To Obama, the doctors “word” trumps personhood
So the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIFA) has been hitting the news, and rightly so. Study of Barack Obama’s arguments on the Illinois Bill SB1093 on the final day of voting (go to p81) , March 30, 2001 is troubling.
Obama’s argument hinges on two arguments about previabilty that he claims would lead to uncontitutionality.
Number one, whenever we define a previable 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 a — 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. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
The second reason it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to try and keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.
One should immediately be informed that the statute nowhere defined the “previable fetus” as a person. The bill defined it as “every infant member of the species Homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development”. See here… (p90)
Senate Bill 1095 provides that 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” include every infant member of the species Homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
Where does this linkage with previability arise in Obama’s mind? It comes with the second reason, the doctor. The doctor made the determination that the baby was still previable, and thus cleared for abortion. If the “fetus” (as Obama is at pains to say) somehow lived through the ordeal of birth it would be only temporary, since it after all had been declared “previable”. Therefore, putting any onus on the doctor to offer life saving treatment at this stage would be a “BURDEN”! That requirement would be unconstitutional as the child now fighting to breathe, and lying in the soiled utility room was declared to be a previable fetus by the doctor.
There is a sense of protectionism of the abortion industry surrounding Obama’s flaccid arguments. Keeping alive babies that are living after these abortions IS expensive, and so who would foot the bill, the insurance companies, or the abortionist? Secondly, abortionists may come under fire for just how many of these babies are actually viable, and would not pass the Roe vs Wade test. Allowing them to simply die without care, is one way to avoid the issue.
Filed under: Abortion etc, Barack Obama | Leave a Comment
Tags: abortion, abortion survivor, Barack Obama, born alive infants, botched abortion, human rights, illinois, pro-abortion, pro-life, sb1093, unborn