Do we want a President who sees nothing wrong with leaving live babies out to die?

[Sharon in SC]

You're not *taking* a life by not taking extreme measures. We allow people who would otherwise live healthy, productive lives to die in this country *every day* due to lack of health insurance. The argument is not allow the child to live v. kill the child. The question is how far do you go to unnaturally prolong life? And I have seen families have to make this decision. I know how heartbreaking it is. Let's not pretend I'm eating babies for breakfast just because I don't agree we should take *every possible* measure to save *every* micropreemie.

 

For me, though, the issue at hand (based on the link provided by the OP which sparked this discussion) was babies who had been born alive as a result of an attempted abortion. Period. I did not read the issue as a call to "take every possible measure to save every micropreemie." The primary question to me is, in this issue - "Is a child born alive despite the mother's attempt to end his/her life entitled to basic human rights (versus being discarded in the materials waste bin)?" I tear up as I type this - the *only* reasonable answer is a resounding YES.

[kokotg]

OK, I've researched this issue and this is what comes across as truth. The Huffingtonpost.com article states that "The Illinois and federal bills differed not only in language, but regulatory impact." But if you go to the link that compares them side by side, you can see that just isn't true. They were, in essence, the very same bill - one written for the Federal level and one written for the State of Illinois. This article was the most inflammatory and emotional-filled, reactionary article I read today. The use of the word "smear" seems inappropriate when you are referring to people just laying out the facts which were taken directly from the public record.

 

The National Review article posted by Momof7 lacks an emotional, reactionary tone in its language. It is a straightforward, down-the-line, discussion of the whole issue. I do not see it as an effort to "smear," but rather an objective presentation of the facts regarding how Senator Obama voted on this issue during his years as an Illinois senator. It provides many links to the original language of the bills, the voting record and other completely neutral documents. It reveals that Obama did indeed vote against a bill that would protect live babies that survive attempts at aborting them. He voted against protecting them three different times.

 

The HumanEvents.com article is even more convincing that Obama voted against the bill that would protect these living babies.

 

The definition of infanticide is the killing of a baby in its first year of life. I am pro-life, obviously, so to me killing an unborn baby is murder, but I guess technically it could not be called infanticide. Infanticide is a term reserved for the killing of an already born, living outside the womb, baby. Since Barack Obama has no problem allowing mothers to abort babies that could live if they received medical help as well as supports the idea of just letting living aborted babies die without any intervention to keep them alive, I would have to say that Obama believes that infanticide is acceptable.

 

It's my understanding that Obama took issue not with the language of that part of the bill, but with the fact that it was being bundled with other legislation. I'm having a difficult time unraveling it all myself. The Huffington Post makes mention of this attached legislation (that is an addition to the what was passed as a federal bill) and Obama seems to reference it in his defense as well. The National Review article makes no mention of it whatsoever (even to refute its existence or relevance, which makes me suspicious), and its primary argument seems to be first to aver that the state legislation is identical to the federal legislation and, then, taking this premise as undisputed fact, launch a defense of the federal legislation (which Obama did not get to vote on and says he would have voted for). Now, all of that said, neither the National Review nor Huffington Post is an unbiased source--neither even claims to be. My bias is with Huffington Post, and I'm finding some serious flaws in the National Review article, but I also wish the HuffPost one were more well documented about the additional legislation they say was attached to the bill.

[Sharon in SC]

But I would still rather err on the side of life than death.

 

This is exactly what it boils down to for me.

[Sharon in SC]

Did anyone catch Hannity & Colmes last night? I experienced de ja vue. They discussed the very issue we've hashed out here - Obama's position as the only democratic senator in Illinois to take a stand against this bill that would have protected the rights of a child born alive as the result of a botched abortion attempt. It would seem that what Kathleen linked us to was not innacurate. The only point Colmes attempted to make, unconvincingly in my opinion in the face of what the opposing counsel presented, was that he (Obama) was taking a stand against it "because it did not line up with the federal mandate". I understand this is just another media's presentation of what is becoming a highly debated topic but thought I'd share it as trivia for the day. :-)

[kokotg]

...and, incidentally, it seems strange to me that Obama would just invent the idea that there was additional legislation attached out of whole cloth. It's a very easy thing to disprove (apparently not by me...but I haven't seen anyone TRY to disprove it, just to ignore this part of his argument) if he's making it up, AND he doesn't really need it anyway, since the other part of his argument is that it was a redundant bill since there was already a law in Illinois protecting these same babies. This is another fact that all the attacks on Obama on this issue that I've read fail to address.

[8filltheheart]

A copy of the bill that was voted on is posted elsewhere on this board. There was no attached legislation in the senate document.

 

Obama is now stating that he would not have voted for it, not b/c of attached legislation, but b/c it did not include the other 2 clauses which are in the Huffington post. (does not override other state laws and not alter current medical practices)

 

The fact remains that he has stated since 2004 that he would have voted on a bill identical to the federal bill which stated

© 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.

 

He voted to allow the amendment including the above language and voted against the bill in committee.

[kokotg]

The LINK that's been posted shows nearly identical language. It does not show that it wasn't bundled with additional legislation. It shows what it wants to show. I've only read in conservative-leaning sources that Obama's defense is that the clause was not there. The link on the first page to the interview in which Obama himself speaks in his defense mentions only the attached legislation and the fact that it was a duplicate law.

[8filltheheart]

SENATE REPUBLICAN STAFF ANALYSIS

93rd General Assembly - Spring 2003

 

SENATE BILL NO. 1082

 

SPONSOR: Winkel

 

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE House:

House Vote:

STAFF: Brock Willeford (524-1588) Administration Bill: No

 

DATE: 3/10/03 REVISED: 3/13/03

 

Fiscal Impact or Mandate: None

 

-------------------------------------SPECIAL COMMENTS:--------------------------------------------------------

“Born Alive Infant†definition and other protections

 

EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediate

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE VOTE: Do Pass As Amended

4-YES 6-NO 0-PRESENT

OBAMA, CH N RIGHTER, MS Y

HUNTER, VC N Radogno Y

Crotty N Syverson Y

Garrett N Wojcik Y

Martinez

Ronen N

Schoenberg N

 

(5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

SYNOPSIS: SB 1082 amends the Statute on Statutes to define “born alive infantâ€.

SB 1082 provides that interpreting any statute, rule, or regulation, the words “personâ€, “human beingâ€, “childâ€, and “individual†include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. SB 1082 provides that 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.

 

BACKGROUND: SB 1082 is in response to instances at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn where abortions resulted in living infants who were then allowed to die without medical or comfort care. Language similar to HB 1082 has passed the United States House of Representatives.

 

SB 1662 (O’Malley/Winkel, 92nd GA) was identical legislation that passed the Senate 30-12-10 and died in the House Health Care Committee 2-8-0.

 

SB 1095 (O’Malley/Johnson, 92nd GA) was identical legislation that passed the Senate 35-5-13 and died in the House Civil Judiciary Committee 6-5-1.

 

 

 

 

 

-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-

Page 2

SB 1082

 

STAFF ANALYSIS: SB 1082 defines “born alive infant†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.

 

SB 1082 provides that 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.

 

SB 1082 provides that interpreting any statute, rule, or regulation, the words “personâ€, “human beingâ€, “childâ€, and “individual†include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

 

STAFF COMMENTS:

 

Proponents Opponents

IL Citizens for Right to Life ACLU

Concerned Women of America NOW

Concerned Christian Americans IL Planned Parenthood

IL Medical Society

 

 

COMMITTEE ACTION: On 3/13/03, SB 1082 failed on a “Do Pass As Amended†motion (Righter/Syverson) by a vote of 4-6-0.

 

CA #1 was adopted on a “Be Adopted†motion (Righter/Syverson) by an attendance roll call (10-0-0).

 

CA #1 (Winkel) to SB 1082 (Winkel) adds to the underlying bill.

 

Deletes language, which states that 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.

 

Inserts language, which states that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or right applicable to any member of the homo sapien species at any point prior to being born alive as defined under this legislation

(The emphasis on the amendment is mine, though only the italics and underlining are added)

[kokotg]

I understand that. I'm not talking about the language of THIS bill. I'm saying that Huffpost claims:

 

Critically, the Illinois version of the bill that Obama opposed was also bundled with other proposals that would have put doctors at risk of prosecution, which led the Illinois State Medical Society to oppose the measure along with Obama. The state bill also carried greater influence in terms of enforcement, since states had been granted greater leeway in regulating abortion practices ever since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

 

...and I've seen nothing whatsoever in any conservative sources either denying or explaining the bundled proprosals, nor the fact that there was already a law in Illinois about this very thing. I.e. every attack on Obama I've read does not address the two points of contention with the bill that I've seen him raise.

[starlashine]

What birth control method is 100% effective? And you say there are all these chances to learn about birth control. In the same schools there are also many chances to learn how to read, but still there are many high school students that can barely do that.

 

People misuse freedom all the time. Does that mean we should not have freedom anymore? I don't think so.

 

Since there are some people that let their children watch TV all day and call it school, should homeschooling be illegal?

 

Since some people go around and form dangerous cults, should religion be illegal?

 

Their rights today, YOUR rights tomorrow.

 

:iagree: wholeheartedly. In addition, johnandtinagilbert, abortion is NOT a free pass. Far from it. I understand that you have your own experiences with this issue, but from my personal experience and those of some of my friends, be assured that we know we are murderers. It is not a fun choice to live with. At all. I am sure that some people don't learn from their mistakes, and it could be construed that way, but you have no way of knowing what is in their heart of hearts. You have no way of knowing how much guilt they carry around. You can't know from the surface, no one can. I am going to stop now, because this is a very personal topic for me, but I will say that I am trying very hard not to take serious offense to some of the sweeping generalizations made in this topic. I do appreciate the ability to be open about such a touchy topic, however.:tongue_smilie:

[GSMP]

I just typed a post in and hit a button and lost the whole thing.....I am not typing that back in......

 

Okay...Kathleen....thanks for sharing this and bringing it to the for front even though I am sure you have been chomped on like chopped liver.

 

Regardless of what stand you take.....I would be glad that someone wanted to share something that they felt could be inflammatory.

 

We are all going to disagree......to some level. Whether it be on when life happens to when the soul enters the body to when someone should be considered a living being.......

 

I think there comes a time when we must take a stand against something that is morally reprehensible........okay...maybe to some.....some will think it is, other's won't.

 

I wasn't planning on voting for him anyway.....I'm thinking maybe a write in candidate.......;). I'm still not even sure about McCaine.....

[8filltheheart]

If you find links verifying their existance, please share. I wonder why Hari Sevugan did not offer conclusive proof of them or mention them in his statement to the NY Sun? Sevugan only made reference to the 2 additional clauses.

 

ETA: I might be totally lacking in my understanding in how a bill becomes law, but I do not believe a bill would be attached to other legislation prior to leaving committee. It might be connected to other legislation when reaching the floor for a vote, but I don't think it happens in committee (unless perhaps the bill is written with multiple pieces of legislation together?) My assumption based on the copy of the bill that within committee it was vetoed on its own merit not in conjunction with anything else.

[johnandtinagilbert]

:iagree: wholeheartedly. In addition, johnandtinagilbert, abortion is NOT a free pass. Far from it. I understand that you have your own experiences with this issue, but from my personal experience and those of some of my friends, be assured that we know we are murderers. It is not a fun choice to live with. At all. I am sure that some people don't learn from their mistakes, and it could be construed that way, but you have no way of knowing what is in their heart of hearts. You have no way of knowing how much guilt they carry around. You can't know from the surface, no one can. I am going to stop now, because this is a very personal topic for me, but I will say that I am trying very hard not to take serious offense to some of the sweeping generalizations made in this topic. I do appreciate the ability to be open about such a touchy topic, however.:tongue_smilie:

I can only imagine it is not a fun choice to live with. There are choices I have made that I don't like that have had dire consequences. We all make difficult decisions, for me, the only place I can find comfort is my faith and the grace that unconditional love offers.

 

As for the women I spoke of, you're right, I can't know from the surface exactly where their hearts lie, but I can speak of what I did learn from them through many, long conversations where I got to know them, daily, and when the situation was brought up again (the choice to abort) they again did not choose life. They do view it as a free pass. So, while I appreciate for everyone, it is not a free pass, I chose to speak against the sweeping generalization that the choice to abort is made only when a sick mom, rape victim, or struggling single mom is faced with a difficult situation. The truth is, the decision is also made recklessly. I am not generalizing, just stating another part of the picture. It is no less important to mention than the rest.

 

Back to the OP, I do hope someone can find the legislation that was riding along, giving Obama a reason to vote against a bill that would not change any definition, or adjust abortion laws, but would provide required care for babies born alive after an attempted abortion.

 

Still watching....

[kokotg]

If you find links verifying their existance, please share. I wonder why Hari Sevugan did not offer conclusive proof of them or mention them in his statement to the NY Sun? Sevugan only made reference to the 2 additional clauses.

 

ETA: I might be totally lacking in my understanding in how a bill becomes law, but I do not believe a bill would be attached to other legislation prior to leaving committee. It might be connected to other legislation when reaching the floor for a vote, but I don't think it happens in committee (unless perhaps the bill is written with multiple pieces of legislation together?) My assumption based on the copy of the bill that within committee it was vetoed on its own merit not in conjunction with anything else.

 

I don't know that any of us has a good working knowledge of the procedures of the Illinois leglislature ;), which is why I'd very much like to see a treatment of this story from an unbiased source...maybe I'll e-mail factcheck.org and ask them to look into it.

[Jennifer3141]

It was the attached Liability Act that had the Illinois Medical Association so upset and thus had no support from the AMA.

 

The act stated that doctors or hospitals could be sued for failing to protect the expelled fetus if it was born alive by the parents who tried to abort the baby. If someone can explain that to me, I'd like it.

 

At 22 weeks, I could go to the hospital and beg for a second trimester abortion (if I can find a doctor who is willing to do it!) and then if the baby is born ALIVE, I can then sue the doctor who performed the abortion and the hospital I chose, for failing to take care of the baby. Huh?

 

It's just another way for those who oppose abortion to try to force the doctors and hospitals who perform them to stop.

 

That's idiotic. And that's why the bill had no support from many, including hospital organizations, medical associations, and insurance companies.

 

Jen

[8filltheheart]

Was this SB 1082 in 2003 or the first 2 bills, 1662 and 1095. I did read that either 1662 or 1095 was connected to the Liability Act, but that was in a full transcript of the discussion on the senate floor (I can't remember which one though, b/c I have read so much on this the last couple of days).

 

Since 1082 never made it out of committee, was it attached to any other bill?

[8filltheheart]

Rather than wonder, I decided to call the source. I contacted one of the senators on the committee (whose staff was incredibly nice and helpful BTW). The wording of SB 1082 as amended during the first vote was identical to the wording of the federal bill HR 2175 (from 2002). It had no other attachments. After the amendment was approved 10-0, the bill was defeated 6-4.

[Peek a Boo]

It was the attached Liability Act that had the Illinois Medical Association so upset and thus had no support from the AMA.

 

The act stated that doctors or hospitals could be sued for failing to protect the expelled fetus if it was born alive by the parents who tried to abort the baby. If someone can explain that to me, I'd like it.

 

At 22 weeks, I could go to the hospital and beg for a second trimester abortion (if I can find a doctor who is willing to do it!) and then if the baby is born ALIVE, I can then sue the doctor who performed the abortion and the hospital I chose, for failing to take care of the baby. Huh?

 

It's just another way for those who oppose abortion to try to force the doctors and hospitals who perform them to stop.

 

That's idiotic. And that's why the bill had no support from many, including hospital organizations, medical associations, and insurance companies.

 

Jen

 

WOW.

 

So basically, Obama is siding w/ saving doctors money over protecting newborn humans. i don't think this helps his case. At all. it also doesn't offer much comfort in how he will view the worth of MY care if I am forced into a mandatory healthcare plan.

 

 

If a HUMAN is born alive then yes, a doctor has an obligation to do no harm and take life-saving measures to save that human. I already stated my position about a parent who is trying to kill said child. HOWEVER, a doctor still has a responsibility for THAT life --regardless how stupid the legislation is that allows a murdering parent to sue and regardless what caused that child to be expelled. So yes, i agree with the legislation that a doctor can be sued for failing to take life-saving measures on a born alive human. I'd prefer to see legislation that prevents the parent from being the one to sue, but that is a whole nuther issue.

 

Jedi--

I have mentioned previously that i DO support a woman's right to remove a developing human from her body, but i do NOT believe that needs to be done by deliberately attempting to kill the developing human. I do believe there should be some legal consequence when a human is deliberately killed --

 

induced, on-demand abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life w/o due process or legal consequence.

 

we already have different laws for killing ranging from involuntary manslaughter, self defense, to homicide. Those tend to be reasonable, legally-accepted terms for when to kill another. The death of a developing human resulting from an induced abortion would be listed as either self defense or homicide. Abortion for convenience would carry a heavier penalty than a partial-birth abortion for severe hydroencephaly or a tubal pregnancy.

 

i have also mentioned that i absolutely expect to see our technology to progress to such a point that every developing human that is removed from a woman's body will have the opportunity to continue to develop in a safe environment/ artificial womb/ transplant to surrogate. Just because we don't HAVE that technology yet doesn't mean we can't NOW take steps to respect the right to life as much as possible of EVERY human.

 

Just because a human is not wanted by a specific person does not mean it has less rights to life than anyone else.

[AnotherE]

I am loathe to be new and participate in such a controversial topic, but I can't seem to help myself.:)

 

" have mentioned previously that i DO support a woman's right to remove a developing human from her body, but i do NOT believe that needs to be done by deliberately attempting to kill the developing human."

 

How does a woman go about removing an unwanted embryo from her body without causing the embryo death?

 

And what would be the criteria for an abortion of convenience? Please help me not with scenarios, but what the wording for the law (well, in simple layman's terms for me!) would be.

[Sandy in Indy]

Rather than wonder, I decided to call the source. I contacted one of the senators on the committee (whose staff was incredibly nice and helpful BTW). The wording of SB 1082 as amended during the first vote was identical to the wording of the federal bill HR 2175 (from 2002). It had no other attachments. After the amendment was approved 10-0, the bill was defeated 6-4.

 

Thank you. It's good to have the information "straight from the horse's mouth."

[LizzyBee]

Rather than wonder, I decided to call the source. I contacted one of the senators on the committee (whose staff was incredibly nice and helpful BTW). The wording of SB 1082 as amended during the first vote was identical to the wording of the federal bill HR 2175 (from 2002). It had no other attachments. After the amendment was approved 10-0, the bill was defeated 6-4.

 

Thanks for posting this. I tried to rep you, but I have to spread it around some more first.

[kokotg]

thanks for the dedicated research, momof7! It would appear then, that talk of "bundled legislation" is referring to an earlier version of the bill--not the 2003 one.

 

okay, here's where I can get with this, personally:

 

1. It's obvious that the Illinois bill was very much a partisan thing, whereas the federal bill was not. The Republican response lists several pro-life organizations as proponents of the bill and the ACLU, Illinois Medical Society, NOW, and Planned Parenthood as opponents. The Federal bill was passed nearly unanimously and even NARAL withdrew its opposition. Opponents claim that the Illinois bill would have different implications than the federal bill because of certain laws specific to Illinois. At any rate, Obama voted with 5 others to kill the bill, and I'd be willing to bet that vote fell at least pretty nearly along party lines. Clearly, for whatever reason, the Illinois bill was viewed very differently from the federal bill.

 

2. By the time the 2003 bill, with the attached clause, came around there was already both a state and a federal law making illegal the very same thing this bill sought to make illegal. Until someone comes up with some evidence that Obama was working to reverse those laws instead of just voting against a third law that said the same thing, I'm going to go on believing that he thinks infanticide is bad.

[johnandtinagilbert]

thank you momof7 for taking the time to find the answer for this. So, once again, I find an inconsistency in the conversation and actions in Mr. Obama...not from propaganda, but from Mr. Obama himself....thanks again for the info. and your ability to present information on the OP topic well.

[8filltheheart]

thanks for the dedicated research, momof7! It would appear then, that talk of "bundled legislation" is referring to an earlier version of the bill--not the 2003 one.

 

okay, here's where I can get with this, personally:

 

1. It's obvious that the Illinois bill was very much a partisan thing, whereas the federal bill was not. The Republican response lists several pro-life organizations as proponents of the bill and the ACLU, Illinois Medical Society, NOW, and Planned Parenthood as opponents. The Federal bill was passed nearly unanimously and even NARAL withdrew its opposition. Opponents claim that the Illinois bill would have different implications than the federal bill because of certain laws specific to Illinois. At any rate, Obama voted with 5 others to kill the bill, and I'd be willing to bet that vote fell at least pretty nearly along party lines. Clearly, for whatever reason, the Illinois bill was viewed very differently from the federal bill.

 

2. By the time the 2003 bill, with the attached clause, came around there was already both a state and a federal law making illegal the very same thing this bill sought to make illegal. Until someone comes up with some evidence that Obama was working to reverse those laws instead of just voting against a third law that said the same thing, I'm going to go on believing that he thinks infanticide is bad.

 

I agree with number 1.

 

Number 2, I agree with parts. I believe that Obama believes he is not pro-infanticide. He is absolutely firm in not allowing any slippage in reversing Roe vs Wade to any degree and he will defend that right through term pregnancies.

 

(I hate to even use these words b/c I am trying to completely factual in all of my posts and not stating my opinion.....but after reading all of the transcripts, I believe that he sees BAIPA as causing another level of restriction on women's rights to choose. I am basing this one personal assessment on is this quote......."What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.")

 

I do not believe that there was any other state legislation that already existed. On the federal level, yes, HR 2175. However, Illinois did pass this legislation 2 yrs after the 2003 committee denial in Nov 2005.