Obama and the "Born Alive" Act: the facts
(NOTE: This post is from another blog of mine. It was written during the 2008 presidential campaign. Since that blog is soon to be deleted, and since the facts this post relates continue to be misrepresented by both the administration and by the media, I"ve chosen to preserve it by republishing it here.)
One evening in 1999, nurse Jill Stanek of the Labor and Delivery Department of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois had an experience that changed her career- and her life.
Christ Hospital routinely performed second and third-trimester abortions. Particularly favored are what are euphemistically called "induced labor abortions." Premature labor is induced, the baby is born- theoretically before survival is possible- and the baby is simply left to die. In essence, it's passive infanticide, and not really abortion at all.
Hospital guidelines required that the babies be held until they died, and given the "comfort care" of at least a warm blanket. The trouble was that the hospital staff was often too busy. The babies were often simply put in a corner somewhere, and left to die.
One night Jill encountered a colleague who was taking a Down's Syndrome baby she estimated at between 22 and 23 weeks gestation- 24 weeks is generally considered the threshhold for more than a minimal chance of survival- to a soiled linen closet, where she intended to leave him to die, alone and uncared for. Jill couldn't bear the thought. So she held and cradled the baby for the 45 minutes it took for him to die.
Understandably shaken by the experience, she mentioned it to her fellow nurses. They began to tell her about shattering experiences of their own: a baby aborted because of presumed spina bifida, born prematurely (by design) but alive- with its spine intact- and left to die; a baby born by induced labor at more than 23 weeks, neglected to death (despite showing early signs of thriving, only "comfort care" was given her, and she expired); a baby left to die even though it was born weighing two pounds, and might have had a fighting chance at life if given any help; and- infamously- an infant left to die, wrapped only in a disposable towel, on the counter of a dirty linen closet. Initially, this living baby had been- accidentally, it should be said- literally thrown into the garbage. While the trash was being searched for the child, it fell out of the towel in which onto the floor. From there, it was taken to the linen closet, and abandoned.
Jill Stanek began to agitate for changes to the law to protect these babies. Remember, we aren't talking about abortion per se; these children had already been born alive. Stanek's position was that if they had even a fighting chance to survive, they should be given every bit of medical help available- and if they didn't, they should at least be given palliative care, and never, ever simply abandoned to die alone.
When she approached the administration of Christ Hospital, it refused to change its policies. She took her case to Congress and to the Illinois Legislature. Eventually, Christ Hospital fired her for her outspoken opposition to its barbaric policies.
Now, here is a key point, which both the Obama campaign and its water-carriers in the media have managed to totally ignore: attempts to prosecute the doctors involved and the administration of Christ Hospital failed, because the 1975 Illinois Abortion Law protected only "viable" infants- and the sole criterion of viability, literally regardless of the medical facts, was the stated opinion of the abortionist!
If, as in the case of the babies Jill Stanek and her co-workers watched die, they had been born as a result of induced-labor abortion with the express intent of killng them, the law did not apply if the individuals who had deliberately induced premature labor in order to kill them simply opted not to regard them as "viable."
It seems incredible that the Obama campaign has gotten away with claiming that a law with a loophole that large already protected babies who were born alive with the express intention of subjecting them to passive infanticide. It is even more incredible that the media have allowed the Obama campaign to get away with it. But such is the case.
No baby with a fighting chance at survival- or even a greater than fighting chance- was protected by the 1975 law if a doctor, having induced premature labor for the purpose of killing the child, decided that the child wasn't viable. Or, more to the point, if the doctor presiding at a child's live birth in Illinois decided that the child wasn't viable, it could be abandoned and allowed to die with absolutely no legal consequences!
One product of Jill's efforts was a Federal law, the 2002 Born Alive Federal Infants Protection Act, which unanimously passed both houses of Congress. No member of Congress in either House, no matter how strongly pro-choice, opposed it. In fact, even NARAL did not object to it (though its statement to that effect has been deleted from its website!).
But regulations of this kind are, after all, finally a matter of state, not Federal, law. Naturally, in Illinois- the state where Christ Hospital is located- an effort was made to introduce one that would offer the protection the 1975 law patently did not to children born alive whose doctors, having set out to perform the equivalent of an abortion, simply decided to declare them non-viable, and let them die.
In 2003, the Illinois Born Alive Act was introduced. It would have required a second opinion as to the viability of an infant before it could be subjected to passive infanticide. State Sen. Barack Obama opposed it. His argument, given on the floor of the Illinois Senate, was that requiring a second opinion placed an "undue burden" on the doctor and, indirectly, on the choice of the mother to abort- even though, by the very terms of the situation the bill dealt with, the baby had in fact already been born- and passive infanticide, not abortion, was the issue!
Obama's campaign insists that his actual concern was that the law would have undermined Roe v. Wade, and that he would have voted in favor of the bill if it had contained a provision similar to that in the Federal law.
Even though FactCheck.org misses the critical point that the Illinois Attorney General had declined to prosecute in the case of Christ Hospital- that the 1975 Illinois law was, as a practical matter, unenforcable if the doctor simply decided to consider the baby non-viable- it does note that on September 13, Obama joined his collegues on the Senate Health and Human Services Committee in adopting an amendment to the bill which in fact inserted language almost identical to that of the Federal bill.
This is the Federal language, which Obama says he would have voted for:
This is the language of the Illinois bill, as amended- which Obama says he feared would still compromise Roe:
If Obama "would have" voted for the law if it had contained such a provision, why didn't he- after his own committee had unanimously inserted that language into the Illnois bill-and with his support? Is Mr. Obama in the habit of voting for amendments to bills in a state of unconsciousness such that he is unable to later recall having done so?
Does he suffer from such fugue states often? If so, shouldn't the voters know about it? After all, who knows what he might do as president in a mental state such that he would be unable to recall it later!
The wording of the section protecting Roe is identical; the wording of the section defining "born alive" in the Federal bill is actually more restrictive than that in the Illinois bill! Furthermore, the Illinois language specified that, in order to be protected, a baby would have actually had to have been born alive. The law could not have been used as a cat's paw with which to overturn Roe, because it excluded fetuses in utero!
And does he seriously believe that his assurance that a law protecting infants with a fighting chance of survival was "on the books" bears examination, given that the law in question- the 1975 Illinois Abortion Law- had been held by the state's Attorney General to be unenforcable in the case of Christ Hospital- protecting, as it did, no child, regardless of the actual medical facts, the abortionist decided wasn't viable?
Sen Obama's website continues to repeat these distortions of the truth to this very day. It should be noted that he has changed his explaination for his vote, and seems to suggest that somehow the language of the Illinois bill, as amended, didn't really mean what it said.
So there are the facts. The mainstream media has carefully finessed the unenforcable character of existing Illinois law supposedly protecting "viable" infants (while leaving any child- no matter what the facts of the case might be- unprotected if the "medical judgment" of the doctor said that it is not viable). While occasionally acknowledging that Obama did, in fact, vote against a bill providing the same protections for Roe v. Wade as the Federal law,(in fact, he did so immediately after his own committee had inserted that very language into the bill!), it has utterly failed to hold him accountable for continuing to insist that he would have voted for the bill if it had contained language which it did, in fact, contain when he voted against it.
But then, this is Barack Obama. The MSM will let him get away with pretty much anything, it seems.
Here is a studiously balanced analysis of the controversy from Steven Waldman of Beliefnet.
One evening in 1999, nurse Jill Stanek of the Labor and Delivery Department of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois had an experience that changed her career- and her life.
Christ Hospital routinely performed second and third-trimester abortions. Particularly favored are what are euphemistically called "induced labor abortions." Premature labor is induced, the baby is born- theoretically before survival is possible- and the baby is simply left to die. In essence, it's passive infanticide, and not really abortion at all.
Hospital guidelines required that the babies be held until they died, and given the "comfort care" of at least a warm blanket. The trouble was that the hospital staff was often too busy. The babies were often simply put in a corner somewhere, and left to die.
One night Jill encountered a colleague who was taking a Down's Syndrome baby she estimated at between 22 and 23 weeks gestation- 24 weeks is generally considered the threshhold for more than a minimal chance of survival- to a soiled linen closet, where she intended to leave him to die, alone and uncared for. Jill couldn't bear the thought. So she held and cradled the baby for the 45 minutes it took for him to die.
Understandably shaken by the experience, she mentioned it to her fellow nurses. They began to tell her about shattering experiences of their own: a baby aborted because of presumed spina bifida, born prematurely (by design) but alive- with its spine intact- and left to die; a baby born by induced labor at more than 23 weeks, neglected to death (despite showing early signs of thriving, only "comfort care" was given her, and she expired); a baby left to die even though it was born weighing two pounds, and might have had a fighting chance at life if given any help; and- infamously- an infant left to die, wrapped only in a disposable towel, on the counter of a dirty linen closet. Initially, this living baby had been- accidentally, it should be said- literally thrown into the garbage. While the trash was being searched for the child, it fell out of the towel in which onto the floor. From there, it was taken to the linen closet, and abandoned.
Jill Stanek began to agitate for changes to the law to protect these babies. Remember, we aren't talking about abortion per se; these children had already been born alive. Stanek's position was that if they had even a fighting chance to survive, they should be given every bit of medical help available- and if they didn't, they should at least be given palliative care, and never, ever simply abandoned to die alone.
When she approached the administration of Christ Hospital, it refused to change its policies. She took her case to Congress and to the Illinois Legislature. Eventually, Christ Hospital fired her for her outspoken opposition to its barbaric policies.
Now, here is a key point, which both the Obama campaign and its water-carriers in the media have managed to totally ignore: attempts to prosecute the doctors involved and the administration of Christ Hospital failed, because the 1975 Illinois Abortion Law protected only "viable" infants- and the sole criterion of viability, literally regardless of the medical facts, was the stated opinion of the abortionist!
If, as in the case of the babies Jill Stanek and her co-workers watched die, they had been born as a result of induced-labor abortion with the express intent of killng them, the law did not apply if the individuals who had deliberately induced premature labor in order to kill them simply opted not to regard them as "viable."
It seems incredible that the Obama campaign has gotten away with claiming that a law with a loophole that large already protected babies who were born alive with the express intention of subjecting them to passive infanticide. It is even more incredible that the media have allowed the Obama campaign to get away with it. But such is the case.
No baby with a fighting chance at survival- or even a greater than fighting chance- was protected by the 1975 law if a doctor, having induced premature labor for the purpose of killing the child, decided that the child wasn't viable. Or, more to the point, if the doctor presiding at a child's live birth in Illinois decided that the child wasn't viable, it could be abandoned and allowed to die with absolutely no legal consequences!
One product of Jill's efforts was a Federal law, the 2002 Born Alive Federal Infants Protection Act, which unanimously passed both houses of Congress. No member of Congress in either House, no matter how strongly pro-choice, opposed it. In fact, even NARAL did not object to it (though its statement to that effect has been deleted from its website!).
But regulations of this kind are, after all, finally a matter of state, not Federal, law. Naturally, in Illinois- the state where Christ Hospital is located- an effort was made to introduce one that would offer the protection the 1975 law patently did not to children born alive whose doctors, having set out to perform the equivalent of an abortion, simply decided to declare them non-viable, and let them die.
In 2003, the Illinois Born Alive Act was introduced. It would have required a second opinion as to the viability of an infant before it could be subjected to passive infanticide. State Sen. Barack Obama opposed it. His argument, given on the floor of the Illinois Senate, was that requiring a second opinion placed an "undue burden" on the doctor and, indirectly, on the choice of the mother to abort- even though, by the very terms of the situation the bill dealt with, the baby had in fact already been born- and passive infanticide, not abortion, was the issue!
Obama's campaign insists that his actual concern was that the law would have undermined Roe v. Wade, and that he would have voted in favor of the bill if it had contained a provision similar to that in the Federal law.
Even though FactCheck.org misses the critical point that the Illinois Attorney General had declined to prosecute in the case of Christ Hospital- that the 1975 Illinois law was, as a practical matter, unenforcable if the doctor simply decided to consider the baby non-viable- it does note that on September 13, Obama joined his collegues on the Senate Health and Human Services Committee in adopting an amendment to the bill which in fact inserted language almost identical to that of the Federal bill.
This is the Federal language, which Obama says he would have voted for:
(b) As used in this section, the term ''born alive'', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such 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.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ''born alive'' as defined in this section.
This is the language of the Illinois bill, as amended- which Obama says he feared would still compromise Roe:
(c) 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.
(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section.
If Obama "would have" voted for the law if it had contained such a provision, why didn't he- after his own committee had unanimously inserted that language into the Illnois bill-and with his support? Is Mr. Obama in the habit of voting for amendments to bills in a state of unconsciousness such that he is unable to later recall having done so?
Does he suffer from such fugue states often? If so, shouldn't the voters know about it? After all, who knows what he might do as president in a mental state such that he would be unable to recall it later!
The wording of the section protecting Roe is identical; the wording of the section defining "born alive" in the Federal bill is actually more restrictive than that in the Illinois bill! Furthermore, the Illinois language specified that, in order to be protected, a baby would have actually had to have been born alive. The law could not have been used as a cat's paw with which to overturn Roe, because it excluded fetuses in utero!
And does he seriously believe that his assurance that a law protecting infants with a fighting chance of survival was "on the books" bears examination, given that the law in question- the 1975 Illinois Abortion Law- had been held by the state's Attorney General to be unenforcable in the case of Christ Hospital- protecting, as it did, no child, regardless of the actual medical facts, the abortionist decided wasn't viable?
Sen Obama's website continues to repeat these distortions of the truth to this very day. It should be noted that he has changed his explaination for his vote, and seems to suggest that somehow the language of the Illinois bill, as amended, didn't really mean what it said.
So there are the facts. The mainstream media has carefully finessed the unenforcable character of existing Illinois law supposedly protecting "viable" infants (while leaving any child- no matter what the facts of the case might be- unprotected if the "medical judgment" of the doctor said that it is not viable). While occasionally acknowledging that Obama did, in fact, vote against a bill providing the same protections for Roe v. Wade as the Federal law,(in fact, he did so immediately after his own committee had inserted that very language into the bill!), it has utterly failed to hold him accountable for continuing to insist that he would have voted for the bill if it had contained language which it did, in fact, contain when he voted against it.
But then, this is Barack Obama. The MSM will let him get away with pretty much anything, it seems.
Here is a studiously balanced analysis of the controversy from Steven Waldman of Beliefnet.
Comments