We have always maintained that we do not have a dog in the abortion rights fight, and that we would never take sides unless a viable political entity went to the extreme of (1) trying to outlaw all abortions or (2) legalizing the murder of viable infants. We do not share the primarily religious belief that a fertilized egg is a “life,” but we do not see why anyone needs a non-theraputic partial birth abortion either. A woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy voluntarily can do so during the first few months of pregnancy, before the fetus has developed significantly and also while the procedure is easier on the woman.
If Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, that will change. We will indeed have a dog in this fight, and Obama’s people will wish their campaign had met a Presa Canario, Rottweiler, or pit bull instead. We are confident that we can destroy Obama’s candidacy in Pennsylvania and possibly New York as long as we can get the cooperation of the active pro-life groups in both states, and there is no way Obama can win the election without these states. We are also confident that we will meet no significant resistance from pro-choice groups, because not many pro-choice people are going to associate their good names with infanticide: the killing of babies outside the uterus, as endorsed by Barack Hussein Obama.
Obama played a central role in orchestrating the defeat of Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would have required care and medical attention for third-trimester fetuses that survived an abortion procedure. The central issue here is that what happens to the fetus after the abortion is totally irrelevent to the woman’s right to control her body. She has already exercised her choice and control, and she is free of the unwanted pregnancy. Obama and his supporters therefore cannot call upon the defense of “a woman’s right to control her body,” and they must instead defend a totally indefensible position: the deliberate killing by neglect of what are effectively premature babies, a practice that under ordinary circumstances would be considered felony child abuse or worse. We don’t know any pro-choice people or entities who are willing, figuratively speaking, to die on that hill, which means the phony smile on the empty suit will find himself pretty much alone when the issue comes up.
Here is what Obama said when arguing against Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act during Senate floor debate. This was legislation clarifying the terms “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual” in Illinois statutes included any baby born alive, no matter what gestational age or circumstance of birth:
“I just want to suggest? that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.”
“Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable 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 child, a 9-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 anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”
This is of course pure unmitigated garbage because an aborted first-trimester fetus is not going to be born alive, and the law would not apply to it. Obama is of course lying because the law applies to viable fetuses, not pre-viable ones that cannot possibly survive outside the uterus. A third trimester fetus is another matter and, when born prematurely, it often survives with proper medical care. In addition, many states define the killing of a late-term fetus, e.g. by a violent assault on the mother, as homicide–so such fetuses do in fact have the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child.
Again, however, the key point is that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act does not interfere at all with a woman’s control over her body. If her state’s laws allow a late term abortion, she can have one. The law applies only to what happens to the unwanted fetus afterward. Barack Hussein Obama’s position is that it should be tossed aside to die, or perhaps be left in a field for wild animals as was often done in ancient Greece, especially Sparta.
We do not know what the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act looked like, but here is the Federal one.
116 STAT. 926 PUBLIC LAW 107–207—AUG. 5, 2002
Public Law 107–207
To protect infants who are born alive.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection
Act of 2002’’.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘§ 8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as
including born-alive infant
‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or
of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘person’,
‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall 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 term ‘born alive’, with respect
to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete
expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member,
at any stage of development, who after such 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 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.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning
of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant.’’.
Approved August 5, 2002.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2175:
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–186 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Mar. 12, considered and passed House.
July 18, considered and passed Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Aug. 5, Presidential remarks.
Note that, contrary to Barack Obama’s objection, this legislation most explicitly does not define a pre-viable fetus as a child who cannot be aborted. Obama is therefore either a liar, incompetent, or most probably both.
The House of Representatives passed this legislation on a voice vote. Jerrold Nadler, one of the most left-wing Democrats in the House, had this to say:
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., called the bill unnecessary but said he and other Democrats would support it anyway.”The courts have been clear,” Nadler said. “There is no such thing as a right to a live-birth abortion. A baby born alive is a baby, a human being under the terms of the law in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This bill merely restates that, so we have no problem with it.”
Barack Hussein Obama differs even with Jerrold Nadler, because he apparently thinks there is such a thing as a right to a live birth abortion.
The legislation also cleared the Senate, which had in fact defeated other pro-life legislation, because even pro-choice groups were not going to try to defeat this one. This underscores our position that Barack Obama will be standing on a very lonely hill when he tries to defend his actions on this issue.
The Senate Democratic leadership and most of the Democratic senators are profoundly hostile to pro-life positions. Under Senate rules, the leaders of the majority party have broad powers to set the Senate’s schedule, and to advance or obstruct legislation.
Daschle has used that power to obstruct and kill these important pro-life bills that were passed by the House, all of which President Bush would sign if they reached his desk:
* The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965), passed by the House on July 24, 2002, 274-151. (See separate story, page 8.)
* The Weldon-Stupak-Brownback legislation to ban all human cloning, including the cloning of human embryos (H.R. 2505, S. 1899), passed by the House on July 31, 2001, 265-162.
* The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503), a bill to recognize as a legal victim any unborn child who is injured or killed during commission of a federal crime, passed by the House on April 26, 2001, 252-172.
* The Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 476), to make it a crime to take a minor across state lines for a secret abortion, if this abridges her parents’ right to be involved under their home-state law, passed by the House on April 17, 2002, 260-161.
* The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 4691), to prohibit state and local governments from discriminating against hospitals and other health care providers for refusing to participate in abortions, passed by the House on September 25, 2002, 229-189. (See story, page 14.)
One pro-life measure did make it all the way through the legislative process: The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 2175), which was signed into law by President Bush on August 5, 2002. This bill, backed by NRLC, establishes that any infant who is fully outside his or her mother and shows any signs of life is a legal person for all federal law purposes. Daschle allowed the bill to clear the Senate on a voice vote because pro-abortion groups decided not to actively oppose it. (See August NRL News, page 1.)
If a Democrat-controlled Senate that allowed Tom Daschle to kill the other pro-life legislation, possibly without it even coming up for a vote, did not stand in the way of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, then Obama doesn’t have a chance in hell of justifying his actions in Illinois. No one is going to stand on that hill with him, much less have their reputations and good names die with his. We encourage everyone who does not want this phony smile on top of an empty suit, George Soros’ golem and the Daley machine’s Frankenstein monster, to get anywhere near the White House except as a visitor on a guided tour, to circulate this information as widely as possible through blogs and letters to the editor.<a