THE COLD-HEARTED CANDIDATE?
About The Case of Barrack Obama and the
Accidentally Born Baby
Reasonable minds can differ about whether human life begins at conception, unless, of course, we are talking about when our personal histories began. In that special case we want to think, “Well, MY story began with conception!”
Only when the issue becomes less personal, can the discussion become abstract and legalistic… and … cold.
And, yes, reasonable minds certainly can differ about the “personhood” status of a fertilized human cell, of a few aggregated cells, even of the blastocyst from which the fetal baby will develop.
But at some point in time, we all realize that the lump in Mommy’s tummy – the little heartbeat, the tiny kicking legs, the tiny hands sometimes the miniature thumb in the little mouth, that whole beautiful business – is certainly a living being.
And for almost everyone, weeks later, we intuitively know that mommy’s “fetus” is really a baby, still living within the envelope of Mommy’s biological nurture and protection, but a real someone who will very soon be revealed as a little Barry or Michele.
While I support any prospective mother’s decision not to get pregnant, I am viscerally pro-life in the broadest and most sympathetic sense.
With that background, I will admit I was not inclined to overreact when Barack Obama declined to say whether human life begins at conception, claiming that it was above his “pay grade”. [I’m confident that the pay raise associated with becoming POTUS will not change things for him in this respect.]
But when a nurse is actually holding the little boy or girl baby, in her warm hands, holding that little child of God, freshly delivered into the world, or when you or I are privileged to enjoy that holy and magical moment, I defy anyone with a heart to deny the human status, the inherent worthiness of that baby; surely he or she, named or unnamed is one of us.
Ah, but when that little baby slips into the world “by mistake”, a certain state senator from Illinois was willing to declare her as good as dead, not worthy of mandatory medical treatment, palliative care or succor.
Why? Strictly for cold hearted legal and ideological reasons.
This is a portrait of Barack Obama as the classic heartless lawyer. Personally I find it chilling to the core.
When a barbaric late term abortion procedure, all too graphically called “partial birth abortion”, fails in its purpose – which is to end the life of the little being who otherwise would be born alive – there is sometimes an accidental live birth. You might think of this unexpected outcome as a blessing, even as a divine intervention.
In this situation, there is sometimes delivered a tiny, breathing baby, with little hands, little feet, scrunched up face and a beating heart. One person’s blessing is another’s “problem”.
For some pro-abortion extremists, this is just like one of those failed executions of a condemned killer, in that a second try is just fine, thank you. Except that the planned execution was of an innocent little being.
Suppose you and I walked into the delivery room at that moment. We would naturally assume that a baby had been born. We would naturally ask –Why aren’t you trying to save the little guy? You save preemies all the time? What is going on? Won’t someone call a doctor?
Enter Barack Obama, the constitutional lawyer:
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, he voted against the “Induced Infant Liability Act”, which was written to require medical assistance to babies that survived attempted late-term abortions. The late term element is important because premature born babies can often be saved.
Now I want you to imagine a physician being stopped at the delivery room door. Imagine an abortion rights lawyer standing there. He says, “No one called you, Dr. There are legal issues involved here, I’m afraid. We have to finish the abortion — Roe vs. Wade, you know.”
The physician hears a baby sound on the other side of the door. “What was that?”
“Not your concern, Doctor.”
Now imagine, if you will, being present to hear the young Senator Barack Obama as he addressed the Illinois legislature in 2002, opposing the measure to require that the surviving baby be provided medical assistance.
“…this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
“Number one, 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 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …
“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 anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”
Later in 2002, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, essentially verbatim with the Illinois act that Obama opposed, was signed into law. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote. Barack Obama wasn’t voting in US Senate then.
As a state Senator, not only did Obama vote against essentially the same bill, he killed it in committee… twice. When the matter was referred to the Health and Human Services Committee, as chairman in 2003, he never called the bill up for a vote.
Jill was a delivery-ward nurse who actually there when aborted babies were born alive, and who were left to die. She testified twice before Obama. Then she did the same before the U.S. Congress. She has said that her wrenching testimony “did not faze” state Senator Obama.
I’m sorry Senator Obama, a mother’s authority to choose death is limited. It ends decisively and absolutely the moment the little, innocent human life is in the hands – figuratively and literally – of a nurse or doctor.
Thank God for the Hippocratic Oath.
A CNN special report is available on You Tube, including nurse Jill’s account —
Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY
In another You Tube clip, you can hear part of Senator Obama’s argument against the bill — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDwNpgIUQc
Senator Obama will now say that the federal bill was improved because it included legal language to the effect that medical assistance is to be provided without necessarily taking a position about whether the baby to whom the medical assistance is given is or is not a legal person.
More lawyer talk…
No presidential race is decided by a single issue. But our next president will be called upon to make critical moral judgments at critical times. And the capacity to make such judgments – or its lack – is illuminated by past performance.
People demonstrate by their actions whether they have the capacity for actual caring or … dare I say it: cold indifference. We can overcome our personal histories, of course. But I’ve heard nothing from Senator Obama where preservation of human life is the issue to dispel the chill I felt when actually hearing his words.