Obama Voted to Perpetuate Modern-day Infant Exposure
October 3, 2012
The Susan B. Anthony List and the Women Speak Out PAC have an ad about infanticide that apparently will air during tonight’s presidential debate:
“When he was in the Illinois state senate, Barack Obama voted to deny basic constitutional protections for babies born alive from an abortion—not once, but four times.”
Learn more about Melissa Ohden, other abortion survivors, and President Obama’s record from the Susan B. Anthony List.
The charge, by the way—that then-state-senator Obama voted multiple times against the ban on this real-life modern-day infant exposure—is completely true, as Yuval Levin shows and Andrew McCarthy explains (read it). See also Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry.
The Weekly Standard has the audio for what McCarthy quotes, Obama in the state senate in 2002:
As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, lets say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that in fact they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?
(Emphasis added.)
This is not to be confused with the partial-birth-abortion ban, which Obama also opposed; we’re talking about killing infants born alive or locking them in a utility closet to die.
Don’t look away. Don’t tell yourself to forget about this and not let it affect your vote. This is your president. This is the face of the Democratic Party today.
Tagged: abortion, Barack Obama, life, news, politics, pro-life movement
October 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM
If anyone is unsure about any of the underlying facts here, let me know, and I’ll try to help find whatever additional sources you need. Seriously. I don’t want anyone to fall through the cracks on this one and give up on being able to know what’s true and what’s not just because I linked to NRO.
October 3, 2012 at 4:40 PM
I disagree with President Obama’s stance on abortion and believe that he should have voted in favor of this legislation. However, he did state that he was confident that doctors would care for babies that were actually born alive.
I also find the hypocrisy of people who oppose abortion but are okay with the death penalty and war and the collateral damage that both have on innocent persons absolute mind-boggling.
October 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM
Oh, and you do realize that Governor Romney was staunchly pro-choice until it was no longer politically expedient to be so?
October 4, 2012 at 5:09 PM
“However, he did state that he was confident that doctors would care for babies that were actually born alive.”
Right, but that’s not true, not even close. Jill Stanek worked in a hospital where she gained firsthand knowledge of these things. It was not uncommon for aborted babies to be born alive. It happened so often that the hospital had a policy for how to deal with it. Doctors did not care for them.
She says that about half of abortions performed with this procedure resulted in a live birth. The resulting babies were always left to die.
Obama heard Stanek’s testimony in the Illinois state senate before he cast his votes, and he still voted to let the children die.
Traditional morality is also not hypocrisy. The three categories you mention are three very different things.
October 4, 2012 at 9:26 PM
Politics corrupts, there’s no doubt about that. See, e.g., Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.