Illinois Hospital Creates ‘Comfort Room’ For Aborted Babies to Die In Infants remained alive for hours after abortion procedure.
Published 2 mins ago on 11 September, 2019.
An eyewitness nurse revealed how a hospital in Illinois has a “comfort room” in which aborted babies who survive for hours outside the womb are left to die. Jill Stanek told a hearing on the Born Alive Act in Washington, D.C. that doctors at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn perform “live birth abortions” where the baby is allowed to die during or after the abortion procedure. The hospital provides “comfort care” for the babies for hours after the procedure by wrapping the infant in a blanket and keeping it warm until it dies. Parents of the baby are also allowed to hold it during this time.
“If staff did not have the time or desire to hold the baby, she was taken to Christ Hospital’s Comfort Room, which was complete with a First Photo machine if parents wanted professional pictures of their aborted baby, baptismal supplies, gowns and certificates, foot printing equipment and baby bracelets for mementos, and a rocking chair,” Stanek said.
The worst part? The name of the hospital...I guess the "Christ" they are referencing in their name is Bob Christ, used car salesman, not THE Christ who asked us to "suffer the little children to come unto Him." Matthew 19:14.
Anyway, it is good to see some infanticidists don't spend ALL their time trying to make money from selling the "body parts/fetal material" of the babies they kill.
PS - Notice the sign reads "Remains of BABY"? Shouldn't it be "Remains of a cluster of cells"? And since when did a cluster of cells require a baptismal?
So, I call it want it IS - infanticide.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SAYS the "girl" who sites Wikipedia - the moron's encyclopedia - for her "source"?
Ohhhh...the abortionists at CHRIST Hospital fired her? Then she MUST be lying, or telling the truth? I suppose she "made up" the room and signs as well? Yours is the same tactic used by people who deny the Holocaust - attack the source and person reporting the truth to keep it from emerging. This is from her TESIIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS and lying before Congress gets you into prison, remember?
But what I really love is your "whether it's true or not" line. So....EVEN IF IT'S TRUE, you are okay with it cause you don't like the source it came from? What will you not do or say to give aid and comfort to infanticidists? I could write much more about such a mentality but will keep it to one word.
Pathetic.
Here is a source which confirms Jill Stanek's testimony....the hospital now ceasing to do what you and WikiIdiots say they were no doing.
@MistyCee So THAT makes it okay? Yeah...and the Holocaust was 80 years ago...so that makes it okay with you, too? Is that you "big point"?
But I guess someone, supposedly a woman … for whom an unborn baby is only "a clump of cells" nothing can really upset you about this - not last decade, last year, last minute or last second, yes?
So please … I would not want to upset your morning coffee, Madame LaFarge...
It just struck me as odd when I read your post that this was just reported, and I saw (or think I saw) that the report was about her testifying and made no mention of how long ago it was.
Call me all the names you want, but abortion seems to me, like the death penalty, to be an issue where people on both sides of the issue have genuine beliefs.
I tend towards the pro choice side, not so much because I think abortion is "right" or "ok", but because I don't like people telling other people what to do and generally lean that way.
I get queasy about that kind of thing even with child brides, and antivaxers, even though I go the other way on those issues.
@Abrienda Now THAT is insulting. I read the piece, and didn't roll out "talking points" but instead made an observation about it, i.e., the lack of context or dates.
TBH, I was up last night catching up on The Loudest Voice, and this piece struck me as very Ailes-like.
It seems like the article engaged you, which is fine, but what struck me was why was this news now? (Obviously the woman presumably testified at a recent hearing, but even that's not clear from the article).
That's what engaged me. I didn't intend to trivialize infanticide and don't feel like I did anything to merit your ad hominem attacks.
Meanwhile do you even KNOW what you are talking about? Ms. Stanik testified yesterday before Congress. You understand? YESTERDAY! Maybe you ought to go back and update your "source" at WikiIdiots. After all ANYBODY can write ANYTHING there, whether true or not.
It seems you are far more concerned with WHEN it took place than that it DID take place, yet you tried to move the focus away from death BY STARVATION at the hospital to the fact that somehow because it was reported in the Daily Caller made it …. what? Untrue? Okay? Not important? You never said but your snarky little comment was your way of trying mitigating the horror of and evil of it - to quote https://similarworlds.com/jsutton2020 - but for what reason, I wonder?
Now that the hospital admits it was true and closed it down they might be selling the rocking chair they put in the Comfort Room so the mother could rock the baby to sleep while the child STARVED TO DEATH IN HER ARMS. Perhaps it will be put up for auction and you can bid on it?
I hope you have finished your coffee now … and will spare calling you the name of what I REALLY think you are at the risk of "insulting" you.
Meanwhile I stand by every "offense" you believe I gave you and is no more than you deserved. If either of us needs to feel ashamed for what they wrote, it isn't me.
