BAIPA - sleeper issue?
- Thread starter 6thGen
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
FYI - BAIPA is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Obama opposed it and killed it in committee as a state senator. The US Senate passed with a unanimous vote. It basically states that infants born alive are afforded the same Constitutional rights, whether or not they were wanted. A nurse testified that in 1999, she watched babies aborted alive and shelved to die in utility rooms. Obama killed the attempt to end it in committee.
From the nurse that testified that she witnessed babies shelved to die.
Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
By Jill Stanek
? 2008
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59702
I was intimately involved in the five-year process to pass the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, testifying before committees twice that then-state Sen. Barack Obama sat on.
Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA.
10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:
I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
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 ? child, a 9-month-old ? child that was delivered to term. ?
I mean, it ? it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers.
Before voting "no" for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:
What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that.
8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative.
An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against BAIPA because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."
7. Anyway, doctors don't do that.
Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions."
6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof.
Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee," according to the Illinois Leader.
5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.
During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, Alan Keyes famously said:
Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. ... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.
Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' condemnation as a blanket statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.
Nevertheless, induced labor abortion, the procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive, must be included as one Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes as he recounted in a July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:
... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and ? I can't impose my religious views on another.
4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.
In that USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it:
But my opponent's accusations nagged at me. ... If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.
During the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, "The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons," according to the Illinois Leader.
2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver.
Obama has this quote on his website:
Pam Sutherland ? of ? Illinois Planned Parenthood ? told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."
And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:
1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.
During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:
Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.
This was a lie on two points.
First, there was no such amendment.
Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.
The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama's contention:
Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.
At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically "encroach on Roe v. Wade"?
Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.
Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
By Jill Stanek
? 2008
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59702
I was intimately involved in the five-year process to pass the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, testifying before committees twice that then-state Sen. Barack Obama sat on.
Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA.
10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:
I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
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 ? child, a 9-month-old ? child that was delivered to term. ?
I mean, it ? it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers.
Before voting "no" for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:
What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that.
8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative.
An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against BAIPA because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."
7. Anyway, doctors don't do that.
Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions."
6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof.
Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee," according to the Illinois Leader.
5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.
During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, Alan Keyes famously said:
Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. ... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.
Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' condemnation as a blanket statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.
Nevertheless, induced labor abortion, the procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive, must be included as one Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes as he recounted in a July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:
... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and ? I can't impose my religious views on another.
4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.
In that USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it:
But my opponent's accusations nagged at me. ... If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.
During the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, "The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons," according to the Illinois Leader.
2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver.
Obama has this quote on his website:
Pam Sutherland ? of ? Illinois Planned Parenthood ? told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."
And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:
1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.
During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:
Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.
This was a lie on two points.
First, there was no such amendment.
Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.
The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama's contention:
Illinois' paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.
At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically "encroach on Roe v. Wade"?
Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.
As far as I can tell, the bill was flawed because its definitions and standards were too vague. Obama voted against it because he worried its vagueness 1) would become ammo against Roe v. Wade and 2) cause issues as the medical community does not fully agree at what point resucitation is futile or just how far they should go to keep a severely premature baby alive.
Apparently there was legislation passed in 1984 nicknamed "baby doe" that covers the issue of healthy babies, but isn't well regulated/enforced
The legislation is easy to sensationalize so they are now writing articles about "why Jesus won't vote for Obama" (written by the woman 6th gen references) and adding the rumor that he wants newborn babies to die to the list o' nonsense. :roll:
From a neonatal medical journal discussion of the issue:
"The BAIPA indiscriminately defines "born alive" to include an infant "at any stage of development... regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion," and it makes no reference to standards of care or best interests, nor does it specifically protect a parent’s decision-making authority."
"At best, legislators recognized that physicians disagree about the efficacy of resuscitating at the limits of viability, and therefore the current standard of care permits doctors to deem resuscitation a futile endeavor. However, judges may resist characterizing resuscitation as futile, given its poor analytical fit, and substantial public-policy concerns regarding discrimination against future disabled individuals could easily tip a court to preserve incipient, at least, physiologic life under the BAIPA’s all-encompassing definition of born alive."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/4/e576?ct
Apparently there was legislation passed in 1984 nicknamed "baby doe" that covers the issue of healthy babies, but isn't well regulated/enforced
The legislation is easy to sensationalize so they are now writing articles about "why Jesus won't vote for Obama" (written by the woman 6th gen references) and adding the rumor that he wants newborn babies to die to the list o' nonsense. :roll:
From a neonatal medical journal discussion of the issue:
"The BAIPA indiscriminately defines "born alive" to include an infant "at any stage of development... regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion," and it makes no reference to standards of care or best interests, nor does it specifically protect a parent’s decision-making authority."
"At best, legislators recognized that physicians disagree about the efficacy of resuscitating at the limits of viability, and therefore the current standard of care permits doctors to deem resuscitation a futile endeavor. However, judges may resist characterizing resuscitation as futile, given its poor analytical fit, and substantial public-policy concerns regarding discrimination against future disabled individuals could easily tip a court to preserve incipient, at least, physiologic life under the BAIPA’s all-encompassing definition of born alive."
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/4/e576?ct
Last edited:
The other article title was a reference to Keyes' remark. There are plenty of vague laws passed with his support, but this is one he chose to take a stand on. I'm not saying he couldn't talk his way out of his vote, but that's why I cited it as a sleeper issue where his attempt at nuance could bite him in the ass. He still did a terrible job of talking around it. His hasty dismissal would lead me to believe he has a quick answer for killing it in committee, but it took him years to come up with something reasonable. Everyone with a friend on the Hill knew what Kerry meant when he said that he voted for the war before he voted against it, but it hurt him regardless. The fact that a similar federal bill passed unanimously points to the fact that everyone else knew better than to touch that issue. He's also against criminalization for transporting minors across state lines for abortions without parental consent. He's further left on abortion than NARAL, and it's going to hurt him.
Thanks Scotterbug for filling me in on the "rest" of the story.
I will look forward to 6th Gen response on this.
This is an issue where you need every single bit of information on both sides to make a good decision. The actual, specific act itself, sounds abhorent to me, and should be illegal IMO, and I am on the left of this issue in general.
This "sleeper" issue will obviously play very well in conservative churches across the country, as those preaches inclined to "walk the line" of actually endorsing McCain, will certainly use it to motivate their congregations.
I will look forward to 6th Gen response on this.
This is an issue where you need every single bit of information on both sides to make a good decision. The actual, specific act itself, sounds abhorent to me, and should be illegal IMO, and I am on the left of this issue in general.
This "sleeper" issue will obviously play very well in conservative churches across the country, as those preaches inclined to "walk the line" of actually endorsing McCain, will certainly use it to motivate their congregations.
Last edited:
I would certainly like to see far fewer abortions, but passing laws to get the government further involved in MEDICAL decisions is the wrong way to go.
Quit getting rid of health services, contraception, and only teaching abstinence based sex-ed if you want fewer abortions instead of messing w/ women's health!
Obviously anyone leaving a baby to die in a utility closet should be fully prosecuted (and then severely beaten and left to die in a utility closet), but that claim is so sensational and crazy that I have alot of trouble believing the nurse's claims.
Quit getting rid of health services, contraception, and only teaching abstinence based sex-ed if you want fewer abortions instead of messing w/ women's health!
Obviously anyone leaving a baby to die in a utility closet should be fully prosecuted (and then severely beaten and left to die in a utility closet), but that claim is so sensational and crazy that I have alot of trouble believing the nurse's claims.
I completely agree with your bolded statement. I don't know that Obama's really addressed this, other than when he's pressed. It's not something that plays well. Regardless, see my post above. The point is not the nuance of the written law, the point is that it reinforces the fact that he's left of anyone and everyone.
He's pro-choice and presented his (IMO valid) reasoning for voting against the bills.
How does that make him further left than everybody?
How does that make him further left than everybody?