Justin Taylor has a post tracking the record of Barack Obama’s opposition to what is known as the “born alive” bill, which seeks the legal protection of babies who survive abortion procedures. It states:
A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
See more information about it here.
One of Obama’s arguments against the bill starts on page 31 of this document. On page 33 he makes the point that the bill doesn’t make sense for a doctor, who has honored the decision of the woman and is carrying out the procedure, to be obligated to follow protocol that would in effect “burden” the decision of the woman and his intent to abort the fetus.
Obama is certainly justified to point out this moral confusion, but does it follow from this confusion that the child has no right to live? Unbelievably, Obama states that this bill “ultimately is about abortion and not live births” as if there were some sort of disconnection between the two. What we are left with is the ghastly prospect of infanticide. If a child is showing signs of viability, but is not legally ensured medical treatment to maintain that viability as to not put undue burden on the woman and the abortionist it follows that viable children are left to die.
I know it is unfashionable to focus on abortion in this day of age, but the likes of this is absolutely extreme. The fact is there is no reason to believe based on his record, that Obama is representative of bi-partisan, bridge-building “change we can believe in.”