In the last presidential debate, Barack Obama tried again to deflect criticism of his numerous votes to kill an Illinois bill requiring care for babies who survive abortion.
Previously Obama has argued that laws against infanticide might have somehow touched Roe v. Wade. Not a strong argument: it’s acceptable to sacrifice living and breathing babies merely to foreclose possible questions about a controversial legal precedent? And it’s also not true. The final version of the bill did include specific language preventing any possible impact on Roe. Yet still Obama worked to kill it.
In the last debate, Obama leaned on his other defense: that the new law wasn’t needed because a law “already on the books” required care for abortion survivors.
The first question to ask is this: if it were merely a matter of redundancy, what politician in his right mind would not go ahead and vote yes anyway to avoid any possible misunderstanding of his position? If Obama agreed with the notion that any baby who survived an abortion was entitled to care, why not just vote yes and have two laws on the books to protect abortion survivors rather than just one?
The reason is because the old law did not protect all babies who survive abortions. In fact, it’s not likely that the law protected any of them.
The Illinois law that Obama is hiding behind was 720 ILCS 510.6. It applied only where the abortion doctor himself declared, before the abortion, that the baby he was about to abort had “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival …outside the womb,” in which case a second doctor was supposed to be on hand to care for the child.
Look closer. Exactly what would it take for a baby to receive care under the old law?
The old law gave the abortion doctor the complete and sole power to say whether the baby he was about to abort would continue to live if the baby survived an abortion.
What is the likelihood that an abortion doctor is going to announce in advance that he is about to abort a viable fetus? Viability is a flashpoint in the abortion debate today; “pro-choice” advocates only ever saying they are aborting non-viable fetuses.
Moreover, the old Illinois law gave the abortion doctor the power to decide that some babies do not deserve any care at all. Most decent people believe that even a baby who lives only for a day deserves some kind of medical care. But the old law gave the abortion doctor the unfettered power to say this baby deserves no care whatsoever.
By giving the abortion doctor the power to decide in advance which babies would get care and which would not, the old Illinois law in essence gave him the power to decide which babies would be considered human beings deserving of care and which would be considered nothing more than medical waste from an abortion, despite the fact that this medical waste was breathing and moving her arms and legs.
It was precisely the purpose of the new Illinois bill, the one that Obama so vigorously opposed, to ensure that any baby born alive was a person deserving of care, no matter what the abortion doctor may have declared or not.
Here is a vision of how abortion survivors were “protected” under the old law: Jill Stanek, the Chicago nurse who brought all of this to light, saw first-hand that babies who survived abortions were “left to die on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel.” She describes an instance where a baby “was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.” Another witness described entering a utility room and seeing, “lying on the metal counter, a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs.”
These babies were deemed non-persons by the abortion doctors who aborted them. They were left to die with no care because the old Illinois law did not apply to them.
And that’s exactly how Barack Obama wanted it to stay.
The lonely child gasping for breath represents a monumental moral failure on the part of this man who wants to be president. No wonder he doesn’t want anyone to know the truth.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter