« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

In 2002, Barack Obama Supported Infanticide and I’ve Got the Transcript of His Words

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  August 21st, 2008 at 11:08 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Promoted up top in light of tonight’s debate.

Editorial Note: People forget this issue came up more than once in Illinois. In 2001, Obama was concerned about abortion rights and the impact the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would have on abortion rights. In 2002, those concerns were addressed and fixed in the legislation. Now Obama’s concerns were more clear. His views on life had no where else to hide.

What has Barack Obama said about his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?

Obama has made several points, which we should recount.

First, Obama claimed doctors must render the care away. As David Freddosso has regularly pointed out, that was not true.

In fact, the Illinois Attorney General determined that doctors were under no such obligation when a child, born alive, had been intended to be aborted. Doctors only had the obligation to give life sustaining treatment when it was intended that the child be born alive.

Obama, then claimed his concern related to there being no language protecting Roe v. Wade in the legislation. He told the Chicago Tribune as much in October of 2004. In fact, that has been his story the whole time.

This week, the story changed. This week, NRLC proved conclusively that the legislation did, in fact, protect Roe v. Wade.

Obama has now changed his story yet again. Now he says that, regardless of whether the statute protected Roe v. Wade based on its language, “even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.”

But what did Obama say back then? What was Obama’s excuse back in 2002? What were his words on the floor of the State Senate. Senator Obama was the only person to speak out in opposition of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

What did he say?

I’ve got the transcript. I’ve got Senator Obama’s own words.

Here is what you need to know.


The legislation came up more than once. In 2001, Senator Obama was concerned about the legislation’s impact on abortion. But when the bill came back in 2002, the issue about the law undermining abortion had been redressed.

In 2002, Senator Obama was not concerned about Roe v. Wade. He was not concerned with undermining abortion laws in Illinois. No, what Senator Obama today claims were his concerns were not his concerns back in 2002.

In 2002, Senator Obama stood on the floor of the Illinois State Senate to oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. By this time, even the abortion rights organizations like Planned Parenthood had dropped their opposition. But Obama continued to oppose the law.

He was the only person to speak out against the legislation.

In an exchange with Senator O’Malley, the legislation’s sponsor, Obama’s concern was about second guessing the abortionist.

Here is what he said:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child – however way you want to describe it – is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.

SHORTER BARACK OBAMA: Let’s trust the guy who just botched the abortion to determine whether or not he actually did botch the abortion.

That’s it. If a baby comes out and is alive, Barack Obama thought it too damned burdensome to have another doctor, someone used to dealing with live babies, check to see if the baby was viable.

Don’t believe me? Read the transcript here.

No one else spoke out against the legislation. Only Barack Obama was so concerned about the doctor performing the abortion, he did not think it worth having a doctor used to live babies coming in to see if the baby might live. Only Barack Obama

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • chashand

    I just have to believe this is going to be a big issue. It is one thing to be pro-choice, i.e. being ok with the killing of a baby just because that baby is still in the womb. While I do not understand that reasoning, there is simply no reasonable explanation to deny a newborn baby medical care. Obama voted to stick those infants in a closet to allow them to just die, literally. This subject says more about Obama’s humanity and character than anything. He is a radical.

  • coffee260
  • bs

    I doubt you’ll see one single Lefist even bat an eye over this issue. They’ll support The One unfailingly. And unfortunately, I don’t believe the “swing voters” find the abortion issue to be a key issue in their eyes, or they wouldn’t be “swing voters.” Now if they saw/heard about this, they MIGHT care. But I’d say the odds of this getting wide airplay in the media are lower than low.

    As much of a SoCon as I am, unfortunately, sadly I don’t think this particular issue is going to make a whole lot of difference. Obamessiah is a repulsive human being and this just puts more kindling on that fire, but I’m finding that people are more concerned about whether they can drive their boats on the lake than whether Democryte policy results in the death of the unborn OR newborn.

  • E_Pluribus_Unum

    The leftists have no problem whatsoever, as you say, with letting abortion-surviving babies die.

    But I guarantee the undecideds, the quishes, moderates, and all, THEY will care. And I bet the left works very hard not to let this sort of thing see the light of day.

  • Susannah

    I wrote about Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protections Act back in June. The diary was titled, “How to Reach out to Clinton Voters Using Specific Issues” (linked below), and I mentioned The Born Alive Infant Protections Act as one of the Issues that Catholics in OH and PA, who voted for Clinton, wouldn’t like. (By the way, there is a column by Rick Santorum, about the BAIPA, in that diary that is really good.)

    Anyway, I can’t believe that this issue is just now getting attention. I always thought that it would be a huge deal. I am pro-choice in the first trimester, but this seems totally different to me. Not to mention, I can’t believe that Hillary’s team didn’t release this info or leak the tapes to the MSM, if they new about it. Yeah, I realize that some of Obama’s moveon.org voters might not care about this, but the superdelegates sure should have–it makes Obama totally unelectable (if all of his unsavory friends hadn’t made him so already).

    [How to Reach Out to Clinton Voters]
    (http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/susannah/2008/jun/20/howtoreachouttoclintonvotersusingspecific_issues)

  • Uma_Richie

    I appreciate your perspective. In your diary you mention that Obama’s position bothers you.

    Do you have any friends or family close to you on the political spectrum that have expressed an opinion either way?

  • Aetius728

    Does anybody know of any group that is planning on running commercials using this material?

    If so, I would donate some money to them.

  • Frozen_Man

    I agree with this and think that the commercial should include where Obama stated concerning his children: “I don?t want them punished with a baby. I don?t want them punished with an STD at age 16.”

    That comment is offensive enough but that comment combined with his stance on this legislation displays the horrifying reality of the extent that Obama would go to in order to make sure that no one is “punished” with a child.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    I posted this in December of 2006.

    Time will only bury so much for Mr. Obama. This position is not only unimaginable to most regular American’s, but indicative of egregiously flawed judgment and character.

  • Susannah

    Uma, I know of two people off of the top of my head. My husband is also por-choice in the first trimester, but he says that this bothers him. Also, a good friend of mine is pro-choice, but she finds Obama’s position on the BAIPA disgusting. Anyway, I hope that this helps. :-)

  • chashand

    Of course the liberal media obama congregation will not make a big deal of this. That is the job of the alternative media, like this site. This will get out to the public, if anything by slow seepage, which can be worse for Obama. Instead of dealing with the issue directly to get it out of the way now, he is getting caught lie after lie, which makes it even worse. Dems could not talk about this during their primary, but we sure as hell can and should continue to drive this story, and frankly John McCain needs be in the driver’s seat.

  • Uma_Richie

    I never broach the subject in person unless I know that it won’t lead to conflict. In the absence of polling data, anecdotal evidence works for me.

  • chashand

    I spoke to a couple of friends unaware of the Born Alive Infant Act and Obama. When I informed them, both simply did not believe the story. Think about it. This is so outrageous, that it really is unbelievable. I mean one of the two Presidential candidates voted not to give medical treatment to newborn babies. It is just surreal. Of course the story is true since we have the votes, speeches, and now audio of Obama on this subject. Wow. Just wow. Maybe if this was about puppies, dems would feel differently. Ever heard of that saying, “a world turned upside down”. Seems apt.

  • dadofsix

    I know here in Michigan that Right to Life’s Educational Fund has run ads on similar issues in the past. They’re at www.rtl.org – your state RTL may have something similar.

  • Maggie_in_Indiana

    to hear these babies called fetus’s or whatever when discussing whether or not to let them die. Pictures begin to flash through my mind. It is so sad and barbaric.

    What did Obama say at Saddle back? How you treat the least of these……BUT NOT BABIES.
    Sorry but this is so disturbing,abortion in itself is disturbing but there are many levels of the monstrous acts taken to terminate a child who did nothing but exist. It breaks my heart,and really ticks me off!!

  • TheSophist

    Did they have NO opposition research in the primaries?

    This is amazing, and yes, I agree with everyone saying this story will have impact.

    It’s one thing to be unsure about the whole abortion issue; it’s another thing altogether to want to kill off those “inconveniently born babies”. What personal morals can Obama claim after this vote? What values? What ethics?

    If this is not wrong, then there is no such thing as wrong.

    I think even moderate pro-choicers will have to cringe from this stance. And the center will be horrified.

    Maybe Hillary may still be the nominee in 2008….

    -TS

  • RegCheck

    The snip of transcript you quote is Obama’s recitation, in a colloquy with the bill’s floor manager, of what he understands the bill to contain. It is not a statement of position.

    Obama’s issue concerned the bill’s requirement for a second opinion by a physician independent of the abortionist to decide whether a fetus is born alive. Obama objected to this requirement on the ground that the abortionist will make a correct judgment and that a second opinion is not needed. That is certainly disputable, and the conflict of interest involved should be obvious. (But that’s a small part of a much larger issue: the unborn do not have civil rights that can be legally protected by any agent except for their mothers.)

    One reason the Illinois Medical Society apparently opposed this provision is that physicians as a group dislike being second-guessed, and almost certainly despise statutory law requiring that they be second-guessed. That’s true for any medical procedure or practice, not just abortion. Physicians are trained to be gods; they do that job rather well.

    As a practical matter, it’s not clear that the second-opinion provision would have been as valuable as its proponents believed. Had I been a member of the Illinois Senate I might have opposed it, too (and for the record I oppose all abortions). Here’s my logic.

    First, physicians do not like second-guessing each other for the same reason that they dislike being second-guessed. That means an independent physician would be unlikely to determine that a genuinely viable fetus is in fact alive.

    Second, the provision places an extraordinary professional and ethical burden on the independent physician. Few would accept it voluntarily.

    Third, delays in locating an independent physician could be fatal — or easily arranged to be fatal by the abortionist. There is no time to lose in this circumstance, but precious time would be lost.

    A second-opinion provision likely would be ineffective unless the independent physician was onsite and easily accessible. Perhaps elsewhere the bill required that. If so, the purpose of the second-opinion requirement was to drive up the cost of abortions generally, and thereby reduce the number of them — not to actually secure second opinions. That’s a reasonable tactic to pursue, but let’s not mistake it for a principled position that second opinions matter per se.

  • Tim_Schieferecke

    “An independent physician would be unlikely to determine that a genuinely viable fetus is in fact alive.” Really? Have you ever heard of crying? That’s what babys do when they are in need of care and hurting from barbarity. They cry. Obama said what he said with resolution not rote parroting.

  • Stinger808

    …where the MSM can bury everything that makes a Dem look bad, or Republican look good.

  • Uma_Richie

    healthcare plan which states:

    Promoting patient safety. Obama will require providers to report preventable
    medical errors, and support hospital and physician practice improvement to
    prevent future occurrences.

    If your take on the transcript is correct, Obama views access to abortion as a higher priority than holding abortion providers accountable for “medical errors”. That’s very anti-woman in my opinion.

  • Jeff_Emanuel

    Second, it takes a while to dig records out of the Memory Hole, where Obama and his peeps had hoped every one of his previous statements, votes, and records had vanished forever.

  • Pentagon16

    It is up to Obama and his lying minions to try and lie his way out of it- the details as to WHY he voted the way he did is really irrelevant.

    even though on that score we STILL beat him- but it really should be immaterial. the fact is he voted against the BIAPA-

    let the Messiah be the one to explain why he voted that way..

  • Susannah

    Wow Marcus, you really were prescient. I’m impressed. :-)

  • Mary_Contrary

    It’s all coming into focus.

    He didn’t want any of those babies to live. If a woman pays good money for an abortion, she certainly deserves to get her moneys worth.

    If the baby lives, does she get reiumbursed? Is the “physician” allowed to collect the fee?

    That baby is supposed to die ! Doggone it !!

  • Mary_Contrary

    Perhaps, just perhaps…

    Christ Hospital +
    Evangelical Health Systems +
    Advocate Health Care +
    Trinity UCC +
    Jeremiah Wright

  • Menlo

    It does not and should not matter if the baby is deemed “viable.” That’s irrelevant. That the baby is both born and not dead is all that matters.

    You don’t allow for a “viability check” before trying to save someone’s life.

  • Politically_Purple

    After I read the entire text pertaining to Obama’s comments, including the transcript, I did not interpret his remarks as being pro-infanticide. I actually regard them as being a matter of technicalities which are relevant to the topic. It seems, and I could be wrong here, that he’s advancing the point that a doctor should not be conducting an abortion if the fetus/child is viable outside of the womb in the first place. Instead, is he suggesting that by initiating the procedure for abortion, the doctor has already made the judgement that it is not a viable child? It appears to me that he makes the point that a doctor should not need a second opinion if the child is indeed “viable” because they should, by professional obligation, begin to try to sustain life. According to this line of thinking, by forcing a second doctor to be present we are second guessing the judgement of all physicians. That was how I read the subtext to his statements.

    If I understood Obama correctly, I agree that the doctor should be capable of making such a decision without supervision. As such, this aspect of the bill should not be necessary if all doctors are doing thier jobs correctly. On the other hand, if one feels that no doctor practicing proper medicine would perform any abortion, we have an entirely different argument to deal with. Furthermore, if we’re going to be this careful and assume all doctors are incompetent or suffer the “god syndrome”, as might be implied by passing this bill, why stop here? Why not require a second opinion for every potentially life-threatening situation?

    An entirely interesting point that this raises is the possiblity, or rather probability, that such a law could be used to bar abortions after a certain period of time, most certainly 3rd trimester, since life outside the womb is more frequently viable with today’s medical capabilities. While I don’t see that as a bad thing, Obama may have viewed this as the threat to Roe v. Wade.

    If I’m wrong I’m sorry for wasting your time, but I thought I’d offer an alternate interpretation.