Making Sense of the Born Alive Controversy: The Verdict on Obama

Jasph,

You'd be surprised how often Obama defenders repeat Obama's ever-shifting talking points on this issue, without ever actually reading these bills, each of which is just three sentences long. So let me help you out on that.

Here is the original Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, SB1095:

AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows:

(5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section [the bill], the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, 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.

(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.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

[end of text of the 2001 bill]

Obama voted against that bill in committee. On the Senate floor, he was the only senator to speak against it. He said that "whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term." Since the bill undeniably applied only to a "previable fetus" (his term) who had already achieved "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother," this statement clearly demonstrates that Obama holds an extremely expansive scope of Roe v. Wade and the "right to abortion," extending beyond the womb in some circumstances.

Obama found paragraph (c) particularly objectionable (it is referred to as the "immediate protection clause." Nor has Obama changed his mind about this -- in an Obama campaign memo issued to the media on August 19, 2008 -- yes, 2008 -- the Obama campaign characterized clause (c) as "Language Clearly Threatening Roe." Here, again, is that clause -- the clause to which Obama continues to this day to say is inconsistentent with his view of abortion rights: "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."

Please explain, someone, a situation in which that "immediate protection clause" would lead to a result inconsistent with Roe v. Wade. Obama's continued objection to this clause -- a clause that merely reiterated the "born-alive personhood" principle that was at the core of both the federal and state BAIPAs -- undercuts Mr. Waldman's suggestion that Obama has changed his view on the root issue here.

Anyway, the bill shown above passed the Illinois Senate, but died in a House committee. The same thing happened in 2002, with the same bill language (the bill number in 2002 was SB 1662).

By 2003, the Democrats had taken control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became the chairman of the committee to which the reintroduced BAIPA (SB 1082) was referred. On March 13, 2003, Obama presided over a meeting of his committee, at which the "immediate protection clause" was stricken from the bill, and replaced with the "neutrality clause" copied verbatim from the federal BAIPA. At that point, the state BAIPA became virtually identical to the federal BAIPA, which Congress had passed the previous year without a single dissenting vote. Obama then led all his committee's Democrats in voting down the amended bill, killing it, 6-4. Here is the exact text of the bill that Obama killed that day:

** S.B. 1082

AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows: (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section [the bill], the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, 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.

(c) Nothing in this Section [the bill] 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.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

***** [end of text of 2003 bill]

To see the text of the original 2001-2002 Illinois BAIPA, side-by-side with the 2003 version that Obama killed in his committee, so that you can more easily see exactly where one sentence was stricken and replaced with another, go to the very end of this memo:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html

To see the amended 2003 Illlinois BAIPA that Obama killed, side-by-side with the virtually identical language of the federal BAIPA that had been enacted into law in 2002, go here:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html

As Mr. Waldman indicated, Annenberg's FactCheck.org went through the documentation on this and satisfied themselves that these documents we've posted are authentic.

From the time of his 2004 U.S. Senate race, Obama recognized that his actual articulated reason for opposing the Illinois BAIPAs -- that a living, squirming baby entirely outside the mother must not be regarded as a legal person under his vision of Roe v. Wade, if that baby is "previable" and was born during an abortion -- would be very difficult to defend. Therefore, he began to assert, falsely, that the state BAIPA that he had opposed was very different from the federal BAIPA, because (he asserted) only the federal BAIPA had the "neutrality clause." On August 11, 2008, National Right to Life released documents proving that in fact Obama had killed a bill virtually identical to the federal bill, including the exact same "neutrality clause." On August 16, Obama, asked about this by CBN's Dave Brody (in an interview also televised on CNN), responded that NRLC was "lying." A subsequent investigation by Annenberg's FactCheck.org concluded, "Obama's claim is wrong . . . The documents from NRLC support the group's claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082 [the 2003 Illinois BAIPA]."

It is easy for Obama to say now that he "would have" supported the federal bill, since it became law in 2002, before he entered the Senate. But the statement makes no sense, because all of the the objections Obama made to the Illinois BAIPA bills, if they had been valid, would have applied just as much to the federal BAIPA bills. There are dozens of federal laws that deal with abortion. The federal BAIPA applied exactly the same "born alive personhood" principle to all federal laws (including any abortion-related laws that contain any of the defined terms) as the state BAIPA that Obama killed would have applied to all Illinois laws, including homicide laws. The same U.S. Supreme Court constitutional doctrines apply at both levels -- if Obama had been right in asserting that the state BAIPA was unconstitutional (under Roe), then the same objective would have applied to the federal BAIPA. Yet federal BAIPA has now been law for six years, with no constitutional challenges.

The federal BAIPA did not restrict abortion, unless you mean an "abortion" that would be completed outside the mother. And the state BAIPA, which Obama killed, would not have restricted "abortion" either, unless by "abortion" you mean acts committed on infants who were entirely outside their mothers, and alive.

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
Washington, D.C.\
legfederal // at // aol -dot - com
www.nrlc.org

Not for infanticide?

No, he is pro-choice for infanticide. He is probably personally opposed to infanticide, but he wants it to be a viable option for those who really wanted a completed abortion.

Obama and people like him define humanity in more and more limiting ways. The question of viability is nonsense. Technically speaking, a newborn is still completely dependent on caregivers in order to survive. You leave a newborn alone in a room for 5 days with a wallet full of money and a basket of food and water for that time - do you think when you check in after those 5 days you will have a living being?

One of the victims of this procedure lived for an 8-hour nurse's shift. After being alive for 8 hours with no aid except for the warmth of the arms of a nurse, you are telling me that that scrappy human being has no rights to medical care at all?

I think you are playing word-games with the phrase infanticide. When the Greeks left babies to die on hill-sides, was that not infanticide? I had always thought that it was.

One can kill by omitted acts as much as by comitted acts; a fact courts take into consideration in homicide cases all of the time. It sounds to me like this is a matter of not wanting the charge of infanticide to be true, rather than using it consistently.

Complements are due to you: I think this is as judicious a presentation of the question as is humanly possible. I'm a pro-life voter who is going to support Obama despite his great weakness on this issue. I'd like to be more optimistic about his rhetoric about being moderate, but I think you are right to note that at the end of the day he's not going to offend NARAL.

My one question would be about timing. These votes happened while Obama was still in the Illinois State Senate. In the Summer of 2006, I believe, Obama gave a speech on faith and politics where he talked about being upbraided by a pro-life voter for his anti-life rhetoric on his website. His response to that voter's letter was to review the language on his website, and change it on the grounds that the language really was divisive. I don't know that it means much. But it's possible that he is evolving on the issue at least to some small degree, and therefore really wouldn't approach the same bill from the same partisan stance today.

That said, I am pessimistic about Obama on abortion. I'm taking my lumps on it on the grounds that the Republicans really haven't done anything to change the culture. We aren't going to legislate abortion out of existence. And the partisanship and rancor on the issue make it less likely that we will persuade our misguided pro-choice friends that they are wrong. There really needs to be a radical rethinking about how to promote life in this country. The Republican party as presently constituted no longer seems to me to be a good vehicle for that. There needs to be a firm repudiation of Rove and Rovian tactics, for starters. (This is me repenting of having voted for Bush not once, but twice. The price for pro-life 'orthodoxy' has simply become too high. I want the Republicans out of power so that they can regroup and remember that they are fighting for something other than simply retaining power.)

I'm very unimpressed with this analysis.

"Someone who favors weak penalties for crimes may (or may not) make possible more murders. But that doesn't mean he favors murder."

What about someone who favors NO penalties for murders?

This article is trying to be even-handed at the expense of the truth.

aix1825, I see a reason why Palin shouldn't have to answer those questions: because even liberal web sites such as Slate.com have thoroughly debunked the story you refer to. The Slate story is here if you care to read it:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/09/26/debunk-a-bunk.aspx

The idea that Palin has been "shielded" from *anything* by the media is pretty laughable at this point. Especially considering the free pass Obama has gotten from the media not only on this issue but on Rezko, Ayers, Rev. Wright, Fannie/Freddie, etc., etc.

For what it's worth, I appreciate the analysis done here. I think the fact that you have both conservatives and liberals criticizing you is testament to that. Thank you, sincerely, for your willingness to deeply consider such a difficult issue.

What can be said about Obama in general? When the wind blows in one direction, in favor of his party he steps into the wind and goes for the ride. If however it goes against the party, he either argues against it or does nothing letting others take the heat. He is the perfect "the buck never got here" type of senator.
In contrast, I know for a fact that McCain has and still ruffles feathers in his own party. If he disagrees with something no matter what party is pushing it he stands up for what he believes is in the best interest of the voters.

How can you debate anyone when they change their stand on the issues?
How can you say you are for Obama, when most of the time in a rebuttal he states that he agrees with McCain.

Health Care. Obama himself states that as part of his health care plan the Government will closely pursue Preventive care, he hinted at, and if you just look at the shinning lights you would have missed it, that they will then regulate what you need to do to prevent disease. Sound great! however, how many people remember when the Government said with absolute certainty that eggs where evil, and to prevent heart attacks we should reduce our intake of eggs?
I clearly remember that because I was in the Army at the time and eat eggs every day! Now of course they have backed down and claim eggs are not as bad as they lead us to believe. So what about red meat? what about alcohol what about ? When you give a freedom away to anyone, you have to remember it will be abused! What punishment? He did not dare to say, but in his stern voice you could ascertain that it would be fines. How else are they going to pay for it?

Lastly. Taxes and spending. They go hand in hand. For every program the government starts or funds they need to raise money for it. Now we all know that once the government starts something, like the tax on your phone bill to support something from the Civil War, the do not get rid of it. So Think about it They raise the tax on people, including sole proprietors, s Corps, and LLC's that make $250,000 a year or more. I don't know what businesses you work for but every company I worked for made more than $250,000 a year. That includes a small 3 person construction company. So, what do the companies do? Well 1 of 2 things, increase the price you have to pay or lay-off workers. Now We already borrow money from China, so where will the next big spending, extra "gift" to the american people going to come from?

Those who believe this Bill is killing a life. I find it odd, that some are willing to lessen its impact by calling Obamas untruth, a mistake? Yet you seem to be more interested in the tone used,by those who see it as infanticide, then by the act itself?