.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Extremism in the Defense of Tyranny is a Vice

Should it be legal to end the life of a baby after that baby has been born?

This question would not make for a very long debate on the floor of the Antient and Honourable John Adams Society. In fact this question did not lead to much debate in the Congress. H.R. 2175, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, passed the Senate by
Unanimous Consent and passed the House on a voice vote. President Bush signed this bill into law in August 2002.

But the junior Senator from Illinois opposed a Born Alive Infant Protection Act while he served as a committee chairman in the Illinois State Senate. As Rick Santorum writes today in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.

Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term."

Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

What about the case for federalism? Do we enact all murder statutes at the federal level now?

I read the post super quickly, so I probably missed it, but what is the case for this particular murder statute to be federal law?

(And y'all know I'm prolife. You can't have liberty without life.)

11:15 AM, March 12, 2008  
Blogger Jameson said...

Obama lead the opposition to the state born-alive in the Illinois State Senate. There are no federalism questions about this state law.

12:30 AM, March 14, 2008  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Your first paragraph referenced federal law. I'm astonished there wasn't a Constitutional debate on the matter.

8:40 AM, March 14, 2008  

Post a Comment