| There is a particular moral issue in this upcoming election that I take to be one of the primary issues--even more important than resolving our current economic crisis. That issue concerns how our county deals with the most defenseless, innocent, and weak among us, namely our babies. Lives are literally at stake here.
It is an absolute horror that our country does not extend the right to life to its unborn babies. As a result, 1 out of 4 pregnancies in the U. S. today ends in abortion. That works out to over 1 million babies being butchered per year. (For stats, see HERE.)
As the potential leader of the free world, Obama has STATED that answering with specificity when life begins is beyond his pay grade. It is a little curious then why he would go on to say that he favors a prohibition on late-term abortions, so long as there is an exception to the health of the mother. If he does not know when life begins, then advocating a prohibition on abortion at any time would be ad hoc. In fact, advocating a prohibition against killing (actively or passively) a human being at any stage of development would be ad hoc. As a result, it is also curious why he would even bother attaching importance to figuring out non-legal ways to limit abortions.
Nonetheless, as a result of Obama's position on not knowing when life begins, it should not shock anyone to find out that he has VOTED against the protection of infants born as a result of abortion. If true, this amounts to the attempted legal protection of infanticide plain and simple as abortion survivor Gianna Jessen has stated in her VIDEO ADVERTISEMENT against Obama.
In their video response AD, the Obama campaign has called this charge of promoting infanticide a "despicable lie." This campaign video simply gave a statement supposedly from the republican sponsor of the bill, who said, "None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide."
It is important to keep in mind that one may not favor something even though his or her actions result in it. Certain democrats, for example, may not favor abortion personally, even though their vote for pro-choice democrats allows for others to have the legal availability of the practice. These voters may intend to bring other worthwhile actions to pass. In ethics, this is called the LAW OF DOUBLE EFFECT. One may be morally justified in intending some action even if by doing so it will in fact bring about, as a side effect, evil consequences that would normally be avoided in other situations. Similarly, Obama voting four times against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee and subsequently on the IL Senate floor between 2001 and 2003 does not prove that he intended the legal protection of infanticide. Obama was the only senator who spoke against the Act on the floor, and his stated reason was not to uphold infanticide. Rather, in his mind, it was clearly to keep the Senate out of court so it would not have to fight a constitutional battle over Roe vs. Wade. He said, "[T]his is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny." (Read his whole argument here against the original version of the STATE SENATE BILL [85-90]). Thus, instead of fighting for innocent human life, Obama fought for the efficiency of the state senate, and the rights of women to have their fetuses terminated.
Obama SAID that he would have voted for SB-1082 in 2003 if there was a neutrality clause similar to the federal bill that Bush signed into law in 2002. The neutrality clause simply stated neutrality as to whether the pre-born are persons who deserve the legal protection of human rights. In effect, this would safeguard Roe vs. Wade.
If this Obama explanation was the case, then why did he in 2003 strike down SB-1082? He actually presided over the committee that added the neutrality clause to SB-1082. (For confirmation that "Obama's claim is wrong," see FACT CHECK.ORG.)
The Obama campaign also CLAIMED that the Born Alive Act was unnecessary since IL law already makes provision for the abortion doctor to provide protection to "any" babies born alive.
There are problems here too. The actual law (720 ILCS 510/6) concerns only viable fetuses that are aborted. The abortionist is the one who must deem viability. What is deemed "pre-viable" on occasion turns out to be viable with proper care. The abortionist may be wrong since it really depends on the fetus, and under such circumstances, there would be nothing illegal with the abortionist cutting the live baby's head off according to Obama's understanding of the aegis of Roe vs. Wade. Further, even if a fetus is deemed viable under this law, a federal court in 1993 issued a CONSENT DECREE that keeps "authorities from enforcing the law's definitions of 'born alive,' 'live born,' and 'live birth.'" Obama even argued in 2002 against the care of an extra physician required by 720 ILCS 510/6, since it burdens the original decision of woman and abortionist (cf. SB-1663 [33-4]). Obama simply assumed that of course the abortionist would care for the fetus if it is born alive. But two nurses (Jill Stanek and Allison Baker) testified before a U. S. House Representatives' Judiciary Subcommittee that Chicago's Christ Hospital was performing these induced labor abortions with a number surviving for hours, with no further attempts to sustain their lives.
Obama was merely attempting to be consistent in his pro-choice position, which views Roe vs. Wade through a certain lens. This position extends the rights of Roe vs. Wade to even women who deliver pre-viable infants as a result of abortion, and those infants end up living for a time. Unfortunately for Obama, this view is not shared by most legislatures. Not even the most liberal, pro-choice U. S. senators voted against this Born Alive Act on the federal level. Even the pro-abortion group NARAL went neutral on this bill.
To not fight for the rights of the innocent infants born as a result of abortions, and to allow them to be left to die shows what Obama really values. Unintended or not, it is this horrible outcome that should demonstrate to Obama and everyone else that Roe vs. Wade is a horrible law. To hide behind a veil of ignorance in regards to the personhood of the pre-born and consequently not grant them basic human rights as Roe vs. Wade declares entails that our country will continue allowing the same butchering of innocents inside the womb. If it is horrific to allow an infant to suffer and die, then it ought to be horrific if a fetus is allowed to suffer and die at the hands of an abortionist.
R. M. Sivulka
President, Courageous Christians United