It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama and The Born Alive acts.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:48 PM
Why did Barak Obama vote against an act designed to ensure living infants would not be intentionally neglected by Doctors untill they died?


The cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which defined legal personhood. This definition was identical to the federal BAIPA which was drafted from the definition of "live birth" created by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955....

So then if this defintion of legal personhood is so non-controversial, then what was obamas problem?

And why did he do everything in his power to prevent the Born Alive act from passing in Illinois?


Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Go here to view Obama's "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 28, 2001.

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90

Obama's "present" vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001


Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Go here to view Obama's "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 6, 2002. (ABC inadvertently coped bill #1663, a companion bill. The vote for the Born Alive bill, #1662, was identical.)

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35

Obama's "no" vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002


Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. They sent Born Alive to the infamously liberal Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.

As can be seen on the Actions docket, Obama held Born Alive on March 6, 2003, from even being voted on in committee. It is also important to note from the docket that on March 13, 2003, Obama stopped the senate sponsor from adding the lately discussed clarification paragraph from the federal BAIPA, to make the bills absolutely identical.

H/T to Jill Stanek

Well According tot he Illinois Review, who came up with the "Top 10 reasons Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act." the reasons range from "Babies who survive their abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution"

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 nine-month-old - child that was delivered to term.

to "Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative."

Now Obama has tried to say that this was a "pro-choie" vote, yet not even NARAL opposed this bill, and in fact said

Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”


So why not support a bill that said a child who survived an abortion and was alive outside of the mothers womb should not be allowed to die in a dirty closet?

It wasnt about abortion, and in fact when the Illinois bill sponsors attempted to modify the bill to adress the concers Obama claimed he had, he killed it in comittee.

As a Final note, Jill Stanek is the nurse who watched Infants being left to die ina dirty closet at Illinois Hosipitals and Testified personally to that effect in front of Obama. His response?

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”


And Mrs Stanek's honest view of Obama's reaction to such a horrid practise?

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

Is this the type of man who deserves to be president?

[edit on 8/19/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed

This has already been discussed here

Obama is pro-choice.
So are the majority of the American people.
We know.

Edit to add: Enough already!

[edit on 8/19/2008 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:01 PM
No, this is not a general thread about Obamas stance on Abortion. THis is a thread on Obamas strange and inexplicable behavior in relation to these particular laws.

Please try to stay on topic. This is nto about Abortion. The infants we are discussing were alive and breathing outside of the mothers womb. These were, by any and all defintions, living infants.

[edit on 8/19/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 06:32 PM
That's certainly a lot to get through. I don't think too many fetuses would 'survive' abortion - I'm not up to speed with this sort of thing, but there's limits on the time a fetus can be aborted, with I think 18-20 weeks being it.

Although a woman in Australia was recently granted an abortion up to 24 weeks -

To clear it up, I have a stance against abortion for the 'convenience' aspect. If the health of the mother is at stake, then it's needed. However, if she didn't have second thoughts of doing the act that landed her in the situation of having an unwanted child in the first place, it should be disallowed.

The 'choice' happens at conception.

But. Having said that...

This law appears to be a carry over from British law to protect doctors for the death of a baby after it has been born after dying in the womb.

Since medical technology has advanced to the point where the health and status of the life of a baby is determinable outside the womb, the doctor would have advanced knowledge whether or not the fetus is alive.

I don't think a doctor can legally 'neglect' a new born until it dies - that goes against why they became a doctor in the first place.

From the small amount of criminal law I've studied, a fetus is not considered living until it has been born naturally - which is important in determining infanticide.

At this point I'm grossly confused. Are we talking about the Born Alive act, or the Unborn Victims of Violence act that was pushed in 2004? I have a horrible knowledge of how the US system works!

That seems more concerned with violent acts carried out against a woman resulting in the loss of the baby.

I still can't see the link with Obama - this seems more concerned with violent acts than it does with abortion.

Obama is pro-choice, he's made that known, but I can't see why he would vote to allow doctors to evilly let babies die in a dark hole.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by mattguy404]

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed

If you're going to be a mouthpiece for the NRLC, just say so and just cut and paste their press releases.

Here, let me help you: NRLC

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by mattguy404

This was an version of the federal Born Alive act that was brought before the illinois state legislature during Obama's tenure.

I have linked to a few articles from the time of the original story in order to add balance.
Article 1

Article 2
Article 3

Unfortunately, the CHicago Sun Times, which did most of the original reporting on Nurse Stanek's whistleblowing, charges for access, so I can only post links to the free summary.
Local Chicago Article

new topics

top topics

log in