I want to be clear that I am a pro-life supporter, not apologist, of Obama. Although I disagree with Obama on the issue of Abortion, for reasons I explain in another post, I also disagree with many of the attacks that have been laid against him, especially that of him supporting infanticide.
The prime reason for this controversy is a fundamental misunderstanding of abortions philosophical foundation. A foundation that Obama understands as a constitutional lawyer (one who realizes that every letter of the law has meaning and implications), even though his conclusions remain different than my own. Nevertheless, Obama’s comprehension of this foundation is the main reason that he opposed BAIPA.
Obama’s rationale: by calling a born-alive pre-viable fetus a “person”, it becomes hard to philosophically argue that such a pre-viable fetus while in the womb is any less of a person. The definition of “personhood” has always been thoroughly debated. When does someone truly become a person? Conception? 2nd trimester? After viability? After birth? When your heart begins beating? WHEN?
The answer is that nobody knows (or at least no one can prove it). However, to argue that one becomes any more of a person through the physical action of birth doesn’t hold much weight. Consequently, for a supporter of abortion to agree that a born-alive pre-viable fetus is a “person” would entirely undermine the structure of abortion because it becomes philosophically arguable that the fetus is also a person inside the womb, and thus deserves the same inalienable rights.
Lets take a step back for a moment:
While Obama was a Senator in Illinois, thirteen different bills regarding the rights of infants born alive were proposed during the 92nd (2001-2002) and 93rd (2003-2004) Illinois General Assemblies. Five bills (92-1095, 92-1662, 93-1082, 93-2631, and 93-2855) were nearly copies of the Federal BAIPA bill, but only the fifth bill contained the neutrality clause. However, none of the 93rd assembly bills made it out of the Health and Human Services committee. Additionally, 93-2631 and 93-2855 didn’t even make it out of the rules committee (which Obama was not a member of). Finally, 93-1083 was amended to be virtually identical to the Federal BAIPA, but it was voted down: D - 6 to R - 4, with Obama lastly casting his seventh vote against. As a result, Obama’s vote was actually unnecessary, even though his authority as chair of HHS probably played a role, and the likelihood that Obama disagreed with his colleagues is small.
The reason Obama supposedly voted against the original 2001-2002 Illinois BAIPA was that it would be detrimental to the right of abortion. However, the later amendment took out the controversial phrase below that was in the original Illinois bill to greater mirror the Federal BAIPA (both final versions can be seen HERE).
(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.
As a result, Obama has been attacked because he didn’t vote for the later amendment that virtually mirrors the Federal BAIPA, which (once again) Obama said he would have voted for. This is true. Obama might have lied, after-the-fact (ex ante), thinking that his justification would be too hard to explain and politically harmful.
Once again, I’m no Obama apologist, but before you decide to burn him in effigy for possibly lying, I must point out that this lie is at least understandable. Communicating the philosophical complexity of abortion to the masses is virtually impossible, let alone during a presidential campaign using the mass media. I don’t like, nor justify, lying, however I can’t say (if I agreed with him on abortion) that I would have done anything different. Obama is a highly pragmatic politician, thus I can at least appreciate the difficult decision of whether or not to try and explain such a complex and unpopular policy. I can say for a fact that if I were a pro-choice Senator, I would never have voted for BAIPA, neither the Illinois nor Federal version. Since Obama never had a chance to actually vote for the Federal BAIPA, I believe Obama is of the same opinion. This exact question is postulated in Roe v. Wade, where the court dismisses a prenatal fetus as being a “person” since in the Constitution, “the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally.” 505 U.S. at 157.
Another possibility however, which can be seen in the Illinois floor debate, is that Obama voted against BAIPA because of the third component, requiring “a second physician to give an opinion of viability and to deliver such reasonable measures of care”. In the floor debate, Obama points out that this is excessive and creates an unnecessary burden, which is unconstitutional (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)) The entire concept is also prefaced on the fact that the killing of post-viable babies (accidentally or on purpose) is widespread and thus demands serious action, which Obama says is unproven. Since I couldn’t find this component in the text of the original bill, it remains possible that it is also in the final amendment. I believe it was taken out, but I am not yet certain and thus felt compelled to share.
Lets keep in mind certain facts. The “Born Alive” rule is defined as a “legal principle holding that various aspects of the criminal law apply only to a child that is “born alive”.” BAIPA itself does nothing more than define a fetus once it is born alive, the implications of being a “person” once born alive is what causes the fetus to be protected.
Additionally, the definition of infanticide is “the killing of an infant that would otherwise live”. Clearly this absolves Obama since the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 already protected post-viable fetuses and physicians were legally obligated to protect the life of a fetus that had “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support.” Consequently, BAIPA was only concerned with born-alive PRE-viable fetuses, which have no chance of survival outside of the womb anyways. Thus Obama is as much a supporter of infanticide as any supporter of abortion.
Obama probably would have voted for a BAIPA that instead sought to make a born alive pre-viable fetus comfortable as it passed away, but both the Illinois and Federal BAIPA go much farther than that, becoming excessive and unnecessary as it relates to its primary purpose: protection. Why would a pre-viable fetus need any more protection than to be comfortable? Sadly the fetus has no chance of living. Instead, the Republicans created a definition that could undermine abortion years from now regardless of the the neutrality clause. Either way, BAIPA at least chips away at the pro-choice foundation.
An example can be seen in the Illinois statute regarding murder: 720 ILCS 5/9‑1.
A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death: (1) he either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual …
If the definition of “individual” includes a pre-viable fetus, then the murder statute can be read like this:
A person who kills [a pre-viable fetus] without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death: (1) he either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that [pre-viable fetus] or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that [pre-viable fetus] …
Although Roe v. Wade forbids States from prohibiting pre-viability abortions, such a law can still have a future philosophical effect, as stated above. Not to mention the possible implications this might have on post-viability abortions.
So why did Obama vote against the last amendment to the Illinois bill that was virtually identical to the Federal BAIPA he claims he would have voted for?
Explanations:
1) There is an actual difference even in the last version of the bill. Unlikely.
2) Obama didn’t realize the last amendment to the bill had the neutrality clause. Unlkely.
3) A State bill has different effects than a Federal bill, since State law regulates abortion. Thus Obama would have voted for the later 2005 Illinois bill which passed and had an additional protective clause (had he still been in the Illinois Senate). Unlikely.
“Although The Definition Is Similar To The Proposed Federal Legislation, Its Application Would Have A Different Impact On State Abortion Law.” (Planned Parenthood)
4) Obama and certain interest groups (like NARAL) had fought the Republicans over so many versions of the bill that they simply no longer wanted to deal with it. Possible.
5) Obama did not believe there was a widespread problem of physicians accidentally or purposefully killing possibly post-viable fetuses that would warrant this action. Likely.
“Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.” (Obama)
6) Obama had a problem with BAIPA actually being a definition bill and thought it unnecessary. Likely.
“I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.” (Obama)
“The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons…” (Obama)
7) Obama believed that BAIPA could undermine Roe v. Wade in the future. Likely.
“Number one, 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. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. 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.” (Obama)
As stated from the beginning, I emphatically oppose Obama on abortion. Personally I do believe a fetus should be considered a “person” and have rights. However, I also respect those who disagree with me and oppose any wrongful attacks on pro-choice advocates. There should be no “controversy” surrounding Obama’s stance on this issue, he simply and unequivocally supports the right to an abortion, nothing more and nothing less. Some may disagree with this position, but no one has the right to make baseless attacks against it for political gain.
- You can find HERE, a copy of the Federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Or a timeline of the 2002 BAIPA events, HERE.
- You can find HERE, the original Illinois Senate bill (SB1082), without the changes or neutrality clause.
- You can find HERE, the explanations given by Obama himself regarding BAIPA. And HERE.
- You can find HERE, a history of “Born Alive Infant” legislation in Illinois by Planned Parenthood.
- You can find HERE, a copy of the transcript of the Illinois Senate floor debate over this bill in 2002. You can find HERE, a copy of the 2002 transcript. (just search “Obama”).
- You can find HERE, a copy of the differences between the Federal 2002 BAIPA (which Obama claims he would have signed), and the final Illinois BAIPA amendment that the Democrats (including Obama) voted down within the State Senate Health and Human Services Committee (HHS)(which Obama chairs) on March 13, 2003.
- You can find HERE, the Illinois Senate Committee Action Report.
- You can find HERE, the official report of the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee explaining the intent of the Federal BAIPA.
- You can find HERE, a Republican Staff Analysis on the original Illinois Senate Bill 1082.
- You can find HERE, a NARAL press release of opposition to the original BAIPA.
- You can find HERE, an index by the NRLC of documents relating to BAIPA.
- You can find HERE, an article by Factcheck.org regarding Obama and ‘Infanticide’.
- Illinois 92nd General Assembly. SB 1093, 22 Feb. 2001.
- Illinois 92nd General Assembly. SB 1094, 22 Feb. 2001.
- Illinois 92nd General Assembly. SB 1095, 22 Feb. 2001.
- Illinois 92nd General Assembly. SB 1661, 30 Jan. 2002.
- Illinois 92nd General Assembly. SB 1662, 30 Jan. 2002.
- Illinois 93rd General Assembly. SB 1082, 19 Feb. 2003.
- Illinois 93rd General Assembly. SB 1083, 19 Feb. 2003.
- Illinois 94th General Assembly. HB 0984, 3 Feb. 2005.
15 Comments until now.
History is full of examples where one person or group of people denigrates another to justify their actions, but when you add rationalization into the mix, it becomes deadly. Sadly, your article reminds me of Martin Luther King, Jr’s admonition that we should “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”
Totally agree with One Dove. Obama’s lack of judgment and value for life (of any “quality”) is deeply troubling.
I really can’t believe such an obviously intelligent person would write such obfuscating nonsense.
If you think killing human beings is okay why not just be upfront and say so? Why all the hiding behind ‘person’ etc?
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just list the human beings who are not protected by law?
Like this:
Living human being - definition : a being which is alive(not dead) with unique human DNA.(so not a body part of someone else, etc)
Okay - so which one do you not want to protect?
Here are some of the recent centuries proposals:
Any old, disabled or mentally deficient human being.
- this was popular and legal in Germany, is currently legal in holland, Belgium, Switzerland, parts of America, Ireland and italy by judicial fiat(under limited circumstances) and most ‘modern ‘ countries practice limited versions of this by medical neglect
Any young preborn human being (lots of places, lots of methods, lots of reasons given, often simply on request of the mother)
New born babies -most countries with abortion allow this at least by neglect, after all if no one wants you it’s just a mistake that you got out alive.Some countries such as Holland take a more active approach and will kill unwanted newborns but lethal injection.
Any child whose parents think they are to ill to enjoy life - coming to EU countries near you soon
Any one of a colour skin you don’t like - take your pick, lots of countries
Anyone whose religion offends you - most famously Jews (Russia, Germany and other places) but also Catholics, Protestants, hindus, Muslims, in fact nearly anyone except atheists as far as I can see.
Anyone whose ethnic origin is not to your taste - tutsi, bosnian, serbian, croatian,etc etc - too many places even to try to list
Anyone you own - used to apply mostly to africans and indians but now usually applies to your children.
Anyone convicted of a crime - some places like the states limit that to serious crimes, other places like china will execute for lesser offences
Women who ‘dishonour’ their families - not always legal but in many places just ignored and allowed to happen
And so on and so on.
Lets face it, most human societies have accepted that there are classes of human beings who can be killed with legal sanction. Why should modern society be any different?
Oh but hang on, to be THAT honest would rob us of the pleasure of being able to caim moral superiority to those who target groups we would protect. Could king Herod condemn the Nazi’s because he selected on the basis of age and not religion? Oh hang on , he killed all Jews too. Could Hitler condemn herod for not being inclusive enough? What nonsense.
It is a fundamenta basis of civilisation that the function of the state is to ensure that the rights and dignity of the human beings are protected from arbitrary attack based on personal whim. This basis is destroyed by modern abortion laws, where the human being who is not born is treated as the chattel or property of the mother (or in places where the state can command abortion it is the property of the state).
A state which allows this is not a place ruled by law, it is at most technolgically sophisticated barbarism.
Re: “unbelievable” — who are you writing to?
Re: Lonnie - while I disagree with you on the issue of abortion and I suppot gay rights, I didn’t get the fuss about Obama’s selecting Rick Warren to give the invocation. Obama made a smart move and reached out to social conservatives in a big way. I don’t share Warren’s religious beliefs, but I was moved by his invocation.
here it is, it doesnt matter what obama says or anyone else when he stands before the Lord he will be in big time trouble and he will have to pay for killing all these babies. oh yes he will.a womans right is to control what happens to her body is taking a pill not to get pregnant, if your to lazy or stupid to pop a pill and get pregnant you are a murderer if you abort the baby.its a known fact that abortions are used as birth control instead of a pill or some other form of birth control.so oops i didnt use birth control so i will kill. that a boy obama. like he said on the debates if one of my daughters make a mistake i wouldnt want her punished with a baby.thats our president. still wonder why america has gone to hell?you aint seen nothing yet.
no i havent already said that.
A friend had shared a piece of information with me today that I found unbelievable (that Obama supported the killing of babies born alive!) so I had to find out for myself. I’ve had to wade through many biased presentations of this very issue (his voting against BAIPA and what that means for his stance on abortion and the value of life) but then I came across Lonnie Affrime’s clear presentation of the facts on this issue. I believe you got to the heart of the abortion debate — which is the question of “personhood,” when does a person truly become a person? As stated by Lonnie, “nobody knows (or at least no one can prove it).” I realize to some that is not even a question but hopefully we can at least all admit that it is a complicated issue. I think that people go too far if they conclude that anyone who would not consider a pre-viable fetus a human being would then resort to killing the ill, the elderly, or people we disagree with (a road my friend also chose to go down). Anyway, thank you, Lonnie, for your balanced voice in this wilderness of extremes!
A correction…I stated earlier that “anyone who would not consider a pre-viable fetus a human being” I should have said “a person” instead of a “human being.”
The definition of infanticide, however broadly or narrowly you may define it, is “the killing of an infant”, whether it is deemed viable or not. The 1975 law on the books certainly did not provide any rights or protection of a baby born alive because of it’s multiple loopholes, primarily that it applies where the doctor states beforehand that a fetus retained the likelihood of sustained survival outside of the womb. Why would any physician who intends to perform an abortion would implicate himself in this way?
The BAIPA legislation is not the only finger pointed at Obama’s radical stance on abortion, the FOCA bill he co-sponsored and promised to sign provides unfettered legal protection for and rights to abortion. He has been quite vocal a number of times about his displeasure at the ban on partial birth abortions, even though this procedure is actually protective of a woman’s health and has been shown beyond a doubt to NEVER be necessary to save a woman’s life. His wife even wrote a fundraising letter for his senate campaign in 2004 caling the ban “a flawed law” and “clearly unconstitutional.”
You wrote a lot of words up there. Why don’t you look up the Dr. who just had his license suspended in Florida after botching a late term abortion. The teenager who gave birth to the baby saw the baby breathing before it was placed into a plastic bag and thrown into the trash. An autopsy confirmed oxygen in the baby’s lungs. So for all your words, you cannot ever be able to justify something like like, and it is a DIRECT RESULT of the horrors of abortion.
And one more thing — your article voices many conclusions for which you have no basis, once you further your research (and reading)just a little. It seems to me you stop short of actually getting to the truth. If you want specifics, post it and I’ll reply. This kind of faulty logic,I’m sorry to say, is just as dangerous as being radically pro-choice.
Sorry but I have to add one more thing — Read the article by LifeSiteNews.com, “Lawsuit Filed for Baby Born Alive at Abortion Clinic then Killed and Hidden from Police” where an induced abortion resulted in a live birth, and the baby was placed in a sealed plastic bag and placed in the trash. A local law school professor was quoted in the Miami Herald that if the baby wasn’t “viable” then it coun’t be a murder. SOUND LIKE ANYBODY YOU KNOW?
Here is the eloquent answer from Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Society: “THAT OPINION IS DEAD WRONG….A DISABLED OR DYING PATIENT MAY NOT BE ‘VIABLE’ IN THE SENSE OF BEING ABLE TO LIVE VERY LONG OR WITHOUT HELP, BUT IF YOU KILL THEM IT”S MURDER”. [caps mine] “This was a case of infanticide, and we’re not going to let it go ignored or unpunished.”
Better watch this story, as it will surely come to more notoriety when Obama brings up his FOCA bill for signing.
No offense, but while asking for more “research”, you have provided none of your own. Instead, your 3 comments were completely emotional and not based upon proof or logic. My article was based on large amounts of research all provided within. My definition of infanticide is right from the textbook, and it does rule out the killing of a non-viable fetus as infanticide. I’m also afraid to say that Mr. Brejcha is legally incorrect. I agree there should be laws regarding what can and cannot be done to a non-viable fetus once born (which is what BAIPA was supposed to do), however, the fetus will (sadly) inevitably die regardless and thus doesn’t fit the description of infanticide. And as for doctors “implicating themselves”, I can think of many reasons why a doctor would protect a viable fetus. So pointing to 1 or 2 cases doesn’t prove anything except that they should be prosecuted if the fetus was viable depending on the state laws.
Also, most pro-choice supporters also support FOCA. Its not a “radical” opinion. Although I doubt he’ll actually go through with it any time soon, if at all.
[...] Before reading this post, I would recommend reading my first article: #1 How to be a Pro-Life Democrat and then my second article: #2 Abortion Fallacies: Bad Arguments You Hear Everyday. and then my third article: #3 Abortion: A Philosophy of Life and Liberty. If you’re interested in the issue of President Obama and his views on abortion and BAIPA, I would recommend you read: A Pro-Life Defense of Obama on Abortion. [...]
[...] in the issue of President Obama and his views on abortion and BAIPA, I would recommend you read: A Pro-Life Defense of Obama on Abortion. Filed Under: The FrayTagged: abortion, alive, Barack Obama, childbirth, choose, democrat, [...]
“As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.” ~ Ecclesiastes 11:5
The Bible says God knew us “before” he formed us in the belly (Jer.1:5), that our substance wasn’t hidden from him when we were wrought in the lowest parts of the Earth” (Ps.139:13-17), and Jesus prepared a place for us “before the foundation of the world” (Matt.25:34).
If these are the verses used to claim a Biblical doctrine defining the life of a two week embryo to be as viable a living creature as a fully developed four month old fetus then… maybe we’re missing something: God “knew” us before we entered the womb and before our members were formed… ono… somebody… somebody, for the love of God, stop the sperm holocaust!!!
“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” – Luke 1:31
No!!! God knew before conception!??? Dear God!! Save the sperm!
* In Exodus 21:22, a man who causes a woman to miscarry pays a fine. He is not stoned to death like he would be for murder. In Luke 1:44 and Hosea 12:3 we see examples of a fully developed fetus interacting with the outside world but there are no examples of embryos doing anything.
Nobody knows when meaningful life begins. Unless you are willing to call a sperm a living creature that should be protected by law, I don’t think you can use the Bible to define the beginning of meaningful life as the moment of conception. It’s just not in the Bible.
Stop putting words in God’s mouth.
Comment!