When it comes to protecting babies born alive after failed abortions, Barack Obama has been brazenly dishonest about his position.
First, some background: Following Roe v. Wade, such babies – right up to their due date and beyond, so long as they were in the womb when the abortion procedure began – were considered not to have the same rights as other babies. Thus, they were left to die instead of being fed and given medical care and allowed a chance to live. They finally received protection a few years ago when the federal government passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA).
Prior to BAIPA, the Illinois state government considered a similar bill in 2001. Called the Induced Infant Liability Act, it would have specifically protected babies born alive after late-term abortions in which labor was induced with the goal of them not surviving through to delivery. Obama, an Illinois state senator at the time, voted against it.
In 2003, the bill (still waiting to become law) was referred to the Illinois Health and Human Services Committee. Obama was that committee’s chairman. Some references say he prevented the bill from coming to a vote; others say it came to a vote, but was defeated with Obama casting the decisive “no.”
Regardless of which 2003 account is technically accurate, Obama has affirmed his opposition to the Induced Infant Liability Act and has acknowledged that he acted to kill it. More than once since becoming a national figure, he has responded to questions about the situation by saying he opposed the bill because it lacked “neutrality language” that would have ensured it had no impact on Roe v. Wade; i.e., he has claimed he wanted to make sure the bill would not protect babies still in the womb.
The problem for Obama is that the bill did contain neutrality language that accomplished exactly what he claims needed to be accomplished. The language was added to the bill when it went to his committee in 2003, specifically to address that concern. As committee chairman, Obama had to know the language was added...or else he was derelict in his duties, especially when you consider how important he says such language was.
Last month, less than 24 hours after Obama said on NBC that his critics were “lying” about this matter, his campaign quietly issued a press release admitting that Obama’s critics were being truthful and Obama was not. But they did so on a Sunday night, when it’s known that nobody watches the news, and the MSM scarcely mentioned it.
It is worth noting that the neutrality language in the Induced Infant Liability Act protected Roe just the same as the neutrality language in the federal BAIPA, which was supported even by the National Abortion Rights Action League. It is also worth noting that the Senate passed BAIPA by a vote of 98-0 and Congress by a vote of 380-15. So it’s hard to imagine how Obama's stance could be called anything other than extreme. No wonder he lied about it.
First, some background: Following Roe v. Wade, such babies – right up to their due date and beyond, so long as they were in the womb when the abortion procedure began – were considered not to have the same rights as other babies. Thus, they were left to die instead of being fed and given medical care and allowed a chance to live. They finally received protection a few years ago when the federal government passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA).
Prior to BAIPA, the Illinois state government considered a similar bill in 2001. Called the Induced Infant Liability Act, it would have specifically protected babies born alive after late-term abortions in which labor was induced with the goal of them not surviving through to delivery. Obama, an Illinois state senator at the time, voted against it.
In 2003, the bill (still waiting to become law) was referred to the Illinois Health and Human Services Committee. Obama was that committee’s chairman. Some references say he prevented the bill from coming to a vote; others say it came to a vote, but was defeated with Obama casting the decisive “no.”
Regardless of which 2003 account is technically accurate, Obama has affirmed his opposition to the Induced Infant Liability Act and has acknowledged that he acted to kill it. More than once since becoming a national figure, he has responded to questions about the situation by saying he opposed the bill because it lacked “neutrality language” that would have ensured it had no impact on Roe v. Wade; i.e., he has claimed he wanted to make sure the bill would not protect babies still in the womb.
The problem for Obama is that the bill did contain neutrality language that accomplished exactly what he claims needed to be accomplished. The language was added to the bill when it went to his committee in 2003, specifically to address that concern. As committee chairman, Obama had to know the language was added...or else he was derelict in his duties, especially when you consider how important he says such language was.
Last month, less than 24 hours after Obama said on NBC that his critics were “lying” about this matter, his campaign quietly issued a press release admitting that Obama’s critics were being truthful and Obama was not. But they did so on a Sunday night, when it’s known that nobody watches the news, and the MSM scarcely mentioned it.
It is worth noting that the neutrality language in the Induced Infant Liability Act protected Roe just the same as the neutrality language in the federal BAIPA, which was supported even by the National Abortion Rights Action League. It is also worth noting that the Senate passed BAIPA by a vote of 98-0 and Congress by a vote of 380-15. So it’s hard to imagine how Obama's stance could be called anything other than extreme. No wonder he lied about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment