By now, most folks have heard of Sen. Obama’s (D-IL) opposition to the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act while a member of the Illinois Senate. This Act provided that in the event an attempted abortion failed to kill the fetus/child, and the fetus/child was then born alive, hospitals and doctors would be legally obligated to save this now extant person. Even NARAL did not actively campaign against this Act. Yet Sen. Obama determined to out-NARAL NARAL.
Regardless of one’s position on abortion, this should be a relatively uncontroversial proposition: hospitals must act to save living human beings, including babies unintentionally born alive despite the best efforts of doctors and mothers to abort them. I am unaware of any pro-choice/pro-abortion advocate that takes the position that it is acceptable to kill a born human being under these circumstances. Except, apparently, Sen. Obama.
The good Senator’s position here would seem to be extremely news worthy; that is, a presidential candidate’s belief that “aborting” a child after birth is OK. Yet, it seems, neither Katie nor Charlie nor Brian have seen fit to question His Obamaness on this extreme pro-infanticide position during their Intercontinental Obama Love Fest.
Here’s a few questions for free for Katie and her Boys, just to help them get started:
- How long after birth do you support killing babies? One day? Two weeks? Right up until they can legally vote for you for President?
- Since you support infanticide, do you support killing off our non-productive elderly as well?
- If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?
I’d honestly have greater respect for Obama if he admitted he got paid off to vote against this legislation. Voting against this legislation shows a coldness, a calculating nature, that makes me doubt the good Senator’s humanity.
P.S. Most Americans are far, far to the right of the good Senator’s position on this issue, at least as of May 2007. (Scroll down to the “CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007” entry).