Obama: Accessory to Murder?
Is Barack Obama an accessory to murder? That question may seem loaded and over the top. But I would like to point out some simple facts.
Kermit Gosnell was sentenced last Wednesday to life in prison without parole for the murder of a baby born alive in a botched abortion, who prosecutors said would have survived if the doctor had not "snipped" its neck with scissors. He was also sentenced to a total of 30 to 60 superfluous years on two charges of conspiring to kill two other babies. He got off relatively easy on some other charges that included involuntary manslaughter in the death of a woman who died after being given too much anesthesia in his clinic.
I'm not going to dignify Gosnell, as many news organizations did, by bestowing upon him the honorific title "doctor." Gosnell is an abortionist. He never cured people. He killed them. He was only spared the death penalty because of a plea agreement after his convictions.
So what does all this have to do with Obama being an accessory to murder? You'll first notice that Obama has refused to comment on the case from the beginning. Here's a guy, Obama, who can't keep his mouth shut on any topic. He loves to hear himself talk. But, when it comes to Gosnell, he's mute. At first he said he couldn't comment on it because it was an active trial. What's stopping him now? Cat got your tongue?
Why can't Obama talk about it? Because Obama is on record as supporting the kind of thing Gosnell did.
I know Obama is faced with many scandals, and the opportunities to ask questions of him are, shall we say, somewhat limited.
But wouldn't it be nice if some enterprising reporter with access asked: "Now that the Gosnell trial is over, do you still oppose laws that protect babies that survive abortions?"
As an Illinois state senator, Obama twice voted against bills that would have "defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a 'born alive infant' and entitled to legal protection." He said he viewed the bills as backdoor attempts to deny women the right to abortion.
So, in other words, if Obama had his way, Gosnell would still be practicing — still free to kill more babies. And can't we take it a step further by suggesting that Gosnell, and others like him across the nation who haven't yet been brought to justice, was encouraged to do just what he did?
The sitting president of the United States twice openly took the position in the short time he served as a legislator that babies born alive following abortions had no right to live. This was legislation he was actively opposing even while abortionists were murdering babies born alive in cold blood in his own state. That's why the legislation was put forward in Illinois, largely because of heroines like Jill Stanek, a nurse who witnessed such acts of barbarism and brought it to the attention of Obama and the Illinois Legislature.
So maybe that's why Obama is less than loquacious on the subject of Gosnell. What can he say?
Has he changed his mind about the very laws that put Gosnell away for life? Or does he still believe that those laws would merely serve as backdoor attempts to deny women their right to take the life of their baby — born or not?
My guess is he would still take that extreme abortion position if he answered honestly. I think it would be a tougher question for Obama to answer right now than those he's facing on Benghazi, the IRS and the Associated Press scandals — now that the country has seen the kind of barbarism abortionists practice.
To find out more about Joseph Farah and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM