Lately Jill Stanek has been taking on Barack Obama over his stance on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act:
(5 ILCS 70/1.36)
Sec. 1.36. Born alive infant.
(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(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.
(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion.
(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.
(Source: P.A. 94?559, eff. 1?1?06.)
The emphasis above is mine – you can grab the current section here.
The above section I retrieved via a link from Obama’s campaign at http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/30/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php.
But the original bill (SB1082) can be found here.
Here’s the contentious wording of the original that Obama opposed so you can compare it to the final wording I emphasized above:
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
Jill’s point is that Obama’s focus during the March 30th 2001, of the State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly, was distinctly about protecting abortion and not infants that might be born alive as a result of an induced labor abortion. Clearly stated:Giving birth as a means of “abortion” is infanticide. The key word term for Obama is “abortion” and not human person. The lines 24, 25 and 26 above appear to be what Obama believed was unconstitutional.
So do Barack’s rebuttal claims have merit? In particular when looking at his legislative character on this vital issue?
He seems to be pointing everywhere except his own testimony. Why?
Here’s a hint at Obama’s thinking: If a child is “born-alive” and is “viable” outside the womb with medical assistance, that will undermine the abortion precedent to electively kill children after that gestational time.
Abortion is the focus – not the human being this potential president would be sworn to protect.
Two other steps to get a clean grasp on this:
- breaking his Senate testimony down line by line.
- studying the actual wording of the act to see what it reveals
We’ll continue to fire this down to a nice precise understanding.