I googled for ‘”born alive infant protection act” illinois’ and the second hit was this (also by Jill Stanek): http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html
which is mostly comprised of quotes by Barack Obama establishing the position that he voted against this legislation not for any high minded reasons, but simply to follow liberal dogma.
Some examples:
“What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.”
“Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade”
My personal favourite is this:
“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 to 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.”
By this statement, Mr. Obama is claiming that premature(before 9 months) babies are not entitled to protection, even if they are ‘viable’. This must be his position otherwise he would be claiming that a baby is a person and that is not permitted by dogma. However, “kill the babies” is not a slogan that will win elections, so whilst claiming that pre-nine months a baby is inherently not a person he is also trying to claim that this is only the case if it has not been born naturally or with medical assistance where that medical assistance was not intended to kill the child. If the purpose of said medical assistance was to kill the child then it is not a child even if it has been born and is alive.
And liberals try to claim the religious are irrational.
