilty of a hate crime. Obvious overlap. That doesn’t stop many people from supporting hate crimes legislation. If Born Alive legislation was an attempt to make sure there was no confusion on whether an induced labor/abortion baby had the same rights as other human beings, what’s the problem? Media Matters and Arch are throwing more smoke. Barack’s “nuanced” himself into a rathole here. He should have voted for this and he wouldn’t have a problem.

  3. Dan,

    It’s pretty simple really. If it’s already illegal to do everything Stanek alleged then why is the new law necessary? Or is it, as everyone knows, an attempt to ban abortion and intimidate doctors from allowing women to make medical decisions.

    You answer your own question–the problem didn’t exist and the companion legislation SB 1083 was an attempt to criminalize abortion. Why can’t you just be honest about that?

  4. What’s even funnier though is that a woman who truly believes the Chinese might be eating babies is the person you are following here…or the one who thinks because someone has HPV they are a horrible slut…or someone who thinks that John Fritchey is pushing genocide. Seriously, the person who has made claims that a new law is necessary has not been supported by your old boss’s office and is clearly out of her fucking mind.

    Why are you tying your wagon to her?

  5. Not tying my wagon to anyone. Obama is not being truthful on this issue. Every hour his George Soros funded advocates are trotting out a new, off-the-point defense. His votes define who he is. He ought to have the integrity to stand up and explain them truthfully. What you or anyone thinks of Jill Stanek is not the point. This issue will hurt BO but not as much as his videotaped “above my pay grade” answer on Sunday. That will haunt him through the election.

  6. Why else do you need a BAIPA if not for her claims?
    —What you or anyone thinks of Jill Stanek is not the point.
    It’s exactly the point–if not for Stanek’s claim–the claim O’Malley based the whole need for the law on when he introduced it in earlier sessions–why does it even matter. Your old boss’s office said it didn’t happen and if it did it was prosecutable…other than her, what’s the point then other than to make abortion illegal.

    And let’s not forget this was packed with SB 1083 which was designed to prosecute doctors with far more broad and vague language under SB 1082 than current law allowed thus intimidating them.

    Go ahead–keep it up. If you want to have this race be about Roe v. Wade make it about it, but McCain loses that fight.

  7. No one is paying me. I keep trying to get someone too and strangely enough Soros isn’t as generous as Coors and Scaife and Monaghan and the Kochs and the Devos and Olin and Templeton and on and on and on…

    But my conservative friends all have wingnut welfare. The most recent from Sinquefeld.

  8. People who worked for Jim Ryan are accostomed to spewing half truths and don’t like being called on them. People who worked for Jim Ryan like to talk about issues while conveniently leaving out any mention of being paid by clients to do so. People who worked for Jim Ryan certainly have amnesia when it comes to Levine, Stuart. And people who worked for Jim Ryan blog without allowing comments because the endless stream of nonsense cannot stand up to scrutiny.

    Maybe that’s why these half truths never seem to get any credible traction. Hopefully it at least keeps the clients happy.

  9. Curry is obviously not a Christian (or at least not a church-going Christian) if he didn’t get the pay-grade reference.

    Everyone else got it loud and clear.

  10. Maybe this is old news by now……but the law on the books in Illinois (720 ILCS 510.6) was not enough to protect the babies aborted at Christ Hospital. The law applied only where an abortionist declares before the abortion that there was a resonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb. Babies are born all the time well before the point where sustained survival is likely. What abortionist would exclaim this before an induced birth abortion? This law has so many loopholes; it would never protect an aborted baby born alive. Never. Additionally, Obama never claimed when he was pontificating on the senate floor against the bill (the only senator who did, by the way) the this was a duplicate law. If it were, why not just sign it? The 2003 bill had the exact same clause as the federal bill, added by Obama’s own Health and Human Services Committee which he headed. He objected to the definition of a “previable fetus” as having legal rights as a person, even if fully born and living. He is radical and extreme on abortion, you only have to listen to his own words to hear it. If this doesn’t bother you and you can live with it, then go ahead.

Comments are closed.