Anyone who really wants to get a coherent view of Obama’s support for abortion and infanticide should flip open David Freddoso’s new book “The Case Against Barack Obama” to page 198 and begin reading.
If that is too much for you, I will boil it down succinctly. Obama’s support of infanticide has been covered exhaustively on the front page of RedState lately.
In 2001, the Illinois Attorney General determined doctors were under “no ethical or legal obligation” to give life sustaining treatment to prematurely born infants who were intended to be aborted. The Illinois General Assembly then took up the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, modeled on a federal law of the same name.
Barack Obama voted against the law. The Chicago Tribune reported on October 4, 2004, “Obama said that had he been in the U.S. 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. . . . 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, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.”
What the Chicago Tribune did not report was that Obama’s statement was a bold-faced lie. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) discovered the federal and state legislative texts and proved conclusively that the state version tracked the federal version’s protection of Roe vs. Wade.
After Barack Obama’s dismal failure at Saddleback Community Church this past Saturday, CBN’s David Brody interviewed Obama. Brody asked about the NRLC’s findings. Obama’s response was, “Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say –that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.”
First, as stated above, the Illinois Attorney General noted that Illinois’s law that, in Obama’s words, “insured life saving treatment was given to infants” did not apply when the infant was intended to be aborted.
Second, twenty-four hours after accusing the NRLC of lying about his record, Obama now admits the NRLC told the truth. According to the New York Sun, “His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.”
Obama told the Chicago Tribune the law did not have language tracking the federal version that would have guaranteed protections for Roe v. Wade. The NRLC proves conclusively that the legislation did have those protections. Obama declares the NRLC is lying. Yesterday, the Obama campaign changed its story. The NRLC was not lying, it’s just that "even as worded the legislation could have undermined Illinois abortion law."
Barack Obama would rather see infants thrown, quite literally, into trash cans than dare encroach on the right to an abortion. At least his campaign is now willing to admit it.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter