Obama’s Unfailing Opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act

Posted on August 19, 2008. Filed under: Past Policy Voting Tendencies (Or Lack of Voting) |

Obama lacks any real political voting record by which to judge him. He conveniently voted “present” 130 times during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate on controversial issues in order to keep his record clean of any divisive stances. There is one issue, however, that he has never failed to consistently support and that issue is abortion. This is proven by his 100% approval by the pro-abortion group the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the constant endorsement he has enjoyed from Planned Parenthood throughout his political career. A look at the bills he has either voted in favor of, or opposed throughout his political career shows how extreme his views are when it comes to the question on the right to end a young human being’s life.

The most disturbing of his past voting record is his utter refusal to support a proposed Illinois state bill and later a US Senate bill that would have required medical care be given to babies that survived an attempted abortion. Illinois nurse, Jill Stanek, testified to the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee about a heart wrenching story of one such baby that would have benefited from this bill. David Freddeso gives a good account of the events in his book, The Case Against Barak Obama. Nurse Stanek worked at Christ Hospital, in the southwestern Chicago area. She testified about an “induced labor abortion” that she encountered which changed her life and has since caused her to speak out publically about the current status quo.  In this type of abortion, basically, during the second trimester, the doctor administers drugs to induce labor with the purpose of killing the premature baby with the force of the contractions. However, the death of the infant is not a guarantee, as Nurse Stanek’s testimony proves.

 In the case she was testifying specifically about, the child was diagnosed with Down syndrome while in the womb and the parents decided to terminate the pregnancy. The doctor performed the induced labor abortion but the child survived and was delivered premature, but most importantly, the child was alive. This was a child that had successfully lived outside of the mother’s womb; however, since he was premature his lungs were not fully developed so he could not breathe on his own.  

The parents did not want anything to do with the child. They did not want to look at him and they definitely did not want to hold him. Stanek’s friend, also a nurse, assisted with the actual procedure and was instructed to place the baby in a soiled linen closet to die alone. (It must be noted that the hospital denies that the nurse was given these instructions.) When Nurse Stanek heard, she went to the baby, held him, and rocked him for the brief 45 minutes he lived while fighting for air that his underdeveloped lungs were not able to give him. She said the infant barely moved and definitely did not cry but he was still alive and left to die alone amongst the soiled linens.

After Stanek’s crusade, there were three bills brought before the Illinois Senate. The main bill of importance was Senate bill 1095, dubbed the “Born-Alive Infant Protection Act” in many circles. The wording of this bill was very careful to not restrict anyone’s choice or timeframe which they could have an abortion. It only mandated that infants that were alive upon exit of the mother’s womb receive the medical care they required. Basically, it was saying no baby should be left to die after it has been delivered alive. Obama was the only senator to speak on the floor against the bill. (A transcript of his speech on the Illinois Senate floor can be found here:  http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf) (Obama’s remarks begin on page 84.) (Audio of his speech can be found at www.redstate.com)

 After Obama was the only senator to speak on the floor against the bill, he must not have wanted to also be the only senator to vote against the bill. He ended up officially voting “present” in a move that was decided between he and lobbyists from Planned Parenthood. In the Illinois legislature, a vote of “present” has the same effect as a “no” vote on an issue. However, by voting “present,” Obama, and the other 11 Illinois senators that voted “present,” could keep his hands from getting dirty while handling sticky political issues. A method he used repeatedly throughout his legislative career.  After passing the Senate, the bill eventually died in Illinois State House of Representatives.

That was not the end of this bill. It was resurrected in 2002 with three new pieces of legislation containing essentially the same wording aimed at ending the same atrocity. Obama voted against the two bills that came up for vote. Once again, Obama was the only senator to speak on the floor against the cause of providing medical care to infants that survived abortion attempts and were, essentially, born premature and left to die.

As if this wasn’t enough to cement his position on this issue, Freddoso writes that the same time Obama was making his first speech against the Illinois bill, a bill with the exact same wording except for a section that further explained it would in no way infringe on abortion rights was being debated in the US Senate. Barbara Boxer, the Democrat senator from California, who shares Obama’s 100% approval rating from NARAL, spoke favorably of this bill and it was passed 98 votes to 0 in the US Senate. Two years later in 2003 the bill would come to now US Senator Obama’s healthcare committee where he would effectively bury it in committee, killing any chance of it becoming law. He was quoted in the Chicago Tribune as saying if he would have been a US Senator two years prior that he would have voted for the bill. This is a hard claim to believe in light of his unwillingness to support the same versions of the bill both times they came before him in the Illinois State Senate and being the only senator to give speeches from the senate floor opposing the bills.

What was the objection Obama had that made him opposed to a bill that even liberal Senator Boxer was endorsing? In his book, Audacity of Hope, Obama writes, “It mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies (the bill didn’t mention such measures were already the law) – but also extended “personhood” to pre-viable fetuses, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade.” This is also a hard claim to believe. Had this been an anti-abortion bill, Senator Boxer would have definitely recognized the veiled effort and withdrawn her support. One doesn’t get a 100% approval rating from NARAL without being sure what is and what isn’t considered pro-abortion legislation.

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is not a partisan end-around with the purpose of destroying abortion rights in the US. It was a bill that called upon people to act in a humane fashion to help the most vulnerable members in our society, infants requiring medical care after being born into this world. B. Hussein Obama has blocked this bill three times in his political career. Twice, he was the only legislator to go on record and oppose the bill from the floor of the Illinois State Senate. He didn’t even have the moral honesty to come out and vote “no” to the bill he so opposed. He took a coward’s way out to bow to the abortion-rights crowd by voting “present” which is the equivalent of a “no.”

Turning a blind eye and actually explicitly supporting from the State Senate floor the practice of allowing infants to die alone instead of receiving medical care takes a very callous human being. When speaking of “hope” and “change,” it is doubtful the unborn are considered part of this plan. With infanticide presently occurring in the United States, there is plenty of reason to hope for change. Unfortunately, Senator Obama is more concerned with his ratings and political support from extreme organizations to allow a hint of humanity or a glimpse of consciousness to affect his policies.

This is the same senator that voted against stricter penalties for gang members convicted of gun crimes while in the Illinois State Senate. He also voted in the Illinois Senate against making it a parole violation for convicted gang members to associate with known gang affiliates upon release from prison. Recently, Obama was disappointed that any of the Supreme Court Justices would vote to allow the death penalty for child rapists. When these decisions are viewed in light of his opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, the question becomes; Are we really comfortable with a president that would only throw his hat in the ring to help gang members and child rapists, while he is aware, and in support, of infants being left alone to die in the hospitals sworn to help them?


Make a Comment

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

One Response to “Obama’s Unfailing Opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act”

RSS Feed for Anti-Obamassiah Refuge: Sanctuary for the endangered but growing domestic population of Obama criticism Comments RSS Feed

Thank you so much for this post.I’ve been hitting dead ends in trying to get people to read the Obama transcripts or watch his video (of which there are several on his “pro-life” position).
I just don’t get it. Why won’t middle America open it’s eyes???? It’s seems that celebrity endorsement is more important than the issues that need addressed.
How can that empy suit, Obama, and his clueless running mate, Biden, get by with telling so many nontruths. They tell whatever group of people that is adoring them at the moment what they want to hear. Isn’t this called being a shyster?
Biden danced around the matter of coal use at his debate with Palin. The record clearly shows that Obama/Biden are no friends to the coal industry, for example. Yet, somehow, Obama has convinced the UMWA president to endorse him. WV politics are corrupt and have been for many, many years. If would come as no surprise to me if the biggun’s at the top of the UMWA were getting a little thank you gift (also known as lining the pockets of friends) to endorse the Democratic ticket. Here comes the trouble. The huge majority of miners will not do their research. Nah…they will follow blindly along alike ship to slaughter. Totally oblivious that a vote for Obama could cost them jobs. I’m just sickened by this whole mess.
It’s time for the mass media to tell THE TRUTH for a change!

Where's The Comment Form?


    Is this really a new type of politician? Or is the Obama machine just using politics as usual in their campaign?


    Subscribe Via RSS

    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Add your feed to Newsburst from CNET News.com
    • Subscribe in Google Reader
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • The latest comments to all posts in RSS


Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: