|
|
| |
| Thu, Nov. 20, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Obama versus his record Sunday, Aug 24, 2008 By David J. Sanders Inhumane is the best description of Sen. Barack Obama's opposition to a measure supported by even some of the most militant pro-abortion types, aimed at extending legal protections to babies ? not "fetuses" ? born alive during failed abortions. Incredible, yet understandable, is his determination to deny a record rife with potentially grave consequences. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has worked hard to convince voters he holds reasonable views on abortion. In fact, Obama's conciliatory language contrasts sharply with a voting record that has not only demonstrated staunch opposition to reasonable and rational steps aimed at protecting unborn life, but also an eagerness to extend the revered "right to choose" to babies who survived abortions. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), was introduced in 2000 by then-U.S. Rep. Charles Canady. It was as simple as it was important. BAIPA established that any baby who was entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who showed any of the specified signs of life, was to be regarded as a legal person and receive all the protections that go with that. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) called the bill a blind attack on abortion rights and characterized the measure as an "anti-choice assault." It never was ? as even a vast majority of pro-choice lawmakers understood. Language was subsequently added to make it explicit that the proposal would have no impact on abortion. In hearings on the bill, members of Congress had to come to grips with "live birth abortion." Nurses from Christ Hospital in Oaklawn, Ill., testified that drugs were used on unborn babies from 16 to 23 weeks old to force premature delivery. It was not uncommon for these infants to be born alive. Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ, told members she had witnessed infants left to die in "soiled utility rooms" after being born alive. "It is not uncommon for these live, aborted babies to linger for an hour or two, or even longer," she said. Another nurse testified that she had once found a 22-week old baby "naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs. I did wrap the fetus and place him in a warmer and for 22 hours he maintained a heartbeat and then finally expired," she said. Obama has been repeatedly confronted with his vote against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act as a member of the state Senate. The bill was a virtual clone of the federal law. He has attempted to cover up his vote by eliding ? combining thereby confusing ? the issue. Using a parliamentary defense to obscure his opposition to granting protections to living and breathing human beings, he claims there were MAJOR differences between the bill he voted against in Illinois in 2003 and the federal version, first introduced in and passed (380 to 15) by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, and then passed and signed into law in 2002. But, the National Right to Life organization has exposed Obama's elaborate cover-up. The country's leading anti-abortion organization launched, on its Web site, a detailed step-by-step analysis of both (the federal and Illinois) bills, as well as legislative timelines and comparisons of Obama's words with what actually transpired. The two laws were virtually identical and Obama did vote against the Illinois law. For four years, when confronted by his troubling record, Obama has tried to divert attention away from reality instead of facing up to the truth that he voted to sanction inhumane behavior by anyone's definition. Unfortunately for Obama, the walls are closing in on him. ------- David Sanders writes twice weekly for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock and is a host of the Arkansas Education Television Network's "Unconventional Wisdom." His e-mail address is DavidJSanders@aol.com. |
