For months, Barack Obama has been claiming that he only voted against the Illinois Born Alive Protection Act (which specified that infants who survived an abortion attempt were to be given medical treatment, rather then just discarded) because it excluded the language of the federal bill, which was inserted to clarify that the law didn’t threaten other abortion legislation. Here was the language on the federal bill:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.”
This claim was always dubious at best. Both the federal and state bill had additional language affirming that the bill only applied to infants “born alive” which already excludes every category of abortion. It was chilling enough when we thought that Obama was willing to let born infants perish without medical treatment, because of the slim chance that some activist judge would mis-interpret the law. But, last week, the National Right to Life Committee clarified things. While the 2001 version of the Illinois bill excluded this language, the 2003 version did not. Indeed, Obama’s committee inserted it themselves. And while Obama voted present on the 2001 version, he voted “no” in committee on the 2003 version. In other words he lied. He voted against a bill essentially identical to the federal BAIPA bill, which passed 98-0, and which even NARAL did not oppose. After accusing conservatives of lying on this point on CBN Saturday night, Obama’s camp has fessed up.
His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.
This explanation is peculiar in the extreme. The “neutrality” language was inserted in the federal bill to reassure pro-choicers that it wouldn’t infringe upon state abortion laws, because as team Obama correctly points out, federal abortion law (sans Roe) is relatively limited. So it’s hard to see how this advances Obama’s cause. Put bluntly: Obama voted for something that is, by any conceivable definition, infanticide. This alone should disqualify him for the Presidency. We’ll see if the media stops carrying his water on this issue. I’m not holding my breath.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:42 am
I’m glad this piece of insanity is finally coming to light.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Sadly this will only help Barry with women who make up most of the voters. But it’s better to lose an election than to lose this “war”.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:36 am
When did women voters approve blatant infanticide?
August 18th, 2008 at 7:48 am
I am not convinced that this will help Obama with women voters. There are many women who consider themselves
pro-life. Keep in mind that pro-choice does not always correlate with pro partial-birth (or post in this case)
abortion. If anything, there may be many women who have felt that McCain is too pro-life, but will not think
that Obama is too far to the left on this issue.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:07 am
* will now think that Obama is too far to the left on this issue.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:49 am
YOU CAN’T UNRING THIS BELL
August 18th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I am pro-choice, but I would be very against turning your back on a new born and not offer aid. That’s evil.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:22 am
7
HearMeRoar,
Given your statement and say Mac picks TPaw or Romney or anyone you think is “same old”, then what will it take for you to vote for McCain and/or not vote for Obama?
August 18th, 2008 at 9:23 am
HearMeRoar -
Let me make sure I follow the logic here… Talking specific about partial-birth abortions which clearly fall under the BAIPA…
It’s OK to try to remove the ‘fetus’ by inducing labor and then ‘carefully’ extracting a portion of this ‘fetus’ through the use of specially designed medical instruments in the hands of a skilled medical practicioner.
Now in the course of this supposed ‘medical procedure’, if the ‘fetus’ were to somehow make it outside of the womb, we are to use every medical resource available to preserve this ‘life’ – the same ‘fetus’ which only moments (seconds) ago everyone in the room was engaged and actively going through the motions to remove this offending ’tissue’. Am I the only one who sees a bit of a contradiction here?
I have a better idea – why not require that these ‘medical procedures’ be conducted underwater. Then if some of this ’tissue’ were to make its way out of the womb, and for some unexplained reason happened to resemble a baby, the medical community would have a clear conscience since that ’tissue’ would not be viable.
40,000,000+
August 18th, 2008 at 9:27 am
rehash from Feb
http://race42008.com/2008/02/21/baipa/
August 18th, 2008 at 9:29 am
His campaign finally admits that he voted against stopping infanticide! The media will ignore this. An ad needs to be made on this issue…now!
It needs to show:
(1) the Senate voted 98-0 to stop infanticide,
(2) Obama’s statement: “I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.”
(3) Obama’s statement: “That was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”
(4) Obama’s statement: “It defies common sense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive”
(5) His campaign’s acknowledgment that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate.
This is going to turn votes! I believe most people support women’s reproductive freedom within limits: 0-3 months are okay, but late-term abortions not okay. Ending an unwanted pregnancy is a debateable and deeply personal issue.
But what Obama did is nuts. He voted against stopping the killing of childen already born. There is no debate on this issue. He is a radical!
August 18th, 2008 at 9:41 am
How about this one?
The Vote That Will Cost Obama the Presidency
August 18th, 2008 at 9:42 am
#8. I have been thinking long and hard about that, Evil Conservative. I’ll NEVER vote for Obama. But I would rather ethusiastically vote for McCain than begrudgingly vote for McCain. I’m not there yet.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:45 am
It does not have to be a big ad buy. The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth’s ad ran only a single time (or, at least, very few times). It then grabbed people’s attention. An ad on this issue would do the same thing. A single ad buy (coupled with a youtube posting), would generate enormous interest on talk-radio, drudge would pick it up, newspaper stories would in turn be written about the ad (the cons would say the ad was enlightening and disturbing; the libs would say it was “unfair”). News about Obama’s vote would spread like wild-fire, and could turn the election into a blow-out.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Why in hell do people say that anything pro-choice ‘helps among women’? Men support abortion in larger numbers than women do, and we were never going to win any militantly pro-choice women in the first place.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Alex, people say pro-choice helps among women, because it does. The gender gap among the electorate (Women vote more for Dems, Men vote more for Reps) has for years shown the same pattern. Are you arguing that the pro-choice/pro-life issue is not the reason?
August 18th, 2008 at 10:01 am
#14 – Terry, SBVFT had several million in donations. Thet started with a 450k seed plant by a few conencted business owners here is Texas. Their ad buys were very well placed and funded.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:13 am
The main political issue here to seize upon, without risking alienating disgruntled pro-choice Hillary supporters who are receptive to McCain, is that Obama not only lied, but had the audacity to call others liars.
OBAMA: “Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying…It’s one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it’s another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they’re wrong. And that’s what’s been happening.”
Doctors do have the medical authority to determine whether a child inadvertently extracted after dilation of the cervix is, in fact, viable. In the much-publicized case of a Down syndrome child involving Jill Stanek, she, herself, acknowledged that the baby’s lungs had not yet developed and was incapable of surviving outside the womb, and thus not viable. Perhaps this case will serve to highlight the overreach of Roe, but in this specific instance, the viability threshold had not yet been crossed.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Alex, people say pro-choice helps among women, because it does. The gender gap among the electorate (Women vote more for Dems, Men vote more for Reps) has for years shown the same pattern. Are you arguing that the pro-choice/pro-life issue is not the reason?
Yes. Women tend to vote Democratic in higher numbers because of their priorities. Women are generally more concerned with issues like health care and education than men are, and Democrats tend to have the edge on those issues. Women are just more naturally inclined toward bigger government, I believe.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:47 am
“Women are just more naturally inclined toward bigger government, I believe.”
I disagree Knepperstein, the GOP has not reached out to women, and there are very few role models in the GOP.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am
After this I would not vote for Barak Husain Obama under any cercunstances. My wife had an abortion over 20 years ago from a previous marriage and too this day she still keep on asking me will God forgive for having this abortion. She has a physical condition and we can’t have children and feels because this is because she can’t bearr children that is why we are both passinatly Pro-Life. Even if Mitt Romney were selected my wife and I would vote for the Republican ticket. It just breaks my heart not only for the unborn victums but for the women who have them and then suffer from guilt of having one plus they are being lied to by the clinics. At least I think a woman should see the ultra sound of the baby before having an abortion.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:06 am
#9. I’ll agree to Roe v. Wade being overturned the day the religious right agrees to free birth control for all and monetary assistance to families at the poverty level — including the “working poor”.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Very touching story J. Withrow, I certainly believe that your wife will be forgiven, it is not an easy situation.
On a side note, in most states, while there are gender gaps on a few issues, abortion is not actually one of them.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I agree with Alex that it is not necessarily abortion that pushes women toward the Dem party — it is a host of social, “nurturing” issues — health care, education, welfare (female-headed families are most likely to benefit).
There is a reason why the Dems are often called “the mommy party.”
August 18th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Well said, BobH.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Did you guys see this article?
I suspect Obama would claim that this child has not right to live… I mean after being aborted, declared dead by the doctors, and spending several hours in a fridge…
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710394816&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
August 18th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Jeff,
In the fifth month of pregnancy it would be impossible for a baby to survive. Impossible.
I am 100% certain that that baby would have died no matter what was done, even if she didn’t have what was likely a placental abruption.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I disagree Knepperstein, the GOP has not reached out to women, and there are very few role models in the GOP.
I guess by that logic, the Democrats haven’t “reached out to men” (true enough, really) since they always lose the male vote by a wide margin.
There are few “role models” in the Democratic Party, too, except for Hillary, but Democrats were winning women long before Hillary ran.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
#28 Alex, this may all change in the next 20 years. As women are having less children, getting married later in life, and are now 50% of all start-up businesses in American, we will see more women enter Republican politics. Of course, we will also see more women enter Democratic politics as well.
I agree with you, will the Democrats ever find a way to appeal to white men?
August 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
DSkinner, viability is about the middle of the fifth month, i.e. about the middle of the second trimester and the middle of pregnancy. The earliest known premature births to survive have been less than 20 weeks since fertilization. That’s solidly in the fifth month. It’s rare for babies to survive if they’re earlier than 22 weeks (which is about the end of the fifth month), but it happens, and viability is not defined by likelihood but by possibility, since the moral importance of saving a life requires doing what’s reasonably possible to save a life. One such 20-week delivery was as far back as 1987. It’s well within the realm of possibility that a baby born a little earlier could survive and be healthy given improvements in technology in the last two decades, but I don’t know of any actual cases. We certainly can’t rule it out, and the position you’re presenting assumes that we can. Otherwise you couldn’t be 100% certain.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
[...] http://race42008.com/2008/08/18/obama-changes-his-tune-on-baipa/ [...]