Fact Check: Obama and Infanticide

There is some required reading for this post:

Responding to someone’s comments, they said the video I posted presents horrible innuendo and should be fact checked. Before posting the video, I was aware of the National Right to Life’s white paper and the analysis of FactCheck.org.

Ironically, the NRLC’s white paper and FactCheck.org both find Obama to be misleading the public about his record on the BAIPA (Born Alive Infant Protection Act).

While an Illinois State Senator, Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee. He insisted that he voted to the kill the BAIPA three times from 2001-2003 because it “was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade.” He asserted a neutrality clause would be required before receiving his yes vote to prevent any limitations on Roe v. Wade.

As it turns out, the 2001 (SB 1095) and 2002 (SB 1662) bills did not include this clause. Obama also contends the 2003 (SB 1082) bill did not either. However, both the NRLC and FactCheck.org discovered that when the bill was killed by a 6-4 party line vote in the committee that Obama chaired, it did contain Obama’s precious neutrality clause.

Conclusion: Either Obama was asleep at the wheel of his own committee and his current defense of his ‘no’ votes can stand, or Obama is much more concerned with preserving or extending abortion rights rather than protecting a baby born alive from infanticide.

I’d offer that a Harvard law grad (magna cum laude) is pretty intelligent. In fact, Barack Obama is on record with the following statement in 2001 on the Senate floor:

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. 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 antiabortion statute.

The following year, Obama had this to say about the same bill once reintroduced:

[A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

And there you have it. Obama believes that:

  1. abortion rights (the right to terminate a pregnancy and thereby kill a fetus, whether viable or nonviable outside the womb) should trump a born-alive infant’s protection (the right to life first declared to everyone in the Declaration of Independence), such that,
  2. if labor is induced to perform an abortion and the procedure is ineffective (i.e. the fetus is not killed) and the baby is born-alive,
  3. there is no penalty, consequence, or repercussion for the mother or the doctor performing the procedure if they allow that born-alive human baby to die without any medical intervention, regardless of elapsed time outside the womb (seconds, minutes, or hours).
Essentially, Obama consistently stated and voted to kill legislation that would make the practice of infanticide, as a result of botched abortions resulting in born-alive babies, a felony crime.

In his mind, it appears, when a mom wants an abortion and the fetus doesn’t die and is instead born-alive, the doctor can still deny the baby, as a human being outside the womb, medical treatment and nourishment, so that it dies shortly after birth in order to ‘complete’ the originally botched abortive procedure.

Folks, I don’t know about you, but this is nothing short of evil when America has reached a point where doctors, politicians, and others feel that a right to abortion extends so far that when an unwanted baby is born-alive doctors can still permit it to be left to die without consequence.

This alone prevents me for ever being able to cast a vote in favor of Barack Obama. Let’s be clear, it’s poor judgment to say that woman has a ‘right’ to terminate a fetus. It is wise judgment to say that a fetus/baby has a right to live as a member of the human race since the founding of country lists that right as ‘inalienable’.

What should we make of a nation that would elect as its leader someone that alienates what was described at its nation’s founding as inalienable?

Fact: When it comes to human life, Barack Obama believes that killing innocent born-alive babies is acceptable collateral to preserving a woman’s ability to have an abortion.

Fact: When it comes to owning up to his own ideology and voting record, he’d rather call others liars and avoid giving an honest account.

Finally, once Obama made it to the U.S. Senate, the Illinois bill passed 52-0 in the Illinois State Senate in 2005. The similarly worded federal bill also had yes votes from Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton before Barack Obama was in the U.S. Senate.

Surprising isn’t it? Maybe that’s partially why Obama has the most liberal record of anyone in the Congress.


5 Responses

  1. If you read my comment, I did not question whether Obama was for or against this issue, I asked for proof, and you kindly provided a requiem.
    The check your facts was a statement about nohussein.org, oh, and now for your fact check
    “Surprising isn’t it? Maybe that’s partially why Obama has the most liberal record of anyone in the Congress.”
    Check it out:
    Another fun site to debunk political myths on both sides, this one has a cool and easy to read Truth-o-meter.

  2. I took a look. However, the National Journal did the homework on Obama’s record and found him to be the most liberal Senator in 2007: http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

    I realize he wasn’t there for many of the votes and it’s only for 2007… but regardless, he’s too liberal for my taste and his actual voting record and the words from his own mouth are what I typically go by.

    When he’s the most liberal by key votes in a year when he’s running for President, that gives me a strong indication of the message he wants to send.

  3. He was there more often than McCain, who in some cases couldn’t even be graded because of lack of voting record. It’s a great debate, but while we may agree on some issues, we agree to disagree, listen, and debunk as necessary, on the others.
    Thanks for listening;)

  4. Mike,

    One thing that really bothered me about the Saddleback debates is Rick Warren’s failure to follow up on Obama’s abortion answer. Obama said that saying when life began was “above his pay grade.” Essentially he was saying that he neither knew nor was willing to give an opinion on the matter. My follow up question would have been, “Mr. Obama, how can you support the procedure that essentially ends a heartbeat if you can not conclusively rule out that a life is being taken.”

    By his own admission, he doesn’t know. At least Hillary said that a fetus is only the “potential for life.” If I saw a man lying on the battle field, I would not think it was OK to bury him until I could conclude for sure whether he was alive or not!

  5. Mike,

    So I had a little free time at work and discovered your blog. I’m having a little trouble understanding why this is such a hot topic?

    I am also unclear why it is “poor judgement” for a woman to have a right to choose. As far as I am concerned, a bunch of conservative men are attempting to make decisions for women, which is insulting.

    There is not enough time to explore this issue properly in a comment post.

    If this is being approached from a Christian angle, as Christians, we have free agency, and that is the belief that humans can determine what is right and wrong and act accordingly.

    I would also like to point out that our society does not offer enough support and resources to aid women/families encountering adverse circumstances in family planning.

    It is safe to say that not everyone believes in the same thing nor has the same convictions, which is why America is great.

    I will go ahead and call out the elephant in the room: I am a liberal. I have studied gender politics in depth in academic settings (this is part of my past and proposed research). The point of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy, which is why I am not commenting on the legislation you mention above because I think it is just a microcosm of a larger issue.

    Your family is about to be blessed, but for some, it is not always a blessing or joyous occasion. It is not just what perhaps you consider irresponsible behavior or callous decision-making, but often something else that makes it a terrible choice: rape, incest, illness, economic hardship, etc. The last thing a woman in this position needs is someone dictating what is right and wrong.

    Isn’t it Christ that teaches us tolerance, patience and compassion?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: