Obama's Opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act: When, How, and Why
44 comments | Permalink
Someone commented in a previous post that Barack Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was an urban legend. If that's true, I want nothing to do with perpetuating it.
But, sadly, Obama's opposition to BAIPA is a matter of record.
Here is a quick rundown, based on some research by Jill Stanek:
IL Senate 2001
IL Senate 2002
IL Senate 2003
Update: Just saw Jeremy Pierce's post from a couple of weeks ago, looking in more depth at Obama's argument.
But, sadly, Obama's opposition to BAIPA is a matter of record.
Here is a quick rundown, based on some research by Jill Stanek:
IL Senate 2001
- Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
- Voted "no" in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 28, 2001)
- Argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (March 30, 2001) (see pp. 84-90 of this PDF)
- Voted "present" for the bill (March 30, 2001)
IL Senate 2002
- Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
- Voted "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 6, 2002)
- Argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (April 4, 2002) (see pp. 28-35 of this PDF)
- Voted "no" for the bill (April 4, 2002)
IL Senate 2003
- Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
- Obama, who chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, held the bill from receiving a committee vote and stopped the senator sponsor from adding the federal act's clarification paragraph, which made the bills absolutely identical.
Update: Just saw Jeremy Pierce's post from a couple of weeks ago, looking in more depth at Obama's argument.
posted by JT at Wednesday, March 05, 2008
44 Comments:
What does he mean it would be unconstitutional to say that a fetus in the womb is a child, before it is 9 months old?
All this artificial eloquence really gets under my fingernails.
Like when Bill Clinton said, "It all depends on what is is".
Amazing!
thanks for doing this work JT - I saw a similar comment in reference to Rick S.'s original article.
z
It will be helpful to revisit Obama's standing on these important issues in context and read him more closely. I would like to affirm that I am pro-life and do not agree with OBama's approach to abortion. However, it will be helpful to represent the man accurately. Here's a brief summary of his (progressive) view on Abortion:
Obama campaign defends his abortion-rights record, http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_mounts_defense.html
Barack Obama on Abortion , http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
Obama and Infancide: http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2008/02/obama-and-infan.html#comments
Race 4 2008, http://race42008.com/2008/02/21/baipa/#comment-282932
What's Luke got to say about all this?
It seems that the argument from the Obama supporters is, "Yeah, but he justifies it. I mean he gives a reason why he voted in such a dastardly way." That may bring comfort to some, but not to me.
celucien,
At the end of the day,a progressive view on killing kids still kills kids. It doesn't help the victim to explain that we were very philisophical about this decision...they still die.
Quit attacking Obama on this one issue. This is why the rest of the world will not listen to us evangelicals.
See my response:
theologica.wordpress.com
our lord is Jesus Christ and not the one-sided (or two sided) agenda of the republican party. god endorses neither part.
theologica.wordpress.com
Jerald,
Would you feel the same way if a candidate worked for all the issues you cared for (social justice, the plight of the poor, etc.) but openly expressed a belief that African-Americans were sub-human and unworthy of any protection under the law? Would you look past that ONE issue and vote for him/her anyway?
The issue is not MERELY can a candidate do anything to make abortion disappear. The blatant disregard for human life evidenced in Obama's position on abortion reveals such a glaring lack of judgment that I would not consider voting for him even if we agreed on other issues (which we do not). And the argument that there is anything close to equivalency between the knowing and willful murder of an unborn child and people suffering in poverty or without healthcare (or whatever other 'social justice' issue) simply will not stand.
Jerald (and others who don't understand why this "one issue" is so important) fail to grasp the reality of what abortion is. The reason our society dismisses abortion as a significant issue is because they can't see, hear, or smell the murder of these human beings. Sadly, now even some "evangelicals" are buying into this lie that somehow that makes it different. If our citizens (let alone our children) were being lined up in front of firing squads for no other reason than they were "inconvenient" it would be a lot harder for Jerald to look past it. But since he doesn't see abortion as the same thing as cruel, genocidal murder he can look to other "weightier matters".
Another interesting thing is his argument (and I've seen it before) in his "response" is: Republican presidents haven't been able to overturn Roe v. Wade (which shows a true lack of understanding of how the issue will be resolved in our country) therefore we shouldn't try anymore. But then he says we should turn our attention to "weightier matters" like poverty and war. So let's get this straight he wants us to stop fighting for abortion because it is a hopeless cause but he wants us to turn our attention to poverty and war. When has the world EVER been without poverty and war? Ironic.
Jerald wrote:
"Quit attacking Obama on this one issue. This is why the rest of the world will not listen to us evangelicals."
So, the reason the rest of the world will not listen to evangelicals is because they keep taking a stand and keep having convictions?
Let me ask you something Jerald, if we give those up, then what kind of message do we have left that has any substance for them to listen to in the first place?
people will listen to me all day long if I say what they want me to say.
Evangelicals(Im defining them here as genuine Christians, though that term means almost nothing today) arent listened to by world because Jesus said that the world would hate us.
...doesnt mean we go out and intentionally try to make them hate us, ....it just means that the gospel is offensive to world and so are our lives and so is the Bible and every idea that we have just about that coincides with the Bible.
Stand for something, or you'll fall for everything....
If ignoring murder will make the world (who already reject Christ) stop listening to the church...then let them stop listening.
If we are to be faithful watchmen, we need to ignore the reactions of those who we are warning and take heed to the danger of which we are warning them.
Besides, if they will only listen when we say what they want to hear...why say anything at all.
P.S. If the Republicans stood for abortion (as many of them do) do you really think the church would smile and relax, knowing who will win the next election? Hardly.
We all saw how well the only pro-choice Republican candidate fared.
"The reason our society dismisses abortion as a significant issue is because they can't see, hear, or smell the murder of these human beings."
wow, i didn't know experience of abortion was the criteria for being for or against it. hmm.....
you all miss my point. the issue will not be resolved in the courts - only by the church's witness to a watching world.
what does the evangelical church have to show for its witness to the world on this topic? only that we are against it. duh...so are many others, BUT what does the watching world see of the church? ONLY US SCREAMING
its time we stop. its time we embody the grace of the gospel instead of shout it from the roof tops.
i stated my case more fully at:
theologica.wordpress.com
Slavery always gets brought up whenever abortion is discussed, but I say we need to quit looking at the symptom (slavery) and address the systemic issues that caused it.
If slave-owners had more viable economic opportunities that did not depend on massive amounts of human labor they would have been able to make a living without slavery. And if they had handy inventions to perform all of their cooking and cleaning like microwaves and vacuum cleaners they wouldn't have had to keep slaves in the field.
It is clear, abortion is about systemic problems that force women to kill their children and slavery was about systemic lack of technology that forced men to enslave other men. We shouldn't have had the civil war but instead focused on improving technology to the point that slavery was unnecessary and one day bubble gum will fall from the sky, poverty will be eradicated, and women will no longer abort their children if we just bring enough "justice" into the world before the return of Christ.
Wow Robin, that's a little naive don't you think? Slavery was abolished because good men forced the legislation through and a country went to war in order to defend its "new" citizens.
People are not so nice as you imagine, I think.
Women are not forced to bear children, they understand biology as well as the men. And waiting lists a mile long give the lie to the idea that abortion is ever a viable solution for a problem.
No child needs to die as thousands of childless couple will affirm.
The issue is, as all sin and subjugation of other people is, power, over others, over myself. And never, ever giving that to God or anyone else.
Jesus dealt with the systemic issue on the cross.
It is true that getting everyone saved would stop the problem, however that is clearly (and Scripturally) not in God's plan. So fight we must.
How can any one in their right mind disqualify a bill for saving a baby's life?
This post has been removed by the author.
how can we disqualify it? because i think that the church's mission is primarily to embody the gospel, not to legislate it.
in first century rome while romans where throwing babies by the side of the road (infanticide) christians were taking care of the babies, not lobbying for anti-infanticide legislation.
we are called to be a witness to the gospel - not to the make everyone else (even those who aren't christians) believe what we do.
Robin said:
"It is clear, abortion is about systemic problems that force women to kill their children and slavery was about systemic lack of technology that forced men to enslave other men."
No one forces women to kill their children just like no on forced men to enslave other men. Yes things contributed to the enslavement of men, but no one was forced to do it.
To pretend as if women have no choice is a bit naive when you consider the low number of abortions that are due to the endangering of the mother's life. If the mother's life isn't being threatened than you have to find some other way to rationalize a member of the human community (and this is done far too often and far too easily).
Jerald said:
"in first century rome while romans where throwing babies by the side of the road (infanticide) christians were taking care of the babies, not lobbying for anti-infanticide legislation."
Last time I checked, first century Rome was not a representative democracy. I agree that politics will not ultimately solve any problem because all problems are rooted in sin. But to compare the lack of "lobbying" by first century Christians in their political situation to lobbying today in America is comparing apples and oranges (I would agree that this must not be the ONLY focus, but this must be A focus). The church must not legislate the gospel, but the church must protect those who can't protect themselves.
Daryl,
I thought the tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment was evident.
The argument that abortion will disappear as inequality disappears, free healthcare is available to all, etc. Is just like saying that slavery would have disappeared eventually with the invention of the combine and vacuum...they would have just found other excuses for needing slaves and people will just make up more justifications for having abortions.
And in both cases, slavery and abortion, the promise to REDUCE the practice of such a heinous act through economic development is not enough. People that say, lets raise the minimum wage, provide college education to everyone, etc., and then maybe we will see the abortion rates drop...This would have been exactly the same as slave-owner-apologists saying, "wait, there is this new cotton gin, it will pick the cotton mechanically, and we have invented a vacuum so house slaves won't be as necessary...there is no need to outlaw slavery, let's just get these new machines in the marketplace and it will decrease on its own"
A decrease in abortion (or slavery) is not enough, it must be banned.
Lastly, some will argue that even if it is outlawed women will still seek back-alley abortions. Slavery has been outlawed in this country for 140 years and there are still sex slaves trafficked here. Does the failure of the emancipation proclamation to eradicate slavery mean that it should be repealed or that it wasn't effective?
in first century rome while romans where throwing babies by the side of the road (infanticide) christians were taking care of the babies, not lobbying for anti-infanticide legislation.
So... what do you propose we do? Run into abortion clinics, knock out the abortionists, make the women carry their babies to full term, and then adopt them?
You're wrong on this one dude. No one's trying to save the world by the political process. We're just trying to save babies from being murdered.
Jerald,
I have long thought and agreed with much of what you're saying. The problem for me becomes when my support of a candidate or my lack of support for a candidate shows that I do not value justice for the unborn. We are to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly (Micah 6:8). I agree that our current style often lacks humility but can we refrain from opposing abortion and still show that we value justice from a judicial standpoint?
Instead of looking at it as the church trying to legislate the gospel, look at it as a preservation aspect for our society. A society that allows the murder of children, the degradation of marriage and for sexual immorality to run wild will surely incur God's judgment. We ARE salt, we are a preserving agent on the earth. We must retain our saltiness and thus show it's value. I try to vote from that kind of perspective. I.e. How can I best be salt to this country so God's judgment will not fall onto these people and they will have more opportunities to repent?
I have very little time, so if this was not coherent I'll come back and check to clarify later (maybe tomorrow).
Thanks.
Robin,
Sorry, I missed the tongue-ness of your comment. I'm glad to hear that you were kidding,
Seriously, from time to time, a few (not many) people sround here would make just such an arguement.
Blessings.
I'm thankful I'm not a conservative evangelical anymore - and it's because of people like you all who are so blind to the larger world and issues surrounding the debate.
I guess ignorance is bliss. Have fun protesting and screaming - too bad those listening have ear-muffs on.
Don, his argument is that it would be unconstitutional to provide rights to born babies at the fetal stage of development before viability. He thinks that goes against Supreme Court precedent on fetal rights. It isn't about calling anything a baby. It's about granting legal rights.
Daryl, God is not a God of lies. It doesn't do to claim to represent God and then to present someone's arguments as something other than what those arguments are. That is in fact lying, and it's not of God. Excusing it because the person is allowing deaths isn't good enough. We shouldn't pretend their reasons for allowing deaths are other than what they are.
I don't see any legislation of the gospel here. This is a basic moral principle, and we legislate moral principles all the time. We outlaw murder, stealing, rape, and racial discrimination (in certain contexts, anyway). The reason we do so is moral. So is the reason for outlawing abortion.
Jerald, to be honest, you should have expected everyone on here to be ganging up on what you're saying if you can't back it up with scripture or reason. Dont default to the whole "we're just screaming louder than you and wont listen to anybody attitude" that your comment suggests.
If you want to convince people here, you need to use the Bible and reason, not your opinion. That's what you're doing.
You've stated an opinion that seems to say the church should not at least be involved in trying to make legislative change to end an evil. Caleb was right about Rome not being a democracy.
William Wilberforce would roll over in his grave if he heard the madness that you "feel" is right.
If you had ANY legislatice oportunity to end the holocaust in Germany, would you have sit back and tried to be super-spiritual and just prayed about it and left it alone? NO! you would have have jumped at the oportunity to change things through whatever channel God would give you.
The problem is, you dont see the abortion issue as a holocaust. Thats why you are content to sit back on your hands and try to "love" everybody or "serve" everybody into "gradually" getting rid of abortion.
The problem is, Christians are commanded to fight too. Not as the world does by taking lives, but we can definitely be involved in the governmental process that God has blessed us with.
Wilberforce wasnt the only one who benefited from political action. The reformation wouldnt have happened without some political victories being won. Study your history.
The church needs to preach the gospel, serve, have ministries, pray, be hospitable, have mercy, and on and on....but it also needs to exercise responsibility in political action when given a chance. Thats just common sense.
Also, abortion isnt just a religious belief. Its a human rights issue.
I'll add a scripture to close.
Proverbs 31:8
This by the way, was an oracle that KING!!!! Lemuel was taught by his mother....(I hope you saw my emphasis....it just is an emphasis that Christians can and should be involved in, change, or use government to accomplish what is right any time that it can.)
"Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute(In Hebrew, destitute means
'sons of passing away')"
That would certainly apply to the unborn who are passing away and have no voice of their own.
oh, and when I said "use government",....Im not talking about Big Brother stuff.
my point was meant to say that government got us in this mess by making it legal, we should use government to make it illegal and fix what went wrong.
what is using the government to do "right" by be using the government to get the government out of the stinkin way.
So, dont try to make what I said anything thing other than what I said.
"unconstitutional ...to provide rights to born babies at the fetal stage of development before viability." Jeremy
My daughter was premature, she weighed in at 2 lbs. At that moment she had no rights, is that correct? Is that what Obama is saying? And if so, then a doctor could have crushed my daughter's skull, and I could have done nothing about it, correct?
Don, is your daughter still alive? If so, then she was viable, and thus this law was irrelevant. This law was about pre-viable babies born after a failed abortion. There was already a law in place providing these guarantees for post-viability babies born from failed abortions. This law wasn't about survival but making them comfortable for the time they had remaining instead of throwing them in a trash bin and letting them suffer or just killing them outright because the abortion failed. There are very good reasons for having such a law, but none of them relate to what goes on with viable but premature babies.
What Obama is saying is that Supreme Court precedent doesn't allow for rights of pre-viable fetuses. He doesn't say that's the right view (although I suspect he does think so). He just argues based on what Supreme Court precedent would allow to stand if IL passed a law. His view is that there are no legal rights in the pre-viability stage, and this law would go against that. It isn't that there are no legal rights post-viability. He doesn't comment on that issue at all.
"in first century rome while romans where throwing babies by the side of the road (infanticide) christians were taking care of the babies, not lobbying for anti-infanticide legislation"...
This sounds similar to a point I was trying to make on the last post about this issue, but was not approved (which was upsetting).
Anyway, I agree with this statement.
Basically, what I want to say is that if some of you don't think it's right to vote for Obama, then it's definitly not right to vote for McCain. So what's the answer?... Do evangelical Christians vote at all in 2008?
Carrie: Wait, how is McCain worse on this issue than Obama? I haven't seen a single argument for that thesis here. I've seen some claims that the issues doesn't matter (which is certainly not true). I've seen some claims that other issues are more important (which I haven't been convinced by). But neither of those claims, even if true, shows that McCain is even less deserving of Christian support. Neither claim is about McCain at all, actually.
As for Rome vs. the U.S., there's a fundamental difference. Christians in ancient Rome were often not even citizens, and the ones who were citizens weren't in a position to do very much. Submitting to the government is a significant command in the NT. Yet in the U.S. we're given the privilege of being part of the government merely by being a citizen, and most Christians in the U.S. are citizens. It's a completely different situation. Submission to the government when you're part of the government doesn't remove your responsibility to do what you can to be good to all. In fact, it provides resources for seeking the good of the society God has sovereignly placed us in.
So I would argue that we have every responsibility to figure out which candidate would be best (not which is perfect but which would lead to the best outcome). That's part of our obligation to do good to all. If we do not vote, then we fail in that responsibility. I'm convinced that Obama's views are so downright awful in terms of their consequences that I think I have a strong moral duty to vote for McCain, and it's not just because of this issue. It's on almost every issue.
Carrie Marie: I didn't moderate your comment. I don't know why it didn't appear--sorry.
JT
"Don, is your daughter still alive?"
Yes she is by the grace of God. And she now has three sons.
What Obama has said is that a baby has to be 9 months and delivered before considered a baby. Up to that point you can kill him or her.
He should see that killing these babies is wrong, and a horrible sin, since he says he is a Christian.
My point is that Stephanie at 7 months and 2 lbs could have been left in a closet to die. Which is what is happening today in some places.
They tried to pass a law to ban this and Obama said no.
Not to mention Obama supports partial birth abortion, which is a crazy procedure, because you actually have to turn the baby in the womb, and pull its feet out, but not the head, keep the head in the womb, and then suck the brains out. And then deliver the dead baby.
What if the baby's head slipped out? Would you be able to put it back in? Hmmm. They better make another law.
Abortion shows the depravity of mankind in such a vivid and crystal clear way. We are killing the Imago Dei.
Not to mention all the babies abortion kills for conveince sake in all the different trimesters.
But we all know how evil abortion is don't we. I heard a friend of mine say, "I don't believe in scare tactics", so she won't watch a video of the truth.
There is a fine video I have seen on JT's blog, and have had it on mine as well, which shows want abortion really is.
I encourage all here to watch if you haven't already.
A picture is worth 1.4 million words sometimes. (http://dlsands.blogspot.com/2007/10/abort73com-this-is-abortion.html)
Actually, no, Obama quite explicitly said that viability is the point where the Supreme Court allowed restriction of abortion. Here are his exact words:
"Number one, whenever we define a previable 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 — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term."
then again:
"Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."
I don't remotely agree with Obama's stance on this issue. Even if there weren't a whole lot of other reasons to prefer Hillary to him (and there are), this would be sufficient. I thought she was as extreme as a politician could get on this issue and still get votes, but it turns out she's not.
Nevertheless, I do think it's important to get his view right before criticizing it.
[I found Obama's words here initially, but it's not loading up. I took these from the Google cache.]
So Obama says abortion is wrong?
Is he saying the fetus is a child, and to abort it is wrong?
No, he doesn't comment on the moral issue (at least not here). What he says is that the Supreme Court allowed abortion to be restricted after the point of viability but not before. He's right about that as a factual claim.
It's his legal conclusion that doesn't follow. He draws a faulty inference about its unconstitutionality based on (1) a faulty Supreme Court decision to begin with, (2) a faulty inference from that decision as it would apply to this case, and (3) a faulty inference to the moral wrongness of passing legislation just because there's a good chance the Supreme Court might overturn it.
None of this relies on any view about the moral permissibility or impermissibility of abortion. We know his views on that. He's perfectly ok with the status quo on abortion, and that's an immoral view. But his argument here doesn't rely on his view of the moral issues.
"He's perfectly ok with the status quo on abortion, and that's an immoral view."
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for biter.
Woe to them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
... as the fire devoursthe stubble, and the flame consumes the chaff. so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: BECAUSE ... they have ... despised the Word of the Holy One of Israel." Isaiah 5:20-21,24
Barack calls evil abortion a good thing, something we need to have. Sad for him if he doesn't repent.
May the Lord have mercy on Barack, as He did me, and open his eyes to horror and evil wickedness of abortion. Amen.
I don't know of anywhere where he calls abortion a good thing. He definitely thinks women have a right to an abortion, but that doesn't mean he thinks abortion is a good thing. I agree that he doesn't see it as the evil that it is, but that doesn't mean he sees it as good. He may just not see it as being quite as evil as it really is.
He calls abortion, which is evil, not really that evil, and not really good.
That's one of those lukewarm statements.
However, we are speculating about his heart, are we not.
He certainly could think abortion is a good thing, or he could have a heart like you suggest. But either way, he is in need of having his eyes opened to the truth.
May God have mercy on Barack. Amen.
I heard a woman arguing for abortion and she said she was happy she did so. There's even a websit where you can go to be encouraged in the fact that you killed your baby.
It's getting worse and worse.
And yet we always have hope in the Lord, and we can pray He would help His people fight against this law that says you can legally kill an innocent human child.
JT - I've also had a comment (sadly, rather lengthy) appear and then disappear when I came back.
You might consider looking into what might be causing these problems.
I won't repost my entire comment, but I'll just say that it would have settled the debate, convinced all Americans to reject Obama's candidacy, and likely ended abortion on-demand within 3 years. It's unfortunate that it didn't show up. ;)
good work on the research, but did you notice Obama's arguments?
2001 - similar bill had been struck down by the 7th district court as unconstitutional
2002 - doctors are already under an ethical obligation to save the life of a child, requiring a second doctor to assess is superfluous and therefore only invasive.
But you know, people WANT to believe and insinuate that Obama is against saving babies.
Steven, that is the reason he gives, but it shows pretty awful reasoning skills if he means it seriously. Look at the post of mine that Justin links to above. Also, note the strange refusal even to let the IL Senate vote on the alterations to make it more like the US Senate bill that Barbara Boxer, along with most of his party in the Senate, did happily support. It raises serious questions about his motivations.
Doctors are currently required by law to render aid and life support to all viable fetuses born under any circumstances -- attempted abortion or otherwise. The BAIPA would require doctors to render aid and life support to non-viable fetuses as well. That's non-viable, as in "cannot survive outside the womb." In those terms, I understand Obama's decision. However, I also understand that it is appalling to think of the situations in which that law would need to be applied. Clearly, the reduction and eventual elimination of all abortions worldwide should be a goal for pro-life and pro-choice subscribers alike. I think we merely disagree on the means to that end. Personally, I think prohibition has been seen to do more harm than good, and what we really need is more support for mothers in difficult situations, more support for adoption, and more support for sex education and parenting education. However, I too am not okay with endorsing abortion, and I fear that legalized abortion does to some degree prevent the public consciousness from caring for infants the way it should, and may therefore may even be partially responsible for the fact that we do not a social environment that is more supportive of mothers in troubled situations.
It's certainly a very complicated issue. The way I see it, if it is not accompanied by a dramatic increase in other resources, the prohibition of abortion would contribute to all sorts of problems (specifically, child abuse/neglect and all of the social problems that stem from such abuse and neglect). Meanwhile, the dramatic increase in those same resources would alleviate much of the factors that cause people to elect to kill a fetus in the first place.
Anyhow, I certainly respect your view. I trust that you hold your beliefs on abortion not solely on your faith (though I have the utmost respect for religious faith) but also on principals of justice and the desire to make the world better, more compassionate place for all. Please afford me the same understanding.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home