Source Of "Infanticide" Smear Says America Elected "A Barbarian"

Though some conservatives are making conciliatory noises about Barack Obama now that the election is over, Jill Stanek is not among them. The former Illinois nurse, whose claims about a supposed rash of abortions of "born alive" babies at a Chicago hospital snowballed into the election-season charge that Obama supported "infanticide," wrote Thursday:

"Barack Obama was elected president despite the fact he supports abortion into the fourth trimester. [Ed. Note: Stanek uses "fourth trimester" deliberately to indicate abortions of children who are nevertheless "born alive."] Either the 63 million people voting for him didn't know about his radical record, which includes abandoning abortion survivors to die, didn't care, or didn't believe it."

Because several "anti-life" ballot initiatives also passed on Tuesday, Stanek said to her World Net Daily audience that "we are fooling ourselves if we think the United States is still a Christian nation," adding: "Its people just elected a barbarian as president."

The notion, pushed hard by Stanek and others, that Obama favored infanticide because he once voted "present" on a number of Illinois state senate bills was one that the Obama campaign pushed back against during the campaign. Obama's "Fight the Smears" website (apparently now offline) said the president-elect had voted against a bill containing language designed to protect infants who were 'born alive,' because such protections were already part of Illinois state law, and because the Stanek-supported bill was, at the time, opposed by the Illinois Medical Society.

Rick Winkel, the Illinois Republican who introduced the bill in the state Senate, even wrote in September that "none of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide," despite his disagreement with them.

Nevertheless, Stanek is not giving up the ghost, calling on churches across America to take up a more explicit fight in the public policy arena of abortion. "It is your responsibility, pastor and church leaders, to teach your people that abortion is abominable, and before that to teach chaste living," she wrote. "And before that, at the risk of making my Protestant friends flip, to teach that the contraceptive/sterilization mentality, which considers children bad, not blessings, is also a component of the sexual demise of our country."

Comments

[DosaHut]

You know what's infanticide?

Conservatives who use extreme socialism as a way to deny millions upon millions of pregnant moms and newborns the right to universal health care. The result? A higher infant mortality than other industrialized nations. That in my book, is just as much murder as the conservatives consider abortion to be.

[grata2ude]

If that woman is a nurse she needs to have her license revoked because Doctors are legally bound to treat all infants if they are born alive even after an abortion attempt. It is illegal for the Doctor to withhold life saving measures and the physician could lose their license.

[reasonshouldrule]

The best thing we can do to fight these wacko nut jobs is to not give them any press coverage.

[EvenSteven88]

Okay, this is going to sound really trite and superficial, but let me guess...

She's ugly.

[shelsay]

LOL

[Emlyn]

ALL THE NUTS ARE COMING OUT OF THEIR SHELLS.

[RumiSouth]

"to teach that the contracept­ive/steril­ization mentality, which considers children bad, not blessings, is also a component of the sexual demise of our country."

The last sentence is the most important in the article. This woman doesn't think condoms should exist. She wants to determine ALL of our moral choices, for ALL of us, ALL THE TIME.

Sexual fascism, plain and simple.

[UncleJimbo]

You can't spell Fundamentalist without MENTAL!

[theVoice0fReason]

I can NOT STAND these religious fundies forcing their moral values on me. Why are we not capable of enforcement of the separation of church and state?

If this is no longer an xtian country then great! so be it.

I can't wait until we can be a religion-agnostic society, wherein, everyone will PRIVATELY practice their religious faith and values, and not PUBLICLY push their religious moral agenda on us.

I am respectful of others, and do not wish to see persecution of competing religions, nor do i want to have any of these "faiths" try to legislate their religious view.

For example, their view that its ok to be LBGT, but only in the privacy of one's own home - don't publicly push it on our society, should be applied AS STRICTLY to their *religious* views. Practice your faith in your home or church, but leave it out of society.

THAT would be fairness.

[StrengthNWisdom]

This brings up a couple points for me:

1) Government has been overly influenced for some time now by religion and money ($=corporations and wealthy americans). It is time for us to PASS LAWS that restrict further the influence of either religion or money on our National policies. I fully support people in believing whatever they want to believe - who is to say who is right and who is wrong, however, this has no place in the development of the laws by the Legislative branch. The founding Fathers were rightly concerned with the power of money and religion to corrupt (ironically) the governmental body. I say No more lobbyists. No more corporate sponsored events at conventions. No more of this type of governmental corruption. It might as well be taxation without representation.

2) I would like to see us all more tolerant of even these folks who spew their hateful, destructive opinions far and wide. What they say has more to do with them than anyone else, and hooking into it only gives it power. Noticing it, being aware of it, but choosing not to engage is a surprisingly powerful stand to make. Belittling or baiting is an easy response and it is far better to thank them for their input but respectfully disagree (watch their eyes bug out at that as they scream louder or continue talking to convince/convert - very enjoyable). Expecting a reasonable response from the unreasonable is insanity.

[tonycoyle]

well said.

the best form of 'believer baiting' is simply to hear but ignore.

responding gives them power over the agenda, not responding gives YOU power.

[shelsay]

people like her embarrass Christians like me...she's so fanatical and ridiculous. Shut up lady, we don't believe lies anymore. Stop building a campaign on if you vote for "that one" it's a sin. Especially since the election is over...yes we DID!

[sarasoon]

Oh dear! What is the matter with people?! You will usually find that people with such extreme views and who make so much noise usually have something to hide in their personal lives, some personal experience that has left them with feelings of extreme pain, grief and shame and which gives birth to this kind of fanatical behaviour. I wonder what it is that Jill Stanek has to hide.

[shelsay]

unfortunately it may be the shame and frustration of her own missteps.

[proudloudlib]

When churches start messing around with government, the next step is government messing around with churches. Is that what the religious right really wants? Isn't that one of the reasons this country was founded?

That said, the IRS needs to take a look at some of these churches. Not all of them, but definitely some of them.

[tonycoyle]

the IRS need to revoke the 'tax free' status of all churches who engage in political discourse. point me to one that doesn't, and i'll be happy to exempt it. personally, i think the list of exemptions will be extremely small.

[elycee]

It's ok, she's spittin in the wind.

[proudloudlib]

Is she returning to the 19th century anytime soon?

[majorteddy]

Ms. Stanek , I won't tell you what to do with your vagina, ovaries and uterus, and you don't tell my wife and daughters what to do with theirs. MYOB !!!!

[Scarllatti]

Well since "Joe the Plumber" did not work for the GOP, they need another lunatic like this character to keep their hatred alive.

Her likes will eventually face extinction in America. Give her some space to weep blood.

[bmwracer]

Another person looking for her 15 minutes... Any relation to that Joe what's-his-name?