As a recent discussion with a friend revealed to me, there is still confusion as to what Obama’s position was (and is) on the human rights due to infants born alive after surviving an attempted abortion. The confusion persists in part because Obama continues to lie about his actions.
Obama’s supporters claim that he did not vote against providing care to such infants. One of their responses is that he merely avoided duplicating a law that was already on the books in Illinois. Another is that he voted against the Born Alive act because it did not have a clause, included in the federal version of the same bill, that preserved the current legal status of fetuses in utero, thus protecting the right to abort.
Well, he lied. The Illinois bill was the same as the federal bill, and the only reason Obama voted against it was because he is a pro-abortion zealot, who believes a woman’s “right to choose” should not be limited by such inconveniences as the live birth of a child. You can still kill it—that’s your right, in Obama’s morally perverted universe, where people talk big about human rights but commit (and want YOU to pay for!) the ultimate outrage against the foundation of all human rights—the right to life.
To cover his lie, he called his accusers liars. They produced evidence that the Illinois and federal bills were the same. Yet some people are still unaware of the facts of this matter, and some perversely insist that abortions will decrease in an Obama administration. That’s innovative logic: among several other policies he wants to implement, he wants to ban federal funding of crisis pregnancy centers, which help women choose alternatives to abortion—yet, somehow, helping women to choose not to abort is incompatible with his so-called “pro-choice” worldview. How’s that for “liberal”?
Here’s a good piece succinctly summing up the matter, by Robert George and Yuval Levin: “Obama and Infanticide.” You can support Obama for whatever reason you like, (Christopher Buckley has his reasons), but don’t pretend that he is anything less than the most ideologically fanatical apostle the abortion industry has ever had eating from its hand. And if anyone claims to look out for the little guy, see how he treats the littlest of all. If he says that determining whether a child born alive has human rights is “above his pay grade,” be suspicious.
Obama, who in 2003 became the chairman of the state senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, argued not that existing law did everything the newly proposed measure would do, but that the born-alive bill would put too much of a burden on the practice of abortion.
”As I understand it,” Obama said during the floor debate, ”this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.” This, he argued, was too much to ask of a doctor performing abortions, and it could also, as he put it, ”burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”