Obama is for BAIPA! He says he would have voted for the bill as it was presented in the US Senate. But, that bill at a state level was problematic.
About Obama’s BAIPA votes at the state level, on his website he says he didn’t vote for BAIPA because it- A. Eroded abortion rights (calling the fetus at any stage a person, with all rights, which would mean you couldn’t do an abortion) and was- B. Unneccessary because there was already an Illinois State law in place that explicitly protected babies born alive, (since 1975).
In Illinois,
“Thirteen different bills relating to the rights of infants born alive as the result of a botched abortion were proposed during the 92nd (2001-2002) and 93rd (2003-2004) Illinois General Assemblies. See The Illinois Analogs to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
Five bills - 92-1095, 92-1662, 93-1082, 93-2631, and 93-2855 - were essentially copies of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (BAIPA). However, only the fifth bill contained a “preservation clause”, (about how a person is defined, which solved problem A., above), similar to the federal BAIPA.”
BUT,
“None of the bills in the 93rd assembly made it to a full Senate vote. Senate Bill 93-1083 (didn’t have the clause at first) never made it out of the Health & Human Services Committee, of which Obama was Chair. Senate Bills 93-2631 and 93-2855 (this last had the clause) never made it out of the Rules Committee, of which Obama was not a member.” 1.
So he never had a chance to vote on any that were like the federal BAIPA on the Senate floor.
When the Senate bill 93-1083 went to the Health and Human Services committee which Obama chaired, it was ammended to have the Federal “preservation clause”, but after discussion, the bill was killed by the majority of Dems-(6) to Rep-(4). Obama cast his, the 7th vote against, with the Dems. The Dems (and others) were still unsure about this bill, concerned how the 1975 law would be effected and other implications.
“The 2003 bill could have affected the way courts interpret the 1975 law, which Planned Parenthood and the Illinois State Medical Society contended could have far-reaching implications”, & “In 2005, Illinois lawmakers inserted an extra provision asserting that the law would not affect “existing federal or state law regarding abortion.”, (this solved problem B.). The measure passed, without opposition from Planned Parenthood and with the support of groups opposed to abortion.”- chicagotribune.com
Some people say Obama lied in saying the only reason why he didn’t vote for BAIPA at the state level was because it didn’t contain the “preservation clause”, because in the committee he didn’t vote for it, (and it had the clause). But it was already defeated 6 to 4 before his vote, and that was in a committee not on the Senate floor, and O.K, so the “preservation clause” was not the ONLY reason. There were other valid reasons, though. The Obama campaign says he misspoke.
I think it’s important to realise that Obama has stated he personally is not for abortion, he doesn’t know anyone who is. Of course, it’s a horrible thing. And babies born alive, surviving an abortion, and yet dying is tragic. Some say that the legistlation would have passed quicker if the pro-lifers initiating it would have just focused on the babies, but that they were trying to redefine a fetus being a person and over-ride existing laws, etc., to further the cause of pro-life. This of course is a worthy goal, but maybe not by those means.
He is the proud father of two daughters, of course he’s not for babies dying.
1.- nugentslaw.wordpress.com