New Jersey Congressman Votes not to Allow Medical Care for Infants Born Alive

It is very alarming to this writer than any US Representative could vote against a law that would require that a baby who survived an abortion at an Abortion Clinic or elsewhere, and is outside the womb alive, should receive the same level of care as any other infant. To vote against the bill is to legally allow infanticide by neglect. The delivered infant is allowed to lie in a basin, unattended, until it dies. Further, non enforcement of required medical care to live born infants denies their status as babies alive outside the body of the mother. It denies their rights as a living human being. Even worse, it allows that since the living infant outside the womb of the mother is not a person, therefore, it can be treated as a thing. While still breathing and with heart beating, it can be butchered to remove its vital organs.

Yes, there are some who will defend those who voted against passage of this bill. They will say that the vote tally already indicated that the bill would pass and that Representatives merely voted “no” in order to play the Democrat party line or to cater to the whims of their several constituencies. So what.! To vote that a living infant outside the womb of its mother does not require mandatory medical attention by those performing the abortion is a vote in favor of murder.

Failed Abortions — Passage – Vote Passed (248-177, 1 Present, 8 Not Voting)

The House passed a bill that would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to any other infant born at the same gestational age. The bill also would require health care practitioners to ensure that these infants are immediately sent to a hospital.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. voted NO

Planned Parenthood Funding Moratorium — Passage – Vote Passed (241-187, 1 Present, 5 Not Voting)

The House passed a bill that would bar, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that, during that period, they will not perform abortions or provide funds to other entities that perform abortions. The prohibition would apply to all federal funds, including Medicaid. The bill would provide exceptions for abortions provided in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. voted NO

Komen and Planned Parenthood- the case for fairness

This article indicates a very serious crisis in American Journalism. The writer is allowed to use an anonymous source to contradict the open statements of an identified and verifiable source. The person featured in this article is known, her credentials are known, her position in the organization is known, and if there were audio or print copies of board conversations, her exact words would be known. Yet, the writer is allowed to contradict the featured person at every turn by citing a supposed anonymous source. This source falls under the so-called “protected source, or whistle-blower” concept. But the use of this so-called source is very open to gross abuse by the reporter. We have absolutely no information about the so-called source. We don’t know if the source is the VP of human resources, the Exe. Director of funding or the window washer or the Mail room clerk, or even the figment of the reporters imagination. So, let’s be fair here. If I were a juror and this were a court case, I would find in favor of the defendant against the so-called “insider source.” Why? Because the law allows the accused to face their accuser. Without this face to face confrontation, anybody could accuse anyone of anything and actually get away with it if the press agreed with the secret accuser against the public defendant. Also, as a juror, I would be thinking of my own freedom and rights as I found in favor of the public defendant against the cowardly contra-witness. The public officials named in this article are accountable but we are supposed to hold a voice from the dark to have credibility because , “…they feared reprisal.” Well, such non accountability is something this writer strongly condemns as dangerous to his own freedom. And I believe it is dangerous to yours as well.

Is it OK for a Black Man to be a Racist?

http://news.yahoo.com/radio-host-loses-female-gop-candidate-stupid-m-164432955.html?ugccmtnav=v1%2Fcomments%2Fcontext%2Fad439fd0-da0e-3cbd-8def-d68938598f5f%2Fcomments%3Fcount%3D20%26sortBy%3DhighestRated%26isNext%3Dtrue%26offset%3D20%26pageNumber%3D1#

This racist event is bad enough. But I am also amazed at the silence of the women’s movement. Where is the outrage? I guess it is okay for a black man to verbally abuse a black woman? There was more outcry over the Komem organization denying 500 thousand dollars to Planned Parenthood, then over this outrage. I suppose we could just bury this story and forget the talk show host. However, wrong is wrong and this is wrong. Another amazing thing is reading the comments made by viewers of this article. They seemed to me to laugh this off, to excuse the behavior as idiotic or stupid but not racist. Is it because it is not politically or socially safe to name this guy what he is, namely, a racist? Of course he could have done all of this for effect in order to catapult himself into headlines and take his tiny radio program stellar. Nonetheless, this kind of hate speech and verbal abuse is shown for what it is, violence parading as outrage. It must not be rewarded.