Why did Baron Hill endorse a candidate who defended infanticide?
After my last letter to the editor, a local Democrat responded. This is my rebuttal.
Bloomington Herald-Times, September 10, 2008
To the Editor:
David Hart brings up the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act in response to my letter questioning why Barack Obama opposed legislation that would prohibit killing a baby that survives an abortion and is born. But there are actually three distinctive pieces of legislation that dealt with born alive infants.
SB1093 and SB1095, both of which Obama opposed as a state senator, made it illegal to kill a baby that survives an abortion and is born. Obama recognized this in remarks against SB1093, warning on the floor of the house that the “equal protection” language in the bill “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.”
Obama was, of course, wrong. The bill specifically prohibited killing a baby that survives an abortion and is born.
So we are back to where we started. Baron Hill endorsed Barack Obama in the primary over Hillary Clinton, who supported similar legislation at the federal level. Why did Hill endorse a candidate who defended infanticide? Why did Baron Hill, who claims to be a “moderate”, endorse a candidate who is anything but moderate?
September 13th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Related post: NRLC addresses Obama’s distortions on “born alive” law.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:27 am
The bill specifically prohibited killing a baby that survives an abortion and is born.
That is and was already part of Illinois law, long before Obama went into politics. In fact, not only is there a prohibition against deliberately killing the baby, but there’s an affirmative requirement that the doctor help the baby live.
Under the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, “Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician… shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.”
September 14th, 2008 at 9:25 am
So if it was illegal, why were babies being left to die, over and over, in Illinois hospitals before the law was passed? That’s been well documented.
Also, see the link NRLC addresses Obama’s distortions on “born alive” law.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:20 am
So if it was illegal, why were babies being left to die, over and over, in Illinois hospitals before the law was passed? That’s been well documented.
We have laws against speeding, against littering, against shoplifting, and still, people do it. Do you think passing more laws against speeding, littering, and shoplifting would solve the problem?
If it’s well documented that people are violating the law, and prosecutors aren’t prosecuting the miscreants, then the problem is that prosecutors need to be removed from office. You can pass petitions to recall the prosecutors, or you can sue to remove them from office for malfeasance.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Do you really think that leaving a baby to die is comparable to shoplifting, littering, or speeding?