The right-wing noise machine is in heavy smear-mode over then-Illinois State Senator Barak Obama’s opposition to legislation requiring life-saving efforts in the event that an attempted abortion results in the fetus exiting the womb while still alive.
If the issue is such a no-brainer, then Illinois must have been the only state lacking such a provision, right? And it was purely an oversight that it hadn’t been passed decades earlier, right?
Nitpick: The law is federal, and it was redundant in Illinois, which is why Obama opposed it.
Didn’t he also oppose it because it made it easier to prosecute abortion doctors?
More smear. Illinois actually already had a law already that protected potentially viable fetus during abortions:
"No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. This requirement shall not apply when, in the medical judgment of the physician performing or inducing the abortion based on the particular facts of the case before him, there exists a medical emergency; in such a case, the physician shall describe the basis of this judgment on the form prescribed by Section 10 of this Act. Any physician who intentionally performs or induces such an abortion and who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to arrange for the attendance of such a second physician in violation of Section 6(2)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
(b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony. "
How often does this actually happen? Anybody have stats on how many babies will be saved by these laws? Are there people walking around now with coathangers embedded in their skulls?
I can only speak to the furor in Illinois, but it was instigated (for the most part) by Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ Hospital. She was fired from the hospital and decided that she would become a spokesperson for the pro-life movement, including giving testimony that the hospital she worked at left viable fetuses from abortions to die on shelves. The subsequent investigation by IDPH and the AG office revealed that there was no evidence to support her allegations, and no charges were brought.
But, as a result of her statements, Illinois held hearings and looked into the BAIPA act, even though it was already illegal. Since then, she has made a great deal of money, and her name, as a pro-life speaker and she is a major voice in the “Obama supports infanticide” lies.
And I’m pro-life.
the truth is not a smear. He opposed it. He went out of his way to oppose it. And the law that you are talking about was being ignored. It started in his state after a nurse gave comfort to a child left for dead.
The first time he opposed it didn’t make sense because it applied to babies who survived outside the womb. I don’t know how much more “born” you can get than that. The “neutrality clause” that he later approved to be inserted in the bill had nothing to do with anything. But that didn’t stop him from voting it down after the clause was added. It would be tough enough to spin that except he went out of his way to say that he would have voted for the Federal version if he had been Senator at the time. He’s a bullshit liar who is too embarrassed to admit how far he is willing to take abortion.
Baloney. It was already illegal, and the reactionary right wingers wanted to make it super duper illegal, but they also added language that would have defined pre-viable fetuses as persons under the Constitution.
There was a law making it illegal. A fired nurse claimed it happened. Investigation into her claims lead to no charges, and a statement that there was no evidence to support her claims.
Defining pre-viable fetuses as persons under the Constitution would be a problem for the pro-choice crowd. That’s kinda why it was included.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I think Obama was wrong in his assessment and rationale. But it is a far, and completely untenable, cry from “he voted against this bill” to “Obama wants born children to die”. It is exactly that “mischaracterization” that is so wrong.
I completely understand that there is no way in hell I will convince you otherwise. But, as a factual matter, it is blatantly false to pretend that the federal bill (which Obama supports) the prior Illinois bill making it illegal (which Obama supports) are comparable to the bill he voted against.
Obama is pro-choice. That, if you are a single issue voter, is more than enough to vote against him. And feel free to. But don’t make up **** and misrepresent his actions to try and pretend he supports the killing of infants.
Factual is such an ugly word. But according to the New York Sun you are at odds with Obama.
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.
Here is the State version of the bill where he approved the addition of the Federal “neutral class” (from the National Right to Life Website)
Here is the Federal Bill as passed.
A comparison of the two (from the National Right to Life Website)
You can make justifications all you want as to why he killed the bill but he said he would vote for the Federal version and he was caught lying about it. What’s telling is that Hillary tried to call him on it for voting “present” the first time the bill came up instead of NO and ducking the PRO-ABORTION side of the issue.
Honestly, it’s not very rational to say, “well, you’re free to kill him when he’s in there, but if he pops out then shit you can’t anymore. shoulda been quicker with the needle.” If you’re for abortions, then you’d be for this form of infanticide.
It’s not rational to draw epicycles. You don’t want the baby, you’re putting the baby to sleep. A minute here a breath of oxygen there doesn’t change anything. It really doesn’t.
A cursory glance at the NY Sun reveals that it’s, well… a bit crap.
I heard she witnessed Obama storm through a maternity ward, knocking over incubators and leaving preemies to die from exposure. 
Here’s a link to the charming Jill Stanek’s site, where she’s raising money for anti-condom billboards in Tanzania. Donate now!
Actually it does. It changes everything. It changes the fact that the Mother is no longer a host to a parasite she doesn’t want, and the child has the opportunity to live without depending on the Mother’s physical support. So yes, it changes everything.
Personally I think late term abortions are repugnant and should be illegal. But then again so does Obama.
You don’t know how much more “born” you can get? How many weeks into the pregnancy are incidents like this occuring (and how frquently)? FYI, babies are ready to be born at 9 months.
You say this isn’t a smear, but the story was presented to the public as, “Obama supports infanticide” and you use language like “a child left for dead”.
When you go in for an abortion, you go in to kill your fetus. It would make sense if you supported tighter restrictions on later-term abortions on the grounds that the fetus has developed to the point where it’s on par with a newborn. But if it’s legal to get an abortion at a particular stage, no one should be suprised if the fetus ends up dead.
It seems obvious that this legislation was designed to harass abortion clinics and pro-choice legislators, to provide fodder for anti-abotion propaganda, and to create a legal hook that can be used against abortion in the future.
It’s fine to advocate a more careful, nuanced drawing of the line. So given the context of this issue, Magiver, what would you consider acceptible?
What percent of late term abortions are being performed for anything other than concern for the mother’s health? And if this is the case (rather than a woman deciding she’s just not into pregnancy at the seven-month mark), why wouldn’t the woman in question support medical procedures that might help the fetus survive?
Well, largely they probably are for health reasons, and they should be available, but also, they should try and save the child if they can. My sister was born premature at 7 months into the pregnancy by C-Section. She’s now 22 and pregnant with a child of her own. They definitely can save the child at that point in many cases, and should make every effort to try.
I’m not aware of instances where it wasn’t for health reasons. Heck, Canada has no abortion law - a ninth-month purely-elective abortion can legally occur, and yet I’ve never heard of one actually occurring - not even on some American who crossed the border for that purpose to escape her own state or federal laws.
You can take a pro-abortion stance if you like but Obama said that he would have supported the Federal version of the bill if he had been Senator. He specifically agreed to the Federal language changes and then voted it down. How do you know what his position is on anything if he isn’t willing to take a stand on basic principles?
Obama is on record as supporting abortion rights. This is part of the Democratic platform. But to avoid controversy he didn’t vote the first version of the bill down. He voted “present”. It was part of Hillary’s campaign strategy to call him on it. She was hammering him for not following the party line and voting NO.
A candidate who will stand by his own position on an issue. When he said it was above his pay grade to take a stance on when life begins he ducked a very important issue. Roe versus Wade was law created by 7 people on the Supreme Court. Presidents are able to bypass the legislative process by appointing people to this court.
Look who’s ducking.
And John McCain is a far worse offender when it comes to not standing by his own position (hey, wasn’t this about Obama wanting to kill infants?).
What Obama meant was that it’s not up to the Big Government to decide that personhood begins at conception, because that’s a matter of belief and so should be left to the individual.
And as for the Supreme Court, the Republicans have been determinedly packing the courts with conservatives for the express purpose of overturning abortions rights.
I’m not a fan of those laws, as worded.
Say I choose to terminate a pregnancy at 25 weeks because my 20 weeks scan showed a lethal foetal abnormality, such as anencephaly, a major heart defect or a serious chromosomal abnormality, and it took me 5 weeks to make a decision and the necessary arrangement to terminate the pregnancy.
Say the infant concerned is born with massive cranial damage from the abortion procedure and there is such extensive brain injury that survival is impossible for more than a few minutes.
If that foetus is born alive, by the standards of that law (pulsating cord, or movement, or beating heart, or breathing), as I read it, the law requires a doctor to resuscitate it. To my mind that is cruelty- to inflict needles, tubes, CPR and og knows what else on an infant with a very limited lifespan and extremely poor quality of life.
Perhaps I mis-interpret the law?
As written, does it allow the doctor to make a decision that resuscitation is not in the child’s best interest, and so not perform it?
If not, that’s a major flaw.