Needless to say, abortion is a heated topic of debate, one that opponents rarely find much common ground on which to stand. There is, however, one exception to that rule:
The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.

This bill, known as H.R. 2175 (you can read it in full here) passed unanimously in both the US House and Senate in 2002. It received support on both sides of the aisle, from Ted Kennedy to Rick Santorum.
The bill stated that any child born alive – either through natural birth or a failed abortion – was entitled to the same rights as any American as guaranteed by the Constitution. Meaning that any child born alive, even in the process of an abortion, was entitled to any measure necessary to save and prolong their life.
Or, in other words, if a baby were born during a failed abortion, that child couldn’t just be left to die.

A version of this bill also arose on the state level, including the Illinois State Senate, where Obama was serving at the time. Aside from his duties as a state senator, he was also the chairperson of the Health & Human Services Committee, through which the bill had to pass. Considering the unanimous support this bill received elsewhere, it’s surprising that its only opponent was Barack Obama, who sought to block the bill on all fronts.

Before continuing, it’s important to clarify the exact record regarding Obama’s opposition to the bill in the Illinois State Senate. So after the jump, we’ll examine his record, his explanation as to why he opposed the bill, as well as the discrepancies between that argument and the actual records from the Illinois State Senate. On top of that, we’ll explore how we’re left to wonder about what Obama really does believe. Finally, I’ll provide a video from CNN as a decent synopsis of this topic. Click “More” for more of this vitally important topic every voter should be aware of.

Here’s the record (thanks to Jill Stanek):

IL Senate 2001
- Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
- Voted “no” in Senate Judiciary Committee (March 28, 2001)
- Argued against the bill on the IL Senate Floor (March 30, 2001 – see pp. 84-90 of this PDF)
- Voted “present” for the bill (March 30,2001)

IL Senate 2002
- Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
- Voted “no” in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 6, 2002)
- Argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (April 4, 2002 – see pp. 28-35 of this PDF)
- Voted “no” for the bill (April 4, 2002)

IL Senate 2003
- Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act
- Obama, who chaired the Heath and Human Services Committee, held the bill from receiving a committee vote and stopped the senator sponsor from adding the federal act’s clarification paragraph, which made the bills absolutely identical.

So that’s the record, with references to back it up. That’s Obama’s history with regard to this bill in the Illinois State Senate. So what does Obama have to say to explain why he was against this bill? Let’s hear from him directly:

So in between him saying that anyone questioning this issue shouldn’t be asking such questions, as well as stating that anyone saying he was against the bill is lying, he states that the reason he opposed the bill was because it wasn’t the same as the federal bill that was supported unanimously in the US Senate. That’s the crux of his argument – was the bill in the Illinois Senate the same as the one before the US Senate?

The definition of “born alive” in the federal and Illinois versions were originally identical. The only difference between them arose when the pro-choice side requested a change in paragraph (c) of the federal bill, specifically for the purposes of protecting Roe v. Wade. Here are the two sections, after the change was made to the federal bill:

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 of legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

Yes, so there is a difference. The language of the federal version of paragraph (c) explicitly protects Roe v. Wade. It’s so clear in its protection that Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer delivered a speech on the floor of the US Senate explaining why no pro-choice Democrat should be concerned about this bill undermining or conflicting with Roe v. Wade. This is exactly what Obama claims he wanted in the Illinois State Senate version of the bill.
But the thing is, Obama is the one responsible for that language being excluded from the Illinois bill. After the federal bill was changed, the senator sponsoring the Illinois bill tried to amend Illinois’ paragraph (c) – Amendment 1 as shown below – so that it would be exactly the same as federal paragraph (c). In order for this amendment to be applied to the Illinois bill, it had to pass through the Health & Human Services Committee, of which Barack Obama was the chairperson. As chairperson, it was Barack Obama who refused the amendment and then proceeded to kill the bill.

It seems that Obama himself is the one mischaracterizing the situation. He says he voted against the bill because it wasn’t identical to the federal bill, which explicitly protected Roe v. Wade. Yet he was the one who prohibited the changes necessary to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal bill. He’s complaining that a change wasn’t made, when he was the one who kept that change from happening.

My problem with Mr. Obama in this situation is that he isn’t being completely honest. If you look at his argument – that the Illinois bill was different from the federal bill and put Roe v. Wade at risk – it just doesn’t hold up to the recorded facts of his participation in the Health & Human Services Committee in the Illinois Senate. How can he complain that the bill put Roe v. Wade at risk when he refused to add an amendment that would have protected it? It’s dishonest for him to continue with that argument and leaves us without any clear and honest explanation for why he voted the way he did.

So What Does He Believe?

Many super conservative pro-life people are concluding from this that Barack Obama is a supporter of infanticide. I wouldn’t go that far. But I would say that he’s clearly being misleading in explaining his opposition to the bill.
Apart from that, I would also venture to say that this is evidence of Obama being much farther to the left than the majority of pro-choice Democrats. When every other Democrat Senator in the US Senate voted unanimously for this bill, Obama sought to crush it in the state senate, even when it could have included the same language to protect Roe v. Wade. So without Obama being honest about his reasons for opposing the bill, we’re left to wonder why he voted the way he did and what he really believes.

In my opinion, I think he has a much farther-to-the-left perspective on abortion than the vast majority of the country, be they pro-choice or pro-life.
The standard accepted explanation I’ve heard about the reasoning behind the pro-choice stance is that a woman has the absolute right to control her body. The right to abortion hinges on a woman’s right to not be pregnant, to control what goes on within her body. It’s not necessarily that the fetus has no rights and deserves to die, it’s that the rights of the mother outweigh any rights a developing fetus may have, because the developing fetus is within – and affects – the body of the woman.
If Obama agreed with this basic pro-choice foundation for abortion rights, then wouldn’t that right be satisfied when the baby leaves the woman’s body? If, during an induced abortion procedure, the baby happens to survive and is thus no longer affecting the woman’s body, wouldn’t that satisfy the rights of the woman to control her own body?

I think this is the fundamental difference between Obama and the majority of the pro-choice left on this issue, the foundation of abortion rights. If it were solely about the woman’s right to control her body, there would be no requirement to kill the child after it had been born through a failed abortion. Rather, I think Obama believes in the fundamental right of a mother to determine the right to life of the fetus, unborn or otherwise.
In the absence of an honest answer, I believe that for Obama, abortion isn’t about a woman’s right not to be pregnant, it’s about a woman’s right to the death of her child. This reaches well beyond the belief in a woman’s right to choose with regard to her own body, which is why I think he opposed this bill when all other Democrats in the Senate supported it.

I sincerely think that Obama’s stance on abortion happens to be much farther to the left than the majority of his own party. It was because this bill was in opposition to his minority beliefs on abortion rights that he did everything within his power to squash this bill. Of course, that’s his right as a Senator, to vote according to his beliefs. But what’s so bad about that is the fact that he’s lying about it. If he would just tell the truth, this might not be so much of an issue, because at least then people would be capable of knowing where he stands, comparing his positions to their own, and making an educated decision about which candidate best represents their own point of view. If Obama continues to be dishonest, he robs us of that right, and in my opinion, casts himself in an even more unfavorable light than if he’d just tell the truth. Even if what I have surmised is the basis of his opinion, if he would be honest about it, I could at least respect his right to his opinion, although I would most certainly disagree with him – as is my right. If he continues to lie, I have no reason to respect him or whatever his position might be.

Additional Information

CNN has a somewhat decent overview of this issue, for those of you who might not have wanted to read all that:

In doing research for this entry, I came across a brilliant blog entry about the constitutional side of the bill in question and Obama’s explanation of his opposition to it. It was written by Jeremy Pierce and is available at ParableMan. I honestly don’t know if the blog is left or right leaning, as they don’t express any bias as far as I can tell – the article is merely an evaluation of Obama’s stance from the perspective of the constitution and matters of record from the US and Illinois Senates. They do not condemn abortion as a practice, so it’s not an anti-abortion argument, simply an evaluation of the situation.

Jill Stanek, a nurse who witnessed the planned death of an infant who survived an induced abortion and then testified about her experiences before Congress, has compiled a list of Obama’s statements regarding his opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, along with comparisons between those statements and the records of the Illinois State Senate. It’s well worth a read and was helpful in the writing of this blog, so hat tip to Jill for that.
Just so you know, Jill’s article was published on a staunchly conservative blog. Personally I don’t think that should matter, as it’s just a collection of quotes and references, but there you go.
Click here to read it.