Many people have emailed me about Barack Obama’s July 1 interview with Relevant magazine, in which he stated…

The other email rumor that’s been floating around is that somehow I’m unwilling to see doctors offer life-saving care to children who were born as a result of an induced abortion. That’s just false. There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the “Born Alive” bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill. The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that stated you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.
Ever since that time, emails have been sent out suggesting that, somehow, I would be in favor of letting an infant die in a hospital because of this particular vote. That’s not a fair characterization, and that’s not an honest characterization. It defies common sense to think that a hospital wouldn’t provide life-saving treatment to an infant that was alive and had a chance of survival.

This excuse is not new, #7 from my January 2008 column, Obama’s 10 reasons for supporting infanticide.
Even cursory thought on this would raise red flags in an analytical mind. If Born Alive were already codified in IL law, why did it finally pass the year after Obama left the IL state senate? Why did 98 US senators pass it unanimously, the US House pass it overwhelmingly, and the President sign it into law on the federal level?
But what’s more, Obama purposefully misrepresented the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, using its name to describe the contents of another bill.
Born Alive was simple legislation defining when personhood begins for the purpose of IL law. The World Health Organization created this definition in 1950, and the UN adopted it in 1955. Born Alive required nothing. It was introduced 3x while Obama was state senator – 2001, 2002, and 2003. Read it here.
Here’s where Obama tried to muddy the waters. Two companion bills were introduced with Born Alive.
1. The Induced Birth Infant Liability Act allowed a parent or public guardian to sue a doctor/hospital that did not provide medical care to an abortion survivor.
2. Another bill tried to close a loophole in the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. Thanks to senators like Obama, that loophole still remains in place. The law states that an abortionist who thinks s/he might deliver a live viable baby has to call for a 2nd objective physician to care for the baby. The obvious loophole is that the person deciding pre-delivery whether or not a baby may be viable is the abortionist, invested in killing the child. Typical fox-guarding-hen-house scenario.
The aforementioned bill removed the “viability” factor and stated any abortion that might result in a baby being aborted alive had to have a 2nd physician at delivery to assess the baby.
Obama understood the loophole. Quoting from State Net March 5, 2002, while I was testifying during the IL Senate Judiciary Committee meeting:

OBAMA questions Stanek whether she thought situations were happening where doctors that make assessments that are liable have no regard for human life are letting that child die.
STANEK states a loophole in current law, states that a physician determines a fetus is viable and what’s happening now is that they’re determining this before the baby is aborted, therefore, at delivery they don’t have a 2nd doctor there with them. These babies aren’t being assessed….
OBAMA: … My concern is what appears to be the doctors really don’t care about children who are 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. That may be your assessment and I don’t see evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.

Obama not only misrepresented Born Alive during the Relevant interview, he misrepresented IL abortion law, which absolutely does not say, “you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances.” He knew that during the hearings, and he knows that now.
Obama told Relevant it “defies common sense” that a hospital would let potentially viable babies die. But in actuality, it defies common sense that Obama played ignorant about an abortionist’s obvious conflict of interest when delivering a live baby. It defies common sense that Obama would support infanticide if stopping it would get in the abortion industry’s way. It defies common sense that Obama, who distrusts every other big business, does not distrust big abortion.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...