Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Friday, August 22, 2008

Obama Transcript on Infanticide Bill

Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online examines the barbarism of Barack Obama who refused to protect children who managed to be born alive after failed attempts to abort them.

Obama apparently felt it was better to simply leave these infants in a broom closet for a few hours until they died, rather than give them the life-sustaining care any newborn would receive.

You would think that even the most hardened pro-abortion advocate would have enough sensitivity to say, "Okay baby. We tried to kill you but you lived anyway. In honor of your dogged determination to live, we'll go ahead and give you the medical care we would any other human being."

And most of the hardened pro-abortionists did have at least that much sensitivity. When a bill went through the U.S. Congress, even pro-aborts like Senator Barbara Boxer supported it.

But not Barack Obama as an Illinois senator when it went through the Illinois legislature.

Obama apparently considered protecting abortionists from potential legal liability--and the inalienable "right" to abortion--more important than even a shred of human decency. He couldn't allow even the slightest recognition that babies are human to stand a chance of undermining the "right" to kill a child in the womb.

With Obama and other pro-abortion extremists like him, the formula is easy: Wanted=Human; Unwanted=Not Human. Very scientific.

McCarthy provides an excerpt from the official record which illustrates Obama's extremely extreme position on this issue

From the April 4, 2002 Illinois senate debate on the infanticide bill:

OBAMA: Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously, this is an issue that we’ve debated extensively both in committee an on the floor so I — you know, I don’t want to belabor it. But I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what’s going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements you’ve set forth?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: First of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the … practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that … an attending physician be brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where … there’s a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child … may be [viable,] … the attending physician would make that determination as to whether that would be the case…. The other one is where the child is actually born alive … in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability.

SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: In the first instance, obviously the physician that is performing the procedure would make the determination. The second situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and then there’s an assessment — an independent assessment of viability by … another physician at the soonest practical … time.

SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.

McCarthy cuts to the chase about what this means:
As Obama spoke these words, he well knew that children were being born alive but precisely not looked after by the abortion doctors whose water the senator was carrying. As Stanek put it, as many as one in five — twenty percent — were left to die. That was what prompted the legislation in the first place.

How can any self-respecting person with a shred of decency support this man for president, or senator...or any position of leadership?


Anonymous said...

Maybe Obama is wrong in his trust of medical professionals....don't ignore the LAST comment he made where he stated that if a child is born alive that he believes a doctor would do what he obligated to do and save the child without the need of additional legislation.

But maybe he is too trusting of medical personnel...but disparage him by claiming he or anyone who thinks he is the best option for the job is in any indecent.

Kris said...

Forget that last commenter, Obama knew about the 20% cases left to die. He would rather protect the mother's right to abort and protect the physician from liability by not mandating this emergency assesment of viability of the child.

It's not rocket science here ... simply a barbaric act from the better of two evils.

Caitlin said...

It is not that he is too trusting of medical personnel... most doctors are in the practice to save or improve the health and lives of humans. Not only do many of them feel passionately about the subject, most of them do this because it is critical to doing well at their job, and therefore critical to keeping their job and making money (whether or not they are doing it for purely selfless reasons -- the vast majority of doctors will do their job as well as they can, so that they can keep their patients and be recommended to other patients.) That all being said, doctors who perform abortions are in the opposite practice. Their job is to destroy the lives of human fetuses. Their job is to kill these unborn babies, and prevent them from ever living outside of the womb. Most doctors WOULD NOT even be willing to do such a thing, much less as their career five days a week.... as it stands in direct opposition to what their career is. So why would these people who kill and destroy life for a living have any problem whatsoever killing a baby once it is "mistakenly" born alive? If they were trying to kill it in the first place, what difference does it make to them if they kill it in the uterus, or if they kill it one minute after it is out of the uterus? Or leave it to die somewhere out of sight? The end is the same: when the baby is dead, their job is complete. Abortionists are not going to care if the baby dies inside the woman or a few hours later in a closet. These are not physicians. They are basically paid to murder, not save lives.

Clicky Web Analytics