Why do many people believe the Born Alive Infant Protection Act which Obama voted against was about abortion?

Question

It was not. It was about what becomes of the babies which were actually born alive following an attempted abortion.

Obama was against mandating that these babies be given medical attention. He was the ONLY Illinois lawmaker to vote against the bill.

Abrtion is one thing, but once a baby is actually born, only truly sick individuals are in favor of infanticide. Guess which current presidential nominee fits that characterization?

Answer 1

Many on this site are falsely presuming that Obama's voting against certain abortion legislation was because it provided babies the right to protection if they survive a late-term abortion.  He correctly has pointed out that the existing law provided such protections already, and voted against the newer legislation due to OTHER constraints it would put on the woman's rights.

In reporting on abortion-rights opponents’ criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's opposition as an Illinois state senator to bills seeking to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, the media have promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the legislation. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations -- or made the accusations themselves -- that Obama's opposition amounted to support for infanticide. In fact, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.

On the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that "[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion," and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama's opposition was "enabling infanticide." In fact, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.

It's been said that, if it weren't for lack of context, there would be no news.

You have to consider the source.

One source of these claims is Jerome Corsi, who has also written that McCain made his wealth through the Mafia and that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Bush Administration.  

Another source of these claims is Jill Stanek, who says domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions.  She also supports billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili, written next to a large skeleton, to discourage condom use.  She claims that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening."

Nurse Jill Stanek claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room.  The Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims, because what she was alleging were violations of existing law, supporting Obama's position that Illinois law already prohibited the conduct.  The investigation concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone."  Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that her testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance her anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.

Don't extremist conservatives think it might hurt their cause to put out stuff that's so easily debunked? or do they not think their audience would feel its intelligence is being insulted?

Answer 2

Plain and simple Obama is a baby killer. The proof is in his voting record.

Answer 3

It essentially mandates medical care for a baby born alive after a botched abortion. It passed the Senate 95-0.

Apparently, Obama believes that a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body also gives her the right to carry through with an abortion even as the baby survives outside of her womb.

Answer 4

It shows you how the left's contention that abortion is okay because a fetus is not a life is pure bunk.  And they're creeping way over the line now.

Answer 5

Because its a stupid bill.  If you send someone to death row - like the mother did- and they survive -  when the court sentenced them to die? Whose call is it really? The executioner , (doctor)  the judge (Mother) or Senator Obama?

So, How are  you are going to advocate,  that the excecutioner (the abortion doctor) extract the baby, and if there is a heart beat, save it.  In the first place, didn't the mother go there for the execution?  So, now who gets the baby the mother had executed, once it survives?  what do you do, keep it and send it to the mom and make her pay child support when she thought the baby died?  Keep it in a lab for some freak weirdo doctor to get a hold of?

And, how many will survive -  Will the hospital pay for it?  NO MORE TAXES, remember?  HOW?  

Teach women the facts about abortion and they won't go that route. How can Senator Obama be blamed to fix something that was broken since he was a small child?

The facts are, Abortion was law since Barack Obama was a small child.  His Mother didn't abort him, thank God.  He said he does not believe in Abortion, but that is a woman's choice.  Haven't you said he is not God, so why do you want him to play God.  He will be the president, not God.  Even God give us free will -  why should Obama take our God given rights away ?  Those women who choose to turn their wombs into grave yards, have to stand before God for themselves, Not Senator Obama .

Answer 6

You're right. Obama wants to make sure that the baby is not saved. This is to prevent the baby from becoming a financial burden to the mother.

Answer 7

Most ADULT people are aware that you can have a DNR (a do not recessitate), meaning if it takes special measures, not offered by God alone, then they do not want to be kept alive. Well if a baby is not capable of staying alive without extreme intervention from the medical professionals, then who are you to say that they(the medical professionals) must step in and keep it alive no matter what condition the poor thing is in? Remeber Terry Shivo? She was kept alive a very long time...how noble.  

Answer 8

It's amazing to me how a person can spin this vote to say something it does not.  Obama voted to withhold medical attention to a live infant.  Nothing more.  If we can't agree on when life begins, we should all agree that an infant alive outside the womb is living.  Obamas ability to rationalize his most liberal voting record will fool a fool, but not a rational, thinking individual.  

Answer 9

No matter what facts you are shown you will not listen, so why bother when I can communicate with people who have at least half a brain, unlike most Republicans.

Answer 10

Because it WAS about abortion. If you look at the transcript of his impassioned speech against it, you will find he was very much concerned about a slippery slope towards outlawing abortion altogether.  

Answer 11

They can no longer say that isn't a person.  Only a very sick, cruel person could not allow that baby to receive medical attention.  It would take a heartless individual to vote that way.  Yes, Obama did.  Need I say more?

Answer 12

Most people don't; it's just Obama also happens to be pro-abortion.  Obama decided that.  Nobody I know is confusing any issues here-except for you of course.

Answer 13

Obama wasn't a member of the senate during the time that the actual federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 was passed.

To clarify what you said: "It was about what becomes of the babies which were actually born alive following an attempted abortion."

It actually has NOTHING to do with babies who are born after attempted abortion.

This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" for Federal purposes.

Go read the bill. It will take 2 minutes of your time (H.R. 2175). It says nothing about attempted abortion.

This bill, the one you are refering to, the actual Born Alive Infact Protection Act of 2002, H.R 2175, passed without a single dissenting vote in either house of congress.

Obama opposed a state version of the bill (SB 1082) because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill. In other words, he opposed it because the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

He was not supporting infanticide because he actually was not even a member of congress at the time that H.R 2175 was passed. He opposed the Illinois SB 1082 only until its language was clarified.

The only difference between the federal BAIPA and the Illinois "BAIPA" was this sentance added at the end of SB 1082:

(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.

That statement alone is not bad, however, Obama did not want the word "abortion" in the bill, so...

He voted in 2003 to add clarifying language to the Illinois "BAIPA" so that it cannot be construed as being about abortion. The bill was shelved soon afterwards and passed in 2005.

Obama did not kill the bill. He tried to get the language clarified, something the rest of the Illinois Senate did not want to do. So clearly it was the rest of the Illinois senate that killed the bill.

Just to sum this up for some of you dummy's out there who can't read my intelligent argument: Obama did NOT vote against the bill because he wanted women to kill their babies, or because he though already born babies should be left to die. He voted against it because of its LANGUAGE, which he tried to get clarified to no avail. And also, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (the one Obama did not vote on) is NOT SB 1082 (the Obama did vote on).

Answer 14

You don't want socialized medicine, but you want my tax dollars paying for the care of this child? If the child has no hope of living and the parents say no to medical intervention, who are republicans to say I must pay? If I have to pay for that baby then all people who seek medical care have the right to our tax dollars for their care.

I meant, and I'm sure you knew it, any person without hope of recovery. And for clarification, federal law does not say we must pay to keep someone on life support alive. The hospital has the option to remove life support when they are the ones paying for care.

Answer 15

He voted for murder pure and simple. A live born child is to be protected under any civilized society

Answer 16

You don't want stem cell research to aid in for healthier lifestlyes but yet LIFE after an attempted abortion is probably going to have many medical problems.  If the mother doesn't want the child in the beginning what would make you think that she would want to 1. take care of it 2. pay all the medical that the child is going to incur for said saving of an attempted abortion.

If you don't want to have an abortion.  Then don't have one.  If one is aborted and then LIVES that you don't want to have, then keep it.  America was founded on a fundamental ideology and that was separation of church & state.  America allows you to practice your beliefs and this is one of the things that is so different from other countries.  Why can't you practice your belief and let others practice theirs.  

Being in favor is not what living in America is about.  Your belief is yours and we will fight for it.  Does not mean that we think it is right or wrong.  We do not have a h**l to put you in and times have been that majority of society has been wrong.  Salem Witch Trials does that ring a bell!

Answer 17

Because it was an attempt to restrict abortion rights.