Barack Obama, Baron Hill, and killing babies born alive

Critics of my letter to the editor on Monday argue that the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act, which Barack Obama voted against while he was a state representative in Illinois, would not have actually forbidden killing babies that survive abortions and are born alive. That is an interesting defense of Obama’s position, because Barack Obama himself disagrees with it. Speaking against the IBILA, Obama said:

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 a — 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. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

(Read more after the leap)

What Obama was objecting to, of course, is this provision in the law:

The General Assembly finds that all children who are born alive are entitled to equal protection under the law regardless of the circumstances surrounding the birth

If “equal protection under the law” applies, then you cannot kill a child after he or she has been born - even if that child was born after an unsuccessful attempt to kill him or her in utero. All applicable laws against murder apply to that child, once born. There really is not anything to debate here, because the facts regarding Obama’s speech and voting record are clear. Barack Obama voted against legislation that would have made it illegal to kill a child after that child has been born. Obama is a radical pro-abortion extremist who opposed a ban on infanticide.

Obama’s complaint that the “equal protection” clause endangers abortion rights is laughable. The IBILA specifically states that children “born alive are entitled to equal protection under the law.” Children killed in uetro have obviously not been born yet. What the law does do is establish a moral line that forced people to consider the implications of abortion. Why is it legal to kill a baby in utero but not legal to kill that baby once he/she is no longer inside the mother’s body? Was this question too uncomfortable for Obama to consider?

And, again, Baron Hill endorsed Barack Obama in the Democratic Party primary. Hillary Clinton voted for similar federal legislation, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Keep in mind that Mrs. Clinton’s husband, President Bill Clinton, famously vetoed a ban on partial-birth abortion, and Mrs. Clinton shares her husband’s extremism. Yet even Mrs. Clinton (along with fellow extremist Barbara Boxer) voted for the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Action. So why did Baron Hill, who claims to represent “Hoosier Values”, endorse Barack Obama?

When I asked Baron Hill why he endorsed a candidate who defends infanticide, Hill responded by saying “I take exception to what you just said.” Other have complained that I used “loaded” language. But what Hill and his supporters really object to is that I told the plain and simple truth. Merriam-Webster defines infanticide as “the killing of an infant”. Merriam-Webster defines infant as “a child in the first period of life”. Barack Obama voted against legislation that would forbid infanticide, and Baron Hill endorsed Barack Obama.

To many Hoosiers in the Ninth District, defending infanticide is an automatic disqualification for any candidate seeking our votes. To Baron Hill, that a candidate defends infanticide is just “one issue”. That is shameful.

This post is also available at ConservaTibbs.com.