Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Moron Barack and the BAIPA

Oops, typo. I meant "more on" Barack and the BAIPA. (Ri-i-i-i-g-g-gh-t....)

Some more backstory - the BAIPA was introduced at the state and federal level in 2001, when BO was an IL state senator. BO chaired the committee responsible for steering it through the IL legislature, spoke out against it, and singlehandedly struck it down. In other words, he saw to it that the bill did not make it out of committee to a vote in the Legislature. Meanwhile, a virtually identical version of the BAIPA came before the US Congress and was unanimously passed - not one US Senator from either party voted against it. Yet BO would have done so, had he been there, if his action in the IL Senate is any indicator. So here's the question:

Does Barack Obama support infanticide?

This has become a hot topic and subject of some scorcher emails between warring political factions in the Beloved's family. I usually ignore the leftists and stay out of it, but I came to blows with the "other" lawyer of the same last name who claims (as Barack did at the time) that the language of the statute defining what "born alive" means was "fuzzy" and left room for a lot of doubt about when babies deserved protection - thus placing Roe v. Wade in jeopardy. So I put together some facts and emailed them back to everyone. Now I ask you, non-lawyers and otherwise, to check it out and tell me what's so confusing - these are short laws and I've linked to them, but here's subsection (c) of each:


A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law. [emphasis added]

The Federal BAIPA:

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" [emphasis added]

Here are some quotes by BO during the debate on the IL bill in 2001, with my comments thrown in:

"I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. [or is it "scruti-neh?" His Jesse Jackson-esque Southside accent/patois has conveniently gotten much thicker since 2001]

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus [did you read the statute? What part of "live" and "born" don't you get, Senator?] 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, [WTF? How? Did we read the same bill?] 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."

And this guy is a friggin' Constitutional Law professor? I'd want my money back. To steal his own line: "He Doesn't Get It!"

It seems he just flat-out did not understand the plain meaning in the bill's language. It is very clear that the protections of this bill are specifically afforded to a BORN child who has emerged from the womb with discernible signs of life (see subsection (b) of the IL BAIPA). Either that or he was being deliberately disingenuous to court favor from the left-wing and/or pro-abortion segments of his constitutency for political reasons.

As to the feared infringement on Roe v. Wade, even NARAL didn't oppose the BAIPA. When this debate was raging on, NARAL's spokesperson stated the following:

"We, in fact, did not oppose the bill. There is a clear legal difference between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that the country can provide them." [emphasis added]

And incidentally, the BAIPA has never faced constitutional attack.

One of my chief annoyances with Obama is how he slithered into the US Senate in the first place. His opponent was beating him 70-30% in the polls until he got an "October Surprise" - a sex scandal, courtesy of divorce documents forwarded to the press (the ex-wife is Star Trek actress Jeri Ryan). And now how many investigators does he have combing through documents and digging in the dumpsters of Alaska? His lack of experience and his radical left positions were absolutely killing his chances of making it out of Springfield. He was not qualified either by experience or intellectually, as just this one issue shows.

But anyway, even though it was too late to get another competitor on the ballot, one of my favorite conservative Catholic thinkers, Alan Keyes (go ahead, laugh, but I've seen him speak live and he's brilliant), attempted to run against BO via a write-in campaign, and they had some fierce debates...which Alan won handily, in my opinion. Here's a quote from the debates on this subject:

"Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. ... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved."

Which leads us back to the fundamental question: Does Barack Obama support infanticide? Maybe not "actively"- but now you've seen the actual language that he refused to support FOUR TIMES OVER. I believe that he he tacitly condones it. He has lied to anyone who has asked him about his conduct and his position any time this subject has arisen since that time. He's tried to hide behind the Constitution with specious claims that the "right" to an abortion might be at risk. As you now know, his argument was, is, and always will be a farce. Can we entrust our nation to someone who either does not feel any compunction about lying or does not understand the import of our Constitution?

But again, let's get back to basic humanity and mercy. By far, the saddest thing is that this man has held his own newborn children in his arms - undoubtedly he has felt that sense of fierce paternal protectiveness over the tiny miracle he's helped to create- and he yet can sleep at night knowing that by his failure and refusal to act, untold thousands of Gianna Jessens have gone to cold, lonely deaths through callous neglect after being born alive.


Anonymous said...

Well, as Chersterton said: Moral issues are always terribly complex, for someone without principles.


Joe of St. Thérèse said...

It's obvious that Obama supports infanticide.

He's going to destroy himself before this election is over with and we won't have to worry about an Obama presidency.

Anonymous said...

So I put together some facts and emailed them back to everyone.

Kit, have you heard back from anyone. I would be interested to hear the kind of responses you got.

Kit said...

FTB - sorry it took me so long to get back to this.

I did get the standard Democratic talking points from a few of the younger set, some links to nasty anti-McCain/Palin, pro choice youtube videos, and the defense (from the defense lawyer) that is wending its way through the popular media - first, that "there was already a law in place that did the same thing" (there wasn't) so why support this bill, and secondly, that there was a "companion bill" that restricted abortions. No one - not the relative, nor the media - has provided this alleged "companion bill" nor was it mentioned in tandem or incorporated by reference in the original bill. Which means he could indeed have supported one without the other.

I was also asked if I personally believe Obama "supports infanticide" I think of abortion as infanticide, so that's a no-brainer for me, but I decided to play along with the question. I repeated what I said in the post: I believe he tacitly condones it. I believe he chickened out on this bill.

As lawyers will tell you, criminal acts (like sin) come in two varieties: acts of commission and acts of omission - failing to act in a lawful manner. BO falls into the latter category.

He failed to act in defense of living infants, leaving the fate of unwanted babies in the hands of the butchers that tried to kill them and failed - and left these little souls to the whims of their killers or perhaps the occasional angel, like the one who saved Gianna Jessen.

By way of example, let's say an adult shooting victim shows up at an ER. If he shows no signs of vitality, he will be pronounced dead on arrival. However, if there are discernible signs of life, a heartbeat, breathing, the staff will fight, sometimes taking heroic, extraordinary measures, to preserve and save that life. They don't turn away. They have an obligation to do their best to save a life. They don't let the would-be murderer come in and finish the job, nor does the doctor take it upon himself to carry out the intent of the shooter (whether with a gun or other means). But BO would argue that because the mother wanted the baby dead, and because the doctor was carrying out the mother's wishes, a born-alive baby should not be saved. Simply because of its very infancy.

It's inhuman.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like they're using confirmation bias to avoid confronting any information that could fly in the face of the *Obama* narrative. I guess that's how goes in politics, and religion too for that matter.

You're right, it is inhuman. But I guess they can shelve that inhumanity for now, so long as the dems get power and can make up for it through their "charitable" social programs that apparently everyone has a right to...*sigh*. Unfortunately, no other human right can be realized without first, a right to life.