Obama Failed To Vote Against Infanticide While In The Illinois State Senate

This story is shocking. It puts Obama on the far fringe of the abortion debate. It shows him to be a pro-abortion radical and nothing less.

Christ Hospital of Chicago was found to be leaving infants in failed abortions to die. A nurse blew the cover off of this infanticide taking place in the hospital. An investigation took place which found that the nurse's claims were accurate. The issue then came before the Illinois legislature. They began to debate whether infants born alive during abortions should be considered persons and have care provided for them. Obama voted against the bill.

In 2004 Obama's opponent in his race for the Senate charged him with supporting infanticide. Obama responded as 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.” Now even this would not be a sufficient excuse for not voting for a bill that protects infants from being murdered. Perhaps if this was a purely intellectual debate he might then have an excuse. It was not an intellectual or academic debate because actual babies were being left to die. There is no excuse for the way he voted.

It gets worse. The National Right To Life Committee points out that Obama himself still uses the same excuse as can be seen from a June 30, 2008 “factcheck” issued by the Obama campaign. It still appeared on the Obama website on August 7, 2008. The major news outlets have been following the Obama defense without questioning it at all. His excuse for voting against the bill has been repeated without challenge by the mainstream media for years. THE NRLC cites a few examples. CNN reported on June 30, 2008, “Senator Obama says if he had been in the U.S. Senate in 2002, he, too, would have voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act because unlike the Illinois bill, it included language protecting Roe v. Wade.” The New York Times reported in a story on August 7, 2008 that Obama “said he had opposed the bill because it was poorly drafted and would have threatened the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established abortion as a constitutional right. He said he would have voted for a similar bill that passed the United States Senate because it did not have the same constitutional flaw as the Illinois bill.”

The National Right To Life Committee has looked into the story and now says that Obama is not only a person who voted against a bill prohibiting infanticide but he lied about his motives. They write that "documents obtained by NRLC now demonstrate conclusively that Obama’s entire defense is based on a brazen factual misrepresentation. The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the Illinois state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the 'neutrality clause' (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4." These documents apparently leave Obama with no defense. He voted against a bill protecting babies from failed abortions. If the NRLC is accurate in its story then this needs to be exposed by our mainstream media now. Obama's cover cannot be allowed to last until November, the American people deserve to know the facts surrounding this vote. Obama cannot get away with such a vote, a vote far more radical than anyone in our Congress would dare to put on the record, a vote which truly questions why he is being considered for the highest office in our land.

Here is a link to the NRLC report: http://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=124891319&message_id=543522&user_id=NRLC


Tweet