On June 25, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked conservative commentator Bill Bennett what question he would ask Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama if he could.

Bennett said he would ask Obama:

Why are you to the left of NARAL, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein when it comes to abortion? Are you really there? … I got to question the guy’s moral judgment who doesn’t see a problem with killing a baby after it’s been born. … What is the answer to that question?

Bennett was speaking about Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act as state senator. This legislation declared all live babies legal persons, which would guarantee them the right to appropriate medical care, even if abortion survivors.

(To which Obama defender Donna Brazile responded, “Bill, you want to have a conversation about narrow issues … but the American people want to talk about gas prices. …”)

Over the years, Obama or his surrogates have mischaracterized Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act and his reasons for opposing it at least 10 different ways.


But Obama’s most flagrant lie, perpetuated by both NARAL and the Obama campaign after CNN ran a fair analysis on June 30 of Obama’s opposition to Born Alive, is as NARAL wrote in a rebuttal:

The Illinois bill did not include a provision that explicitly avoided entanglement in the abortion debate, as the federal bill did. It is inaccurate for any reporter, commentator, or surrogate for the McCain campaign to suggest otherwise.

This was in response to Bennett’s assertion that “the 2003 bill had exactly the same language as the federal bill, and Barack Obama voted against it.”

Bennett was absolutely right, NARAL and Obama are absolutely lying.

The definition of “born alive” was the same in both versions. It was copied from the World Health Organization definition of “born alive” created in 1950, which the United Nations adopted in 1955.

But the final version of the federal Born Alive statute added the provision:

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.

This was a fig leaf to cover pro-abortion legislators and groups who had automatically opposed Born Alive without realizing the ramifications. They needed to save face to support the bill.

But careful analysis of the brilliant wording of the provision indicates it actually says, basically, “Saying postborn babies are legal persons is not saying preborn babies aren’t legal persons.”

Nevertheless, that is how Born Alive passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate, overwhelmingly by voice vote in the U.S. House, and was signed into law in August 2002. It was the only pro-life legislation to see the light of day while Democrat Tom Daschle was Senate president.

In Illinois, Obama could only speak and vote against Born Alive in 2001 and 2002. But by 2003 he acquired the power to kill it.

Obama was appointed chairman of the liberal Illinois Senate Health & Human Services Committee, where Born Alive was sent in 2003 for vetting.

Obama stopped the sponsor from adding the provision that would have made the federal and Illinois versions of Born Alive virtually identical. Obama went further and stopped the committee from voting on the bill altogether.

For 22 months afterward, Obama could have recalled that bill. But he left it shelved to die – much like the live aborted babies being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals – until the General Assembly session ended in January 2005.

Obama moved on to the U.S. Senate, and it was only then that the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed and was signed into law, in August 2005.

In reality, Obama’s problem was with the definition itself, not any fig leaf provision. As the sole senator to speak against Born Alive on the Senate floor in 2001, Obama said:

[W]henever we define a previable fetus as a person … 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.

“If this is a child”?

Barack Obama’s fanatical support of abortion stopped him from admitting abortion survivors were persons.


Related special offers:

“ENDING ABORTION: How the pro-life side will win the war”

“Lime 5: Exploited by Choice”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.