Comments on: The Problem With Stanek’s Entire Argument http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/08/20/the-problem-with-staneks-entire-argument/ Illinois, From Misery Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:00:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mary Garmon http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/08/20/the-problem-with-staneks-entire-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-18783 Mary Garmon Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:54:43 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=9952#comment-18783 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. 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.

]]> By: Rob_N http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/08/20/the-problem-with-staneks-entire-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-17961 Rob_N Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:31:12 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=9952#comment-17961 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. 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.

]]> By: No guts no glory http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/08/20/the-problem-with-staneks-entire-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-17960 No guts no glory Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:11:11 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=9952#comment-17960 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. 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.

]]> By: ArchPundit http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/08/20/the-problem-with-staneks-entire-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-17959 ArchPundit Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:55:52 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=9952#comment-17959 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. 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.

]]> By: JonShibleyFan http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/08/20/the-problem-with-staneks-entire-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-17958 JonShibleyFan Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:48:12 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=9952#comment-17958 George Soros is paying you? George Soros is paying you?

]]> By: ArchPundit http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/08/20/the-problem-with-staneks-entire-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-17957 ArchPundit Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:34:32 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=9952#comment-17957 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. 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.

]]> By: Dan Curry http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/08/20/the-problem-with-staneks-entire-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-17956 Dan Curry Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:27:26 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=9952#comment-17956 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. 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.

]]> By: ArchPundit http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/08/20/the-problem-with-staneks-entire-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-17955 ArchPundit Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:15:55 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=9952#comment-17955 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? 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?

]]> By: ArchPundit http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/08/20/the-problem-with-staneks-entire-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-17954 ArchPundit Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:10:47 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=9952#comment-17954 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? 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?

]]> By: Dan Curry http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/08/20/the-problem-with-staneks-entire-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-17952 Dan Curry Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:03:47 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=9952#comment-17952 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. 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.

]]> By: Rob_N http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/08/20/the-problem-with-staneks-entire-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-17951 Rob_N Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:24:11 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=9952#comment-17951 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... 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…

]]>