NRLC Recycles Debunked Born Alive Attacks

In the final presidential debate, Senator John McCain repeated long debunked lies about Sen. Barack Obama’s record on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, lies that have been repeated and discredited since Alan Keyes lost to Obama in the US Senate race in 2004.  This full frontal effort may appeal to the extreme far-right of McCain’s base, but proved to be a dial test loser on CNN. Americans are fed up with the far-right’s Culture War. The CBS insta-poll shows Obama winning the debate 53 percent to 22 percent with 24 percent saying is was a draw.

The extreme fringe of anti-choice community has been pushing this attack for months, in television and radio ads from 527s and special interest lobbyists like the National Right to Life Committee.

The coordinated efforts are suggest that in voting against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act Senator Barack Obama is "responsible for killing a bill to provide care and protection for
babies who are born alive after abortions" and that "he later
misrepresented the bill’s content." NRLC has filed a request for an advisory opinion from the FEC as to whether the ad falls within FEC guidelines, TPM reported.

The anti-choice movement says it needs to correct the record. The Obama campaign maintains that the Senator opposed the state bill but would have supported the federal version because the federal bill, unlike the state bill, couldn’t have affected or undermined existing abortion law.  In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody,
Obama said of National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), "here’s a situation where folks are lying." Then in August, NRLC produced documentation showing that the 2003 version of the Born Alive bill
included an amendment protecting Roe, rendering the state bill virtually
identical to the federal bill, which Obama says he would have supported.

But, points
out the non-partisan, independent
, since state, not federal law, governs the actual practice
of abortion care, even with the stipulation that the bill does not provide
protections to "any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to
being born alive as defined in this Section," the bill could still have been
used to interfere with abortion provisions. 
A 2003 Planned Parenthood fact sheet explained:

SB 1082 & SB 1083 are NOT the same as the so-called
"Born Alive Infant Protection Act" which was recently passed in the U. S.
House. The federal legislation is considered to be a restatement of existing
federal law. It does not amend or change current Illinois law. Federal law does not regulate
abortion practice. That is left to the states. Therefore, it is state
legislation that would affect abortion practice in Illinois. The package of SB 1082 & SB
1083 creates new provisions in Illinois
law. Although the definition is similar to the proposed federal legislation,
its application would have a different impact on state abortion law. 

Also unlike the federal bill, the package of bills under
consideration by the Illinois State Senate included a measure that would have
permitted legal action "on the child’s behalf." In other words, doctors and
health care facilities could be held liable for damages, "including costs of
care to preserve and protect the life, health and safety of the child, punitive
damages, and costs and attorney’s fees," if the hospital, health care facility
or health care provider "harms or neglects the child or fails to provide
medical care to the child after the child’s birth." 

Planned Parenthood’s Pam Sutherland told
the New York Times
, "I can tell you the sponsors always wanted the entire
package of bills, which were introduced together and analyzed together…They never wanted them separated, because
they wanted to make sure that physicians would be chilled into not performing
abortions for fear of going to jail
" (emphasis mine).

When a 2005 version of the bill with the explicit protection for state abortion law Obama had held out for was considered, it passed the state Senate unanimously.  Obama had left the State Senate for Washington by the
the bill came to a vote. But Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor has
that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been a state
when it was considered, much as he says he would have supported the
bill, which wouldn’t have impacted non-existent federal law.

Existing Law Protected Infants

Pam Sutherland of Planned Parenthood of Illinois explains
that there is no way to verify how many, if any,
abortions result in viable live births, as Illinois does not track these
statistics. Still, regardless of the number of such births, these infants
deserve to be protected.

But existing law in Illinois
clearly required doctors to provide medical care in the unlikely event that a
viable fetus was born as a result of an abortion procedure. "Nothing in BAIPA
addressed this situation in some way that wasn’t already covered," explains
Mary Dixon, legislative director at the ACLU of Illinois. In any such instance,
Illinois law
stipulates that the child receive medical care by pediatric specialist to
maximize chances of survival.

Obama acknowledged
this when registering his opposition to BAIPA. 
To the state Senate on April 4, 2002, Obama explained, "This issue
ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if there are children
being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that
room is going to make sure that they’re looked after."

In addition, BAIPA was riddled with provisions that alarmed
both defenders of abortion rights and the mainstream medical community in Illinois, including
the Illinois Hospital Association and the Illinois State Medical Society, both
of which opposed the package of bills. 
Defenders of abortion rights said that the state law could come into
conflict with existing law regulating abortion, and could potentially be used
to undermine or challenge Roe v. Wade.  Hospitals
and physicians’ associations, meanwhile, decried the bill’s interference with
the physician-patient relationship and the harsh civil and criminal penalties
that could be imposed on physicians and hospitals who perform abortions that
result in a "live-born" fetus.

Equally troubling is the fact that the law Obama opposed
would have required doctors to make efforts at life-saving for any infant that
shows a "sign of life" even when there was no chance the baby would survive, a
practice that Dr. Lauren Streicher, an obstetrician at Northwestern Medical
Hospital who often
delivers pre-term babies who will not survive, refers to as "torture." "When
you deliver a baby" – either through labor or termination – "that is clearly
not going to be viable, we knew 100 percent it would not survive, there are two
courses you could take," explains Streicher. "You could wrap the baby up in a
blanket, give him or her comfort care, let the parents hold the baby, say
goodbye, and go through the grieving process. Or, if we were required to make
survival efforts, the baby is whisked away by the high-risk pediatrician and
tubes start going in.  It’s torture for
the baby, terrible for the parents, who have most often lost a desperately
desired pregnancy."

Says Dr. Streicher, "A fetus that can clearly be ‘not
viable’ could potentially be born with a stable heart-beat.  Is that a sign of life? Yes. Is that fetus
then viable? No."

Campaigns Volley BAIPA Ads

Obama’s votes on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act have been subject to attack ads dating as far back as his race for the U.S. Senate against Alan Keyes in 2004. Current television ads targeting voters in Ohio and New Mexico feature
thirty-one-year-old Gianna Jessen imploring Barack Obama, "Sen. Obama, please
support born alive infant protections." Jessen’s story?  She
was born through a "failed abortion," and she and, the 527 "independent" political committee
responsible for the ads, maintain that by voting against BAIPA, Obama neglected to
support the highest possible standard of care for infants in Illinois. editor-in-chief Steven Waldman observes, "the one thing [the ad] does not prove is its central political claim…the key legal goal [of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act] was not protecting viable infants –
who already were protected under law – but non-viable infants and those
on the borderline. Gianna Jessen, by her own account, was a clear ‘viable’ infant. She was
aborted at seven and half months, and therefore would have almost
certainly been covered by any existing statute."

BornAliveTruth was founded by Jill Stanek, the anti-choice
blogger and a nurse who testified in front of Congress that she witnessed
infants not provided appropriate medical care after abortion (Stanek’s testimony
does not specify whether the infants were viable). The ads are bank-rolled by abstinence-only profiteer Raymond Ruddy, who
has supported far-right anti-choice and anti-gay initiatives across the
country, and whose company, Maximus, has received over $100 million in federal
contracts from the Bush administration to promote abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.


Obama, for his part, has responded
directly to BornAliveTruth’s ads
The ad, which began
airing September 21, tells viewers, "Now votes taken out of context, accusing
Obama of letting infants die? It’s a despicable lie."
has weighed in with a clear-eyed assessment of the volley
, writing that:

the ad, Jessen says that "if Senator Obama had his way, I wouldn’t be
here." She’s wrong. Anyone born in Illinois
under the same circumstances as Jessen (who was actually born in California) would have
been protected under the state’s law as it stood, with or without the
legislation that Obama opposed.

But also points out that Obama’s response included misstatements.  Obama’s ad implies that the McCain campaign
itself had sponsored the ad, when did; it also accuses McCain of
opposing abortion including in cases of rape and incest, which running mate Sarah
Palin does but McCain doesn’t.


Will Palin Bring Up BAIPA?

GOP Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin suggested that Obama hasn’t heard the end of BAIPA from her, either. In an interview with Katie Couric, Palin suggested that passage of BAIPA was necessary to ensure the provision of life-saving medical care to viable babies and, moreover, that Obama would allow medical help not to be administered in such situations. "And those who, like Barack Obama, would support measures that would
actually allow in a botched abortion, late-term abortion, that child
being born alive, to allow it to not receive medical help to save that
child’s life," said Palin, "That’s extremism to me." If Palin throws another punch at Obama on BAIPA to stoke her religious right base, and if the FEC okays the National Right to Life Committee’s radio ads, we’ll undoubtedly see a new round of distortion over what BAIPA would actually do, and what Obama supports and believes.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • invalid-0

    Emily Douglas does it again! Thanks for this terrific, well written and researched piece on the latest machinations from anti-choice extremists.

    • invalid-0

      It amazes me how people can spin things like the far left satanic zealots. “Anti-choice”?? excuse me… the term is pro-life. It seems that anyone who has any bit of religion in them is considered a “zealot” by the left’s standards. I didn’t know there were so many non-believers. Besides, it is not just a religious issue, but a Human Rights issue. Enough of your spin already. Like the saying goes…”if you want to piss off a Republican, tell him a lie; if you want to piss off a Democrat, tell him the truth.

  • invalid-0

    How do you sleep at night writing such deceptive garbage. It is a proven fact that one version of the bill was exactly like the Federal version, and Obama prevented it from moving forward. Then he lied for 4 years about this issue until he was busted. Please, for the sake of our country, get your head out of Obama’s rear end. Thank you.

  • invalid-0

    Hey Emily: Obama and his wife were also strongly for partial birth abortion. In fact, in 2004, Michelle had a fundraiser for Obama and used the protection of a woman’s right to a partial birth abortion as the bait. Now, Emily, as you must know, a partial birth abortion is described, as follows:

    Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s leg with forceps. The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal. The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole… The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

    Your Messiah worked very hard to preserve this heinous technique. Are you going to lie to defend his indefensible position on partial birth abortions, too?

  • invalid-0

    … as “partial-birth abortion”. That is a misnomer- aka a LIE of a name given to a procedure that is sadly medically necessary at times. There is also no such thing as an “abortionist”… there are medical doctors who perform abortion procedures along with other facets of their medical training.

    If you want to ever be taken seriously in a debate, don’t use loaded language that is an out and out lie.

    If it is “proven” that one of the bills was “identical” to the Federal one, why don’t you provide that proof there Mr or Ms Anonymous? Emily has backed up the assertions with actual, you know, facts. Some people have it in their head that they must demonize the opposing political candidate to such an extent the truth can be looking them directly in the face and they will deny it to go hovering back to whatever Faux News or Bill o’Reilly report seems to back them up. I could say it is “proven” that John McCain eats kittens under the full moon in a Satanic sabbat, that doesn’t make it so.

    The dilation and extraction procedure (D&X) is a rarely used surgery pre-viability in the case of a woman whose health is directly threatened by pregnancy, or in the case of a fetus that could not survive outside the womb. Almost always it is a tragedy, a wanted pregnancy gone bad. The details seem gruesome but it is to protect the woman… delivering a fetus with the skull collapsed is much safer and less painful for her in a time when she is already in a great deal of anguish. In the case of a fetus with severe hydrocephaly, it may be the only safe way to deliver short of hysterotomy (C-section), which in and of itself is a major abdominal surgery carrying with it many risks to the woman.

    Then again, I don’t expect any rational response to this posting. People who run about half-cocked without research and reacting viscerally to situations they cannot understand won’t see reason. Not cannot- will not.

  • scott-swenson

    The lie is the one you just repeated. The bill that was “exactly like the federal version” would still have undermined the State of Illinois law protecting a woman’s right to choose, a law the DOES NOT exist on the federal level. SO the bills could be exactly the same and have different consequences. Once the state bill explicitly protected a woman’s right to choose, it was passed. Holding out for that on principle is not a lie — what you are repeating is the lie.

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • scott-swenson

    Thank you for sharing your screed. Actual facts about late term abortions that you chose not to include are that they are only legal for medically necessary reasons, and as such heavily restricted. Most often they are performed because the life or health of the mother or fetus has taken a sudden turn for the worse in a pregnancy that was, up until that moment, greatly anticipated. They represent an enormous hardship for the family, for which you show no compassion. I realize that those facts don’t fit into the talking points that you’ve been given that later-term abortions are never medically necessary. The other fact that you failed to mention is that they are very, very rare, one to two percent of all abortions. So, while it may be your opinion that women who face threats to their own life or severe health complications should not be able to get the legal and safe medical attention they need, the emotional argument is nothing but a distraction. We understand the extremism behind your argument, and respect your right to believe what you wish, but for people looking for facts, there are more important ones to understand about why late-term abortions happen, and that they are already severely restricted by law. For people who want to understand what women who face these decisions go through, Susan Ito has an excellent article here.

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

    • invalid-0

      It’s so funny when you speak of “facts” to try and mislead us into thinking that killing is justified.

      Yes, maybe these circumstances *only* account for 1-2%, but that rare instance is still a rare MURDER. That is a fact you must see, or you are blind my friend.

      Unfortunate medical events in a woman’s pregnancy are terrible. Is aborting the baby really the ethical treatment? Or should we just wrap her in a blanket and allow the family to grieve, like the Illinois doctor states we should do for “un-viable infants?”

      If I needed a heart transplant and you were my only possible donor should we kill you to save me? No, b/c killing is unethical.

  • scott-swenson

    and this is not spin. There are people who are “pro-life” like Doug Kmiec and Nicholas Cafardi, seeking to change the debate about abortion, and then there are those who are “anti-choice” meaning that they want to force women to bring every pregnancy to term, regardless of circumstances. As for you mention of “satanic zealots” it was just yesterday I read an article by an anti-choice woman who said she would rather vote for Satan than support Obama. So who is the Satanic zealot now? Lastly, what does freedom mean if we don’t have the ability to make decisions about our own bodies?

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor