McCain Repeats Debunked ‘Born Alive’ Attacks in Debate


In the final presidential debate, Senator John McCain repeated long debunked lies about Sen. Barack Obama’s record on the Illinois Born Alive Protection Act, lies that have been repeated and promoted 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 his base, but it was a dial test loser on CNN. The CBS insta-poll shows Obama winning the debate 53 percent to 22 percent.

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 ads 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 FactCheck.org
, 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
time
the bill came to a vote. But Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor has
said
that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been a state
legislator
when it was considered, much as he says he would have supported the
federal
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 BornAliveTruth.org, 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.

Beliefnet.com 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." FactCheck.org
has weighed in with a clear-eyed assessment of the volley
, writing that:

In
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
FactCheck.org also points out that Obama’s response included misstatements. Obama’s ad implies that the McCain campaign
itself had sponsored the ad, when BornAliveTruth.org 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.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29240#continueA

    The Illinois law that Obama is hiding behind was 720 ILCS 510.6. It applied only where the abortion doctor himself declared, before the abortion, that the baby he was about to abort had “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival …outside the womb,” in which case a second doctor was supposed to be on hand to care for the child.

    Look closer. Exactly what would it take for a baby to receive care under the old law?
    The old law gave the abortion doctor the complete and sole power to say whether the baby he was about to abort would continue to live if the baby survived an abortion.

  • invalid-0

    This argument is irrelevant. Obama does not support letting babies die who would otherwise have a chance at life. He supports the judgement of DOCTORS and HOSPITALS who are under obligation by both existing law and by hypocratic oath. And, statistically, most late-term abortions are performed when the child does not have a chance at life outside the womb or if the mother’s life is in danger.

  • invalid-0

    Just thought you should know that the AMA has recently voted to amend the Hypocratic Oath to delete the clauses that require them to promise not to give a pregnant woman an abortificant drug, nor to administer a drug to kill someone (euthanasia). Effectively and potentially, the Hypocratic Oath no longer protects the life of anyone from an M.D. who claims and can provide “evidence” that his/her patient wants to or has a right to die–or in the case of an infant, not yet born, yet unwanted, an OBLIGATION to die! Yes, we can call this “choice.” But effectively, only the politically strong and those who can speak for themselves (with credibility) can really choose. God save us from such choices. Human history demonstrates that when the voiceless of society are ignored by the rest of us, eventually no one is safe from oppression and exploitation by the strong. For civil society, this is a morbid condition. Surely, there are more truly compassionate and humane alternatives in a just and civilized society! God forgive us for not working to make those more readily available to the large majority of women having abortions, who would have gladly made a different choice if such compassionate and practical support and help from friends, spouses/boyfriends, family, or the community had been available to them in their hour of need. Given the relative abundance of U.S. citizens, our collective tragedy of throwing away the lives of 25 percent of our would-be future citizens is particularly damning. Today one in four U.S. pregnancies ends in artificial abortion.