'Doctors Told Me It was Against the Rules to Save Baby

#1
V

volsrock12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
390
Likes
0
#1
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.
They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.


Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.

Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.


Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

Evil Conservative Radio: 'Doctors Told Me It was Against the Rules to Save My Premature Baby'- Boldly Promoting Reaganism During the Reign of Obama


Coming very soon to a town near you thanks to Obama and the idiots that voted for him...we nned to wake up soon!!!!
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
very sad and sickening. i think i prolly wlda went home, got my gun and at gunpoint made them s.o.b.'s treat that baby
 
#5
#5
here is Obama's opposition to the Induced Infant Liability Act. In other words, his SUPPORT for leaving abortion-surviving babies in trash rooms to die.......

http://bornalivetruth.org/pressreleases.aspx

Quote: Quote:
“Can you imagine not giving babies their basic human rights, no matter how they entered our world? My name is Gianna Jessen, born 31 years ago after a failed abortion. I’m a survivor, as are many others…but if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn’t be here. Four times, Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to protect babies left to die after a failed abortion. Senator Obama, please support born alive infant protections. I’m living proof these babies have a right to live.”
Click to expand...
HumanEvents Link
Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL - HUMAN EVENTS

Quote:
Quote:
Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”
Click to expand...
RealClear Link
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...erability.html

Quote:
Quote:
Republicans will try to convince voters that Obama is outside this mainstream by focusing on his opposition, as an Illinois state senator, to a state version of the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which passed the U.S. Senate in 2002 by a unanimous vote. The law prevents the killing of infants, usually by denying them medical care, when they are mistakenly left alive, outside the mother's womb, after an abortion.

Speaking against a similar bill in the Illinois Senate, Obama sounded like the constitutional law professor he was before going into politics.

"Number one,'' he said, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a 9-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this were a child, this would be an anti-abortion statute.''

Democrats in Congress raised the same concern about the original version of the federal legislation. Language was added to make it clear the bill would not encroach on a woman's right to choose an abortion and the measure passed without opposition.

Obama later said he would have voted for that bill.

However, critics note that in 2003, when an Illinois lawmaker again introduced a state Born Alive Infant Bill, it came with a proposed amendment that included language on protecting abortion rights identical to the federal version. The bill was never brought up for a vote in the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.
Click to expand...
 
#8
#8
i find the claim that a 21 week old baby survived by itself rather dubious. frankly i find hte claim it would have survived at all rather dubious.
 
#9
#9
droski said:
i find the claim that a 21 week old baby survived by itself rather dubious. frankly i find hte claim it would have survived at all rather dubious.
Click to expand...

actually I believe BPV's were born in a similar timeframe
 
#10
#10
droski said:
i find the claim that a 21 week old baby survived by itself rather dubious. frankly i find hte claim it would have survived at all rather dubious.
Click to expand...


ABC Recognizes Survival of 21-Week Baby 'May Change What People Think About Life'


Dr. William Smalling, Baptist Children's Hospital in Kendall, Florida: "She told us early on from the start that she was a fighter and she wanted to be here."
Harris: "This is Amillia now. She weighs four pounds, and, despite the fact that she's had some respiratory and digestive problems, her doctor says Amillia's prognosis is excellent."


ABC Recognizes Survival of 21-Week Baby 'May Change What People Think About Life' | NewsBusters.org

If she was born into the UK government health care no would would have helped this fighter out! She would have been left to die!

In the government system this 21 week old baby didn't have a chance it was given a death sentence by goverment workers.
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
droski said:
i find the claim that a 21 week old baby survived by itself rather dubious. frankly i find hte claim it would have survived at all rather dubious.
Click to expand...


This first one is Baby Amelia. What a fighter. She was born 21 weeks and a few days and still survived...and was doing well! Amazing story. This is the link to her story

baby%2Bfeet.jpg


And the baby now!

just-to-give-you-idea-of-how-big-our.html
IMG_0008.JPG


The Sorensen Family: Baby Sorensen is 21 weeks!
 
Last edited:
#13
#13
droski said:
i find the claim that a 21 week old baby survived by itself rather dubious. frankly i find hte claim it would have survived at all rather dubious.
Click to expand...


Then you would make a great candidate for getting hired onto some beauracratic board associated with UHC.
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
Maybe there should just be an anti-abortion forum with the one thread.
Click to expand...
Wears your ass out, doesn't it? You hate facts that don't support your wild-eyed liberal political stance.

Instead of an abortion forum, let's start one similar.

The Post-Birth Abortion of Liberals Forum.

Perhaps it would turn into a grassroots movement. We could push for laws legalizing the post-birth abortion of liberals. Perhaps we could name it 'Chemotherapy For America', since it would be removing the cancer of liberalism.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top