Infanticide, revisited

posted at 2:02 pm on August 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama wants to move closer to Catholics, or more accurately, wants Catholics to move closer to him. Despite a track record of abandoning all limits for on-demand abortion, Obama plans to argue that he actually is a moderate on the topic. He has repudiated criticism for his vote on an Illinois bill that would have required practitioners to give normal medical attention to infants born alive during an attempted abortion by claiming that it lacked a pre-birth neutrality clause that was included in a bill adopted unanimously by the US Congress in 2002.

The National Right to Life Committee now claims that Obama lied about the bill in order to provide cover for his support of infanticide:

When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting “infanticide.” Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill. As the Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, “Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. . . . The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.”

During Obama’s 2008 run for President, his campaign and his defenders have asserted repeatedly and forcefully that it is a distortion, or even a smear, to suggest that Obama opposed a state born-alive bill that was the same as the federal bill. See, for example, this June 30, 2008 “factcheck” issued by the Obama campaign, in the form that it still appeared on the Obama website on August 7, 2008. The Obama “cover story” has often been repeated as fact, or at least without challenge, in major organs of the news media. (Two recent examples: CNN reported on June 30, 2008, “Senator Obama says if he had been in the U.S. Senate in 2002, he, too, would have voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because unlike the Illinois bill, it included language protecting Roe v. Wade.” The New York Times reported in a story on August 7, 2008 that Obama “said he had opposed the bill because it was poorly drafted and would have threatened the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established abortion as a constitutional right. He said he would have voted for a similar bill that passed the United States Senate because it did not have the same constitutional flaw as the Illinois bill.”)

Never mind that the bill itself expressly limited its reach to infants born alive during abortions, of course. David Freddoso makes this point in his new book, The Case Against Barack Obama. On page 195, Freddoso gives the full text of the bill, which clearly limited its concern to affixing personhood to any child born alive during an abortion.

However, the NRLC discovered in working through the Illinois bill’s path that their version of the BAIPA bill did have the neutrality codicil attached — and it got attached in Obama’s committee:

For the moment we can set that debate aside, however, for this reason: Documents obtained by NRLC now demonstrate conclusively that Obama’s entire defense is based on a brazen factual misrepresentation.

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the “neutrality clause” (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

The amendment with the neutrality language identical to that in the federal law is here. In the record of the vote taking on March 12, 2003, the amendment was adopted unanimously by Chairman Obama’s HHS subcommittee. That added the neutrality clause to the bill — which then went down to defeat on a party-line 6-4 vote, with Obama voting against protecting infants born alive during abortions.

This was no academic debate.  The issue arose when, as Freddoso notes. Christ Hospital in the Chicago area got outed for leaving these infants to die after a nurse blew the whistle on the hospital.  An investigation determined the truth of the allegations, and the Illinois legislature debated on whether infants born alive during abortions should be considered persons and require practitioners to provide care for them.  Obama, even with the redundant “neutrality clause” attached to the bill, said no.

Clearly, Obama lied about his position.  It’s no small rhetorical matter, either.  His vote puts him on the extreme of the pro-abortion camp, so extreme in fact that not a single member of Congress would follow his example.  Obama voted to allow Christ Hospital and other facilities performing abortions to allow live children to die.

Update: Jill Stanek was the nurse that blew the whistle on this horrid practice.

Update II: Yes, the action that day first added the neutrality clause and the second action defeated the bill, as shown above.  The staff analysis written at the time by the Republicans (linked at the NRLC) shows the sequence:

<!– @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

COMMITTEE ACTION: On 3/13/03, SB 1082 failed on a “Do Pass As Amended” motion (Righter/Syverson) by a vote of 4-6-0.

CA #1 was adopted on a “Be Adopted” motion (Righter/Syverson) by an attendance roll call (10-0-0).

CA #1 (Winkel) to SB 1082 (Winkel) adds to the underlying bill.

Deletes language, which states that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Inserts language, which states that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or right applicable to any member of the homo sapien species at any point prior to being born alive as defined under this legislation.

That is the neutrality clause that Obama claimed wasn’t in the bill when he voted against it, and kept infanticide as an option for Christ Hospital.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Under an Obambi presidency the woman’s right to kill will be extended to include pre-school children, husbands, both legal and common law. For gays tops will be able to off bottoms. Special options will be available for bi and transsexuals.

/sarc

Annar on August 11, 2008 at 5:10 PM

I admire Obama on this; he just doesn’t want anyone of us to be ‘punished with a baby’.

carbon_footprint on August 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM

brazen factual misrepresentation

Contemptuous, arrogant LIAR.

jaime on August 11, 2008 at 5:25 PM

So why does the official Illinois legislature website show (as opposed to GOP notes) show a different summary of the amendment and a different action by the Committee? Could it be that the GOP and the NRLC are forging documents?

Short Description: BORN-ALIVE INFANT DEFINED

Senate Sponsors
Sen. Richard J. Winkel Jr.

Last Action
Date Chamber Action
1/11/2005 Senate Session Sine Die

Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance
5 ILCS 70/1.36 new

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Statute on Statutes. Defines “born-alive infant” to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines “born alive” to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. Effective immediately.

Actions
Date Chamber Action
2/19/2003 Senate Filed with Secretary by Sen. Richard J. Winkel, Jr.
2/19/2003 Senate First Reading
2/19/2003 Senate Referred to Rules
2/26/2003 Senate Assigned to Health & Human Services
3/6/2003 Senate Postponed – Health & Human Services
3/11/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Filed with Secretary by Sen. Richard J. Winkel, Jr.
3/11/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Referred to Rules
3/12/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Rules Refers to Health & Human Services
3/13/2003 Senate Held in Health & Human Services
3/14/2003 Senate Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Rules
3/14/2003 Senate Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Rules
1/11/2005 Senate Session Sine Die

jim m on August 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Righteous!

DaveC on August 11, 2008 at 2:37 PM

I, too, was wondering if Ares comment wasn’t a sincere vote of support for the pro-life stylings of Ed M. Could be…

Jaibones on August 11, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Not very likely you’re going to produce a viable human being after you get the dyson out now is it?

Ares on August 11, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Thanks for the clarity! At least now I understand where you are.

As for Dyson, yes, any number of babies somehow survive the attempted murder and are AOA – Alive on Arrival. The abortionists at Christ were tossing these babies on a shelf in the laundry room and waiting for them to die.

You don’t have to believe that if you don’t want to, and you can go on making your stupid, condescending comments, but they only display your ignorance.

The truth, in this case, walks around and talks and sings. If you lack the guts to confront the truth, then that’s your cross to bear.

Jaibones on August 11, 2008 at 5:51 PM

ABORTION, INFANTICIDE, ETHNIC CLEANSING, GENOCIDE: Erasism.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 11, 2008 at 5:53 PM

So, when does human life begin?

This is just horrific, the very idea of devaluing life this way.

ThePrez on August 11, 2008 at 5:56 PM

RIGHT TO LIFE: Infant side.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 11, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Attendance votes aren’t moved and seconded. This is an action report on a bill (1082), not the minutes of a meeting.

Ed Morrissey on August 11, 2008 at 7:04 PM

So Obama opposes term limits — except when it comes to pregnant women. Then he doesn’t.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 11, 2008 at 7:28 PM

Annar on August 11, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Ding ding! Thread winner.

Alden Pyle on August 11, 2008 at 9:00 PM

Obama’s own words, IL state senate, March 30, 2001: http://preview.tinyurl.com/5wdpxr – pages 84 thru 90… very heartless and chilling stuff.

He suggests that the result of an induced abortion “… where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb.”

As some might describe it?!?!?

God help save our nation.

electric-rascal on August 11, 2008 at 10:58 PM

He suggests that the result of an induced abortion “… where the — the fetus or child, as — as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb.”

As some might describe it?!?!?

Rings a bell for the Obama You Tube clip “America is no longer a Christian nation – if it ever was”

If it ever was?

I like the “temporarily alive”. That is cold

If a rat abandoned its temporarily alive offspring at my feet, I couldn’t leave it on a shelf in the backroom to die of starvation, thirst, and lack of comfort. I could not.

I would feed it and release it in the wild.

If the rat came back as an adult and broke into the larder, I would then kill it with a baseball bat.

I would still not lock it up to die of starvation, thirst, and lack of comfort

I would love to see Obama explain his remarks on EWTN. They would have to exorcise the place after he finished

entagor on August 11, 2008 at 11:56 PM

DEMOCIDE: Leftist practice of killing their young.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 12, 2008 at 1:51 AM

Even Better: DEMOCIDE: Abortion synonym.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 12, 2008 at 1:58 AM

I thought we were gonna wait till AFTER the convention to bring this “human life has no value thing” up.

THEN we can skewer him on it. This is the kind of thing that could bring Hitlary back from the dead. She’s no better on abortion but she has enough sense to not throw in on something this dreadful.

Mojave Mark on August 12, 2008 at 2:08 AM

It does appear that Rev. Wright was correct when he said that America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

However, those aren’t the only chickens that will soon be doing some roosting. Wright’s chickens and Obama’s are right up there with all the other soon-to-be roosting chickens.

Edward’s chickens are not far behind either. And all dem chickens will be roosting on the Obamanation’s head.

Good Gawd, I LOVE the blogs!

platypus on August 12, 2008 at 3:12 AM

This was no academic debate. The issue arose when, as Freddoso notes. Christ Hospital in the Chicago area got outed for leaving these infants to die after a nurse blew the whistle on the hospital. An investigation determined the truth of the allegations, and the Illinois legislature debated on whether infants born alive during abortions should be considered persons and require practitioners to provide care for them. Obama, even with the redundant “neutrality clause” attached to the bill, said no.

Clearly, Obama lied about his position. It’s no small rhetorical matter, either. His vote puts him on the extreme of the pro-abortion camp, so extreme in fact that not a single member of Congress would follow his example. Obama voted to allow Christ Hospital and other facilities performing abortions to allow live children to die.

Monstrous. Monstrous.

S on August 12, 2008 at 5:57 AM

Barack Obama wants to move closer to Catholics, or more accurately, wants Catholics to move closer to him.

Same is said of Satan.

S on August 12, 2008 at 6:03 AM

I remember reading somewhere ( on Hot Air or that nurse’s blog) that Christ Hospital is affiliated with the United Church of Christ, the same ultra liberal denomination that Obama is part of, and that many of the hospital’s board of directors are from Trinity UCC. Since this law was a direct response to the outing of Christ Church, with ties to Trinity UCC, I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t more lurking to this story.

Evil! This is what the mundacity of evil is all about. This is nothing short of utterly profane evil.

S on August 12, 2008 at 6:06 AM

What an absolute piece of garbage Barack Obama is.

Seriously, no matter how many morons vote for this clown this fall, he will never be my President.

Slimeball. The worst of the worst.

The Democrat Party obviously is trying to find the worst possible candidate for elected office and once again they’ve succeeded.

Barack Obama – subhuman sewage.

NoDonkey on August 11, 2008 at 3:35 PM

My sentiments, exactly.
But I also include those so-called “Catholics” who support this subhuman sewage, as they also look the other way about the subhuman sewage issues he is aligned with, as they are, also.

S on August 12, 2008 at 6:17 AM

Never understood how one could be for late term abortion, and even infanticide yet oppose very very late term abortion (aka the death penalty) where the avortee has committed inhuman acts.

Annar on August 12, 2008 at 6:50 AM

Of course, Ed, that’s from the GOP summary of what they expected the amendment to be, not from the official record.

And the 10-0 vote wasn’t seconded.

jim m on August 12, 2008 at 9:19 AM

Of course, Ed, that’s from the GOP summary of what they expected the amendment to be, not from the official record.

And the 10-0 vote wasn’t seconded.

jim m on August 12, 2008 at 9:19 AM

Why the hell are you trying to parse this? We are talking about a group people whom by their vote allow a live baby to be left to DIE on a table! I AM SO FED UP with people like you making equivalencies! Obama is a monster for voting against this and voting against it what…3 times?

And don’t give me crap about using too many exclamation points and caps. If we as human being can’t get outraged by something like this then there is no hope for the future of this country.

MechEng5by5 on August 12, 2008 at 11:06 AM

“Jim m” and other Obama freaks are intellectually dishonest and liars. That’s why they parse and spin. They rarely argue using facts.

marklmail on August 12, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Fact: The official record of the vote shows that the bill was not voted on–something different than the GOP staff analysis version (which was written in part before the meeting).

Fact: The supposed “amendment number one” shown is titled “amendment ___”, not amendment number one, so it’s difficult to trace through the actual amendment.

Fact: The news article doesn’t say anything about the substance of the amendment. Instead, it supports the official version of the record.

Fact: NRLC and Jill Stanek (and Ed Morrisey) have axes to grind and may play fast and loose with the facts.

Enough facts for you?

jim m on August 12, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Infanticide, revisited

* A CHILD OF GOD, IS A GIFT,NOT A CHOICE
* THE HEART OF A MARRIAGE
* THE FOUNDATION OF A FAMILY
* THE FUTURE OF OUR REPUBLIC
* A CITIZEN–WAITING AND WANTING TO BE BORN
* A PERSON
* DESTROY A BABY —
AND YOU DESTROY THE FUTURE

byteshredder on August 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM

Surly, Obama is not a politician who has an aversion to the truth?

Johan Klaus on August 12, 2008 at 7:17 PM

What exactly is a “pre-birth neutrality clause”?
Is that lawyer-ese for “I’m going to support infanticide regardless”?

abcurtis on August 13, 2008 at 7:40 AM

Killing a liveborn baby is not a matter of semantics, it’s simple evil versus good.

Obama wants to bring back partial birth abortions et al and killing infants is just part and parcel of the well financed abortion industry.

Facts?! Everyday is 9/11 in America with 3,000 Americans (babies in this case) slaughtered by fiends.

Mojave Mark on August 13, 2008 at 10:35 AM

Obama’s candidacy needs to be strangled in the crib.

NoDonkey on August 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM

Killing a liveborn baby is not a matter of semantics, it’s simple evil versus good.

EXACTLY!!!

MechEng5by5 on August 13, 2008 at 3:33 PM