Liberal Lies, Misconceptions, and Misunderstandings About Obama and BAIPA

BAIPA (Born Alive Infants Protection Act) is a bill that has brought controversy to the Obama campaign especially recently. This is a rather simple issue that has been made complicated by legislative procedures, partisan spin on both sides, and frankly evasive and vague answers by Obama himself. The bottom line is this. Should babies born alive after a botched abortion be given medical treatment by the hospital? That is the crux of the matter and that is how Obama opponents can and should present this. Once the debate is laid out simply like this everyone agrees the answer is yes. It is only after so called nuance or frankly obfuscation that we find all sorts of irrelevant issues being introduced. In my mind, there is one overriding factor in this. If Obama's main concern was the welfare of this babies he would have found a way to make this bill a law. He didn't and that's because he had other agendas that in his mind were more important. The partisans can spin it, but to me, if babies are dying, then that is more important, not some theoretical slippery slope.

For fairness and balance, Eric Zorn, of the Chicago Tribune, provides an in depth defense of Obama's position on this issue here.

1) This is irrelevant and focusing on this issue won't improve gas prices, the economy, health care, etc. This issue is merely a diversion to focus away from Republican failures.

This has become the M.O. of Obama defenders whenever he is attacked on any issue. Of course, this is relevant. SEveral things come into question here. First, if Barack Obama is against saving even babies that survived an abortion, jus how radical is his position. Second, he went on CBN and accused his opponents of lying about his position. Now, it turns out the only one misstating his position was Obama himself. This matters and it is relevant.

2) The bill that came in front of his committee was a smoke screen. There were already laws in place. It was unnecessary and it was being pushed by the anti abortion lobby as a back door to prohibit abortions.

First of all, the motivations of those that backed the bill is ultimately irrelevant. This bill came to light because a nurse was horrified because she noticed that babies were dying. One baby was left to die in a broom closet. Now, somehow the doctors at Christ Hospital were doing this despite whatever State laws were already in place. Furthermore, this bill finally did pass in 2005 when Obama left the state senate.

Furthermore, if this bill was unnecessary, why was it even voted on? Why would it even be brought in front of his committee? If prior legislation covered this abuse why didn't Barack Obama demand that the Illinois Attorney General's office immediately investigate and prosecute all these doctors?

3) Barack Obama opposed this bill because it had hidden nefarious language that opened up a pandora's box that could be used by abortion opponents to make abortion illegal.

This is nonsense and that's because we have no idea why Barack Obama opposed this bill. That was his original position until he recently admitted that there was language in there that made it neutral on abortion. Then, he proclaimed that he worried the bill would open up this pandora's box regardless. Then, we find this audio that says something different...


Thus, no one is really sure why he opposed the bill. It is up to Barack Obama to make it clear what the problem was and why he allowed a bill to protect the weakest among us to die.

4) This is the lowest underhanded Republican/Conservative scare tactics to suggest that Barack Obama wants to kill babies. He is a father of two.

First of all, it is totally irrelevant how many kids he has. Second of all, the only ones being underhanded and sneaky are those making this argument. It is Obama that finds himself on the wrong side of a radical position. What are we to think of a politician that finds himself on the wrong side of a radical position. It isn't his opponents that voted against a bill that would have protected babies that were born after a botched abortion. It was him that did that. He is the one that made such a charge relevant and then his defenders make his opponents the bad guys. The bottom line is that reasonable opponents aren't calling him a murderer but a radical. Do we really want someone in the Presidency with such a radical Presidential position.

5) Let's call this the Eric Zorn defense. Here is what I wrote in comments to him and his response.

Mr. Zorn, with all due respect this is a giant mess, your piece. You have taken a simple issue and made it complicated.Here is how I see it and then you can point out how I am wrong.To me it is very simple. Do we want to protect and care for babies that survived an abortion? In my mind the answer is an absolute yes. To you, and Senator Obama, there is another agenda that is more relevant and more pressing than this. As such, you have complicated things with this long piece. If Senator Obama's number one priority was the welfare of those babies, he would have figured out how to make this bill a law. He didn't and that's because he has other priorities more important than saving babies. You can confuse the issue all you want. If this was about the protection of the most vulnerable, some way, some how, he would have turned this bill into law. He didn't, and that's because he has other agendas that take priority over the care of the most vulnerable among us. That speaks for itself.

ZORN REPLY -- You can say the same thing about those who were promoting this law. If this was really their sole issue and their sole concern, as later events proved, they could have "figured out how to make this bill a law." It's not up to him or anyone but the sponsor to try to work on the language, to negotiate, the identify the problems.

So, let's see if I understand Zorn correctly. Barack Obama is running for leader of the free world, but on this issue it wasn't his reponsibility to iron out the details of a critical bill to make it acceptable to all sides. That is all well and good if he is a back bencher Senator, but he wants to be President. Presidents need to show leadership and on this issue he punted and then he killed the bill. Keep in mind it was his committee that this wound up in front of. Basically, in the view of Zorn, if anyone in the legislative process has any nefarious intentions, then it's perfectly acceptable to get nothing done. If Barack Obama wasn't up to the job to get all sides together and create a good bill for all on this issue, how can we trust him to handle foreign policy?

5) He voted against this bill because it didn't have abortion neutral language in it.

This has already been debunked and even Obama's campaign admits it.

(UPDATE)

The obfuscations continue. Mr. Zorn just replied to my latest comment.

Mr. Zorn, with all due respect, it was his committee that this bill was in front of. This speaks volumes about his supposed leadership, bipartisanship, and ability to get things done. What you are doing is what Bill O'Reilly refers to as excusing bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. The proponents of this bill are not the issue. Barack Obama is. That is as they say the art of legislation. If he wanted to get this bill done, he would have gotten it done. Period. To me, protecting children is a no brainer. In your mind, it isn't his fault because the other side is not pure as well. Guess what that is the world we live in. What this clearly shows is that Barack Obama is not a politician that can actually get anything good done. So, if I understand you correctly, once his opponents put in language he didn't like, rather than negotiating and twisting arms to make the bill acceptable, he decided to kill the bill.Frankly, sir, that is not the type of behavior that is something I want to see in a
President. This was his committee, not the committee of the "proponents of the
bill'. He decided the tenor of the debate, not the "proponents of the bill. Why did it take until 2005 to have this language put in? Why wasn't Barack Obama a capable enough politician himself to put language in there.No, this issue is simple. Is the most important thing protecting children or not. If it was, then Obama would have figured out how to make a bill acceptable to all. He didn't. Instead, he killed a bill that should have been a no brainer.

ZORN REPLY -- What planet are you from, Mike? In no legislative body I know do opponents of an existing bill feel it's their obligation to start negotiations to improve the bill,

Wait a minute, Barack Obama has been saying all along that he would have voted for this bill if only there was minor tweaks. Now, Mr. Zorn just proclaims him an opponent of the bill. Again, that is the issue. The simple matter here is whether or not we should protect and care for babies born after a botched abortion. Mr. Zorn just proclaimed Mr. Obama an opponent of that.