Why Barack Obama Supports Infanticide

At yesterday’s White House press conference, spokesman Jay Carney said the President would not comment about the murders committed by Kermit Gosnell because his trial is ongoing. Despite the spurious response, the President has made his position quite clear on the issue of infanticide: he supports it.

Infanticide is defined as the killing of infants within the first twenty-four hours of a child’s birth. Here are just a few examples as to why the President of the United States supports infanticide. He argued that the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause does not protect babies who survive abortions because he does not consider these children to be people.

On March 30, 2001 he argued before the Illinois General Assembly, against the Born Alive Act:

[I]f we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as-as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.
“Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. 

I mean, it – 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 antiabortion statute.”
Allowing a baby to live places a burden on the mother. 

Before voting “no” for a second time against the Born Alive Act in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama said, “What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.”

Allowing a baby to live should be up to the doctor-and doctors don’t commit infanticide anyway. 

The Chicago Tribune quoted an Obama spokesman in August 2004 that Obama voted against the Born Alive Act because it included provisions that “would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable.”

Obama clarified to the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 that he opposed the Born Alive Act because “physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions.”

Abortion Does Not Violate Any Universal Moral Principle

In a July 10, 2006, USA Today op-ed, he wrote,

If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

In other words, abortion does not violate any universal, moral code. The President has never changed the position he held as an Illinois state senator.

From 2001-2003 the Born Alive Act came before the Illinois legislature and each time Obama voted against it or killed the bill in committee:

  • IL Senate 2001 (Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act)
  • Obama voted “no” in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 28, 2001)
  • Obama argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (March 30, 2001)
  • Obama voted “no” in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 28, 2001)
  • Obama voted “present” for the bill (March 30, 2001) IL Senate 2002 (Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act)
  • Obama voted “no” vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee (March 6, 2002)
  • Obama argued against the bill on the IL Senate floor (April 4, 2002)
  • Obama voted “no” for the bill (April 4, 2002) IL Senate 2003 (Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act)
  • Obama, who chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, held the bill from receiving a committee vote and stopped the senate’s sponsor from adding the federal act’s clarification paragraph, which made the bills absolutely identical.

In light of this, the President’s position on Gosnell should be no surprise to anyone. It should be of concern to everyone though as to why someone like this was ever elected to public office.

April 16, 2013

This entry was posted in Revisiting Americanism & Christianity and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.