Defining Life

Over at Anti-Strib, I put up a post about how the Minneapolis Star Tribune quickly buried a story about how Barack Obama has mislead the voters of this country on his actions regarding the Illinois version of the Infant Born Alive Act. I suppose I should give them some credit - the Salt Lake Tribune has yet to cover this story...I wonder why.

Painted during the Democratic primary as weak on abortion rights, Barack Obama is now being portrayed by opponents of abortion as an extremist who literally supports killing babies.

Both portraits are based on his handling of a related issue in the Illinois Senate, and Obama insists they distort his position.

The Democratic presidential candidate says he firmly supports a woman's right to choose but can accept some restrictions — including a requirement that medical care be provided for any fetus that survives an abortion.

When asked specifically about abortion in last Saturday's Saddleback Forum, Senator Obama assured Pastor Rick Warren that he supported "reasonable" restrictions on late term abortions. However, apparently providing medical care to an infant that survives an abortion was not "reasonable" in Senator Obama's eyes when he was still in the Illinois Senate.

Over the years, Obama repeatedly has said the Illinois measure was different from the federal version in a key way — it lacked language spelling out that it would not interfere with abortion rights. If the Illinois legislation had that provision, he said, he would have backed it.

Now, however, abortion opponents have pointed out that Obama opposed a version of the bill that included a "neutrality clause." The bill was killed in 2003 by a state Senate committee Obama chaired.

Emphasis mine. The Obama campaign has changed their story on this multiple times. When the issue was first brought up, the campaign accused the people that raised it of lying. Then they said well it conflicted with existing Illinois state law. Then he just said well yeah they're right....but I was for the bill before I was against it (I'm searching for the exact quote). Sound familiar?

Look - I understand that Roe IS the law of the land and until the day that it no longer is, abortions will be legal. However, a child that survives an abortion is legally a US citizen and is therefore endowed with a Constitutional Right to Life. We are talking about a fetus that has shown itself (by surviving the abortion process) to be viable. If a doctor had denied lifesaving care to any other human being he/she would have been charged with negligent homicide at a minimum.

A lot of voters out there are like me when it comes to abortion. We realize that it is legally protected and that there are some circumstances where it is necessary. We may not like it and it will never be an option for us but we realize for some people it is an option. We therefore are fine with common sense restrictions on the process.

Read David Freddoso's chronology of the bill and the vote and decide for yourself. He has included language from the bill for his readers to judge for themselves. I suspect that many Utah voters are like me and while OK with in limited circumstances they are NOT OK with the thought of with holding medical care from a baby that survives abortion. That is common sense and it is unfortunately not what Senator Obama has in mind as a "reasonable" restriction.