Jill Stanek gave me the audio for Obama’s Senate floor argument against Born Alive Legislation.
Here’s the recording – the commentary is mine alone.
After it was posted I realized I should have indicated that in the video, although Jill did so in her article.
There were two other pieces of legislation spoken of in the full recording I received – SB 1661, and SB 1662 which had minimal discussion, and passed without a problem, so I edited them out.
Given time constraints, I removed the audio at the end of the 1663, which covers the actual voting, and then a request for verification and an additional request for a Roll Call, which reset the vote because State Senator Klemm was missing. It appears Klemm voted for passage of the Bill, then left the chamber – causing the total yeas to drop by one and thus nullifying passage.
What caused Klemm to leave or whether he was even present is currently an unknown.
So Senator Obama – what’s it going to be?
- You should start with Jill Stanek discussing her testimony about induced labor abortion then
- look into the scoop on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act and how he lied about it for so long.
- Finally, if you believe he doesn’t put abortion ahead of children, see what he says about the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).
I think Obama is right – as far as his conclusions are concerned. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act does strike at a woman’s choice because it removes an available abortion technique.
During the Partial Birth Abortion Ban SCOTUS hearings Planned Parenthood’s own attorney argued that later term D&E techniques pose a substantial risk to women, and that delivery of the fetus would mitigate that risk.
What Obama was defending was using birth as an abortion technique. That really was his focus – without a thought about the cruelty inflicted both on the mother, the premature person being born or the role of birth in our society.
He, as well as other pro-choice advocates can play semantic games all they want. They still can’t get away from the fact:
Using birth as a means of abortion is abhorrent.
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.
Sometimes meetings happen that are completely unexpected.
Jill Stanek had just such an experience with Steve Trombley, the CEO of the newly consolidated Planned Parenthood of Illinois.
Though Jill and Steve couldn’t be further apart on the issue of abortion, they ended up next to each other on a plane headed to Dallas. You can read about Jill’s take on it here.
God’s ways are mysterious, and humorously humbling – it’s rather hard not to see this occurrence as some sort of sign.
What can be accomplished through such encounters? The late Anna Sullivan of Rhode Island Right to Life showed her rival Mary Anne Sorrentino – the former Executive Director of Planned Parenthood in RI, small bits of kindness that conveyed great sacrificial love whenever they met prior to their abortion debates. It included letters and recognition, even during turbulent times. The love God showed through Anna was so much that Mary Anne wept greatly at the passing of her friend.
What Anna knew, which Mary Anne is learning, is that love is not a feeling, but something you do. Even if it’s something you don’t want to do, like asking sincere questions about the other, not to frame arguments, but to learn of their life. It means seeking that image of God within them, no matter how dim or obscure that might seem. Such efforts are a sacrifice – a small bit of holiness.
As followers of Christ, one of the hardest things for us to learn is how to separate the sin from the sinner, and look at people through a heart of forgiveness and love. It’s easy to know it in our heads, but so much harder to truly love our neighbors in our hearts.
As a father, Steve believes he’s doing right, yet he must realize that life is incredibly precious. During the long hours of the night he’ll wonder about his legacy – about making a better world for his grandchildren. He’ll likely wonder if his own children aborted his grandchildren, and what their lives would have meant to him. He might even miss the love they would have shown him. And he may regret the joy he never knew because one of his own decided to treat another of his own as a mistake instead of a gift, as property instead of a human being.
What does it matter – why does he do what he does, if ultimately the goal is to provide a better world for the coming generations?
Truthfully the abortion industry deals with the doubt and despair of many, so it’s no wonder they seek after a candidate who pledges to provide them hope, but ultimately cannot deliver.
Steve happens to be one of those in the depths of despair.
God is sovereign. We know the end of the story.
The question is do we have the courage to love others like Christ even though they might be killing themselves and their posterity?
That’s easier said than done.