Sean Hannity has done a fabulous job covering the Barack Obama/Born Alive scandal.
For the past 2 nights his liberal counterpart, Alan Colmes, has proposed rationale far and away from Obama’s original reason for opposing the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which he stated on the IL State Senate floor in 2001, at the genesis of this debate:

I just want to suggest … that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny….
I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

Colmes has maintained, quoting from last night’s show, “there was already a law in place that said that in the unlikely case that an abortion would be – cause a live birth, a doctor should provide immediate medical care for any child born alive.”
Here are Hannity and Colmes segments from August 20 and August 21, debating Obama’s opposition to Born Alive:

Was there a law in place? As National Review Online’s Ramesh Ponnuru explained in a column August 20…

IL law has rules – loophole-ridden rules, but rules – requiring treatment of babies who have “sustainable survivability.” If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant. Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital “abortions” were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That’s why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.

National Right to Life adds:

Obama’s defenders… fail to mention that the law covered only situations where an abortionist decided before the abortion that there was “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb.”…
Moreover, as [liberal columnist] Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune notes (August 20, 2008), “Prosecutors in IL entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of this law based on ‘born alive’ definitions or other definitions.” To read or download the consent decree to which Mr. Zorn refers, click here.

Also see this letter we received from Republican pro-life IL Attorney General Jim Ryan in July 2000 stating he could find no law Christ Hospital was violating (click to enlarge):
Jim Ryan letter page 1.jpg
Jim Ryan letter page 2-2.jpg
I also received this startling letter at the time, proving the need for both an IL and federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act (click to enlarge):
DHHS 2.jpg
Michael Kruley had a blind spot. While he understood civil rights laws prohibit discrimination based on age, he counterintuitively argued they did not cover the rights of newborns.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...