FLASHBACK! Barack Obama Supports Infanticide

Yahoo voices - FLASHBACK!... On March 30, 2001, Barack Obama stood on the Illinois Senate floor as the only opponent to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Essentially the bill stated that if a child were born alive due to a botched abortion, a doctor would be called in to care for the child. It was a straightforward bill, allowing doctors the opportunity to take a viable baby into care and give the child the opportunity at life.

However, Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, claimed the bill would be unconstitutional. "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. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional." Put simply, since the viable baby was born alive due to a botched abortion, then the child would still be referred to as a "fetus." And under abortion statutes, fetuses do not have the right to life.

So what becomes of these children born due to botched abortions? According to nurse Jill Stanek of Chicago's Christ Hospital, she discovered the "fetuses" in a Soiled Linens Utility Room, left to die. Unable to stomach the thought of these babies dying in misery in something little more than a garbage dump, Stanek lobbied hard to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. She appeared before the Illinois Senate Judiciary committee and told them of her experiences with the viable babies.

In response to Ms. Stanek's testimony, Christ Hospital opened a Comfort Room. Nurses, should they wish, could bring the born alive fetuses to the comfort room and rock them and care for them until they died. Stanek claims that even though the hospital made abortions "prettier" it did nothing to disguise the fact that the end result would still be dead babies that could have been saved.

In 2002, Barack Obama sent this response to Stanek regarding her lobby for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as it came up for a vote again. "Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your dismay at the lack of regard for human life. I agreed with you last year, and we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetuses are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them."

Talk about history being rewritten. Obama had nothing to do with the Comfort Rooms. That was the hospital's response to Stanek's testimony. He also did not agree with anything she said, and particularly because he said, "What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that."

In 2005, after Obama was out of the state senate, the bill passed easily.

The Double Talk of Barack Obama
There are a number of things Obama has backtracked on in his views on abortion. But one thing is clear: he has never admitted he made a mistake. This is a red flag to many pro-life advocates. Even if Obama softens his approach to abortion, he is still a very strong pro-abortionist.

As previously mentioned, Obama backtracked on his views of the "comfort room." In fact, he had nothing to do with the establishment of comfort rooms. This was introduced by Christ Hospital in response to Jill Stanek and the bad press surrounding the live birth abortions.

In 2001, after all the heat and firm opposition to the bill, Obama simply voted "present" instead of "no" to the bill. Hillary Clinton used this vote as one of many "indecisive" votes he had cast in an effort to paint him as an ineffectual leader. One has to wonder if she has a point.

The Born Alive Infant Protection Act came before the Obama-chaired committee in 2003 and was not even allowed to the floor for a vote.

Obama has claimed that had he been presented with the federal version of the 2002 bill, he would have voted for it. But this is most likely a diversion tactic. The 2002 federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was startling similar to the 2003 version presented to his committee and summarily rejected.

Obama's camp is also trying to claim that he would have voted for the measure had the bill been considered separately and not "bundled" with other bills. This is blatantly untrue. Each time the Born Alive Infant Protection Act came up it was considered individually and was even assigned a separate bill number.

Another smoke-and-mirrors tactic is Obama's attempt to turn the ugly truth of infanticide into the more palatable abortion. By claiming that live birth abortions are an extension of the woman's right to choose, he sees no problems with viable infants being left to die in dark rooms. This is simple infanticide. If a baby is born viable, according to the definition of fetus, then that child cannot be considered a "fetus." Merriam Webster defines a fetus as "an unborn ... a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth." Birth is described as the end of fetal status.

Obama has also tried to put this back on the doctors claiming that it would be "burdensome" for doctors to have to attempt life-saving measures for the infants. He also ventures to claim that the purpose of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would ultimately undermine the abortion rights as doctors may feel the need to resuscitate non-viable (dead) fetuses.

Lastly, Obama has tried to turn this into a religious debate. By claiming that he cannot make this about "religious" motives, he supports his views of infanticide. He claims that he cannot point to his "religious views" in order to undermine the law. Jill Stanek recalls that in all her lobbying and testimony she never once brought up faith or religion. Alan Keyes, when running against Obama for senate, did say that Jesus would not vote for Barack Obama because, "We are talking about a situation in which, in the course of an abortion procedure, a child has been born alive - is out of the womb, breathing and living on its own - and he cast a vote against the idea that we should not stand by and let that child die!" However, when no other lawmakers stood by Obama in opposition to the bill, it was very clearly not a matter of religion versus law but of humanity.

What this Means for Barack Obama's Campaign
Unfortunately, this issue is being swept under the proverbial rug. Attempts to "soften" Obama's radical image are underway and successful. Voters, both Democrat and Republican, conservative or not, need to be fully aware of the man they vote for. The slope from infanticide is a slippery one. One cannot help but draw comparisons to Hitler's Germany. Once it was "okay" to deny the weak, the mentally ill, the unwanted to die without medical help then it was "okay" to go ahead and just "euthanize" them.

If our society, or specifically our chosen leader, is unwilling to protect the weakest of our people,what audacity of hope do we really have for the future?

Sources:
http://lifenews.com/nat4111.html
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11799
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm
FoxNews, 8/21/2008