What can you tell me about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and why Barack Obama voted against it.?

Question

To me if a child was born alive they would be a person even if it happend while an abortion was being performed. So if they are a person would letting them die without any kind of medical treatment be murder. How could someone vote against it?

Answer 1

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/

This site covers the issue in detail.

Answer 2

not much, maybe another left handed attempt to circumvent Roe vs. Wade

Answer 3

I support the abortion rights but that is jsut sick if they are truly doing that its jsut not right I would like to see that kind of law implemented.....I mean even if you pro abortion like me I still think that they should do someting...

Answer 4

Gerson Wrong on Obama and "Born Alive" Legislation

April 02, 2008

RHETORIC:"In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion." [Washington Times, 4/2/08]

REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation, A Move Pro-Choice Groups Would Not Have Opposed Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal BAIPA Because of Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That's Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, "We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them." [CNN, 8/5/02]

NARAL Statement: "NARAL Does Not Oppose Passage" of BAIPA.In a statement, NARAL said, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [NARAL release, 6/13/01]

Major Difference Between State And Federal BAIPA: "The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have Been Used To Challenge" Roe V. Wade. "Perhaps on no other issue is Keyes' rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. Keyes repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring 'infanticide' because of Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The failed measure would have required doctors to provide medical attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of abortion procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed through Congress. But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to hammer Obama with the "infanticide" charge virtually daily on the campaign trial. Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he's "deeply offended" by Keyes' assertion because he knows it's false. Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on late-term abortions that Bush signed - but federal judges since have put on hold - and Keyes would have voted for it." [Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04]

Answer 5

While every other pro-choice Dem supported the Born Alive Infant Protection act, in the US Senate, Obama killed it in the IL legislation.  

This act would have allowed babies who are BORN ALIVE to receive medical treatment and care.  But Obama's take is if the parents wanted the child aborted, it should die, even if it survived the induction of labor.  

These are babies whose mothers have opted to induce labor early with the hope that the child will not survive -- but plenty do!  In IL, thanks to Obama, these children are placed with medical waste and left to die.  

Obama’s defensive that the language was not like the US version is a LIE because the 2003 bill had exactly the same language and if Obama did not like the language he could have had it changed.  The 2003 bill was the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfL_H7zg1...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kdWN5Wll...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8ACR0cjd...

Answer 6

Because the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was poorly written based on poor political reasons and based on emotional b.s.  It would have been struck down in a court of law.  Any fetus that is aborted and happens to be alive at the time cannot be saved no matter how much medical attention it gets.  That's fact.

Answer 7

Can you please link to the exact legislation for us?

I'm sure the answer will be quite evident if you do.

Does this bill mean that an aborted fetus which still maintains a pulse must be "saved" somehow?

If so, how would one accomplish this task?

Answer 8

Barrack is slave to the pro abortion movement and he can can can do no such thing that would make him appear to be supportive of innocent human life. It's a tough fact to grapple with but the proof is in the pudding.    

Answer 9

because the govt has no control over a woman's body